July 18, 2007
The Big Lie of George W. Bush (Brent Budowsky)
It is repeated today by Republicans on the floor of the Senate and restated on this site, only yesterday, and it goes like this:
The Democrats have an al Qaeda problem, and this war, which was started with the Big Lie that claimed it was necessary to defeat bin Laden, must be continued to promote the Big Lie that to change the policy would help the terrorists, when the exact opposite is true.
How odd that the title of Al Gore's brilliant film, "An Inconvenient Truth," is used to repeat this falsehood, when Gore's brilliant book, The Assault on Reason, was the most sweeping and devastating destruction of this lie that created 3,600 Gold Star Mothers and allowed bin Laden to escape, regroup and gain strength.
George Bush and John McCain will be proven right about Iraq? No, the only question left is how many must continue to die for the vile, wrong, self-destructive war and how far the Senate Republicans will go to let this travesty continue, even though most of them know it is wrong, even though it is the cancer that is destroying the Republican Party.
The new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is not an argument to continue the status quo disaster but an argument to end it.
The NIE makes it clear why American troops should not give their lives to perform the function of the Baghdad police supporting a corrupt Iraqi government, a death squad-infiltrated Iraq police, and an Iraqi army that after years of alleged American training has gone down in readiness after the surge, according to our own commanders.
George Bush and John McCain will be proven right? The NIE makes it clear that our troops should be redeployed to concentrate on the fight against al Qaeda outside of Baghdad, and to protect the borders across which arms and terrorists enter Iraq.
The NIE makes it clear that George Bush's Iraq war has created more terrorists than it killed, diverted both our military and intelligence from the real threat, and destabilized and destroyed our global military force structures at the very moment Bush's policies have created more terrorists and allowed bin Laden to regroup and gain strength.
Democrats have an al Qaeda problem?
George Bush and John McCain will be proven right?
George Bush will be morally impeached by history for that blood-stained moment when we could have killed bin Laden at Tora Bora, and George Bush said no to our Special Forces, who were pleading for reinforcements, because he was so obsessed with fighting this Iraq war that has done so much damage to our country, our troops, our credibility in the world, and the real threat that George Bush neglected.
The war against the real enemy, bin Laden, was neglected to create a war against a threat that only existed in the Big Lie talking points of neoconservative delusions, pushed by a president who is an incompetent commander in chief, promoted through fear, advanced by lies, deformed by cruel deployment of troops, pursued with torture that created countless new terroristis, covered up by commutations and protected with coming pardons, issued by leaders who fear convicted criminals and liars will turn state's evidence against those who abused the oath of office.
The Big Lie that we had to invade Iraq because of bin Laden; the Big Lie that have to continue this tragedy because we should be afraid of terrorism; the Big Lie that we promote liberty and fight terrorism with torture chambers; the Big Lie that we should be ruled by fear rather than courage; the Big Lie that we win hearts and minds with corrupt occupations and over a hundred thousand unregulated mercenaries; the Big Lie that we support our troops with cruel deployments and preventable deaths and scandals that plague wounded troops and disabled heroes.
Which of these will George Bush and John McCain be proven right about?
George Bush's Big Lie is based on the deadly falsehood that something has gone terribly and tragically wrong and we should continue it, and escalate it, and repeat the catastrophes in even larger ways, with ever greater death, and even greater damage to our military and our spirit.
No, Democrats do not have an al Qaeda problem.
America has an al Qaeda problem, and the reason is George W. Bush, who lacked the vigilance before Sept. 11, and then shamefully exploited Sept. 11 for a policy of delusion and destruction that the American people, and our friends throughout the free world, want ended here, now, once and for all.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 39 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I usually don't agree with you Brent, but in this case, I have to tell you that this is a very good article. I'm a Republican and a Conservative, but I DO NOT support the current state of the war in Iraq. It is time to go. We should have left after we captured Saddam Hussain, leaving just a small force to guard him and train the Iraqi forces. This is the Iraqis' country, they need to stand up and protect it. With the word that al Qeada is back to full force and planning an attack on U.S. soil, we need our full military strength here.
