Bush says US is in Iraq because of attacks on US

[Kmarx]

Well here we go again with Mr. Idiocy on Two Feet; Mr. Stupidity Personified. According to the big asshole we are in Iraq because of 9/11! I thought only that venomous viper Cheney (Crotalus Atrox) believed (or pretended to believe) such nonsense. If you want to read the complete article: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050618/ts_alt_afp/usiraqbushattacks_050618171549

Here are a few questions and comments I have about some of his recent words:

---------------------------------------------------

President George W. Bush defended the war in Iraq, telling Americans the United States was forced into war because of the September 11 terror strikes.

Bush also resisted calls for him to set a timetable for the return of thousands of US troops deployed in Iraq, saying Iraqis must be able to defend their own country before US soldiers can be pulled out.

• What makes dimwit think that the Iraqi’s will ever be ready to defend their own country when he telegraphed the message that we will stay and carry the burden of war as long as they can’t defend themselves? Hell, they’ll just sit back and let America do the dirty work!

"Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world’s terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror," said the president.

• Oh really nitwit! It seems to me that under Saddam it wasn’t the centerpiece of terrorism. It appears that only after we invaded was it ‘the place to be’ for terrorists, ergo, you dimwit, have made Iraq the centerpiece for terrorism. Quod erat demonstrandum

"These foreign terrorists violently oppose the rise of a free and democratic Iraq, because they know that when we replace despair and hatred with liberty and hope, they lose their recruiting grounds for terror," he argued.

• Sorry jackass but they can recruit from just about any country in the world, including our own – and have! The only people having trouble recruiting these days are the American Armed Forces!

"Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home."

• Hmmm, let’s see if I got this straight – because we are in Iraq the terrorists, who have a world-wide network and a lot of cash to boot, can’t spare a dozen or so operatives to set off some car bombs here in the US. All they need are a few suicidal screwballs and a few bucks for explosives coupled with porous Mexican and Canadian borders, which they have had for years, including after 9/11! I find it really difficult to accept the premise that out presence in Iraq is in any way a ‘protective shield’ against terrorists.

Bush, who was to welcome Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari for his first visit to the White House on Friday, ruled out any hard and fast timetable for withdrawing the 130,000 US soldiers currently deployed in Iraq and made it clear that it will not be anytime soon.

• Hey, asshole how about this – set a reasonable timetable to withdraw. This will kick the Iraqi’s in their butts and hopefully get them going on the defense of their country. Set the timetable and let’s see what happens. If they still haven’t got their act together then the hell with them, they’ll never have it together. (Or is it the belief of your henchmen, led by the evil one himself Mr. Halliburton, that we must stay in Iraq forever to protect the oil interests for your friends in the business?)

"…. We will settle for nothing less than victory."

• Sieg Heil! Sieg Hiel! Sieg Heil!
  

[still_one]

1. why don't the democrats in Congress call him on it?

Why doesn't the MSM call him on it

The president has no clothes

[MichiganVote]

2. Awhile ago a 19 year old young woman was killed in Iraq

"Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home." George Bush, 2005

I don't want another 19 year old killed for me or for my family. Send the terrorists here George Bush, I'll take my chances. Lord knows I have a better against them than you'll ever have.

[Kmarx]

7. There is a sad part to all of this.

Bush has not idea that we will lose in the end because he is dumb enough to believe that we can win. He doesn't realize that the insurgents are from that region and know the culture, values and the many intricacies of the area and people. They know how to make it work for them. Bush has no clue; Cheney is motivated only to pay back his corporate benefactors (they didn't send him off with $40 million his last year at Halliburton because of his good looks); Rumsfeld is not sure what day it is; his neocons have their own agenda when it comes to the Middle East. It's really pathetic what's going on in this country. We have a halfwit at the helm of the USS Titanic with Cheney and the rest of the crew telling Bush and the rest of us that the ship is in no danger of sinking even after having hitting the iceberg and suffering a mortal wound to its hull!

[MichiganVote]

13. And just as the Titanic, not enough lifeboats for all of us.

They have theirs though, no question about that.

[TexasLawyer]

16. Bush is not a half-wit

He and his crew have been clever enough to subvert democracy, loot the federal treasury, take over the media and embroil this country in a war that they carefully packaged and marketed to a gullible population.

Bush is not short on brains. The thing this guy is short on is any shred of a conscience.

[Turbineguy]

3. In a way Bush is right

but not for the reason he states. If we are at all safer from terrorists in the US it is only because he and his fellow travelers are doing their work for them. It's true, we have no suicide bombers but we have the Neocons.

Al Qaeda wants to kill Americans. Bush relaxes environmental standards to increase the level of pollutants.

AL Qaeda wants to bankrupt America. Bush takes us from surpluses to deficits that can never be paid off and if the interest rates rise significantly the Government may have to default.

Everything Ossama wants, Bush gives him.

[bowens43]

4. So president dumbfuck thinks that it's ok

to invade another country and to murder innocent people so that we don't have to worry about being attacked here? What an arrogant, ignorant,cowardly, dishonorable piece of human garbage.

