On ABC's World News, McCarthy adopted Bush rhetoric about threat of "Al Qaeda" in Iraq
On the July 11 edition of ABC's World News, correspondent Terry McCarthy uncritically repeated the assertion by Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S.-led forces in Iraq, that "[t]he enemy in Iraq that is causing the horrific attacks that is igniting the sectarian violence, that is causing the mass casualties and damaging the infrastructure by and large is Al Qaeda." McCarthy repeatedly referred to the military's strategy for fighting "Al Qaeda," but at no point did he note that that the Bush administration's assertion that Al Qaeda is the America's primary enemy in Iraq and the source of most of the violence in the country has been rejected by many military and intelligence analysts, as The Washington Post and McClatchy Newspapers have reported.
McCarthy repeatedly echoed the Bush administration talking point that that "Al Qaeda" is the United States' biggest enemy in Iraq. He began his report by commenting that the "[r]ich farmland along the Tigris River ... is the so-called triangle of death, the Sunni belt south of Baghdad, full of Al Qaeda extremists." McCarthy later reported that the military has taken its fight against "Al Qaeda extremists" to "Al Qaeda territory about 20 miles south of Baghdad," where the military is attempting to "turn the local population against Al Qaeda." McCarthy added: "Turning the local population against Al Qaeda takes time. And that's one commodity that General Petraeus is running out of." McCarthy concluded by saying that the "fields south of Baghdad are still a major battlefield in the fight against Al Qaeda. But, increasingly, Petraeus knows the most important battle in the Iraq war is being fought out in Washington."
In a July 11 article, The Washington Post noted that President Bush had "conflated" the main Al Qaeda organization with the insurgent group that calls itself "Al Qaeda in Iraq," and added, "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." As Media Matters for America has previously noted, a June 28 McClatchy article reported that these 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." From McClatchy:
Bush's use of al Qaida in his speech had strong echoes of the strategy the administration had used to whip up public support for the Iraq invasion by accusing the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of cooperating with bin Laden and implying that he'd played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Administration officials have since acknowledged that Saddam had no ties to bin Laden or 9-11.
A similar pattern has developed in Iraq, where the U.S. military has cited al Qaida 33 times in a barrage of news releases in the last seven days, and some news organizations have echoed the drumbeat. Last month, al Qaida was mentioned only nine times in U.S. military news releases.
[...]
U.S. intelligence agencies and military commanders say the Sunni-Shiite conflict is the greatest source of violence and insecurity in Iraq.
"Extremists -- most notably the Sunni jihadist group al Qaida in Iraq and Shia oppositionist Jaysh al-Mahdi -- continue to act as very effective accelerators for what has become a self-sustaining struggle between Shia and Sunnis," the National Intelligence Council wrote in the unclassified key judgments of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq published in January. Jaysh al Mahdi is Arabic for the Mahdi Army militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr.
The council comprises the top U.S. intelligence analysts, and a National Intelligence Estimate is the most comprehensive assessment it produces for the president and a small number of his senior aides. It reflects the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
From the July 11 edition of ABC's World News:
McCARTHY: Rich farmland along the Tigris River. From the air, it looks peaceful. But this is the so-called triangle of death, the Sunni belt south of Baghdad, full of Al Qaeda extremists, enemy number one for General David Petraeus.
PETRAEUS [video clip]: The enemy in Iraq that is causing the horrific attacks, that is igniting the sectarian violence, that is causing the mass casualties and damaging the infrastructure, by and large is Al Qaeda.
McCARTHY: This is Al Qaeda territory, about 20 miles south of Baghdad and a major production area for car bombs. The primary mission of the U.S. military here is to turn the local population against Al Qaeda and stop those car bombs making their way to Baghdad.
Turning the local population against Al Qaeda takes time. And that is one commodity that General Petraeus is running out of. He knows that Congress wants to draw down U.S. troops because they are losing faith in the Iraqi government.
PETRAEUS [video clip]: No one is happy with where they are right now. We all share that frustration, that, frankly, disappointment.
McCARTHY: Despite all this, Petraeus is still very optimistic about the military battle, if the politicians give him enough time.
