Wash. Post editorial joined Bush in conflating "Al Qaeda" and "Al Qaeda in Iraq," despite Post's own reporting
A July 12 Washington Post editorial headlined "Wishful Thinking on Iraq" asserted that U.S. generals in Iraq "believe they are making fitful progress in calming Baghdad, training the Iraqi army and encouraging anti-al-Qaeda coalitions." But by claiming that the generals are "encouraging anti-al-Qaeda coalitions," the editorial conflated -- as the Bush administration has done -- the Sunni insurgent group "Al Qaeda in Iraq" with the Osama bin Laden-led group responsible for the 9-11 attacks. As Media Matters for America has noted, "U.S. military and intelligence officials" reportedly "reject[]" the Bush administration's claim that, in President Bush's words, "[t]he same people that attacked us on September the 11th is the crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children" in Iraq. The Post itself reported on the distinction between the two groups in a July 11 article, a distinction ignored by the Post's editorial writer.
From the July 11 Post article:
In his speech, Bush once again conflated two organizations, al-Qaeda in Iraq and the international network led by Osama bin Laden, saying that the same group that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, is responsible for much of the violence in Iraq. While the Iraq militants are inspired by bin Laden, intelligence analysts say the Iraqi group is composed overwhelmingly of Iraqis and does not take direction from bin Laden.
The Post editorial claimed that just like Bush, "advocates for withdrawal" from Iraq are engaging in "wishful thinking" because of the numerous "risks of withdrawal" including "full-blown civil war, conflicts spreading beyond Iraq's borders, or genocide." The editorial argued that "[b]efore Congress begins managing rotation schedules and ordering withdrawals [from Iraq], it should at least give those generals the months they asked for to see whether their strategy can offer some new hope" because they "believe they are making fitful progress in calming Baghdad, training the Iraqi army and encouraging anti-al-Qaeda coalitions."
But the editorial did not explain which "al-Qaeda" group it was referring to. A June 28 McClatchy Newspapers article reported that "U.S. military and intelligence officials ... say that Iraqis with ties to al Qaida are only a small fraction of the threat to American troops" and that "[t]he group known as al Qaida in Iraq didn't exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn't pledge its loyalty to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until October 2004 and isn't controlled by bin Laden or his top aides." Moreover, describing the enemy in Iraq as "Al Qaeda" echoes a rhetorical strategy adopted by the Bush administration and noted by New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt in his July 8 column: "As domestic support for the war in Iraq continues to melt away, President Bush and the United States military in Baghdad are increasingly pointing to a single villain on the battlefield: Al Qaeda." Hoyt wrote that this strategy has "political advantages" because the group "is an enemy Americans understand."
Other major news outlets have also recently noted the distinction between the two groups. For example, on July 11, the Los Angeles Times devoted an article to Bush's conflation of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq:
By describing the U.S. effort in Iraq largely as a struggle against Al Qaeda, President Bush on Tuesday reached for a familiar -- but widely questioned -- way of defining the war.
[...]
Insurgents affiliated with the group that calls itself Al Qaeda in Iraq have been involved in many attacks in that country. But the CIA, Pentagon and other experts have debated the group's role in Iraq and its ties to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
The June 28 McClatchy article noted that Bush's description of Al Qaeda as "the main enemy" in Iraq was "rejected by his administration's senior intelligence analysts":
Facing eroding support for his Iraq policy, even among Republicans, President Bush on Thursday called al Qaida "the main enemy" in Iraq, an assertion rejected by his administration's senior intelligence analysts.
The reference, in a major speech at the Naval War College that referred to al Qaida at least 27 times, seemed calculated to use lingering outrage over the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to bolster support for the current buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, despite evidence that sending more troops hasn't reduced the violence or sped Iraqi government action on key issues.
Bush called al Qaida in Iraq the perpetrator of the worst violence racking that country and said it was the same group that had carried out the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington.
[...]
U.S. military and intelligence officials, however, say that Iraqis with ties to al Qaida are only a small fraction of the threat to American troops. The group known as al Qaida in Iraq didn't exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn't pledge its loyalty to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until October 2004 and isn't controlled by bin Laden or his top aides.
Maybe Bush should just say that we're fighting extremist Muslim fascists who are seeking to end our way of life. Then nobody could use technicalities to suggest that we're not fighting Al-Quaeda since the terrorists in Iraq "aren't getting direct orders from Osama Bin Laden."
