...
"It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist."
...
To defeat terrorist you must eliminate the reasons they become terrorists.
...
Quote:We are faced with an enemy, the itm, who have proclaimed their doctrine to be death or slavery of all those who do not share their belief system.
Spurious at best. The enemy we fight is a gigantic, fractured set of opponents, with far different goals between them.
You rely on certain statements of AQ, while ignoring others which show reasons for their antagonism. Just more extremism from you...
Cycloptichorn
You are incorrect. The recruiters for terrorism have a large and diverse set of beliefs, but one that they probably hold in common is that the US wants to exterminate their way of life (islaam). Killing more people only proves them right and breeds new terrorists who don't need anyone to recruit them.
You seriously believe that our actions haven't lead to what is happening? At all? That people spontaneously decided to hate and attack the US, because it is easier to do that than to admit that they have problems themselves? This belies a real misunderstanding of modern middle-eastern history....
Cycloptichorn
Sects and Death in the Middle East
The culture that gave rise to Zarqawi.
by Lee Smith
Weekly Standard
06/26/2006, Volume 011, Issue 39
Beirut
It's unclear how damaging the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi will be to the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. But the admiration of sympathizers like Hamas, which called him a "brother-fighter," reminds us that he was not just a blood-drenched killer and lowlife. He was also the product of his region. The impact of his career on his extremist peers and the Middle East's Sunni mainstream will therefore bear close watching.
Even happier than the White House at his demise are Middle Eastern minorities, especially the Shiites, for they, rather than the Americans, were at the core of his exterminationist program. For Sunnis, the Shiites have always been barely tolerable heretics, but Zarqawi took this traditional loathing to new heights. Shortly before his death, he called Lebanon's fanatical Islamist militia Hezbollah a cover for Israel--because, after all, they were Shiites who stood between the Zionists and the wrath of the Sunni resistance.
Hezbollah general secretary Hassan Nasrallah and supporters were most certainly appalled and quite possibly terrified. After all, one reason for waging the "resistance" against Israel is to prove that the minority Shiites are Arabs in good standing just as much as the majority Sunnis. Indeed, since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah has been bragging that it was the first Arab group to make the Zionists taste defeat, and thus that the Shiites had managed to out-Sunni the Sunnis.
In effect, Zarqawi said he saw through the charade, and that Hezbollah should disarm--a demand that reminds us why it is probably going to be impossible to convince Nasrallah to give up his weapons peacefully. Hezbollah may well believe its own rhetoric--that only its militia can protect Lebanon from Israel. But the Shiites also have to worry that, if they put down their guns, they are vulnerable to Sunni violence, a threat that Zarqawi's spectacular Iraq campaign made very real to Shiites across the region. Thus, in response to the insult that he was doing the work of the Zionists, Nasrallah described Zarqawi in similar terms: "The killers in Iraq, no matter what sect they belong to, are Americans and Zionists and CIA and Mossad agents."
This Arab habit of blaming everything on the United States, or Israel, or the West in general, strikes many observers as evidence of faulty logical processes, or an abdication of basic political responsibility. But it is also part of an unspoken ceasefire pact--a reminder among Arabs that they have agreed not to attack each other and will focus their energies on external enemies in order to keep the peace at home.
For over half a century, Arab leaders from Nasser to Nasrallah have all sounded the same note--we Arabs are in a battle to the death against Israel, the United States, the West, colonialism, etc. Zarqawi broke that pact. We Sunnis are Arabs, said Zarqawi, but you lot are Shia and we will kill you.
And so Ayman al-Zawahiri's letter last year urging Zarqawi to leave the Shiites alone and focus on the Americans indicates that, at least compared with the late leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, the al Qaeda home office is staffed by rather mainstream Arab demagogues. Many Arabs believe that Israel would be lost without U.S. support. The same holds true in the bin Laden-Zawahiri worldview, where Washington is the only thing protecting weak Arab regimes from jihadist takeovers. Zarqawi believed, for whatever combination of religious, political, criminal, and sociopathic rationales, that to truly set the region in flames and bring down the established order, you get the people to fight each other.
Zarqawi tapped into the id of the region, the violent subterranean intra-Arab hatreds that no one wants to look at very closely, neither locals nor foreigners, because the picture it paints is so dauntingly gruesome that it suggests the Middle East will be a basket case for decades to come.