McCARTHY [video clip]: Are you concerned that the U.S. political clock could start ticking too fast and undermine security here? Undermine confidence here?
PETRAEUS [video clip]: Obviously, that's in the back of our minds. And there's not a great deal we can do about it, other than to continue to press forward.
McCARTHY: The fields south of Baghdad are still a major battlefield in the fight against Al Qaeda. But, increasingly, Petraeus knows the most important battle in the Iraq war is being fought out in Washington. Terry McCarthy, ABC News, Patrol Base Murray, Central Iraq.
Hell yeah! If those damned Washington Democrats would just turn us loose so we could kill more A-rabs, we'd win this thing!
Nerzog, that depends entirely on how effective we are at simplifying the whole situation.Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, everybody who's shooting at us or who we're shooting at or bombing is Al Qaeda.
See how much easier that is? My brain feels all fresh and rested.
You're right. Black and White thinking is so....liberating.
Yeah there is no Al Qeada in Iraq, the real enemy is Bush. I just love this web sites hate toward Republicans ROFL.
Well, seeing how Al-Queda wasn't in Iraq until Bush decided to go offensive on a non-threatening country, but that may be too much to comprehend.
Sue,
This place is overrun by those suffering from BDS, plain and simple. (That's Bush Derangement Syndrome for those not paying attention.)
They give themselves away with statements like the one above, calling Iraq under Saddam, "a non-threatening country".
BDS sufferers cannot write anything without including the obligatory juvenile insults and all their replies are filled with vitriol. They regularly express hatred for anyone who supports our President and our Country in time of war. They see those who want to stay and win the war as the enemy and give the enemy the benefit of every doubt.
If you try to discuss anything with them or present a different point of view, they villify you and call you all sorts of names and accuse you of the very same hateful behavior they exhibit. However they rarely if ever acknowledge any point that counters their preconceived BDS worldview.
Other than that, they are a great bunch and fun to tweak. ;-)
Iraq was a threat to us in 2003? More of a threat than Luxembourg, for sure. Probably more than Peru. But what, pray tell, made it worth invading and squandering half a trillion dollars and thousands of lives? If you can think of a good reason, maybe you should share it with President Numbnuts...he needs a new talking point.
“They give themselves away with statements like the one above, calling Iraq under Saddam, ‘a non-threatening country.’”
Saddam was not a threat to us.
“They regularly express hatred for anyone who supports our President and our Country in time of war.”
You guys support the president at the expense of our country.
And if I thought this war was justified in any way, I would to support him but the invasion was unjustifiable.
“If you try to discuss anything with them or present a different point of view, they villify you and call you all sorts of names and accuse you of the very same hateful behavior they exhibit. However they rarely if ever acknowledge any point that counters their preconceived BDS worldview.”
We can say the same about you guys. I really don’t understand the 30 percent who still support this occupation of Iraq or this president. He invaded a country which he had no business invading at an enormous price this country. It baffles me that some people still support him.
Barney, when you get to the point where it's just you and sueeeeld agreeing that everybody else is crazy, it may be time for some serious reflection.
Other than that, one of your funniest posts ever.Talk about the blind leading the blind.Har! ;0)
Please detail how Iraq/Saddam was a threat to the U.S.? He had no means of attacking us. All the reasons Bush has given for invading Iraq have been proven lies. We've cost over 3,500 troops their lives for no valid reason and 10's of thousands more have been maimed. I'll anxiously await your response.
Thats ok it is also represented well enough by those afflicted with Bush Idolotry Syndrome like YOU. If Bush were to nuke New York City you would be in here telling us what a brilliant urban renewal program it was. We understand you propaganda parrots gottad to what a propoganda parrots gotta do.
I am filled with hate, but I'm not sure that I hate toward Republican ROFL. What IS Republican ROFL? If it's anything like Republican policy, then yes, I do hate toward it. I hate toward it real bad.
If you could list some of the other sites that hate toward ROFL of any kind, I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
ROFL Means "rolling on floor laughing" I can see the hate Sue and it is dividing America. I do not see an end to it.
Thanks for helping Neon out. I thought a ROFL was a Republican WOFL, and sueeld was ordering breakfast.