Your suggestion would also be inaccurate. A very large portion of those we are fighting in Iraq couldn't care less about ending our way of life. They simply see us as invaders and want us out of their country.
We weren't occupying any Muslim country when Muslim extremists killed 3,000 of our citizens on September 11th.
OH REALLY ! Better check your facts again.
*Yawn* So what? All that proves is that President Numbnut's assertion that "they'll follow us home" is irrelevant. They already know where we live. They knew 6 years ago.
And how many of those who attacked us were from Iraq?
Maybe you should go back and read Bin Laden's stated reasons for attacking us.
If you're really going to take what Osama Bin Laden says at face value, then you should also believe him when he says that Iraq is now the main battlefield in the war between us and the terrorists.
Good point. Maybe he's trying to frighten his "people" just like President Numbnuts is.
those people are master bulls___ers. "slash and burn" or daisy cutters. Basically "scourched eath" Those people are breathing valuable oxygen and farting in the atmosphere (green house gasses you know). "Shock-Shake and Awe"
This Iraq BS gets one frustrated at times. At times I think this is a viable option and sometimes I think its not enough.
Then I should also take him at face value when he says that the US pulling out of Iraq would be bad for Al Qaeda.
Don't you get that Al Qaeda is using Iraq as a training, recruiting and fundrasing ground?
You realize there is no evidence that Al-Qaida in Iraq had anything to do with that.
I think we have come full circle here. The very conflation you make is the same one the President is making.
They may not have been involved in carrying out the attacks on 9-11 or planning the attacks, but the have the same ideology and the same goal as those who attacked us on 9-11. They are extremist Muslims who believe that their life goal is to kill infidels. They won't rest until they've destroyed the United States.
I don't know how you could make such claims without resorting to mindreading/pure speculation.
have you been under a rock or something? It doesn't take a mind reader when you have the leader of Iran, when you have radical Imams, and when you have various Bin Laden wannabees all shouting the same message on television and at rallys in their countries. They want to kill the West. Period. Why is that so hard to understand?
And now you are going to conflate IRAN with AL QAEDA? Do you know anything about Islam? Haven't you noticed the CIVIL WAR in Iraq between Shiites like the Iranians and Sunnis like Al Qaeda? But then again, you idiots thought Hussein, a secular dictator, was in bed with Al Qaeda, so I guess your ignorance knows no bounds.
and when are we invading iran, and all the dozens of other countries with al qaeda sympathizers? oh, we're not? which proves false the contention that somehow we are protecting this country by what we are doing in iraq.
i have never heard the president of iran say he wanted to kill americans i know how wants to kill isrealis you do know isreal isnt an american state dont you
From: Encartahttp://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_701704450/Baathism.htmlBaath·ism [ bth ìzzəm ]noun Definition:
secular ideology of Iraq: the ideology of the Baath Party that combines pan-Arabism, state control, anti-Semitism, and the cult of a single authoritarian ruler. Baathism was predominant in Iraq until the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003, but it remains predominant in Syria.
Sadam was a secularist. Not a radical fundamentalist.
Now please go do some research.
WOW. You NEVER know what you are talking about do you? Iraq was by far the most secular Islamic country in the middle east. Teaching Wahabi, the sect of al Queda carried the death penalty in Iraq. al Quedas stated goal was to replace all SECULAR regimes like Iraq with Islamic governments. You are spouting nonsense. You just spew out what you WISH were true and think saying it makes it true. When are you going to learn that your delusional fantasies are never going to replace reality?
We weren't occupying any Muslim country when Muslim extremists killed 3,000 of our citizens on September 11th. - RH
Even if that were the fact, it has no effect on the factual nature of what I stated. You offered the suggestion that we should identify those whom we are fighting in Iraq as "extremist Muslim fascists who are seeking to end our way of life." I pointed out that most of those we are fighting don't fit that category.
Your response was irrelevant to my point.
So do you think that if we left Iraq and the middle east all together the terrorists would just leave us alone and not try to attack us again?
So do you think that if we left Iraq and the middle east all together the terrorists would just leave us alone and not try to attack us again? - RH
Where did you get the foolish idea I believe that? Certainly not from anything I've ever stated, unless your reading comprehension is horribly deficient.
There certainly are groups that would continue to seek to harm us. If we left Iraq there would be fewer of them. If we left the Middle East there would be fewer still. (Before you jump to any more faulty conclusions, I don't see those reasons by themselves as reasons to do either. That doesn't mean they aren't true.) But it remains a fact that most of those we are fighting in Iraq couldn't care less about ending our way of life. They just want us to stop interferring in their ways of life.
