In Case Any of you libarals have forgotten....

Ok, liberal-basher,

that explains Afghanistan, but what has any of that to do with Iraq, where most the casualties occur and where tons of tax dollars are being spent?

 

This was only part of the reason we invaded Iraq because they were harbouring terrorists from Afganistan fleeing the American invasion. One of the other reasons was because they refused to allow free and open inspections of their WMD's in accordance with the cease fire agreement 12 years before. Saddam took a chance and lost. Now his tyrant sons are dead, and he is in prison. Too bad for him. Iraq has a democratically elected government and a unity government and the Democrats are having a fit. Too bad for them. Now, Zarqawi is dead and someone from within his own organization tipped the Americans off, which is a sign that his terror organization is crumbling. Too bad for them. I assume the Liberals and Isolationists are mad because this war wasn't over in 4 days like it was in the first Gulf War. Probably the reason for that is because we have a president who is intent on actually winning the war this time and actually changing the face of the Middle East, beginning in the heart of the Middle East. And you know what? Our military is doing it.

BTW, Windork,

Although I agree with the sentiments of your videos, I think you should be careful to point out two things:

1. 9-11, although it may have been the impetous for the war in Iraq, it is certainly not the only reason we went to war.

and

2. Those of you who have young children around may want to pass on the video as there is some harsh language on it due to the shock of what just happened.

Joseph Botwinick

 

To be honest with you, I don't even remember how they proved Afghanistan.

All I remember was: we think Bin Laden did it...then it changed to just Bin Laden did it..
tell a lie long enough and loud enough....
But even then, nothing to do with Iraq.

 

I believe OBL took credit for it via video taped message.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Nah-uh. The Bush administration never said the terrorists in Iraq had fled from Afganistan - the neocons pretended that they had been there all along, all part of the same network.

Nah-uh! That was the initial ploy, but Saddam faked them out by allowing the inspectors back in November 2002. The Bush administration made the inspectors leave before they had finished inspecting in March 2003 because the Bushies said the danger was so great - mushroom clouds in 45 minutes - that we had to attack pre-emptively despite the fact that Saddam had not threatened the US and had started co-operating.

Yeah, he took a chance that letting the inspectors back in and co-operating with them would keep the Bush administration from using that as an excuse for invading his country - and lost big time.

Even though the people didn't know who they were voting for and all candidates were vetted and apportioned by the US, there was a good election. I haven't seen a single Democrat throwing a fit about that, so I assume you're just, um, exaggerating for rhetoric's sake.

That is nearly universally applauded.

Um, it was Rumsfeld who claimed that it would be, remember Shock and Awe? And, in fact, the Iraqi national army fell quite quickly, remember Mission Accomplished? So, you assume wrongly.

The liberals I know are mad because the country was allowed to descend into chaos, civil war and ruin because more planning, troops and money were put into securing the oil fields than into securing civil order and Iraq's borders.

I don't know, but the Isolationists might be mad because we invaded a country that posed little threat to us.

The administration has been criminal in its act of war against a sovereign nation and in its treatment of prisoners. The president has been inept in his administration. If what you say is true, then he lied about not wanting to "nation-build".

 

Good points Daisy!

 

Even Bush now vigorously denies that he said Saddam had anything to do iwth 9/11, it's not too bright to use it as a justification for invading Iraq.

And it certainly doesn't justify the incredible bungling of the post-invasion, which led to more deaths than the invasion itself.

"Partiotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

True as ever.

 

I don't believe Bush ever used 9-11 as a justification for invading Iraq. Perhaps, you might post a quote to support your assertion? I believe one of the many reasons for the invasion of Iraq was their alliance with the terrorists in Afganistan, much the same as was seen in Germany's alliance with Japan. At no time did Germany attack America at Pearl Harbour. It was the Japenese who did that. It was their alliace with Japan that got them in trouble.

Joseph Botwinick

 

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" - John Belushi as Bluto in National Lampoon's Animal House

 

How about this special report from Hardball?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y12O_KpWto

Or this from Countdown with Keith Olberman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKd71JxEYzE
Warning for sensitive ears: While not using the word, but an allusion to it, Olberman says at the end, "who does the President think he's ***ing kidding" These are the last words in the clip, so if you want, you can kill it right at the end.

 

Plus say what you will about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, but here is a short clip from the film with Condoleeza Rice stating, just 39 seconds into the clip, "There is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pUq73vk7Rg

 

Germany formally declared war on the US. Iraq did not declare war on the US. See the difference?

 

JB,

Dontcha know, Joe, you can't be confusing these folks with facts. They'd just rather go on believing that Bush launched a missile from a UFO in outer space.

Regardless of what OBL said about it. They just know Bush is to blame for 9/11.

 

FTR, who claimed W is to blame for 9/11?

 

What's a libaral?

 

Amazing!

Joseph ask for proof that the Bush administration linked the 9/11 attacks with Saddam Hussein; MP gives the proof; and you post what you did saying, "you can't be confusing these folks with the facts."

Seems like you are the one who is "confusing...the facts." Can you respond to what the Bush administration said without all the rhetoric?

 

Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).


Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.


<snip>



The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.


· Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003



SOURCE

 

I thought those guys pronounced it "libruls."

 

They did, however, declare war on us the day after Pearl Harbor. It was part of the agreement with Japan.

We merely recognized that they were at war with us.