SAMDCIATDAHDONP
(sitting at my desk chuckling inwardly at the density and humor deficiency of neocon posters)
DITTO
(same as above, but too lazy to retype it again)
Sueeee, despite your strawman, I'll try to help you out. President Numbnuts is trying to use Al Qaeda as an excuse to keep flushing lives down the Iraq toilet...the problem is that nothing we're doing in Iraq will diminish the threat of Al Qaeda. Even if we turn the Iraqi desert into radioactive glass, Al Qaeda will be as big a threat as ever...maybe bigger.
There, does that help?
Try again Sue, one day you'll get it right.
BTW, I don't hate Republicans, I do in fact have a strong dislike of neocons. Just thought I should clair that up.
If baby bush says something I pretty much already know it is not true. That is sad. I was just sharing with a friend of mine how similar bush is to Hitler now in this regard. bush has got rid of the generals that disagreed with him or they "retired". For now anyway, the generals tell baby bush what he wants to hear. TYhis situation has gone so far "south" it is criminal. Does anyone think war crime charges will be brought against bush in 2009? I have followed his crimes, "the war behind closed doors and various other frontline reports and it would appear he is complicit (as well as others) in war crimes.
Nother sniping run Sue? I'd get a new targeting system. Someone on Air America described Iraq as a Disneyland for them. They get to see how we operate,train against us, a recruiting goldmine, and best of all a good source of money for the folks back in Afganistan, and Pakistan. Our agression against Iraq is working very well for Al Qeada.
And please other studied options cannot honestly be called "cut and run" or similar. The latest wrinkle would bring our Iraq allies to the USA with the majority of our troops.
I'm not exactly sure why this is being posted. That is to say, I'm not sure why MMFA is choosing to imply or state outright that there is no al Qaida in Iraq. Speaking as someone who opposed the war from the outset, I can't understand where such an idea comes from. I mean, it's true that the Bush administration has since prior to the beginning of the Invasion suggested unfounded connections between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11, and as awful a truth as that is, it doesn't take away from the notion that members of al Qaida are not presently in Iraq where they target US interests. I mean, it's so amazing how people on both sides of this argument like to claim how complicated a situation this is while they do their best to simplify it rhetorically to meet their desired end. From the Right: 'We're fighting the same people who attacked us on 9/11, so it is imperitive that we not show weakness or restraint.' From the Left: 'We're in the middle of a civil war that has nothing to do with us, from which nothing can be gained, so we need to get out.' The only thing both sides agree with is the complete and utter lack of virtue to the other sides argument.
Sorry, that should say '...it doesn't take away from the notion that members of al Qaida are presently in Iraq....
I usually wouldn't correct my own typos, but this one sort of changed the entire meaning of what I was saying.
Although Al-Qaida in Iraq is arguably the fiercest fighting insurgent group in Iraq, the repeated mention of "Al-Qaida in Iraq" appears to be overstated in an effort to gain public support for the war in Iraq and at home:
link: www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/09/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Enemy-No.-1.php
"Nine out of 10 times, when it names a foe it faces, the U.S. military names the group called al-Qaida in Iraq. U.S. President George W. Bush says Iraq may become an al-Qaida base to "launch new attacks on America." The U.S. ambassador here suggested this week al-Qaida might "assume real power" in Iraq if U.S. forces withdraw.
"Critics say this is overblown, and possibly a diversion.
""Such speculation is unrealistic," Amer Hassan al-Fayadh, Baghdad University political science dean, said of the U.S. statements.
"Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority, strong Kurdish ethnic minority, secularist Sunni Muslims and others would suppress any real power bid by the fringe Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaida, al-Fayadh said.
It is also arguable that "Al-Qaida in Iraq" and Al-Qaida elsewhere have very little in common -- other than a name:
link: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701373.html
"Attacking the United States clearly remains on bin Laden's agenda. But the likelihood that such an attack would be launched from Iraq, many experts contend, has sharply diminished over the past year as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has undergone dramatic changes. Once believed to include thousands of "foreign fighters," it is now an overwhelmingly Iraqi organization whose aims are likely to remain focused on the struggle against the Shiite majority in Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials said."