A RECENT ZOGBY POLL on Arab TV-watching habits explained that Al Jazeera remains the most watched station in the region for foreign news. Curiously, the poll ignored Iraq, where 80 percent of the population, Shiites and Kurds, are not apt to patronize a media outlet that regards them as little more than fodder for the heroic Sunni struggle against the Americans and Zionists.
That other 20 percent of Iraq was Zarqawi's target constituency, his Sunni base, and it is a much, much larger number outside of Iraq. It includes not just takfiris like himself--extremists who believe in murdering infidels and heretics. It comprises a mournful Hamas government, elected by a majority of Palestinians, and "moderate" Islamists like the four parliamentarians from Jordan's Islamic Action Front now facing prosecution for openly lamenting the death of a man who had repeatedly targeted the Royal Hashemite Kingdom. Certainly not all Sunni Arabs approved of Zarqawi's tactics, but many agreed that someone had to put the Shiites back in their place lest they misunderstand what is in store for them once the Americans leave.
Last year, Jordan's King Abdullah famously warned of a Shiite crescent--a sphere of influence running from Iran to Lebanon--and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak has accused
Shiites of being more loyal to Iran than the countries they live in. And these are the heads of the two major Arab states that are almost devoid of Shiites. Feelings run even higher elsewhere in the region.
In Saudi Arabia, the mere existence of Shiites in the Eastern Province threatens not only the kingdom's primary source of income, oil, but also the very legitimacy of Wahhabi rule. After all, as true Wahhabis, shouldn't they be converting or killing Shiites, as the founder of the country, Ibn Saud, once insisted? Further west in Syria, the Sunni majority has been grating for more than 40 years under the rule of a Shia sect, the Alawites, who have now cost the Sunni merchant class in both money and prestige. The Assad regime has so isolated Syria from the rest of the international community that its only ally is the Islamist Republic of Iran. And then there is Lebanon, where Hezbollah has effectively usurped the mantle of Arab militancy from the Sunnis.
To your average Joe Sunni, then, it's good that Osama bin Laden kills Americans. And it's wonderful that the Palestinian groups kill Israelis. But Zarqawi was the man in the trenches who went after the heretics that Sunni Arabs all actually have to live with every day, and have successfully kept in their place for a millennium now, and don't ever want overturning the scales.
THE SECTARIANISM OF IRAQ has been topic A in Washington ever since the war began. And yet it is not merely a temporary eruption at a time of crisis, but rather a permanent and defining feature of every Arab society, and you don't have to scratch beneath the surface of things to find it. Sometimes, it's just gossip and banter, as in Lebanon, where I've heard Sunni women talk about the disgusting way that Shiites hang their laundry. A Christian friend married to a Shiite confided his concern that their daughter's fashion sense was becoming gaudily Shiite. The Sunnis say, eat with a Druze but sleep with a Christian--meaning the Christians are filthy but the Druze are untrustworthy and will slaughter you in your bed. Some exchange Jew for Druze.
Other times, the gossip turns to folk wisdom. Some Sunnis really believe that Shiites have little tails. And there are scores of volumes of age-old Shiite propaganda about the bizarre sexual practices of Sunnis. Much of the sectarian enmity, in fact, partakes of sexual loathing and envy. Sunni women, for instance, are famously believed by their detractors to relish anal sex. Recently, Hezbollah supporters surrounded a Sunni neighborhood in Beirut, where they insulted deputy Saad al-Hariri, chanting "the c--of his sister, the c--of his mother."
Many Arabs believe that Syria's Alawites engage in pagan orgies where men sleep with each other's wives, or with their daughters, or with each other. Osama bin Laden's mother, as it happens, is an Alawite, which is strange only in that the 14th-century jurist and father of modern jihad Ibn Taymiyya, one of bin Laden's role models, thought the Alawites were "more infidel than Jews or Christians, even more infidel than many pagans." He wrote, "War and punishment in accordance with Islamic law against them are among the greatest of pious deeds and the most important obligation."
Of course, most people don't speak about sectarian hatreds publicly. In Syria, the Alawite government has made it very dangerous to talk about sects. In Lebanon, people are too polite to ask you directly what you are, and so to find out, they will ask you your last name, your neighborhood, your school, your father's name, his hometown. The well-educated Arab classes are especially careful about speaking in sectarian terms in front of Westerners, because, as elites talking to elites, they believe that Westerners think religious faith is bizarre to begin with and sectarianism evidence of a primitive society. To hear many Iraqi officials and journalists describe their country, there is so much intermarriage between the sects and tribes that their Iraq, the non-Zarqawi Iraq, actually looks something like a page out of the New York Times wedding announcements. And to be fair, a case can be made that 20th-century Iraq was at times among the most cosmopolitan of Arab societies.