Bill,
I don't see how you've come up with that conclusion. Unless those people you say don't want us interfering with their way of life are the same people who are the islamofacists.
It's not that complicated. Most of the people we are fighting are fighting us because they see us as invaders, occupying their country. Those are the people who would stop fighting us if we left. They would not follow us to continue the fight because their main reason for fighting us would be gone.
There is a smaller group within Iraq (now that we are there) who are ideologically driven to attempt to destroy us. Some of them would continue to fight us elsewhere if we left. They are in Iraq because we offer a big, juicy target right in their backyard. We have also presented them with a large number of local Iraqis from the first group I mentioned above who will work with them as long as we are there. Most are temporary help, but we've angered many Iraqis to such a degree that we are helping al Qaeda recruitment.
Islamofascist is a manufactured term with no real meaning.
On 9/11/2001, the US had troops, bases and heavy weapons in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Aden, Egypt, and Turkey. A US Fleet has it's headquarters in Bahrain, a US Army in Qatar. The US has been engaging in aerial bombing of Iraq for a period of 16 years and has since 9/11, invaded Iraq and occupied it for 5 years! Is the USA trying to take over the Middle East? Noooooo. Just can't be.
"The US has been engaging in aerial bombing of Iraq for a period of 16 years and has since 9/11, invaded Iraq and occupied it for 5 years"
So was invading Iraq any worse in your opinion than bombing Iraq for 16 years and imposing sanctions that led to the starvation of thousands of children?
What do you care if Iraqi children die? They would just grow up to have the same mindset as the 9/11 hijackers, right?
Why on earth would you want to increase the number of future islamofascists, while losing American troops?
And those people who attacked us WERE NOT IN IRAQ. When are you guys going to buy a freakin map?
Can you tell me where your sources are for coming to that conclusion?
It seems to me we'd be out of there in a heartbeat if the terrorists would simply stop.
We'd declare victory and go home.
You're making the mistake of assuming that our enemies in Iraq are monolithic. It is much more complicated than that. The real stronghold for Al Qaeda is in Pakistan and Afghanistan...not Iraq.
I know they are not monolithic. I describe a bit of that further down.
I agree that it looks like their stronghold is now in Pakistan. Didn't a report come out yesterday or today saying Al Queda has gained strengh in Pakistan? I think I read it on yahoo.news.
Yep. Here's the link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070712/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terror_threatThis "news" of Pakistan is nothing new.
Frontline was all over it in October of last year.
And all we hear from Bush, Rove and Cheney is that we can't do anything about it because "Pakistan is a sovereign nation" and the U.S. has to respect that. Pretty Ironic when you consider Iraq was also a sovereign nation.
I'm guessing that our government believes a U.S. incursions into Pakistan will destabilize the friendly government of Musharef.
That may be a good guess, but it's not the rationale I hear from the Bush regime.
What I hear is "sovereign nation". What I see is Bush showering Musharraf with millions of dollars in weapons and aid, only to see Pakistan make treaties with pro-Taliban militants.
One thing is for sure, Musharraf is in perhaps the most unenviable position that a national president has ever been in.
You mean the same "friendly government" that gave the world the Taliban and continues to harbor Al Qaeda and allow them to regroup on their territory?
Don't forget that Musharraf reportedly refused to continue a Clinton Administration covert operation to get bin laden in 1999 after he took power in a military coup.
...And don't even get me started on AQ Khan!
Hey all, I agree with you and wonder why we don't go mop up.
I have never understood all the politics where we fight limited conflicts. I am all for going into Pakistan and hunting down bin Laden and Zawahiri.
We fight limited conflicts because we have finite resources to wage war. It is largely a question of opportunity cost. Choosing to fight in Iraq has taken its toll on our flexibility to do it elsewhere well.
Al Qaeda is in the southwest of Afghanistan, not Pakistan. And US generals seem willing to ignore them. Suspicious.
How do you know this for sure?
Can you tell me where your sources are for coming to that conclusion? - AA
I've come across that in any number of articles I've read. This article makes the point with links to various other sources. I didn't even believe my statement was controversial.