If Bush is too stubburn or hardheaded to see that, then he needs to be impeached for the good of the country. And if lives are lost on American soil because he refused to bring the troops home to protect us here, he deserves to be tried, convicted and hung for treason.
Comment by John Simmons — July 18, 2007 @ 9:00 am
Brent, as usual, you have made yourself the equivalent of the Bizarro Superman in the comics. Hello is goodbye, and walking and thinking backwards is the norm. The first reported miss of Bin Ladin was during the Clinton administration when the President couldn't be located for a few hours. Then there was the Jamie Gorelick Wall which prevented the various elements of the intelligence community from communication with each other and uncovering the plot. That was identified in the 9/11 Commission Report so don't deny it. The fact is, the democrats don't have the political power to pull out of Iraq and you know it. All they can do is much what you do, wring your hands and bemoan Bush. Where is the leadership in that? Bush isn't running again and it's amazing that this close to an election cycle there's no talk about how bright the future is, simply bemoaning the realities of the War on Terror. The only platform the democrats have created is they are invested in our defeat while proclaiming they support the troops. The public isn't buying it and that's why the rating of Congress is the lowest in history. Instead of addressing that fact, the democrats seem determined to do a death spiral to the bitter predictable end.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 18, 2007 @ 9:23 am
According to Michael Ware, CNN correspondent, Al Qaeda only makes up about 3 percent of the insurgency in Iraq. Ware who was not for a pullout has finally had it I think. He said that the Bush admin was playing the American people by trumping up the influence of Al Qaeda.
This is the bottom line, we are there for oii. As Jim Jubak has written, there is no more cheap oil. The exception that he does not mention are the Iraq reserves. That is the only cheap oil left and our government wants to steal it. Here is the Jubak link: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/TheOilSqueezeHasJustBegun.aspx
It is way past time to EVER believe ANYTHING that George Bush or Dick Cheney say. If you do you are a Dubya Dupe. We can no longer trust or believe the commander and thief.
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 18, 2007 @ 9:34 am
Rosecranz, you are a Republikan shill, repeating proven false righty-tighty talking points. Clinton tried on several occasions to get bin Laden (not that it would have helped, since there is credible evidence he wasn't really the one who ordered or planned 9/11; you idiots need to look much closer to home for the real criminals), but was unable to manage it due to the poor view of America in that part of the world even then (and it is far, far worse now, thanks to the crimes of Dumbya). You need to wake up, take off your binders, drink some of the coffee you smell, and realize you have been played like a fine violin by Dumbya, Unka Dickhead, and the rest of the neocon criminals.
Comment by Nunya Beezwax — July 18, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
You are either blinded by your hatred of the President or incapable of strategic thinking. "defeating terrorism is the cancer of the Republican Party"? The "cancer" is people that think like you or more importantly don't understand the cancer is Islamic terrorism around the world and it must be stopped no matter where it rears its ugly head; including Iraq.
Comment by Rich — July 18, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Rich, scare me with a terrorist. Gag me with a lie. We aren't scared of the neocon lies anymore. We are scared of the neocons however.
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 18, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
A lot of the recent Democratic-sponsored legislation is focused on narrowing the mission in Iraq to just fight Al Qaeda and train the Iraqis. As John McCain said last night (and I personally said a lot earlier) when someone is laying an IED they are not wearing a t-shirt with the words "Al Qaeda". If you restrict the American troops to just fighting Al Qaeda in terms of allowable combat, you are creating such rules of engagement that hundreds more Americans will dies simply because they are not allowed to defend themselves until a positive identification of the enemy is made. This is just one example of what the Democrats are: idiotic to the point of causing deaths of American soldiers.
If the American forces were not attacked, they would only train the Iraqi security forces and not engage in combat. Therefore restricting them to training is one more example of the idiotic positions the the Demcorats take.
Restricting the American troops to fight only outside of Baghdad, or in fact in any particular theater will not work: the terrorists will not respect these restrictions and will immediately orchestrate spectacular attacks of unimaginable intensity where they are not controlled. It will not be possible for the Americans to stand idly by as thousands of Iraqis are killed in a matter of days, not years. But the blame will be on George Bush.