But to downplay sectarian issues is to risk misunderstanding the real problems in Iraq. There are already scores of books and articles detailing how the Bush team screwed up the war or the postwar occupation, some written by former administration employees, others the mea culpas of self-described onetime true believers. But the biggest problem in Iraq isn't really the stupidity or arrogance or incompetence of the Bush administration. The real stumbling block isn't getting Iraq's electricity or water on full blast. Police and army recruits aren't bound and tortured before they are decapitated or shot in the head because of premature or insufficient de-Baathification, or because the State Department and the Pentagon were fighting over the role of Ahmad Chalabi. Americans should have provided better security, and more overwhelming force. But the political and religious cover so amply offered to the assassins of ordinary Iraqis did not issue from the office of the Coalition Provisional Authority or the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. No American exhorted Sunni or Shiite gangs to butcher their neighbors. The American arguments over Iraq sometimes achieve truly astonishing levels of parochialism and self-obsession. The problem in Iraq is Iraq. More broadly speaking, it is the problem of Arab society. Intolerance of the other, fear of the other, is always there.
OSAMA BIN LADEN, some Middle Eastern wags like to joke, is the father of Arab democracy, for without September 11, the United States would have gone on ignoring the region. But Zarqawi is the real radical, for he exploited and illuminated the region's oldest and deepest hatreds. And he stayed on message until it was very difficult to argue that the root causes of violence in the Middle East are colonialism, imperialism, and Zionism.
Zarqawi made it clear, if it wasn't already, that a more "even-handed approach" toward the Israeli-Palestinian crisis will not really defuse tensions in the Middle East. That particular problem, at least in its political dimensions, goes back at most only to 1860; the Sunni-Shiite split begins with the death of the prophet Muhammad. Zarqawi also made it clear, if it wasn't already, that getting U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia will not really calm jihadi fervor, because the American military is just one among the many valuable targets the jihadists see in the greater Middle East.
The world looks like a different place thanks to Abu Musab al Zarqawi, for without him the obtuse, the partisan, and the dishonest would still have room to talk about root causes and such stuff and reason away mass murder and sectarian fear and loathing. Zarqawi clarified things. If his death turns out to be a turning point in the war or the political development of Iraq, we will not know for many years, maybe decades. But it will only be a turning point if, having held up a mirror to the people who quietly cheered him on, they recoil from what he showed them.
Lee Smith, a Hudson Institute visiting fellow based in Beirut, is writing a book on Arab culture.
No Terrorist Is an Island
The international connections of the Canadian cell.
by Dan Darling
Weekly Standard
06/19/2006, Volume 011, Issue 38
AS THE DETAILS of the foiled Canadian terrorist plot continue to emerge, much is still unknown. Fifteen suspects were arrested in the Toronto area on June 2 and 3 in a police sting operation as they attempted to take possession of what they believed to be three tons of ammonium nitrate, roughly triple the amount used in the Oklahoma City bombing. Initially, many media reports said nothing about these suspects--and 2 others already in custody--beyond the fact that all are Canadian residents and most are Canadian citizens. Yet it soon emerged that the 12 adults and 5 teenagers are Muslims of Somali, Egyptian, Jamaican, and Trinidadian origin.
Media reports have named the Peace Tower in the Canadian Parliament, the CN Tower complex, and the Toronto Stock Exchange as possible targets for the plot, but what is reasonably clear is that the participants intended to inflict mass casualties. According to Luc Portelance, assistant operations director of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, the suspects had "become adherents to a violent ideology inspired by al Qaeda."
Despite all the uncertainties, a number of media outlets and terrorism analysts, taking a cue from Canadian police, rushed to declare the entire affair the work of homegrown terrorists operating independently of any broader network or organization. Typical of this interpretation were the comments of former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, who told ABC News following the arrests, "This is leaderless terrorism, . . . cells that are not connected to anything. . . . There's nothing in their communications that would indicate this is terrorist communication. The calls are domestic. They're not going back to Afghanistan. And what's probably being said is the equivalent of, 'Let's all get together at Joe's house.'"
Yet there are good reasons to doubt this view.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the Canadian arrests are "part of a continuing, multinational inquiry into suspected terrorist cells in at least seven countries." Far from having completed their investigation, the Times reported, "authorities were combing through evidence seized during raids in Canada . . . to look for possible connections between 17 suspects arrested Friday and Saturday and at least 18 other Islamist militants who had been arrested in locations including the United States, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Britain, Denmark, and Sweden."