It seems to me we'd be out of there in a heartbeat if the terrorists would simply stop. - AA
As a response to what I stated, that's just plain silly. Large numbers of Iraqis see us as invaders, so they attack our presence there. How are we going to convince them that if they stop fighting us we'll simply leave? There is no way to make them believe that, first and foremost because it probably isn't true. Secondly, because there are so many disparate groups that we are fighting there, simplistically rolled into a group labeled "terrorist" by many, that we would have to convince all of them that we have that intent.
The facts are the facts. There are many we are fighting in Iraq who have no association with anything that we would traditionally identify as a terrorist group. There are many others who have linked up with those groups solely for the purpose of pushing us out of Iraq. These are the individuals who would pose no further threat to us after we left.
Thanks for the link
However I do believe many of those organizations are terrorists including the Islamic Army of Iraq. They have been loosely associated with Al Queda in the past although now may be fighting them. They are primarily made up of Sunni Baathists, which is Saddam's old bunch.
I've also read where they have ties to the Palestinians. So, it seems to me that they are not simple a group that looks on the U.S. as invaders, even though they do.
If for example, they are successful and gain power in the bloodbath that follows our departure, their government will no doubt continue it's efforts to help the Palestinians effort against Israel.
Then you have the groups led by Al-Satr who is supported by the mullahs in Iran. Even though they are at the opposite end of the spectrum and anti-Sunni, their ascension will also have dramatic effects beyond Iraq because of their extremist views.
So whether it is Al Queda, the Islamic Army of Iraq, or Al-Sadr's death squads, the result of their gaining power would be about the same. Which is a catastrophe for the country, the region and the U.S.
"I've also read where they have ties to the Palestinians. So, it seems to me that they are not simple a group that looks on the U.S. as invaders, even though they do."--aa
I'm not quite sure I see where those two things are necessarily mutually exclusive. How do they have "ties" to the Palestinians? Saddam had "ties" to Palistinians (he gave suicide bombers families money), does that mean Saddam didn't view us as invaders either?
My thoughts on this are that if they do regain power, they'll support the Palestinian terrorists and possibly start another war or new terrorist attacks in that part of the region.
How do you define victory in Iraq? How much longer do you think we need to stay in order to sufficiently end the likelihood bad guys will eventually winout in Iraq after we leave?
And we should believe this newest foray into prognostication pulled directly out of your ass WHY? I mean all the rest of your rightwing crystal ball predictions we absolutly WRONG. So since you are whiffing 100% of the time on Iraqi predictions why would I greet this newest one with anything but howls of hysterical laughter?
“I've also read where they have ties to the Palestinians. So, it seems to me that they are not simple a group that looks on the U.S. as invaders, even though they do.”
Most groups in the Muslim World have ties to the Palestinians and most of the m want stop interfering in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. In fact most Muslims wish we would mind our business and stop interfering in the Muslim World.
“If for example, they are successful and gain power in the bloodbath that follows our departure, their government will no doubt continue it's efforts to help the Palestinians effort against Israel.”
There is no way they’ll gain a foothold.
And they’ll always be groups who will help the Palestinians against Israel. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis believe they have a God-given right to the land so I don’t think the conflict will ever end. It’s impossible to compromise with people who believe God is on their side.
“Then you have the groups led by Al-Satr who is supported by the mullahs in Iran. Even though they are at the opposite end of the spectrum and anti-Sunni, their ascension will also have dramatic effects beyond Iraq because of their extremist views.”
Al-Sadr has huge following in Iraq so he’ll probably be able to wield much power there. And his influence won’t go any further than Iraq.
“So whether it is Al Queda, the Islamic Army of Iraq, or Al-Sadr's death squads, the result of their gaining power would be about the same. Which is a catastrophe for the country, the region and the U.S.”
The only person who has a chance of gaining power is Al-Sadr and if the Iraqis choose to follow him we really can’t say anything. And I don’t see how any of this will be catastrophic for the U.S.
Loonz,
al Sadr is for all intent, a lackey of the Iranian Mullahs. His only legitimacy is that he is the son of his father, who along with his brothers, were killed by Saddam. I read that his job was to be the door greeter for his father. He is a puppet.
So the problem is not his influence, it is the influence others will have on him.
I think the Iraqi Shiites are going to align themselves with Iran anyway and it's their business if they decide to do that. And I think your overestimating Iran's power. Shiites represent at most 15 percent of the Muslim population. They won't have any influence over the 85% or more Sunni population.