I can go on and on with exposing the idiocy, the utter lack of seriousness, the underlying desire to paint George Bush into an even tighter corner that all Democratic and even Lugar-type proposals have. But I won't. Those who can't be convinced by the above examples never will be. But to me it's clear: the Democrats do have an Al Qaeda problem: they have no idea how to fight it, no desire to fight it, and no understanding of where its and other terrorists motivation comes from. They encourage it by their endless denigration of any serious efforts to combat it, when convenient they paint Bin Laden as the complete incarnation of Al Qaeda whose capture is the holy grail, and when otherwise convenient paint it as an organization which can only be strengthened by fighting it. In summary: ignorant or malicious, they are the fifth column of America, the enemy within.
Comment by Igor R. — July 18, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Nynya is a good example of the brain-dead reasoning of the MoveOn crowd. Do you want to trust people who listen to this ingenious and clearly rational thought process? Then support Harry Reid!
Comment by Igor R. — July 18, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
You're know you're hitting home runs when the leftists start with the Neocon labeling.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 18, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
"You’re know you’re hitting home runs when the leftists start with the Neocon labeling."
"leftists"
"neocons"
Snort.
Your "home run" was a foul to right field.
When anyone starts pointing fingers at the other party, I stop paying attention.
Anyone who can't tell they're being screwed by both political parties deserves everything they've got coming to them…namely, more of the same.
Comment by Steve — July 18, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Your hitting home runs, Rosencrans, just like Mccain did when he pretended to be safe in Iraq, and just like Kristol did when he said we were winning. Those are real neocons, Mccain late to the neocon game. How about the neocon homerun about WMD's?
They did hit one real homerun, Rosencrans, and that was 9/11. It is beyond doubt that building 7 was detonated, and it was a free fall all the way around. Since that building housed the CIA and enron/California evidence, and since it was indeed pulled as the owner said, that makes Bush/Cheney accessories before the fact. That is murder Rosencrans. Here is the link again: http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 18, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
No, DEM just have their Bush's Big Lay problem.
Comment by Vic Anderson — July 18, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
It is so interesting to see the level of debate between those that understand Iraq and those that don't; fact vs. name calling. Hmmm…
Comment by Rich — July 18, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Gary,
WTC7 was not brought down by expolosives. Name one demolition expert who thinks or will state that the term "pull" refers to the destrcution of a building through controlled demolition.
Man, put down the bong!!!
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 18, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
"when we could have killed bin Laden at Tora Bora, and George Bush said no to our Special Forces, who were pleading for reinforcements, because he was so obsessed with fighting this Iraq war"..Dude, you need to check your chronology and get a pill for your Bush derangement syndrome!
Comment by J. Amoros — July 18, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Rosencranz, your homerun was on a little league field.
Comment by Chuck Schaeffer — July 18, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
Seem to have hit a home run with bases loaded.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 18, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Jon I just gave you the link in #11. A structural engineer has more understanding of buildings than any explosive expert could hope to have.
David, check this out:
I think that it is amazing that Lee Harvey Oswald made acquaintance with Georges de Mohrenschildt, a Russian count with extensive ties to the CIA. DeMohrenschildt also went to work for Prescott Bush in 1938. That de Mohrenschildt brought LHO to Dallas. That de Mohrenschildt and his wife helped LHO get the job at the Texas Book Depository. And that de Mohrenschildt had the name "Poppy" Bush and phone number in his address book when he was found dead of a "suicide" the day that the investigator from the senate select committee on assassinations was set to interview him. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdemohrenschildt.htm
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 18, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
And here are demolition experts from India who clearly use the word "pulled" regarding demolition Jon. I don't know why you give us such propaganda here. Again this proves you are wrong:
Part of the art of implosion demolition involves slowing the event down in many small, calculated blasts instead of one huge explosion. The explosives will shatter the concrete around the reinforcing rods of the column that part of the building quickly begins to fall. If enough columns are shattered, the building will collapse. The art of demolition, knows which part of the building to take out at each moment, over a period of few seconds or so.
