Time Cover: Why Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe ...

[UpInArms]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1081392,00.html

Sir Ivor Roberts, Britain's Ambassador to Italy, declared last September that the "best recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda" was none other than the U.S. President, George W. Bush. With the American election entering its final furlongs, he added, "If anyone is ready to celebrate the eventual re-election of Bush, it is al-Qaeda." The remarks, made at an off-the-record conference, were leaked in the Italian press, and Sir Ivor, facing the displeasure of his Foreign Office masters for committing the sin of candor, disowned the comments. But now, as the soot settles in the London Underground, the words hang again in the air.

It is, of course, bad manners to point the finger at anyone but those responsible for the killings in London. They shed the blood; they must answer for it. But as the trail of bodies that began with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 continues to lengthen, we need to ask why the attacks keep coming. One key reason is that Osama bin Laden's "achievements" in standing up to the American colossus on 9/11 have inspired others to follow his lead. Another is that American actions--above all, the invasion and occupation of Iraq--have galvanized still more Muslims and convinced them of the truth of bin Laden's vision.

<snip>

Or we may find that the bombings were engineered by returnees from Iraq. Muslims from Britain, France, Germany and elsewhere--along with several thousand from Arab countries--have traveled to Iraq to fight in what has become a theater of inspiration for the jihadist drama of faith. A handful are known to have trickled back to Europe already. Western intelligence services fear that more are on the way and will pose a bigger danger than the returnees from Afghanistan in the 1980s and '90s, the global jihad's first generation of terrorists. The anxiety is justified; the fighters in Iraq are, as the CIA has observed, getting better on-the-job training than was available in al-Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan.

...more...

[tocqueville]

1. How George makes my life safer

Moroccan investigated in French probe into radical Islamic network in Iraq

The Associated Press, June 27, 2005

PARIS


A French counterterrorism judge investigating Islamic networks in Iraq started legal action Monday against a Moroccan man who was arrested with chemicals that could be used to make bombs in his home, judicial officials said.

Hamid Bach, 35, was placed under investigation _ a step short of being charged _ and ordered to remain in custody for allegedly stockpiling explosive materials in connection with a terrorist enterprise, the officials said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because French law prohibits them from speaking about pending legal procedures.

Bach was one of seven people interrogated by anti-terrorist police last week in the southern towns of Montpellier and Limoges. The others were released.

In a raid of his home, police found lists of bomb-making materials and several liters (quarts) of hydrogen peroxide, which can be combined with other chemicals to make explosive devices, the officials said. The hydrogen peroxide was bought in a supermarket.

Bach had attempted a trip to Iraq in August 2004, but only reached as far as Syria, the officials said. An accomplice, who was not identified, made it across the Iraqi border.

Under police questioning, he said he had considered plotting a bomb attack in Italy, according to the officials.

http://www.tkb.org/NewsStory.jsp?storyID=72695

[EOTE]

20. Whaaaa?

George is making your life safer because French officials placed a man who had lists and hydrogen peroxide in his house under investigation? I don't even see the asshat in chief listed in that article you link to. I really don't understand. Could you be a bit more comprehensive?

[Douglas Carpenter]

2. I just hope we are seeing signs that the MSM is ready to be a little bit

more responsible..I just hope..

_______________________________________






http://www.iwtnews.com/

ABOUT IWTNEWS
Independent World Television is building the world’s first global independent news network. Online and on TV, IWTnews will deliver independent news and real debate from professional and citizen journalists -– without funding from governments, corporations or commercial advertising. Using the web to organize and raise funds across borders, IWTnews is building an international movement for democracy.


http://www.iwtnews.com/


http://www.iwtnews.com/

SPREAD THE WORD!!

http://www.iwtnews.com/

[dutchdoctor]

3. training them over there, so they can kill us better over here..n/t

[NicRic]

4. Always knew Iraq war a dangerous move !

I always felt that by going into Iraq using force and killling many inocent civilians along the way ,that all we where doing was making more enimies and showing moslems in onther countries that we are no friend of theirs and have and will continue to do anything to get control over their part of the world . I just could not see then and still fail to see how ,this idiot we have in office is not being held accountable for sleeping o the job ,and then taking a bad situation and making it worst. He has ruined our economy ,made us more hated around the world then ever B/4 ,and yet because of his bible toting farce of claiming to be such a religous man, some people will defend just about any stupid thing he says or does ? History will show ,just how bad things can get when you steal an election and put a corperate puppet in the White House ,who has no idea what he is doing ! I have'nt stopped shaking my head in disbeleif when this guy supposely won a second term ,ever heard the saying, a gulten for punishment , well apprently thats what the old U.S.A. has become, by allowing this gang running our country continue to turn back the clock on alot of progress made over the years !