Also, don't forget that the Iranians are Persians. They speak Farsi, not Arabic, and are proud of their culture and history. Many Iranians are supportive of the West and western culture...except when the west (Geo. Bush) calls them names. Then they rally around more extremist leaders.
"So whether it is Al Queda, the Islamic Army of Iraq, or Al-Sadr's death squads, the result of their gaining power would be about the same. Which is a catastrophe for the country, the region and the U.S."--aa
Look on the bright side. At least the Iraqis will be better off than they were under Hussein...Just repeat that 100 times to yourself and have some more soma!
; )
This is the same guy who constituted death squads to indiscriminately kill Sunnis. I doubt he'd be any better than Saddam. I fear he'd think he'd take his marching orders from Iran and use the oil money to further destabilize the region, and send his killers to Isreal, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Europe and the U.S.
Just steal their oil and get it over with. Enough tired cliches about why we have to kill people to make the desert safe for Israel, democracy, and reruns of the Simpsons. Just kill their populations and colonize the ruins with Texans and put a cross over every mosque and call it Disneylon.
Then maybe Jesus will come back and wipe out the rest of us unbelievers in hideous lakes of gore that would make horror movie directors jealous. Good old Revelations, the poison in the well. Funny thing about Christianity...the Bible ends with the ultimate orgasm of intolerance and violent religiocide ever dreamt of, to be done by giant sea monsters and the man-god who spake the Golden Rule, who hangs crucified still in churches across the world, his message forgotten.
"If Jesus does return, do you think the first thing he wants to see is a crucifix?"..Bill Hicks
AA what does the palestinian conflict with isreal have to do with america
Rhino, aren't you the one who said that we had Al Qaeda "on the run" in Iraq, so they're too busy to attack us? Apparently the CIA disagrees with your assessment.
No, I never said that. You have me confused with someone else.
My mistake. One of the regulars has repeated it several times on here...I just don't remember who.
You're missing the point. It's not a technicality to point out that we aren't fighting the same people who attacked us on 9/11. Which is exactly what Bush (and the Post) are trying to suggest.
But the group is affliliated with Bin Laden's group. I've heard the analogy of Al Queda being similar to franchises. They are affilliated through their common goals of militant islamofascism.
Correct me if I am wrong but aren't 75% to 80% of the suicide bombers every month are foreigners. These are part of the loose franchise that wants to kill in the name of Allah. I've read that they are funneled in through Syria and Iran.
I've also heard of Iran having two Al Queda training facilities in Iran where they train these foreigners and then infiltrate them into Iraq.
The Bush administration has repeatedly cited al-Qaida as a key justification for continuing the fight in Iraq.
"The No. 1 enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida," White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday. "Al-Qaida continues to be the chief organizer of mayhem within Iraq."
The findings could bolster the president's hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq.
The threat assessment says that al-Qaida stepped up efforts to "improve its core operational capability" in late 2004 but did not succeed until December of 2006 after the Pakistani government signed a peace agreement with tribal leaders that effectively removed government military presence from the northwest frontier with Afghanistan.
The agreement allows Taliban and al-Qaida operatives to move across the border with impunity and establish and run training centers, the report says, according to the official.
source: yahoo news today
"The No. 1 enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida," White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday. "Al-Qaida continues to be the chief organizer of mayhem within Iraq."
The administration is trying to morph the Iraqi insurgents into Al Qaeda (the bogeyman to some in this country). Some people will buy into it, most won't. We're fighting mainly Sunni Iraqis who don't want us in their country and who are upset that they no longer have power. Then there is some minor fighting with the Shiites who attack the troops because the troops are stopping them from getting their revenge on the Sunnis. And then you have minor role played by foreign fighters who try to egg on either the Sunnis or the Shiites or they’re maybe trying to expel an invader from the region. When the Afghans were fighting the Russians, Muslims from all over the region went to Afghanistan to help repel the invaders."Correct me if I am wrong..."-AnotherAmerican
AlQueda in Iraq is in no way affiliated with Pakistan factions. They are--for the most part-- local groups who thaought the name would strike fear into us, so they started using it. Franchise? Hardly. More accurate would be local gangs who want us out.
The Bush administration would love to have us believe they were the same group.
We all know that there are different groups fighting us in Iraq. We have the Sunni Baathist remnants, there are the Shia's followers of Muqtada al-Sadr who is supported by the Iranians and we have the Islamic Army in Iraq, which is closely affiliated with Al Queda. These are just a few that come to mind.
