« Perhaps Michael Moore Should Have Interviewed Her | Home | Massachusetts Dems Couldn’t Care Less About The Will of The People »
Will This Be In Al Gore’s Next Speech?
By Matt Margolis | June 25, 2004
“They dare not admit the truth lest they look like complete fools for launching our country into a reckless, discretionary war against a nation that posed no immediate threat to us whatsoever,”
“So when the bipartisan 9/11 commission issued its report finding ‘no credible evidence’ of an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection, it should not have come as a surprise. It should not have caught the White House off guard.”
Maybe he needs a history lesson:
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein’s regime to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.
The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no “collaborative relationship” between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.
…
In fact, during President Clinton’s eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton’s defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Typical liberal “memory loss.”
Topics: In The News |
Related Posts:
June 25th, 2004 at 4:13 pm
Before you start talking about people being hypocritical, start looking at Bush’s comercials. One os his latest compares Kerry and his supporters to Hitler.
Now, anyone remember http://www.bushin30seconds.org? THey had a contest to make a comercial on Bush, and one of the ones sent in compared him to Hitler. Right wingers all over the country complained-justfully so, really. Making a comparison to Hitler is not something that should be taken lightly.
So why is he doing it back?
June 25th, 2004 at 4:59 pm
Kyle- I must’ve missed that ad. Although I did watch a cartoon where Donald Duck had a dream about living in Nazi Germany.
Seriously, though- if there is a commercial out there that compares Kerry to Hitler, it’s probably not sanctioned by President Bush.
At any rate, he’s more comparable to Neville Chamberlain.
Matt- Anything interesting planned for the 4th of July in this area?
-Bobby
June 25th, 2004 at 5:27 pm
kyle, if you are referring to the latest web ad on Bush’s site, those are clips of the MoveOn.org commercial… and clearly you missed the point completely.. the point of the commercial was to highlight the gross negativity and pessismism of the left including john kerry. i can’t believe you couldn’t figure that out.
June 25th, 2004 at 5:32 pm
Bobby, I think i’m in Gloucester on the 3rd, and then going to CT for the 4th… i don’t know what usually goes on around here…
June 25th, 2004 at 6:10 pm
So you’re saying Bush was lying when he said he doesn’t remember any memo stating that the US was under imminet threat from Al-Queda? Or are you saying Bush knew but chose to play golf and stay at his retreats during the summer preceding 911?
June 25th, 2004 at 7:55 pm
Actually, I didn’t notice the part where it said MoveOn.org. I just watched it again a noticed; thanks for pointing it out.
However, I’d like ask how criticizing the president is pessimism? Odd usage of the word. Once again, however, if I’m wrong simply inform me how
Oh, and it’s…interesting how much BOTH sides slander each other, then complain aobut the other side doing it. Sadly enough, I have yet to see a single ad that pro Kerry or Bush-all the ones I see are anti. These seem to be the most negativly run campaigns on both sides.
June 25th, 2004 at 11:21 pm
The fact the Iraq war was pre emptive makes it disorienting. The justification didn’t come in form of aggression on one side but information that is slowly and inconclusively being pieced together now. There is evidence of weapons programs and evidence of connections between Iraq and al Queada. But are there not other countries with more dangerous WMD programs and more involvement with al Queada? Could the US have used its resources elsewhere to more effectively fight terrorism with the aid of a larger and more willing coalition? I think about the Mexican-American war, Spanish-American war, and Vietnam war when I look at this Iraq War.
June 25th, 2004 at 11:57 pm
Todd,
The President has a staff of military communications people assigned to him. To put it in simplest terms - he could start a nuclear war between the hole on 9 and the tee on 10. The fact that he chooses to telecommute is irrelevent. Look past the hatred OK?
The way I see it - The primary threat was from Al-Queda in the US. Then from their stronghold in Afghanistan. We were in the process of negotiating and getting ready to go there? (I’m not the ONLY one who remembers this right?) There was a historical connection to Iraq, and actually to Saudi Arabia also. Even if in hindsight the evidence was weak that Iraq had WMD (which at least small amounts of have been found), the Government of the United States had a fiduciary duty to us to make damn sure they were not a threat. Under similar circumstances - we can only hope that Clinton, or Gore, or Kerry would have done the same thing.