[mwb970]

8. You took the words right out of my mouth.

This is the kind of thing I mutter while listening to Air America.

[confludemocrat]

9. Just wondering, do you mutter this because Air America isn't pro-withdraw?

They are largely "complete the mission" and "we could do it better", advocates it seem to me and do not take the position that the previous poster, you or I and so many others take that this was wrong, would stir up more trouble with Al Qaeda and sympathizers, could be foreseen as and has turned out to be a disaster as predicted, endangered us, and that we must withdraw. Rachel Maddow and Liz Winstead, too I think took the withdrawal position openly and look what happened to them?

[confludemocrat]

5. How is "completing the mission" gonna change this?

"...And the notion that the West would enhance its security by occupying Iraq has proved utterly illusory."

and its still illusory. We know Bush and his criminal band will not budge on this, but where are Democrats on this. So far, no fucking where, in fact just the opposite, they are in bed with Bush on this. This has gotta stop, or you can kiss 2006 and 2008 goodbye.

[ClintonTyree]

23. You got it.........

the "mission" will never be "accomplished", no matter how many times bush says it has. There's always another bogeyman right around the next corner, and the next.

bush's mission to "spread Democracy" ( this month's mission, anyway, they change so often) is most certainly spreading terrorism faster than before. There can never be a "winner" in the war on terrorism. They're creating terrorists faster than we can hunt them down. And oh yeah, what ever happened to Osama Bin Forgotten? How's THAT going, georgie? The REAL perp of 9/11 continues to walk the earth. You took your eye off the ball, georgie, you wanted to settle an old grudge. Nice going, now we're going to be fighting the terrorists here AND there. :grr:

[Pallas180]

6. Finally! The media has decided to tell the truth, only after Rove & Bush

screws them. Before that it was perfectly alright for media to screw the American people by going along with censored news issued by
the WH cabal. What happened to their cheerleading for the faux war?

there has to be something we can do - bombard them with mail telling them to get back their investigative reporters and stop parroting everything the WH & Pentagon tell them to???

[ginnyinWI]

14. better late than never

It would be far better for Time to "lead" by not being afraid to tell the truth.

But at least now it might become more "okay" for certain members of the public to openly talk to their friends about being against Bush's war. Repubs always try to be so loyal to their leaders--"I support my president, right or wrong"!

Not like us on the left, who, if anything, can be a bit too critical of our leaders! :)

[9119495]

7. No we're safer now than before Iraq

because, see, Howard Dean said we were less safe for having invaded during his campaign run and every republican and Democrat against him said it was reckless and showed he was out of touch. Thus, the Time article must be wrong.

[confludemocrat]

10. Kucinich was the only Demo who was pro-withdrawal

Wasn't he? I never heard Dean say anything about getting out. He was for staying now that we are there.

[nine23]

11. It's great to see this discussion taking place, esp. in Time mag...

...given it's brain-dead readership.

Another good article, by Gary Younge in today's Guardian, also addresses these issues, all the while completely dissing the US-style "denial fest" regarding such matters... Click here for the link

My personal favourite quotes from the article:

"And even at this early stage (of the London post-bombings) there is a far clearer logic linking these two events (UK involvemant in Iraq/7.7 bombings) than there ever was tying Saddam Hussein to either 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction."

...and, this, which brings post-Madrid to mind...

"To explain is not to excuse; to criticise is not to capitulate."

Obviously, no "good" could ever come out of any such despicable terrorist acts, but perhaps the mainstream media is about to change how people are looking at this...

[MojoXN]

12. Well, DUH!

This message has been brought to you by MojoXN.

[Hissyspit]

17. Really. "Mainstream"/corporate media, thanks for catching up to the truth

that we here at DU, many in the intelligence community, and in academics knew all along even in the bloodthirsty braindead rush to war.

Seconded MojoXN. Everyone, in unison: "Well, duh?"

[aquart]

13. This is the COVER????

So, basically, they're calling Georgie a liar to his face.

[Chicago Democrat]

15. HOLY CRIPS! I'm gonna buy a Time Magazine!

I feel like my old daddy!