These terrorists might hate each other but they are using the instability created by the Al Queda groups to advance their own sectarian objectives.
My hope is that those news reports are true that the Sunni's are now fighting Al Queda.
Rino, try to remember: Research, ponder, agree/criticize. Keeping these in order is important. It helps to make one look less stupid.
Bottom line is - we've squandered time and too many resources dinking around in Iraq while Al-Queda and the Taliban have reorganized. Leave a residual force in Iraq to cont. training Iraqis and to deal with foreign-born terrorists - move the majority of our resources to eastern and southern Afghan.
If 'dinking around' means fighting with one arm behind our backs under ridiculous rules of engagement, you are correct. Let's let our forces fight like they were trained, like they are capable of, instead of this pansy-azz "don't shoot until fired upon" crap.
Victory through genocide. Yes, we've all heard your insanity about how Iraq would be peaceful if we just killed all the people in it. After all, we killed millions of Vietnamese and look how well that turned out. And France used torture and illegal detention to win the war in Algeria. Oh, wait, they lost that one.
Do you think it would be a good idea to just turn Iraq into a barren field of vitrified sand?
I see you are still trying to convince people that our problem in Iraq is we just arent killing enough innocent people.
Cannonball's cat sat on the Enter button.
Okay, Balls, let's say we do it your way. Let's just nuke Baghdad. Bang-Zip-Zoom. Terrorism problem solved...right? Of course, there's that little problem that Al Qaeda outside Iraq is actually getting stronger all the time, according to the CIA. Let's just nuke the whole Middle East...but wait...we can't use radioactive oil, can we?
If I read this web site I get the impression that al Qeida is not a threat, Cuba is a world class county with world class health facilities and the only evil thing is Bill OReilly, Savage and Republicans.
Sueeeee, if you take off your troglodyte glasses, you'll see that no one is making such claims here. That's just your strawman getting in your eyes.
If that is your "impression", then I have a couple suggestions.
Stop reading anything and everything, since your mind is unable to process it.
Seek professional instruction on the subject that's most relevant to your affliction.
Pete, not to take away from your generosity in providing that link, but unfortunately the affliction itself might prevent getting anything out of your remedy.
You're leading a horse with no mouth to water.
LOL. Point taken.
Well you are partly right, the posters and writers do not want to discuss the al Qeida threat , at least until Bush is gone then it will again be given its deserved relevance. They also do hate OReilly probably more than bin Laden. However this division is just an example of what has happened since the mid 90s with the Democrats vs Republicans game. America is struggling because of it, and I am not sure we can ever go back at this point.
"the posters and writers do not want to discuss the al Qeida threat"
"They also do hate OReilly probably more than bin Laden."
B.S. generalizations that have no basis.
"America is struggling because of it."
Probably, but political bickering is hardly our biggest problem as long as we continue to meddle with Middle East politics, territory and natural resources.
the posters and writers do not want to discuss the al Qeida threat"
"They also do hate OReilly probably more than bin Laden."
B.S. generalizations that have no basis.
I think they do have basis, are you saying that O"Reilly is not hated by MMFA and a majority of its posters?
"America is struggling because of it."
Probably, but political bickering is hardly our biggest problem as long as we continue to meddle with Middle East politics, territory and natural resources.
I agree , we have been meddling in ME politics since the end of WWII, it has hurt us more than we would have ever imagined.
The assertion was not simply hating O'Reilly, it was hating O'Reilly more than bin Laden.
Are you telling me that most posters on here hate O'Reilly less than bin laden?
I'm telling you that you have no basis.
You have to be kidding. O'Reilly doesn't even register in comparison.
The day bin laden is killed/captured will be a holiday as far as I am concerned. Though, at the rate this administration appears to be handling things, bin laden will die of old age, which is a luxury 3000 American victims will never have.
J-LO, we don't mind discussing Al Qaeda...we just don't understand why President Numbnuts insists on wasting so much money and so many lives in Iraq. Our fighting in Iraq has done NOTHING to advance our struggle against international terrorism. If anything it has made matters worse.
I agree with all that, the issue though that was raised by Sueeld is valid in that there is a view of many on here that people like O Reilly are worse than even al qeida. Is that true or not?
I haven't seen anyone say that, though I may have missed it. I see O'Reilly and Al Qaeda in two seperate categories. O'Reilly is a political enemy, Al Qaeda is a physical enemy. I may use harsh rhetoric toward Bill, but I wouldn't do him physical harm, nor do I think he'd do me physical harm...at least I hope not.