June 26th, 2004 at 3:40 am
Interesting. There’s a connection to Saudi Arabia, but I’ll bet my life’s savings that we arn’t going to attack them
June 26th, 2004 at 7:59 am
Yes Kyle, I remember hearing something about Al Qaeda/Iraq conspiring to kill the royal family of saudi.
June 26th, 2004 at 10:36 am
Miles, the mistake you are making is that you are looking at Iraq as a stand-alone war. It is not, it’s just one battle in a much larger war.
Bush could have chosen several other places for the next battle, after Afghanistan, rightly or no, Iraq was the choice. I happen to think it was the right choice.
It put troops and bases into the geographic center of the area from which the lion’s share of Islamic terrorism comes.
Worried about Iran? We now have troops and bases on three land borders with Iran. We have them in Iraq, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. If we end up having to fight them, there isn’t a square inch of Iran that we can’t put land based aircraft over. We can send land forces in from three directions.
How about Syria? They’re stuck between Iraq and Israel.
Saudi Arabia? A long land border with Iraq.
Most of the battles in history were simply to put troops in a position to fight the next battle.
There were good reasons to go into Iraq, Saddam had to go and the world will be a better place when we see him dangling at rope’s end. More importantly, though, we have the troops and bases in place for the next step.
Best of all, simply having those troops and bases in place might, not real likely but might, make it unneccessary to fight one or more of those three countries.
I can’t see Syria, for instance, starting a fight with the Izzies again with the US Marine Corps and the First Armored Division at their back door.
June 26th, 2004 at 12:39 pm
Nice credible source, Matt. The Washington Times? What, are you a fucking Mooney?
June 26th, 2004 at 2:41 pm
Peter
I don’t think the United States is at war with Islam. I don’t view this as the same kind of war as you do. The CIA’s head of intelligence on Osama bin Laden believed strongly that Iraq was the wrong war to fight and that al Queada is against US policies rather than our way of life. Terrorism is a tactic, we’re at war with a form of religious fundamentalism. Destorying the support for this lunatic idealology is the only way to stop their terrorism. Invading and occupying Iraq, which is the second holiest place for Muslims gives the Islamic fundamentalists more fuel to recruit poor people under repressive governments. Empowering moderates, pressing for reform, and ending our need to intervene in that area is the only way to win this.
“Could the US have used its resources elsewhere to more effectively fight terrorism with the aid of a larger and more willing coalition”
With this statement I’m not calling for war with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, or North Korea. I mean massive international pressure on these countries.
June 26th, 2004 at 5:09 pm
Action jack, next time post intelligently. I don’t nkow what a “moonie” is, aside from an affectionate term for one of my friends. I really have no want to look it up.
But, just so you know, maybe if you post and add facts, coupled with links to prove said facts, people might give a damn about you. Hurling insults only makes you like idiotic.
And the comment on terrorism is correct. Terrorism isn’t a person. It’s not a group of people. It’s an idea. The only way to kill an idea is to destroy the situations that create it.
Example: Marx stated that workers would rise up and create a communist government. It didn’t happen because the workers, frankly, weren’t that dissatisfied. Because the reasons for the idea being implemented were removed, the idea itself died out (well, mostly died out. You can never completely get rid of an idea).
Invading Iraq did NOT bring down terrorism. If anything, it has raised resentment against the US in the Middle East, and has only brought terrorism UP.
June 27th, 2004 at 11:07 pm
Miles,
I’m sure that Al-Queda will save a nice soft non-hurting bullet for you. Peter did a good job. Four results from the war.
1- Libya abandoned their WMD program. Only someone with no grasp of what these weapons are rerally about would not applaud that.
2- Iran has come public about their WMD’s
3- We are in a position in the center of the region (as Peter describes) to counter a move by any nation in the area.
4- We have thrown a gigantic lighting rod into the center of hatred (well - almost,, Liberal Hollywood is pretty bad also) for the US. It is attracting every America hating wacko to Iraq, where we shoot them. say what you want about Iraq - there have been no bombings in Dallas, Kansas City, L.A., Chicago………
June 28th, 2004 at 3:07 am
On the Hitler add:http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-27-bush-hitler-ad_x.htm
Just as I thought; the add was indeed taken down shortly after being given and was not funded in any way by Kerry or his campaign.
So why does Bush keep it up? if the democratic party refuses to use it, why does Bush claim they do?
Oh, and Kahn? One, what’s this nonesense about a soft bullet? That made no sense and I didn’t find it relevant at all. Secondly, saying “Now people who hate America bomb other places!” is morally sick and disturbing.