CanWest News Service reported that "the six-month RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] investigation called Project Osage is one of several overlapping probes that includes an FBI case called Operation Northern Exposure and a British probe known as Operation Mazhar." Further, the newswire noted, "the intricate web of connections between Toronto, London, Atlanta, Sarajevo, Dhaka, and elsewhere illustrates the challenge confronting counterterrorism investigators almost five years after 9/11." According to CanWest, "linking the international probes are online communications, phone calls and in particular videotapes that authorities allege show some of the targets the young extremists considered blowing up." While none of this proves an international dimension to the plot, it strongly suggests it.
And there are other hints of international connections. Canadian journalist and columnist Andrew Coyne notes that the father of terror suspect Shareef Abdelhaleen confirmed to the Canadian Press that he once posted bail for one Mohamed Mahjoub, who has been held by Canadian intelligence on the basis of secret evidence since June 2000. According to a CBC News article from September 2005, Mahjoub is accused of being a member of the Vanguards of Conquest--a faction of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group led by al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri. While Mahjoub denies any connection to terrorism, he admits that he met bin Laden in Sudan in the 1990s. Perhaps the link between the Abdelhaleens and Mahjoub is just an amazing coincidence.
Another suggestive bit of information is that the Canadian suspects were in contact with Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee. These two men, both American citizens from the Atlanta area, are alleged by the U.S. government to have traveled to Canada in March 2005 to discuss "strategic locations in the United States suitable for a terrorist strike" with three individuals subsequently identified in media reports as being among the Canadian suspects now in custody.
According to the FBI affidavit against Ahmed and Sadequee, the two discussed traveling to Pakistan to attend a terrorist training camp. WAGA-TV reported in April that Ahmed later traveled to Pakistan in an effort to do just that. As for Sadequee, he was arrested in April 2006 in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, and turned over to the FBI, who according to the affidavit found him in possession of a CD-ROM with encrypted files and a map of the Washington area. The affidavit accuses Sadequee of lying about traveling to Bangladesh to visit his aunt. It should be noted that over the last year Bangladesh has been rocked by a wave of violence organized by Islamist groups loyal to the now-incarcerated Sheikh Abdur Rahman, a key signatory of bin Laden's 1998 declaration of war.
The nature of the relationship among the Canadian suspects, their Atlanta counterparts, and any additional accomplices requires further elucidation, as does the nature of any relationship between the younger Abdelhaleen and Mahjoub. And so also does the fact that two of the Canadian suspects, Mohammed
Dirie and Yasim Abdi Mohamed, attempted to smuggle weapons and ammunition from the United States to Canada in August 2005 before being arrested by Canadian border police at Fort Erie, near Buffalo.
According to the Toronto Sun, documents from the Canadian National Parole Board show that Dirie told Canadian officials he had gone to Buffalo "frequently over a few months," as well as to Ohio, where he claimed that he needed to purchase a gun because a friend had been robbed. The Canadian parole board didn't buy that claim, but neither did it offer any comment on Dirie's account of his travels to the United States. Was Dirie's story true? If so, who did he meet with during these travels and why?
WITH SO MANY QUESTIONS UNANSWERED, it is far too soon to rule out connections between the Canadian conspiracy and terrorists abroad. Certainly, much evidence has come to light challenging the view that homegrown terrorism is an entirely insular phenomenon.
Unfortunately, the desire to ignore or downplay international connections between individual terrorist suspects on the one hand and terrorist networks on the other has become increasingly prevalent in public analysis since September 11 and particularly since the rise of the Iraqi insurgency. Today, even a careful observer could easily get the mistaken impression that terror cells are produced by something like spontaneous combustion.
Even more misleading are attempts to nail down a pseudo-legalistic "six degrees of separation" between terrorist organizations and specific attacks carried out by their followers. Thus, many analysts and reporters assert that no connection exists between al Qaeda and either the March 2004 train bombings in Spain or the July 2005 bombings in London. But that is far from incontrovertible. On the contrary, multiple investigations into these attacks by the Spanish and British governments have drawn clear connections between their perpetrators and al Qaeda or its associate groups.
Commentators who deny these connections often claim to be correcting a widespread misconception that all acts of Islamist terrorism are personally ordered by Osama bin Laden. Instead, they seek to highlight the role of extremist ideology in the shadowy world of international terrorism. But while Islamist ideology is indeed a powerful motive for terrorism, it is simply not the case that terrorist cells spring into existence altogether independently. Al Qaeda and allied organizations still play a role in providing strategy and direction as well as funding, training, and propaganda to prospective jihadists.