It's no wonder I become nauseous every time I hear that asshole's voice.

[donco6]

5. I couldn't believe this one:

"Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world’s terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror," said the president.

* Oh really nitwit! It seems to me that under Saddam it wasn’t the centerpiece of terrorism. It appears that only after we invaded was it ‘the place to be’ for terrorists, ergo, you dimwit, have made Iraq the centerpiece for terrorism. Quod erat demonstrandum

What a maroon. He's making the case against himself.

[Kmarx]

8. Yes, donco6

Bush is making a case against himself! That's why I have no recourse but to call him: nitwit, dimwit, asshole, big asshole, shithead, moron, idiot (I would go on but I am running out of ink. I'm sure you'll forgive me.)

[EVDebs]

9. Yo Kmarx ! Bush & co are twisting slowly in the winds of the DSM

www.afterdowningstreet.org and the Request for Inquiry WILL ultimately bring our troops home. We'll get our act together, and even do as Thomas Friedman says in his article

'save us oh toyota'
www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/17/opinion/edfried.php

one of the only times I've agreed with this nitwit globalizer, since it results in the exact opposite of globalization: regional small-scale economies. Funny how he contradicts himself that way !

Anyhow, once Impeached and once our troops come home, we can concentrate on defending ourselves and the world can take care of itself. In 35 years the oil will be running out...then Al Quaeda will be 'eating it's own'.

[Kmarx]

11. EV

Thanks for reminding me about the Downing Street Memo. In your honor I will post it for all to read:

The Secret Downing Street Memo

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING From: Matthew Rycroft Date: 23 July 2002 S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Rich-ards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER’S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam’s regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

1. Generated Start. A slow buildup of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
   
   
2. Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

1. Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
   
   
2. As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
   
   
3. As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam. He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal
advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

[EVDebs]

14. Thanks, KM, btw, did you see Friedman's article saying "More Troops"?

"Maybe it is too late, but before we give up on Iraq, why not actually try to do it right? Double the American boots on the ground and redouble the diplomatic effort to bring in those Sunnis who want to be part of the process and fight to the death those who don't."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/opinion/15friedman.html?incamp=article_popular

Ummm. I don't think we've got the spare 250,000 troops (without a draft) to 'do it right' as Friedman implies. Maybe the DoD should've thought of this little item BEFORE diving in, ya'think ?

[Kmarx]

15. Yes I read Friedman's article.

Nothing new here. Yes we are losing in Iraq and have tried to run the war like a business where money is the bottom line. One often hears politicians say that we must run the government like a company. The problem is, to use an analogy: government is to business as apple is to orange! Businesses do not concern themselves with maintaining an educational system, police and fire departments, public works, road and highway maintenance, seeing that no one has to live on the street, seeing to it that certain services are available to the residents of the towns, states and the USA, e.g., things like public health inspections of restaurants, schools, markets and so on. Businesses know only profit to the exclusion of all else which might marginalize that profit. The Rumsfeld Doctrine, that is, to fight a war on a tight budget shows just how much our leaders care about those in harm's way! It shows where the true emphasis is -- the bottom line. Just listen to the soldiers who complain that they are still awaiting properly armored vehicles!

I hate Friedman for his stances on globalization and his interventionists policies (which are a sine non qua to globalism) but he is right when he infers that we cannot fight a war on a tight budget. How we would double the 'boots on the ground' as he suggests and at the same time maintain the means to fight a war on two fronts, which is what the Pentagon says we must have, is hard to understand.

Regarding the draft I heard a neocon on The McLaughlin Group Sunday -- Tony Blankley -- mention something that I think will be repeated over and over in the near future. He said that in time we will probably need a draft. This is the first step by one of the Bush people to start getting the public used to the thought of a draft. In a few years unless this country gets good leadership in the White House and the Congress, I'm afraid we will see the draft reinstated. My own feelings are that the true leaders of America, the corporations and major stockholders in these corporations, will insist that the US continue to play a major role in world politics. The reason -- globalization! As the corporations and super-rich invest more and more in other regions of the world, some superpower (guess who) will need to suppress any uprisings and upheavals in a variety of countries to protect the investments of the true rulers of America. Hold on to your seats folks, we are in for a rough ride in the coming years!

[EVDebs]

18. Credibility gap, destroy the village to save it, escalation....

These words are all coming back to haunt us because the Powell Doctrine was thrown overboard in Bush's rush to go into Iraq. The military, who knows better, allowed themselves to be used in this way. Military intelligence knew better but let it happen because they are suckups to the rightwingnuts.

QUOTATION: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
ATTRIBUTION: George Santayana (1863–1952), U.S. philosopher, poet.
Life of Reason, 'Reason in Common Sense,' ch. 12 (1905-6).

[Kmarx]

22. EV

I might recommend that you send Bush:
--------------------------------------
QUOTATION: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

ATTRIBUTION: George Santayana (1863–1952), U.S. philosopher, poet.
Life of Reason, 'Reason in Common Sense,' ch. 12 (1905-6).
--------------------------------------
The problem is that old jackass would think that the quotation is from a 60's album by Carlos Santana!