And lastly, how does Liberal Hollywood hate America? Criticizing the president and hating the country are two entirely different things.
June 28th, 2004 at 6:15 pm
President Bush emphasized war as a last option, you point out the outcomes of the war even though strong diplomatic means were never applied to Iran or Libya. Because we are indeed in a strategic place in that area Muslims can now view us with greater distrust. I think Kyle addressed your other points very well.
June 30th, 2004 at 3:09 pm
Kyle,
the bullet point was to show that these people hate you as badf as they hate me and we are in this together.
And, yes I stand by the fact that many of the coalition of the wild-eyed hate America.
The point of Iraq attracting wackos is not sick. Sorry, but yes I’m partisan. I don’t want my 4 year old blown up - is that so bad? What I want is these guys to make themselves shown to Marines and soldiers so we can kill them. I believe in paece through victory and I honestly don’t care as much for non-Americans as I do for Americans when it comes to combat. Sue me.
June 30th, 2004 at 3:50 pm
Kahn, just because there has not been another terror attack on American soil does not mean the invasion of Iraq has prevented it or even diverted it. Invading a country without justification and then justifing it by saying “well its a lightening rod for terrorists” is not a justification at all. You could say the same if we invaded any country there for any reason, and its not like the bombing of the USS Cole was diverting terrorists from attacking our soil.
Here’s an analogy that might work, if we killed all the poor there would still be poverty. The root causes still exist and until you get rid of the root causes it will always exist. We can kill the terrorists but we’re not eliminating their reason for being angry, or their supporters, or their source of weapons, etc. I do not oppose violently attacking terrorists but your reasoning Kahn is flawed and unethical. I believe there have to be other approaches besides solely force.
June 30th, 2004 at 6:24 pm
Root causes - moonbat talking point # 61
June 30th, 2004 at 8:58 pm
Redneck, I have no idea what you just said.
Kahn: In what way do Kerry’s supporters hate America? Once again, please remember that anti-Bush and pro-Kerry are not the same thing.
Furthermore, I agree that they do indeed hate us. But, as I have said before, terrorism isn’t a group of people, it’s an idea. And continuously killing followers of that idea won’t lesson it’s pull. In some cases, it might strengthen them as the word “martyr” is called out.
June 30th, 2004 at 10:45 pm
Kerry and the liberal elite are completely willing to undermine the war effort to meet their personal goals. Kerry for example voted against supplying our troops with food, armor, and ammunition. They are quick to trivialize and distort our purpose - as above where it says we invaded with no valid reason - BULL. We thought he had nukes, gas, and missles. THAT WAS THE REASON. Everyone thought that. Kerry, Bush, Clinton - everyone. This constant needling of Bush. Bush is not just a guy - to the world he represents the United States. This constant referral to Iraq as a quagmire - which it is not - makes the terrorists look and say “hey, its working!” Republicans have NEVER treated the president this way during war.
June 30th, 2004 at 10:47 pm
And… We have dealt with religious fanatics before - the Japanese. The answer? Expect no quarter and give no quarter. We solved that problem one flame filled cave at a time. Martyr? There has to be someone alive to honor a maryr.
July 1st, 2004 at 2:09 am
There are huge differences between this and Japan. We arn’t attacking a nation when we attack “terrorism.” You keep missing that point. If you nuked the entire Middle East-bombed the whole area to charcoal, there would STILL be terrorism.
As for Bush being “the United States…” Hey? Guess what? Most the world hates us. So I guess most the world hates Bush
July 1st, 2004 at 2:07 pm
Japan, because it was a nation state rather than a fanatic organization, had moderates in power who could be convinced to end the war. I’ve heard about all the suicide weapons and civilian mobs armed with primitive weapons, there were extremely fanatical leaders in Japan but there were still others in power, like the Emperor, who knew they could not win a war of attrition when one bomb could level a city. After the war we still had to pacify them, like deNazification in Germany, dispelling the bullshit the Japanese people had been fed and showing them we were there to help. Islamic fundamentalism is all fanatics, we can’t eliminate them solely by pummeling them into submission because I doubt they can be convinced to stop, they have to be discredited so their numbers do not replenish after we arrest or kill some.
July 1st, 2004 at 4:39 pm
Hey, as it goes, you can’t have “fundamental” without “mental” :p