With regard to the Canadian plotters, if indeed they took their "inspiration" from al Qaeda, we do not yet know how this occurred. Did they read strategy documents posted on the Internet? Respond to calls by al Qaeda leaders to carry out attacks against Canada and Canadian nationals? Receive paramilitary training that some of the suspects appear to have conducted in Washago, Ontario, according to Canadian media reports? Such local training was encouraged by al Qaeda strategist Mustafa Setmariam Nasar prior to his capture last year.
No serious examination of the Canadian plot should minimize the potential foreign connections out of blind adherence to a convenient analytical model. Like all other leads, the considerable evidence suggesting foreign connections should be vigorously pursued.
Dan Darling is a counterterrorism consultant.
SIGNS OF SUCCESS IN IRAQ
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/14/signs_of_success_in_iraq/
When Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced last week that a US air strike had killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraqi reporters burst into cheers. It was a heartwarming -- and to American eyes, unnatural -- show of joy. Most American journalists would think it unseemly to cheer anything said at a press conference, including the news that a sadistic mass murderer had finally met his end.
Important and welcome as Zarqawi's assassination was, it didn't put a dent in the quagmire-of-the-week mindset that depicts the war as a fiasco wrapped in a scandal inside a failure. Typical of the prevailing pessimism was the glum Page One headline in The Washington Post the morning after Maliki's announcement: "After Zarqawi, No Clear Path In Weary Iraq."
Virtually from day one, the media have reported this war as a litany of gloom and doom. Images of violence and destruction dominate the TV coverage. Analysts endlessly second-guess every military and political decision. Allegations of wrongdoing by US soldiers get far more play than tales of their heroism and generosity. No wonder more than half of the public now believes that a war that ended one of the most evil dictatorships of our time was a mistake.
Some of this defeatism was inevitable, given the journalistic predisposition for bad news. ("If it bleeds, it leads.") And some of it was a function of the newsroom's left-wing bias -- many journalists oppose the war and revile the Bush administration, and their coverage often reflects that hostility.
But there have also been highly negative assessments of the war from observers who can't be accused of habitual nay saying or Bush-bashing. In a dispiriting piece that appeared on the day Zarqawi's death was announced, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote that "in Iraq at the moment . . . savagery seems to be triumphing over decency." There may be no way to win this war without becoming as monstrous and cruel as the terrorists, he suggested, which is why "most Americans simply want to get away."
Another thoughtful commentator, The Washington Post's David Ignatius, had been even more despairing one day earlier: "This is an Iraqi nightmare," he wrote, "and America seems powerless to stop it."
But not everyone is so hopeless.
In the June issue of Commentary, veteran Middle East journalist Amir Taheri describes "The Real Iraq" as a far more promising place than the horror show of conventional media wisdom. Arriving in the United States after his latest tour of Iraq, Taheri says, he was "confronted with an image of Iraq that is unrecognizable" -- an image that "grossly . . . distorts the realities of present-day Iraq."
What are those realities? Drawing on nearly 40 years of observing Iraq first-hand, Taheri points to several leading indicators that he says he has always found reliable in gauging the country's true condition.
He begins with refugees. In the past, one could always tell that life in Iraq was growing desperate by the long lines of Iraqis trying to escape over the Iranian and Turkish borders. "Since the toppling of Saddam in 2003," Taheri notes, "this is one highly damaging image we have not seen on our television sets -- and we can be sure that we *would* be seeing it if it were there to be shown." Instead of fleeing the "nightmare" that Iraq has supposedly become, Iraqi refugees have been returning, more than 1.2 million of them as of last December.
A second indicator is the pilgrim traffic to the Shi'ite shrines in Karbala and Najaf. Those pilgrimages all but dried up after Saddam bloodily crushed a Shi'ite uprising in 1991, and they didn't resume until the arrival of the Americans in 2003. "In 2005," writes Taheri, "the holy sites received an estimated 12 million pilgrims, making them the most-visited spots in the entire Muslim world, ahead of both Mecca and Medina."
A third sign: the value of the Iraqi dinar. All but worthless during Saddam's final years, the dinar is today a safe and solid medium of exchange, and has been rising in value against other currencies. Related indicators are small-business activity, which is booming, and Iraqi agriculture, which has experienced a revival so remarkable that Iraq now exports food to its neighbors for the first time since the 1950s.