[uppityperson]

6. Technically he's right, they are all bushlies.

"President George W. Bush defended the war in Iraq, telling Americans the United States was forced into war because of the September 11 terror strikes." True-USA was forced by him and his evil minions using 9/11 as an excuse.

"Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world’s terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror," said the president. Tue-Mr.bush and his evil minions are those terrorists.

"These foreign terrorists violently oppose the rise of a free and democratic Iraq, because they know that when we replace despair and hatred with liberty and hope, they lose their recruiting grounds for terror," he argued. True-another pot/kettle, talking about themselves as foreign terrorists and USA losing recruiting grounds, will need draft soon to maintain it.

"Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home." True-I am not having to face our troops here in the USA.

"…. We will settle for nothing less than victory."
Way Sieg Heil!

[pacalo]

10. "We went to war because we were attacked..."

That's why Afghanistan was attacked. It doesn't apply to the Iraq war.

"...but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror..."

Yes, Iraq is a central front for anti-American forces thanks to Bush*. And no, they are not all "terrorists". They are defending their home & don't want the U.S. there.

Exactly why did he want this unnecessary war & why did he lie to us about it? What happened to the $8 billion of our taxpayer money that is unaccounted for? And why aren't our troops provided necessary protection gear out of the $82 billion appropriated for this war? Where's the money going?

*Bush = PNAC-appointed, illegimately "elected" president. Twice unwanted by the majority of the American people.

[Bravo411]

12. Bush Again Spouting BULLSHIT About The War In Iraq

Bush claims that America was forced into the war because of the terrorist attacks of September 11.

In the recent radio address to the nation, Bush states that "We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens," referring to why we went into Iraq.

Even though none of those involved in 9-11 were from Iraq and it has been proven that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Quida, Bush continues to maintain a connection of Iraq to the attacks of 9-11.

Bush also says, "Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror."

No, I don't agree that terrorists have made Iraq the central front. Bush made Iraq the central front by invading a sovereign middle-eastern nation based on a pack of lies, which he continues to tell.

Bush continues to re-use his favorite catch-phrases when he states, "Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home."

The people we are fighting in Iraq are not terrorists, they are insurgents. There's a big difference. An insurgency is defined as an uprising against an established authority. In the case of Iraq, it is the people who are fighting against the political and governmental authority the U.S. put in place.

They don't want a puppet regime with America pulling the strings. They don't want us occupying their land. They don't want us destroying their cities, blowing up their schools and hospitals, killing inocent Iraqis, dumping toxic depleted-uranium everywhere -which causes sickness and death not just in the people exposed but in future generations for thousands of years.

Terrorism knows no boundaries. It can not be contained by borders, oceans, or mountains. There is no way to stop a terrorist organization from launching an attack on U.S. soil.

Sure we may have taken the fight to them, forcing members of terrorist organizations to engage in fighting away from America, but how much longer will it be before we're flanked and IED's start going off at Wal-Mart?

The longer we continue this exercise in empire building, the more enemies we are going to make, and the sooner we'll see the fight brought back to us.

[killbotfactory]

17. We're in Iraq DESPITE attacks on the US

Iraq didn't do shit to us, Al Qaeda did.

[Ksec]

19. Thats THIS week

wait a while. Itll be another reason. I lost count of the number of reasons they used at around 20.

[CBHagman]

20. I noticed that, and also the use of the Frank Luntz talking points.

Once more, for all of whose who haven't heard it, Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, did some focus group work and instructed Republican senators and representatives to say, at every opportunity, the following stock phrases or some variation thereof:

*9/11 changed everything.

*It's better to fight the terrorists on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington.

Besides being cynical and manipulative, the second statement is just plain WRONG. Not one of the 19 hijackers was from Iraq, nor did they attack through Iraq, nor did they attack on behalf of Iraq. Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and of course they were here in the United States and had spent time in other Western countries (e.g., Germany).

Moreover, the 9/11 hijackers used ordinary planes and the element of surprise, not a military fighting force or/and WMDs or conventional weapons.

Timothy McVeigh didn't attack through Iraq, either, and neither did the people who did the bombings in Bali and in Madrid. The same goes for the attacks on the African embassies in the 1990s.

So going to war in Iraq wouldn't have stopped September 11th and isn't a rational response to September 11th. In fact, people such as Michael Scheuer, formerly of the CIA, regard the war in Iraq as a dangerous detour from the war on terror.

I don't know why the media in general, the White House press corps in particular, everyone on the 9/11 commission, the CIA, the FBI, and all the survivors of the 9/11 victims haven't jumped down the throats of Frank Luntz, Bush, and any Republican who uses the above talking points. I haven't dared mention this business to those friends and family members who lost family and co-workers in the attacks. I can imagine how they would react...

[laugle]

21. Gee, I'm sure the people of Iraq will really

love us now after that speech!!! Just what they always wanted, the terrorist capital of the world! What happened to his "freedom and democracy crap"!!!
Just shows how desperate they are getting. Same old tired bullshit!!