Way to go Time! Yay!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

21. What about.....

North Korea? Iran? These are countries with the intent and MEANS to use nuclear weapons. And what was the motivation for us invading Iraq in the first place? I seem to recall that it was WMD, but I've heard several other explanations since then. Do you think it's acceptable for a president to lie about reasons for going to war? Do you think it's acceptable for tens of thousands of people to die because of that lie? Do you really think that creating a huge magnet school for terrorism in a country where there formerly wasn't one is making us safer? Do you honestly believe anyone here believes in terrorist causes or sympathizes with terrorists? When saying we're "fighting them over there", do you think ol' georgie was referring to London? Do you think a concept such as terrorism can ever be defeated as opposed to merely diminished? Of course, these are really rhetorical questions because I know the answer to any question I pose to you that begins with 'do you think'.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

24. Oh, and by the way.

A HUGE MAJORITY of Muslims opposed the war in Iraq. I guess you should try a bit harder to stand for them.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CAcyclist]

36. So Polls Do Count, When They Support Right-Wing Propanganda

How do you "know" the Iraqi people support the invasion? I'll bet because of the POLL that a right -wing propaganda mill, the Brookings Institute, published.

Funny how polls don't matter except when they support the conclusions you want drawn. Of course, we can pretty quickly tell the reliability of such a poll.

You're such a pathetic little liar, you are having us all ROTFL.

[CAcyclist]

35. Why Don't You Just Go Fight Then?

You want a war; why don't you enlist? You come on this site and call us terrorist sympathisers and retards but I'll bet your ass is nicely ensconced in a plush Laz-E-Boy.

Of course, I fully expect you to lie through your teeth in this reply - and I'll tell you now, I won't believe a word of it . Because I know your type - pretty brave when you don't have to face your opponent but a damn yellow little chicken if it comes to put up or shut up.

My brother is in the Navy and he already did one tour in the Gulf. He knows there's something rotten going on.

Why should my family suffer because of your stupid ideas?

[confludemocrat]

25. Where to start? Freeper (Tipper 101) attempt to regurgitate debunked BS

You left out that Al Qaeda and Iraq agents met in Prague as well a few other silly threadbare arguments long discredited except among the certifiable.

Even the "flypaper" nonsense is here. Don't you have anything based on your own thoughts?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patdem]

26. You are WRONG on many fronts...a county of 250 million cannot control

an earth of 6 billion...do not think America can or should control the earth...that of course is the PNAC plan for America.

After 9/11 the terrorists were the most hated people on earth..even in Muslim countries. And our invasion of Afghanistan ..though probably not ONLY the result of 9/11..the world was with us and against the terrorists. The war in Afghanistan was not a recruiting tool for Al Quida. It was THE WAR IN IRAQ and THAT ONLY that turned the world against us..and remember it was LIES that took us into Iraq. The fact that Cheney 'knew' where the WMD were...somewhere north/south/east/west of Tikrit was a FLAT OUT LIE! NO it is not about not fighting terrorists..it is about LYING TO THE WORLD AND BEING ARROGANT AND SUPERIOR..as if 250 million people have the right to rule the earth of 6 billion..and lets not forget the Bremmer Dictum about making Iraq the 'free enterprise zone'..for multinational corporation to rape and pillage their resources...

THIS IS NOT THE LUSH LIMPDICK SHOW!

[nyhuskyfan]

27. Let's turn back the clock...

After we oust the Taliban, let's say that we make sure we finish the job in Afghanistan, instead of going after the war we always wanted in Iraq with no just cause. Let's say we put enough troops on the ground to secure the country (or most of it), get the world community to help, and decide to put some energy into the reconstruction of a country that has been ravished by war for decades. Now let's say that Afghanistan becomes a big success story, the people rise up in support of their government, new schools, hospitals, etc. get built, employment rates rise and the country becomes secure.

Under this scenario, the world could now be united in the front against terrorism, and use Afghanistan as a blueprint of how people's lives can improve. Now say that you are Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist in that area of the country -- how hard is it going to be to find new recruits to fit your ideology?

Nope. Instead we leave Afghanistan unfinished, and now that country's a mess. We enter an unpopular war in Iraq that has the world totally against us. And now OBL's prophecies about American being the great evil empire looking to come invade Middle Eastern countries and steal their oil -- well, lookie there. We've given him evidence.