Aside from the fact that a lot of what you just cut and pasted was conjecture, I understand that argument and find it to be a fairly strong one. However, I find the classification of the ABC report as misinformation to be a bit of a stretch. While one could easily argue that it falls in line with the administration line of remphasizing elements of al Qaeda over the insurgency made up of otherwise unaffiliated Iraqi regional and religious factions, I hardly feel that it qualifies as irresponsible reporting. I mean, it's not an all encompassing look at the present conflict in Iraq, but I didn't see where it claimed to be.
I think the problem here is that President Numbnuts, in a desperate attempt to justify his foolish foray into Iraq, keeps referring to Al Qaeda in an attempt to tie Iraq to 9/11. Anyone who thinks and has been paying attention knows that the Iraq war is NOT revenge for 9/11, nor does anything that happened on 9/11 justify Bush's monumental blunder.
Unfortunately, the uninformed 30% still believe that crap, and Bush, with the help of the lapdog press, keeps stringing them along.
I understand that argument too. That being said, I feel the kneejerk reaction of disregarding any mentioning of al Qaeda in Iraq as necessarily being a dishonest manipulation meant to justify the initial invasion is fairly silly seeing as al Qaeda, whether do to our foolish invasion and occupation or not, is presently conducting violent attacks against US soldiers and US interests in Iraq.
"al Qaeda, whether do to our foolish invasion and occupation or not, is presently conducting violent attacks against US soldiers and US interests in Iraq."--breakerbreaker
Based on what? The Bush Administration's assertions? Have you seen any difinitive proof or strong evidence of this statement? How do you define "al qaeda"? Does someone just have to call themselves "al qaeda" in order to be al-qaeda? Maybe that is where we differ.
I think it is speculative about the motives involved, to be sure, but it is reasonable speculation considering the facts, IMO.
You are correct that this can't be called misinformation merely based on speculation. It is misinformation because all we have from this administration to back up their claims is nothing at all besides their apparently baseless assertions. The administration is making the positive claims here, and it is therefore their burden to support their claims. Why should we just take their word for it considering all we know about past attempts to exaggerate about Al-Qaeda in Iraq?
backup link: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html
All of that being said, I still don't understand why the ABC piece is seen as taking part in the administration's attempt to put a happy face on the war. I mean, I hear him express an understanding (an empathy, perhaps?) for General Petraeus, but I still don't feel the piece to be all that egregious. At worst, it presents a snapshot that if it were the only report on the war that day may, or may not be read by some to mean something more than it does. I mean, I know that media watchdog groups exist because they have a lack of respect for the relative intelligence of the average media consumer, and maybe I'm just so intelligent that I can see beyond this piece and understand there's much more to the war than could be shown in a three minute, or three hour report, but I feel a lack of meat to MMFA's complaint in this case.
I think you are creating a strawman. MMFA is not complaining about whether the article is glowing or not.
The administration has been pushing the conflation of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan for a while now. MMFA is simply pointing out that the media are buying into it. It is a good thing to let the consumer know to beware of this kind of unsupported information. MMFA is doing a good service here.
Just the other day, the President made the remark: "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th."
The administration does this a lot. They did it in the build-up to the Iraq War as well. They slip memes into the media where they are repeated often enough to be accepted. Then they refer to those meme's as support for their arguments. MMFA is not letting them off that easy.
Here is another example of some award winning journalism regarding how the administration pulled this kind of operation off when they deceptively sold the war to the American public:
Backup link:
www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war/
I don't think it's a strawman at all. MMFA chose to single this interview out as an proof that ABC News generally, and Terry McCarthy specifically was adopting administration rhetoric. I simply challenge that assertion. Furthermore, I find it odd that I'm being presented with numerous citations of articles as if what I'm saying is contradicted by any of them. In fact, the reality is, MMFA is clearly criticizing ABC News for being--in their eyes--not critical enough of the general in the report. That's the only reason to put the report on the site in the first place. I'm not defending the Bush administration, so I don't need a lesson in their rhetorical tactics. I'm just looking for real evidence of irresponsibly reporting in this segment, and I've yet to really be presented with any.