As per the design, the first blasting takes place the weight of the structure will begin to PULL the building down in a controlled direction. The remaining charges fire at preset intervals of about one second, fracturing the structure's internal supports, weakening it from the inside out. Then, as it falls, the once strong structure's own weight tears it apart leaving nothing but a pile of pulverized concrete and reinforcing rod.
http://www.buildingdemolisher.com/
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 18, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
And here was a link published in 1996 showing demolition experts Pulling a building in Vancouver BC. This demolition results in a free fall using gravity as the Indian website above explains. It is a violation of the second law of Thermodynamics for building 7 to have spontaneously fallen. This makes Bush an accessory before the fact. Your hero is a devil. Here is the quote Jon:
"For a tall building like Pacific Palisades, the charges on the lowest floors and in the basement fire first, chopping the base from under part of the building and leaving part intact to act as a kind of hinge. The weight of the structure will begin to PULL the building down in a controlled direction. The remaining charges fire at preset intervals of about one second, fracturing the structure's internal supports, weakening it from the inside out. Then, as it falls, the once strong structure's own weight tears it apart leaving nothing but a pile of pulverized concrete and reinforcing rod." http://www.pacificblasting.com/implosionstory.html
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 18, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
The mental image of George Bush carelessly not capturing Bin Laden at Tora Bora because he was distracted by Iraq is itself based on the Bush derangement syndrome. When you keep calling someone a stupid chimp, patterns of behavior more appropriate to young children can seem natural for the President of the United States.
Comment by Igor R. — July 18, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Take a look at this link. This shows buildings demolished by demolition explosives. Gravity brings the buildings down. You can see demolitions here that look exactly like WTC 7.
Here is a quote saying that to have a building fall as WTC 7 fell requires expertise that only a handful of companies have:
"Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it." http://www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm
On the third page here is another quote asking how a building can free fall:
"Typically, the actual implosion only takes a few seconds. To many onlookers, the speed of destruction is the most incredible aspect of an implosion. How can a building that took months and months to build, and stood up to the elements for a hundred years or more, collapse into a pile of rubble as if it were a sand castle?"
To the author it wouldn't happen with some fire on some of the floors, that is for sure. Wake up people!!
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 19, 2007 @ 2:59 am
General Igor, the Commander of the Chicken Hawks has postulated another piece of military strategy. Democrats don't know how to fight Al Quaeda? Has the GOP and the idio Bush done a great job? Is Igor their closet war czar? Getting out of Baghdad won't work. This must come from our own General Igor consulting with five star General Kristol.
Comment by Chris Calbi — July 19, 2007 @ 7:37 am
From now on, when someone here says something so outrageously as$-backwards It'll be referred to as a "Rosencrans".
Bill Clinton caught the guys responsible for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993. They're sitting in jail now. Also, he took his shot at Bin-Ladin but missed. At least he tried.
George Bush had Bin-Ladin surrounded at Tora-Bora and OUTSOURCED the job to the Pakistanis and Afghans. He pulled our troops out at that precise moment so they could fight his 1996 planned oil war in Iraq. (Just read the PNAC letter sent to President Bill Clinton begging him to attack Iraq immediately in 1997).
Then Bush disbanded the CIA unit responsible for tracking Bin_ladin's movement. Then Bush said…“So I don't know where (Bin Laden) is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.”
Then we found out where he is. He's being hidden in safety in the Pakistani-Afghan border. So Georgie asks Pres. Musharaff to use his forces and get him. But Musharaff refuses becauses he fears the pro-Bin-Ladin forces in his own country. (By the way we support Musharaff with about $750 million a year even though he's a military dictator who took over in a coup and is supporting terrorists)
So once again we wait for little Georgie to send the full strength of our fighting forces up into the mountains in Pakistan and get Bin-Ladin. You know damn well Bill Clinton would.
Comment by Larry from C — July 19, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Gary,
You are an IDIOT.. Sorry do not normally go here, but the evidence is just enormous.
Nice teammate you got there libs….