Saddam was a boxed-in, non-threat who last used WMD's in 1988 (if it was actually him -- there are theories it was the Iranians). We didn't even use that as an excuse to go to war in 1991 -- now we use it as an excuse in 2003. Saddam also had something to lose. Terrorists don't. For the sake of the world, I'd rather have a boxed-in Saddam worried about losing power than a teeming mass of terror trainees running rampant. Iraqi's are getting blown to bits every day and their quality of life is worse than it was before we arrived -- so they certainly aren't terribly appreciative of everything we've done to "liberate" their country.

Bottom line, with the Taliban gone, we had a great opportunity to unite the world in a common cause, and we fucked it up beyond belief. Go travel around the world, and ask people who the greatest threat to world peace is -- a very, very high percentage will point in our direction.

[patdem]

32. Mine was a rant..yours is a very logical explaination...thanks!

Of course I agree with every word in your post. I think I will add it to the 'Talking Points' I am collecting for chat rooms..with your permission of course!

[SweetLeftFoot]

41. While I sympathise

with your point of view ... and, jaysus, I'd like to see it happen, this sentence "Now let's say that Afghanistan becomes a big success story, the people rise up in support of their government, new schools, hospitals, etc. get built, employment rates rise and the country becomes secure" makes me think you've been smoking something I'd like to get my hands on.

[ClintonTyree]

42. That was a supposition....

about what we COULD HAVE done in Afghanistan had bush not abandoned it and taken all of our resources to Iraq. Of course we now know that Afghanistan is FUBAR and we'll probably never do what we should have done in the first place. Had we stayed in Afghanistan I believe the poster is correct. Afghanistan could have been America's shining example in the mid-east. Now, it will forever be a war torn country unable to progress into the 21st Century. All because bush took his eye off the ball and wanted to settle a grudge with Saddam. I think you misunderstood the poster's intended meaning. ;)

[SweetLeftFoot]

45. Perhaps

it's just that I'm a cynical prick who is given to believe that a country that it divided along ethnic lines, that has heroin as its major export and remains by and large in the grip of fundamentalists is pretty well screwed no matter what we do.

FWIW - the time to support Afghanistan - if you wanted to see equal rights for women, the fundamentalists put down and peace and security was in the late 70s and early 80s. Unfortunately, we were supplying the Muj then.

[scarletwoman]

29. "Saddam... refused to let any U.N. inspectors into his country..."

Oh really? What alternative universe have you been dwelling in?

Prior to the U.S. invasion, Saddam HAD allowed the inspectors back into Iraq -- and remember it was CLINTON who pulled them out in 1998, so he could do some bombing.

Does the name Hans Blix ring a bell? The leader of the U.N. inspections team who BEGGED for more time. They had been given free run of Iraq -- Saddam was even destroying missiles, for gawdsakes, because their range was farther than the sanctions allowed. Blix's team kept asking the U.S. to share its (supposed) intelligence regarding the locations of suspect sites that Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al were ASSURING us that they knew about.

But no go. It was BUSH who forced the inspections to end before they could complete their job, Saddam WAS cooperating.

Your little fairy tale alternate history is totally bogus -- just like the bush junta's claims of WMD. They HAD to get the inspectors out of there, before the truth came out -- that there were NO WMD in Iraq.

The bush junta wanted this war -- they were set on it from the very beginning -- way before the 2000 election. It had NOTHING to do with terrorism, and everything to do with establishing a center of control in the Middle East.

Anyone with any intelligence and a grasp of geopolitics would be outright embarrassed to post such drivel here. But I guess that someone who believes that to end terrorism all you have to do "...is to go out there and kill them all" obviously hasn't the intellectual capacity to move beyond fairy tales into cold hard reality.

sw

[Pallas180]

38. Agree-here's cold hard reality: there are 1.5 BILLION Arabs &

260 million Americans.

In round figures that's 6 Arab Muslims to every man, woman, and child in America.

Now who do you think is going to win that fight?

[Matilda]

39. But isn't it scary what some people still believe,

even when reality is staring them in the face?

The Bush constituency of mindless idiots.

[CAcyclist]

34. Just Making It Up As You Go Along, Aintcha?

:eyes:

[Totally Committed]

18. Still doesn't make up for that

horrendous Ann Coulter cover...

I cancelled my subscription over that one!

TC

[ailsagirl]

40. Remember when they made him "Man of the Year?"

That was pretty unforgivable.