Finally, says Taheri, there is the willingness of Iraqis to speak their minds. Iraqis are very verbal, and "when they fall silent, life is incontrovertibly becoming hard for them." Such silence was not uncommon under Saddam, when many Iraqis were afraid to express any political opinion. They aren't silent now. In addition to talk radio, Internet blogs, and lively debates everywhere, "a vast network of independent media has emerged in Iraq, including over 100 privately owned newspapers and magazines and more than two dozen radio and television stations." Nowhere in the Arab world is freedom of expression more robust.
As Congress engages in its own wide-ranging Iraq debate this week, Taheri's essay is well worth reading. "Yes, the situation in Iraq today is messy," he writes. "Births always are. Since when is that a reason to declare a baby unworthy of life?"
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. Army has charged three soldiers in connection with the deaths of three Iraqis who were in military custody in southern Iraq last month, the military said Monday.
The Multinational Corps-Iraq said three members of 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division have been charged in connection with the deaths of three male detainees during an operation near Thar Thar Canal in southern Salahuddin province on May 9.
"A noncommissioned officer and two soldiers each have been charged with violating several articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice including murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, communicating a threat, and obstructing justice," an announcement said.
Mr. Taheri's public speaking engagements are arranged by Benador Associates, a public relations firm with a predominantly neoconservative clientele.
Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University has accused Amir Taheri of concocting nonexistent substances in his writings, and states that he "repeatedly refers us to books where the information he cites simply does not exist. Often the documents cannot be found in the volumes to which he attributes them.... [He] repeatedly reads things into the documents that are simply not there."[5] Bakhash has stated that Amiri's Nest of Spies is "the sort of book that gives contemporary history a bad name." [6]
Dwight Simpson of San Francisco State University and Kaveh Afrasiabi accuse Taheri and his publisher Eleana Benador of fabricating false stories in the New York Post in 2005 where Taheri identified Iran's UN ambassador Javad Zarif, as one of the students involved in the 1979 seizure of hostages at the US Embassy in Tehran. Zarif was Simpson's teaching assistant and a graduate student in the Department of International Relations of San Francisco State University at the time. [7]
Vice President Dick Cheney said that while the administration underestimated the strength of anti- American violence in Iraq, he still believes the insurgency is in its ``last throes,'' as he asserted last year.
``I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence we encountered,'' Cheney said in a question-and-answer session following a speech today at the National Press Club in Washington.
The past 18 months will be viewed by history and a crucial period for democracy in Iraq as ``Iraqis increasingly took over responsibility for their own affairs,'' Cheney said.
Asked if he still believed the insurgency was in its final throes, as he said in a CNN interview on May 31, 2005, Cheney said, ``I do.'' He cited election of an interim government, a constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections in December that established a unity government as evidence the insurgency is being pushed to the margins.
``I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence we encountered,'' Cheney said in a question-and-answer session following a speech today at the National Press Club in Washington.
Ican
I see one of your sources, Amir Taheri, is a conservative who has a difficult time distinguishing between truth and lies, reality and fantasy.
...
xingu wrote:Ican
I see one of your sources, Amir Taheri, is a conservative who has a difficult time distinguishing between truth and lies, reality and fantasy.
...
Wow! You have evidence that one of my sources "is a conservative who has a difficult time distinguishing between truth and lies, reality and fantasy." One? Only one![]()
I notice you failed to cite what specifically it was in what I posted quoting Amir Taheri that you believe is false and why you believe it is false.
Nearly 90% of your sources are liberals (i.e., liebrals) who have "a difficult time distinguishing between truth and lies, reality and fantasy." One of their repeated lies is that President Bush abetted 9/11 to win support for invading Iraq. Their most repeated lie is the one accusing President Bush of lying about Saddam possessing WMD in Iraq, while President Clinton who before him alleged the same thing, merely erred about Saddam possessing WMD in Iraq. Another one they often repeat is that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Another of their favorites is that most of our troops in Iraq are opposed to the war in Iraq. However, my favorite liebral lie is that America is responsible for the murder of civilians perpetrated by the itm. That last is one of the most, if not the most, stupid lies I have ever encountered. A close competitor for stupidest liebral lie is their one asserting that revealing Valerie Plame worked for the CIA was a violation of federal law.
CORRECTION
Nearly 90% of your sources are liberals (i.e., liebrals) who are incapable of "distinguishing between truth and lies, reality and fantasy." In brief, nearly 90% of your sources are liebrals.