One thing I have said is that Christian reconstructionists are a bigger threat to our way of life than Al Qaeda. By that, I mean that our Constitution is more likely to be destroyed from within than from terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda cannot conquer this country. They can hurt us, but they cannot defeat us.
O'Reilly is not a politician he is a cable news commentator. That is the problem with everyone on here, if they disagree with someone they are placed in a category as a political enemy.
So, Sueeee, one has to be politician to be a political enemy? Only politicians have a political point of view? I'm afraid that your logic escapes me. Rush Limbaugh is clearly my political enemy, and he is just a "commentator". So is Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, James Dobson...
My political enemy is bin Laden and people who tried to kill americans on 9/11 regardless if they were liberal or Conservative or Democrat or Republican. You are the problem with America. I do not take television personalities seriously. O'eilly and Rush are not elected and do not create laws and pass bills.
Wow...Black and White thinking at its finest. Let me help you out...again. "Enemy" in this case, might be better translated "opponent". A political "enemy" is one who threatens you politically, but not necessarily physically...though the two can sometimes overlap. I know this is difficult for a Black and White thinker like yourself, but bear with us...
You are the problem with America, Nerzog. Don't you understand how confusing it gets having more than one problem in the world?
There's Al Qaeda, and you.Well, that's two, but you're the problem with America, and Al Qaeda is the problem outside of America.
Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.Wait, that's two. AAArrrgh, now look what you've done!
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Do you honestly believe that O'Reilly and Rush have no political influence? They have huge audiences that believe every word they say. Those audiences vote. When Rush convinces his audience that Kerry is a fake veteran, French looking surrender monkey or Bill gets people to believe that Democrats will stand by and let the "terrorists" kill us in our sleep they are influencing political behavior.
To dismiss them as merely television personalities is to be willfully ignorant of their power.
Why do you have TERRORISTS in quotation marks? Are you one of those people who buy into the 9-11 conspiracy theory?
Yup!
No I'm not one of those crazies. I'm one of those crazies who doesn't believe that there's this monolithic easy to identify organization out there that we can lump together under the label "terrorists." I believe that investigation, effective intelligence and espionage are our most effective tools in preventing further terrorist strikes on this nation. I believe that in addition to actual Al-Qaeda operatives taking advantage of our troops positioned in Iraq to recruit and strike at us that there are other multiple factions fighting against us who had no intentions to do so until our forces arived there. I believe that the President should have paid a lot more attention to his father who knew that this sort of long and bloody occupation adn civil war was a predictable outcome to any attempts to remove Saddam from power through military intervention.
But feel free to call me an America-hater who just wants us to lose because I think that this occupation was the wrong idea from day one just because I think that the decision to commit military forces in a foreign country should be well thought out and have a cohesive and workable plan instead of a Neo-Conservative pipe dream of total glbal domination. It won't be true, but that never stops you people.
Ner, weren't Bill, Sean, Boortz and Rush at the White House for a meeting with presidential advisor Rove? Didn't they have tents set up on the lawn? Were they there for a picnic, release of the latest talking point or for policy meeting?
Well, we do know that Rush Limbaugh stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom during the 92 campaign. Shortly thereafter he became an official water-carrier for the GOP and stopped criticizing Republicans. Coincidence?
You state that the posters here won’t take the Al Qaeda threat seriously until Junior is gone and hate O’Reilly more than Osama.
As a poster here let me help you understand (if you really want to) what I don’t like. I hate, and I do mean hate being LIED to. I’m a big girl, able to understand and assess the truth. Tell me that when we invaded Iraq, they were NOT an “imminent” threat to the US. There were no mushroom clouds and no WMD‘s. Tell me that Iraq like any other country would not greet us with flowers and candy but with suspicion cause they want the truth as to why we invaded their country. They know they had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. Quit lying for 4 years that we are winning in Iraq, the reporters aren’t telling you the truth or “we are making progress“. Stop Bill and Fox from devoting so little time to the truth in Iraq and stop belittling the bombings in Iraq that occur daily and kill Americans daily. I’m well aware of the threat of Al Qaeda but since I’ve been lied to so often I don’t trust the messenger (Junior). Because of Juniors Middle East policy for the last 4 years I’m aware of an even greater threat not only in Iraq but around the world. You get off the stupid juice that tells you that IF we win in Iraq everything will be OK. You quite drinking the stupid kool-aid that tell you that our actions in Iraq are not causing reactions all over the world. Osama kisses Juniors picture each morning for the best recruitment he’s had in years. He doesn’t need a message, Junior supplies the message to followers and potential followers each day.