Larry keep going with the conspiracy rants and you might replace Gary as the biggest loon on this site.
btw, watch out behind you, they are watching you because you are on to them. Sleep lightly…..ROFLMAO
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 19, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Chris, ok I'm a chickenhawk and don't know anything. This sure makes everything clear. Democrats have a great record on fighting Al Qaeda, even though for years they couldn't even say the words "Al Qaeda" and "Iraq" in the same sentence because that could hint at a link. Oh sure, I'd trust Teddy Kennedy to drown them in the Euphrates one by one.
Comment by Igor R. — July 19, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Bush and Cheney have a bigger agenda than anyone knows but about only we can speculate. If we don't impeach Cheney first and then Bush this country will be turned over to another Republican regime. And what I am referring to is they are going to set us up for another attack and if it doesn't happen, they will make it happen and everyone will say see they were right and vote them back into office.
Comment by fran — July 19, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
The only reason congress has a low aprroval rating is because they won't pull out of Iraq mr rosencrans and the fact that they won't move on impeaching the whole bunch of liars and thieves that so boldly call themselves conservatives.And of course when the chips are down blame Clinton.Its guys like you that make the conservative movement thoughtless,gutless and anything but conservative.
Comment by MATTHEW — July 19, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Jon, you didn't study in school whey your physics class was offered did you? You took Poli Sci instead didn't you? Just like in Ghostbusters, when Murray is taken down for his lack of studying. Only this is serious business.
Well it has compelled you to look foolish. One more time, the experts say the buildings cannot fall into themselves on their own. It has to be with explosives and very few people have the ability to get it right!
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 19, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Here's a good slogan for the Republicans "We Lie, Cheat, Steal, Practice Adultery, but we're Republicans so who can blame us?"
Comment by Logical 1 — July 19, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
fran, care to cite any sources other than the voices inside your head?
Comment by Igor R. — July 19, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Larry keep going with the conspiracy rants and you might replace Gary as the biggest loon on this site.
Everything I said in my post #24 is fact that can be backed up with verifiable sources. Facts, undoubtedly, scare people like you. But as a member of the Reality Based Community I embrace them. Whereas you embrace Talking Points created by sociopathic nutballs at the American Enterprise Institute. So when you address my post as "Conspiracy" I know I'm throwing bullseyes.
Comment by Larry from C — July 19, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
The ship of neocon fools landed on this here posting. Watch out for the facts pemberton, roesncranz, and igor. Those facts can be quite tricky to navigate through. Some people (neocons) still believe in Santa Clause.
Comment by Chris in NM — July 19, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Gary,
Read the whole page and pay special attention to the pictures and videos 3/4 of the way down…
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
I have read the sites you reference and it pretty much repeats things that are known not to be true and do not take any of the pictures and videos in the above link.
WTC7 did NOT completely fall on its self, fell for 18 seconds. Penthouses went seperately.
You are referencing a movie in an arguement, now I know you are a lib…
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 19, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Igor evidently you are under the impression that Iraqis do not have the right to resist the occupying forces of the US. Well, they DO have that right and it is legal under International law. You see Igor, Iraqis do not want their country occupied. It is the US presence that is causing more violence. Until we leave it will only grow worse.
And according to the most recent NIE the Iraq war which is now a bloody and violent occupation provides incentive and is a tool for recruitment. Al-Qaeda exploits the US image as trying to occupy the Middle-East. It is no wonder with the permanent military bases Bush has built in Iraq.
After spending over a half a trillion dollars, killed approximately a million Iraqis, lost 3700 of our soldiers and many more — approx. 50,000 — seriously injured, what have we accomplished? The NIE states the attack on Iraq increased terrorist acts worldwide. Bottom line: Are We Safer? no!
Fighting terrorism does not work by launching war; It is counterproductive. There are smart ways to combat terrorism and then there are George Bush's methods that are producing more terrorists.
Furthermore "al-Qaeda in Iraq" is separate from al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda in Iraq did not exist prior to the US invasion.
I suggest it would be more useful to stop blaming the democrats and the republicans and really look at this issue thru non-partisan eyes. We are dealing with life and death situations not political ideology. Until we do nothing will get solved.