"MMFA chose to single this interview out as an proof that ABC News generally, and Terry McCarthy specifically was adopting administration rhetoric. I simply challenge that assertion."--breakerbreaker
The problem as I see it is that ABC is reporting these statements without mentioning that some experts disagree. Therefore the statements aren't balanced.
It gives the viewer the false impression that the issue is settled. It simply isn't. I don't think that is even arguable unless you or ABC can demonstrate that it is indeed true with actual independent proof to that effect.
I think your strawman is that MMFA is out to do anything more than point out what they believe to be misinformation in this article. I don't see any claim of "proof" by MMFA of anything in the article. Maybe you are more specifically assigning motives not in evidence.
Actually, the Civil War does have something to do with us...it probably wouldn't be happening if we hadn't invaded. Saddam's brutality kept them from fighting each other. Are they better off now? Depends on who you ask. The dead ones certainly aren't.
The question is, what do we gain by keeping forces in Iraq? Is our fighting in Iraq really diminishing the strength of Al Qaeda? Oh, wait, that's two questions...
But there are far more than two questions. What do we lose by leaving Iraq? What do the Iraqis gain? What might they lose? How will our leaving affect the region? How does our being there affect it? When we leave Iraq, what does that even mean since we obviously won't be leaving in entirity? How long would it take to bring our forces down? How would a staggered withdrawl affect the relative security of the forces we leave behind? Is there any virtue to the fears of a possible genocide? If so, what responsibility would we have to put an end to such an atrocity? Would it be another Rwanda where our troops would be forced to watch the bloodshed but not do anything to stop it? There're a lot of valid questions, and while there are answers to each and every one of them, it's not always clear what they are, and there's no guarantee you're going to like them.
I agree. I think it safe to say that there are no good answers to the mess that President Numbnuts has created. I do think that the people who insist we stay for the sake of pride are simple-minded fools who have no business making foreign policy decisions. This is war, not a playground shoving match. The lives, equipment and money that we are flushing down that rathole are extremely valuable, and a time may come when we wish we had them back.
But do you really think it's a simple case of wounded pride? I mean, pride certainly has something to do with not wanting to lose at anything--to not want to be proven wrong, but this is war, and losing a war does have consequences beyond damaged pride.
You make the mistake of equating withdrawal with defeat. Which is more of a "defeat"...leaving now and preserving the lives of our soldiers as well as retrieving some of our equipment, or staying a few more years, and sacrificing several thousand more lives and another trillion dollars worth of expensive gear? Will our continued presence result in a better outcome than our immediate withdrawal? If so, is that better outcome really worth what it's costing us?
I don't see any of the war supporters addressing these questions. They just repeat the same delusional talking points that got us into this quagmire. Iraq is just a costly dogfight that is NOT advancing our struggle against terrorism. Now, if Bush/Cheney want to fess up and admit that it's really about stabilizing global oil prices, or something like that, we can have a different conversation.
I don't know that I'm making any such mistake. Withdrawing from a military engagement prior to the completion of the original goals of the engagement is a defeat. This is a fundamental principle in warfare. There are winners and losers. Frankly, I had determined prior to our initial invasion that we were going to be the losers from the moral point of view, but due to consistant mismanagement, it seems we're destined to lose militarily, too. Just because I understand that doesn't mean I have to like it. And just because you want a withdrawal doesn't mean you can't accept that it would be an admission of defeat.
"I don't know that I'm making any such mistake. Withdrawing from a military engagement prior to the completion of the original goals of the engagement is a defeat."--breakerbreaker
Just which "original goal" hasn't been met? Is there a checklist somewhere? From what I have seen, the insurgency/civil war was not on the radar screen before the war. Did they even seriously anticipate this? Although it seems some did, but were those guys listened to?
I think an argument could be made that we have indeed met all of our "original goals". Mission accomplished. Let's go home.
I think you're right, an argument could be made that we've accomplished all of our goals. It's simply not a winning argument. And while they may sound flippant, I think it's true nonetheless. While it's true that we deposed a dictator and imposed a semi-democratic government, the country is currently unstable in spite of--or, in many ways due to--our efforts there. Part of our original goals was that we would leave Iraq a country which was both self-governing and self-sustaining. They can't even handle their own security. If we leave, it is an admission of defeat. Plain and simple. It may be true that it's inevitable. I'm certainly not arguing in favor of staying in Iraq. I'm simply concerned that the people calling for a withdrawal are not giving enough credence to the possible consequences of that withdrawal. The fact is, we'll be leaving Iraq in some way sooner or later, and we should prepare ourselves for the possibility that things really can get worse. A lot worse. And what then?