Don't look now, but I think Sueeee's head just exploded. (That's just a figure of speech, Sueee...don't get all agitated)
Cuba does have world class health facilities. They have an infant mortality rate better than the USA's. They train doctors from around the region, with clinics in many poorer countries. They've built some decent pharmaceutical industry as well. Che's spirit lives on in their commitment to healing. Can't knock Cuba on health care, there they have done a good job.
Impeachable Offensives In Process
As we post our comments, this president is doing enough to be impeached. The Republican dido machine can not longer make the claim there has been no crimes committed so impeachment is not a valid option.
From reading most of comments posted on this site, it is fair to say Bush committed crimes to get this war started. To here him say Saddam brought this war on himself and his people is prove Bush is psychotic. It is either that or he thinks we are without memory. I recall he told Saddam to disclose where his WMDs were. WHAT IS THE GOD DAM FACT CONCERNING WMDs? There were none. I like to stop here and ask is what Bush did up to this point, just before he invaded Iraq for Saddam’s refusal to disclose where is WMD programs were, a crime? As time when on, Bush and his invading army admitted there were no WMDs, so Bush made the claim: As long as we continue to search for WMDs, the question is still open as to whether Saddam had WMDs. The rest is a matter of history.
Five years later, we are still in Iraq, and the initial reason for going to Iraq has changed, but those who want to kill Iraqis have not. They still claim WMDs are still in Iraq or a neighboring county, so they still have the right to KILL more Iraqis. When that excuse no longer worked, they changed the name of one of civil combatants to “Sunni Al Qaeda” in Iraq so they can give the impression they are doing what Americans want them to do and that is kill those who attacked us on 9/11. This was a nasty change in why we fight; so nasty, we should be able to impeach him for it.
Fact, Al Qaeda represents 2 percent of those we fight in Iraq. It just so happens Sunnis forces belong to Saddam’s old government. By matching them up with Al Qaeda, Bush is now able to make the claim there was a Iraqi connection to 9/11 as evident in the strong Al Qaeda faction in Iraq. When Bush’s generals have eliminated the Sunni forces, Bush would of successfully put a dent in the violence in Iraq. And the oil companies live happily for ever after.
I know it is a crime to tell the American people Al Qaeda is the main fighting force in Iraq when you have prove they are not. Bush is lying to congress, the senate, and the American people, and can be impeached for it. If our law makers would take a step back and examine the whole dynamic surrounding “Sunni Al Qaeda in Iraq, they would find there is plenty there to do the right thing.
Joseph
To all the people who use the term "islamofascist"
This is a fake word made up by some right wing spinner. The word fascist refers to the marriage of the state with private corporations, so that all control is in the hands of a ruling elite. This has nothing to do with Islamic militants. I suspect it was coined in reaction to the use of fascist to describe the Bush administration.
Good luck, Mary. I don't think the fact that a talking point makes no sense is going to stop its use.
Try to get through a day here without seeing Islamofascist, cut & run, declare defeat, tax loving, pro-family, pro-military, pro-life, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Gay Agenda etc.
If the propaganda feels good, and helps to eliminate any need for critical thinking, the dittoheads will eat it up.
Mary,
I think conservatives do have a point with that word, although I do believe it is propagandistic to use.
It is defined as:
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality
We need to understand that Muslim Extremists are even more conservative than the conservatives here in America. They do not want any of the freedoms we have here for women, gays and different religions. They believe in strict adherence between law and religion as well. I think they perfectly fit the above first definition of fascism.
The same things we dislike about our American conservatives are even much moreso true about Muslim extremists.
I am not excusing the way many on the right use this term to smear Islam as a whole, but I can see why they use the term and I think it is accurate and applicable for the ultra-conservative Muslim extremists.
True enough...but my problem with that term applying to Muslim extremists is that they are not nationalists.
fascism is a system of govenment characterized by rigid one party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized government control, belligerent nationalism, racism and militarism, etc. Beware the military industrial complex!
VIDEO: President Bush Answers Questions From Reporters, Connecting Al Qaeda in Iraq to Al Qaeda of 9/11
http://test.redlasso.com/Community/ClipPlayer.aspx?i=09b17233-00c2-4e0c-a4f8-e7c9c563f167