Bush's policy failures has to do with basing them on false choices rather than logic and sound reasoned intelligence. He continues to make the same false choices expecting different results. Things will never turn until he makes different decisions. In the interim people continue losing limbs and lives while numbers joining al Qaeda soar.
Comment by serena1313 — July 19, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
Re: The libel of Jamie S. Gorelick who was Deputy Attorney General of the United States during the Clinton administration : The criticisms of the September 11 commission and, in particular, my commission colleague Jamie Gorelick, are unfounded ("Blinks and winks on Able Danger," Commentary, Tuesday, and "Able Danger's hidden hand," Commentary, Monday). The commission asked the Defense Department for all documents relating to the Able Danger military intelligence program. None of those that the Defense Department supplied us mentioned Mohamed Atta.
The one witness who did name Atta came to our staff shortly before the commission's report went to the printer. He said he thought he had seen something showing Atta in Brooklyn early in 2000. We knew, in fact, that Atta first arrived in the United States in June 2000 with a visa. For this and other reasons, the witness simply was not credible on this subject.
Additionally, the assertion that the commission failed to report on this program to protect Ms. Gorelick is ridiculous. She had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else.
Congress created the walls that were in place before September 11 — such as the National Security Act's prohibition on U.S. intelligence agency spying on Americans and the Posse Comitatus Act — that have nothing to do with the Department of Justice memo. The Defense Department's own directives on sharing such information date from the 1980s. It is not clear that those laws would have prohibited sharing information in this instance.
The fact is that the Justice Department guidelines sought to encourage sharing in a way that was consistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. FISA enabled the government to conduct surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes under a lesser standard than typical criminal surveillance. To keep this power in check, the courts prohibited the use of intelligence wiretaps unless their "primary purpose" was intelligence gathering rather than criminal prosecution.
Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's department reissued and reaffirmed those guidelines in 2001, before September 11.
Even when the Patriot Act eliminated the "primary purpose" test, it took an appellate court ruling to permit the Justice Department to change those rules.
So attributing these procedures to Ms. Gorelick is wrong. If the Ashcroft Justice Department couldn't eliminate them with a stroke of a pen, Ms. Gorelick could not have created them with the stroke of a pen, either.
SLADE GORTON (R)
Member 9-11 Commission
Comment by T. Paine — July 20, 2007 @ 2:38 am
Serena, a million Iraqis??? Wow, you even beat Lancet at their own game of exaggerations by a mile. And who killed them? Was it the US bullets or the most cruel people in the world, who blow up innocent citizens to create chaos? Oh, they have a right to that because it's legal under international law? I see, you can saw off a living person's head, drill their brains out, blow them up as their shopping because hey, that's the only way to fight the "occupation". They are just freedom-fighters, doing what anyone would do.
Well I've got news for you serena: the only way to fight Islamists is with force, pure, relentless force everywhere. You want to try to understand them? I did, and that's my conclusion. They believe in converting the rest of the world, and it's not that easy to change their mind.
One last piece of news: while the Bush military strategy in Iraq was fatally flawed until last December, it's very good now. We are winning by a mile. The only chance the terrorists have is if Harry Reid and the gang pull the plug too early. This isn't arrived at by listening to Bush, Rush, or Rove, this is my assessment of the facts I try very hard to get every day. Take a more nuanced look at the situation serena, with an open mind, you know, not like Keith Olbermann or somebody like that.
Comment by Igor R. — July 21, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
Igor, considering the Lancet Report was published over a year ago adding, an estimated 2000 at the bare minimum Iraqis killed a month, 24,000 more deaths to the 655,000 - 850,000 comes pretty damn close to a million. Many deaths are not recorded due to some families burying their dead immediately.
FYI: The Lancet report was published by The British Journal of Medicine over a year ago in July 2006. The Lancet method has been and is used to determine the numbers of deaths after hurricanes and other natural disasters as well as wars. The Lancet is a highly regarded and respected organization not to mention The British Journal of Medicine publication's high-standing since the 1800's.
Comment by serena1313 — August 3, 2007 @ 2:47 am
[…] The Big Lie of George W. Bush […]
Pingback by Make Them Accountable / Nothing but lies — May 2, 2008 @ 3:35 pm