I agree with everything you just said. I am not sure leaving is good policy, myself, but I am not sure it is worth sticking around much longer either. All we have heard from the President is endless bragging of "progress in Iraq". It is getting pretty difficult to keep giving him the benefit of the doubt all of the time.
"And just because you want a withdrawal doesn't mean you can't accept that it would be an admission of defeat."--breakerbreaker
I agree with you mostly, but it seems we are just arguing as to whether we should accept that defeat sooner or later at this point.
It seems to me that arguments to keep us there are just some symptom of denial of basic facts that are unpleasant and the longer we stay, the longer we can postpone the reality of the situation.
'It seems to me that arguments to keep us there are just some symptom of denial of basic facts that are unpleasant....'
Unfortunately, I think the same could be said regarding the motivation for withdrawal. As bad as things are today, they can get worse, and it almost goes without saying that leaving Iraq in the condition we've largely caused is not going to be the best course for everyone involved. Just as people are hurting due to our being there, others--maybe more--will hurt due to our leaving. Suffering does not rely on our presence. In fact, it may be awaiting our departure. Maybe not, I don't know. But I am concerned. And so should we all be.
Bush lied about WMD's he lied about Iraq's connection with Al Qaeda and he is again lying about who we are really killing in Iraq.
The United States soldiers are there to force the Iraqi people to view us a liberators and the punishment for not viewing us as liberators is death.
Come now, we can all disagree with this war without talking crazy. Can't we?
Not really. Probably the only benefit of the war left is that it has forced America to come to terms with it's own lack of omnipotence and invincibility, much like the same territories we occupy forced Britain to come to the exact same conclusion over a century ago. There are many stages of denial, and American supporters of the war are in various stages of it. Fortunately the last is acceptance.
"[O]ver a century" should read "[a]bout a century". Sorry.
You should have quit while you were ahead, Carlo. If I understand you correctly, you're referring to the American Revolution, which was over two centuries ago.
Maybe he's referring to the Middle East. I think the British have had some "problems" there in the past.
Wasn't it 9/11 that shaked our notion of invincibility? Or was it, perhaps, Vietnam. No matter, we still have the concept of good old American durability, and that's good enough for me. I never really thought we were omnipotent, but I hardly think this war is a fair assessment of our potency either. It's not like we've really been trying our hardest. I don't like to talk about mismanagement because I personally disagreed with the war from the offset, and I think certain politicians like to speak of mismanagement to avoid the basic question of whether or not the war should have been fought in the first place. That said, I don't think anybody believes we ever put our best military foot forward.
But mismanagement is why.
You can’t know where you’re going unless you can see where you came from IMO.
If Junior had never lied would we be in Iraq or possibly fighting Al Qaeda in the hills of Afghanistan on the border with Pakistan . Would we be giving billions of dollars to the government of Pakistan to look for Osama or would we have found him by now? If Junior had not lied about the “mushroom cloud” would recruitment for Al Qaeda be as strong as it is now? If Junior had not lied by associating the 9/11 attack with Saddam would we have bombed the small fraction of Al Qaeda in Iraq’s northern territory (not under Saddam’s control) thereby eliminating Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq?
You are right about both side taking a stance but there are facts about this war that we cannot escape. The are facts about our lack of progress that cannot be denied. The facts cannot be changed to make one appear to be right all the time when facts on the ground show they’ve never been right.