[EOTE]

43. Hitler was man of the year.....

And if you ask me, according to the criteria for the 'award', it seemed pretty appropriate. Not many people's lives weren't effected by that most evil of men. I think the same thing could be said of shrub.

[ailsagirl]

46. Yes, I remember emailing Time in protest and I received a very

interesting reply. I can't find it now, of course...

[Hissyspit]

22. We're guilty of using bad manners...

"It is, of course, bad manners to point the finger at anyone but those responsible for the killings in London. They shed the blood; they must answer for it."

I'm assuming they are referring to blaming just the terrorists. Below is my July 7 post on THAT matter:

If they had been running this kind of obvious, intelligent, truth-seeking analysis instead of John McCain's 9/11-anniversary editorial explaining why we just HAD to invade Iraq, maybe they wouldn't look so journalistically weak nowadays and we wouldn't have to be debating at who to point fingers. Plenty of people were prescient about this stuff, Time magazine. We don't need you to tell us what we knew two years ago. I realize a lot of people do, and therein lies the value to what you are doing, but, ooh, as contrition for the mass-psychotic bloodthirsty, brain-dead rush to use violence as foreign policy among our "press" that occurred two years ago, the best thing would have been to not behave in a way that required contrition.

"The Snake:" Blaming our Leaders vs. the Terrorists
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 02:35 PM by Hissyspit

The snake bares its teeth. I tell you not to try to touch the snake. Over and over again, I yell at you don't touch the snake. You insist on trying to touch the snake. "Don't touch the snake! It will kill you!" You reach out and grab the snake. It bites you.

You scream: "It's the snake's fault!"
"How can you blame me?! Put the blame where it belongs! On the snake!"

Or worse: The snake is clearly going to bite you. It's coming right at you. You are aware of this and everyone, including me, has been telling you it's coming for you. In response you go for another snake, a non-poisonous one that has been getting on your nerves, bit your father not long ago, and you really hate that snake.

So as the deadly snake comes for you, you go after the irritating non-poisonous snake. The deadly one bites you.

"Put the blame where it belongs! The snake bit me! How can you blame me??! You blame me first!"

My most sincere condolences to my British friends. I love London and loved being there, and I believe most of them understand these analogies, but clearly many Americans do not. Clearly the terrorists are snakes. Snakes can be battled and controlled and dealt with, but INTELLIGENTLY, not with alterior motives. I am horrified by these events, but not SURPRISED, anymore than I was surprised by the 9/11 attacks. I will call my British ex-girlfriend in a minute after she gets home from her teaching job and speak with her. She was the first person I called after the 9/11 attacks (I probably won't be able to get through to her today) and we both stood at the World Trade Center plaza on August 11 of 2001. She, a British citizen, is the person I spoke to then, as we looked at the memorial for the original WTC bombing, saying "I don't understand why people don't realize they will try it again. They won't use truck bombs, because they didn't work the first time." Then I went 'over there' to visit her and we spent time in the streets of London and the London Underground. I don't relate the innocent victims in the Tube stations and the bus with the ones playing with the snake, of course. I relate the LEADERS, the ones who claim to know better. Who SHOULD know better, or resign.

"Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here." Indeed. I think the British will blame the terrorists AND blame us for saying stupid things like that.

[savemefromdumbya]

28. Any fool would...

Any fool would have known that going into Iraq would make us less safe. Iraqis are not happy. Many people haven't even got electricity and water!

[KnightoftheRepublic]

37. what???

We're less safe because of Iraq?? But... but I thought war was peace, freedom was slavery and ignorance was strength!! NOOOOO BUSH, WHY HAVE YOU BETRAYED MEEEEEEEEE??????

[melissinha]

44. Hearts & Minds of Iraqis

I like how both sides like to guess and pose their opinions of what the Iraqis are thinking. I was reminded of this yesterday morning.. I think it was the Morning Sedition or was it the Majority Report.... Have we even TRIED to really see what the Iraqis want? Are there any good sources that we can look at...

I SUSPECT that we are right, but would like some good supporting information. I am just sick of all this "the voting turnout in Iraw reveals..." blah blah blah.

[NightOwwl]

47. Here you go...

Baghdad Burning: A young Iraqi woman writes about conditions in the country after the war.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

[melissinha]

48. Thank you

its now a "favorite".

Wow, an actual fact related answer to Bush's misleading platitudes.... very well done.