I didn't mean to imply that both sides are always right depending on the point of view. I meant to sort of state outright that both sides are always at least partially wrong regardless of point of view. Personally, as much as I detest the policy of the administration, I still, perhaps naively, hesitate in accepting everything in the lead up to the war as being the result of them simply lying. While the Intelligence Assessment put forth by the CIA and presented to the world by the former Secretary of State at the UN was clearly and repetitively inaccurate, poorly sourced, and lacking entirely in a voice of any descent in view, I can't help but hope that it was at least put forth sincerely. I can't help but hope that, regardless of the amount of crimes against the People this government has perpetrated, their greastest disaster was a sincere mistake and not malicious one. I guess it doesn't really matter unless you're interested in impeachment whether they lied or were simply and entirely incompentant. Personally, I largely bought into the false assessment, but still opposed the war as an immoral act of aggression against a country that still didn't seem all that much of a danger to itself, its neighbors, and least of all us. I, like most thinking people against the war at the time believed a fairly fundamental principle to be true regardless of whether the war was a cake walk or not: that preemption in itself is a crime. Where or why that justification for being against this war went out of style I still don't understand.
That's why I don't like to talk about mismanagement.
I really enjoyed reading that. You seem to have had a very similar experience to mine as well regarding the war. Thank you for sharing that.
I think you raise a valid point. Our armed forces performed brilliantly in overthrowing Saddam. If we had moved in, toppled the government and then left...who knows...it may have, indeed, gotten the attention of other brutal regimes.
The problem with Iraq is that Bush is trying to do what he promised he wouldn't...Nation Building. Our Military is still the best in the world in a standup fight, but we've discovered that occupying and controlling a hostile country is a difficult proposition, just as every empire in history has learned...the hard way.
That's why I propose getting out now, while our army is still relatively intact. We may need it later. Part of the reason the Soviet Union imploded was their costly foray into Afghanistan. Ronnie didn't do it, despite what Rush Limbaugh says.
Iraq had plenty of contact with Al Quaeda, Saddam just wasn't involved directly in 9/11.
Al Quaeda moved in from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Afghanistant and now Lebanon. Now you want to pack up because things changes. Bin Laden was right, most of the America can't stomach war and you are playing right into his hands.
You are spewing, well, lies. You are VERY MUCH mis-informed. There are huge amounts of documentation that says what you are saying is simply not true. You have to turn off Fox news to get the message the rest of us are getting. Stop believing those lies and you will finally be there with the rest of us. I really don't like being so blunt, but c'mon man, you are really out of touch with current events!
But LH is rooting for the president, and for the other people who are fighting over there.
Just to show those Islamofascists that he can "stomach" war.
Leatherhelmnut is trying to fight a war using playground rules. It's the same simple-minded approach that got us into this mess. All these fistfight metaphors are convenient for covering up the true human cost of war. As the tragic case of Pat Tillman demonstrated, no matter how tough, macho and brave you are, bullets rip your flesh just like anyone else's.
As I've asked many times...How many lives is George Bush's pride worth?
LH isn't it about time you added some more aluminum foil to the lining of your helmet. Better yet visit this site http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ and build yourself an AFDB. You are definitely a wingnut who needs some deprogramming.
Ooh scary, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Qaeda in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Britain , new cells in US, Al Qaeda at pre-911 strength and growing............. BOO! Secretary Chertoff has a gut feeling. I would too if I understood that the American people are having some second thoughts in just what constitutes and defines the real 'Al Qaeda'!!!
Meet the real Al Qaeda:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=22824
And since WE all know that Al Qaeda means the 'base ', There is always this to consider as Wayne Madsen, former Naval Officer and NSA Encryption spook shows US:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20051120&articleId=1291
We completely destabilized Iraq by taking out the government in a country we had no business going to war with, and yes, Al Qaeda has moved in. We rolled out the red bloody carpet for them. We are responsible for the deaths of approximately 660,000 Iraqis and Americans. I would venture to say that at least 95% of those people weren't terrorists and probably higher than that, but I honestly don't know what the exact numbers are. However, if anyone believes that this had made us safer, they are mistaken. This has only fueled the fire of hatred toward us. We have been very irresponsible in history by arming one side against the other and versa visa in the Middle East to gain something for us, and I suspect that terrorism is the price we will pay for the greed and ambition of our politicians.
Far be it, for us to believe OUR OWN SOLDIERS, rather than ABC, Bush, Kristol, and the whole "corporate cabal", but..................http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/12/1726251http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2007/july/video/dnB20070712a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=17:27http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/12/1726248http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2007/july/video/dnB20070712a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=45:17