THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq has doubled the money allocated for importing oil products in August and September to tackle the country's worst fuel shortage since Saddam Hussein's 2003 ouster, a senior Iraqi official said Thursday.

Past Comments About How Much Iraq Would Cost

Earlier this year, experts said the war and aftermath in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, a fact the White House refused to acknowledge as valid, even going so far as to fire Lawrence Lindsey for his realistic projections. In September, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz even told the Senate "no one said we would know anything other than this would be very bloody, it could be very long and by implication, it could be very expensive." Here's a record of what the administration, in fact, said:

Budget Director Mitch Daniels

On September 15th 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as "very, very high" and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion [Source: WSJ, "Bush Economic Aide Says Cost Of Iraq War May Top $100 Billion," Davis 09/16/02; NYT, "Estimated Cost of Iraq War Reduced, Bumiller, 12/31/02; Reuters News, "Daniels sees U.S. Iraq war cost below $200 billion," 09/18/02]

"When a reporter asked Daniels yesterday whether the administration was preparing to ask other countries to help defray possible Iraq war costs, as the United States did for the 1991 war, the budget director said he knew of no such plans. Other countries are having economic downturns of their own, he said." [Source: Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, "Byrd attacks cost of possible Iraq War, McFeatters, 9/25/02]

"There's just no reason that this can't be an affordable endeavor." [Source: Reuters, "U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs," Entous, 4/11/03]

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid." [Source: Washington Post, 4/21/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

"Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question." [Source: Media Stakeout, 1/19/03]

"I don't know that there is much reconstruction to do." [Source: Reuters, "U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs," Entous, 4/11/03]

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz

"I think it's necessary to preserve some ambiguity of exactly where the numbers are." [Source: House Budget Committee, 2/27/03]

Top Economist Adviser Glen Hubbard

"Costs of any such intervention would be very small." [Source: CNBC, 10/4/02]

Budget Director Josh Bolten

"We don't anticipate requesting anything additional for the balance of this year." [Source: Congressional Testimony , 7/29/03]

Past Comments About How Much Iraq Would Cost

The Bush administration promised reconstruction of Iraq could be financed through oil revenue, which they said would provide tens of billions of dollars. However, according to the New York Times, devastated and decrepit production systems leave the country "unable to make any significant contribution."

Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: "Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction." [Source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03]

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it's obvious, it's oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country." [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "If you [Source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources." [Source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]

State Department Official Alan Larson: "On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq…and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund." [Source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense…[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. [Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

20 pilgrims killed, hundreds wounded in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Gunmen opened fire on crowds of Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad Sunday, killing at least 20 and wounding more than 300 others, according to police and health ministry officials.

ICAN PREDICTIONS MADE IN JUNE 2006

1,050 Iraqi civilians died violently in June 2006.

950 Iraqi civilians died violently in July 2006.

850 Iraqi civilians died violently in August 2006.

This is the current real cost of the war:

Quote:

20 pilgrims killed, hundreds wounded in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Gunmen opened fire on crowds of Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad Sunday, killing at least 20 and wounding more than 300 others, according to police and health ministry officials.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/20/iraq.main/index.html

Killing 20, Wounding 300. Sheesh.

Cycloptichorn

Bush: Troops in Iraq Make America Safer

VOA
Agosto 19, 2006, 15:44 EDT

White House --
President Bush says the Middle East is at a pivotal moment as people there choose between democracy and extremism.

In his weekly radio address, Mr. Bush says America will defeat terrorism by strengthening young democracies in Lebanon and Iraq.

How is supporting Israel's attack on Lebanon aiding its freedom? Did it make the Lebanese people and moderate Arabs more friendly to America? Did it tell the Arabs that it pays to be a friend to America, as Lebanon was?

"The way forward will be difficult, and it will require sacrifice and resolve," he said. "But America's security depends on liberty's advance in this troubled region, and we can be confident of the outcome because we know the unstoppable power of freedom."

The president says he is determined to keep U.S. troops in Iraq as he says it is better to fight terrorists abroad than to fight them at home.

The idiot still doesn't get it. What we are fighting in Iraq are local Sunnis insurgents created by our invasion of Iraq. We are not fighting Al Qaeda or international terrorist. What presence they have in Iraq is minimal and unimportant. Osama bin Laden is in Afghanistan and Pakistan, an area we are leaving and giving over to the UN and NATO forces.

In the Democratic radio address, Pennsylvania congressional candidate Joe Sestak called for a new direction for American security, saying it is time to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq to better prepare for security challenges worldwide.

"We are fostering a culture of dependence in Iraq," he said. "Iraqi leaders must be responsible for their own country. They must make the difficult political compromises that will stop the civil war and bring about stability. We cannot do this work for them. Completing our mission in Iraq will also make America safer everywhere."

Agree. We should stop having Americans die for Iran and the Shiites.

Sestak, who is a former Navy vice admiral, says ending the U.S. military presence in Iraq would make more resources available for strengthening homeland security. He says two days of spending in Iraq would pay for screening all air cargo on passenger planes. Five days of spending on Iraq, he says, could fund the screening of all cargo entering American ports.

Bush believes creating terrorist in Iraq by our presence is more important than protecting America from terrorist attack.

President Bush says his administration is protecting America by working tirelessly to prevent attacks from terrorists who he says remain determined to destroy innocent life on a massive scale.

I think the Bush administration has done an excellent job of killing innocent people by the thousands through its incompetence and bungling.

Quote:

Bush: Troops in Iraq Make America Safer

VOA
Agosto 19, 2006, 15:44 EDT

White House --
President Bush says the Middle East is at a pivotal moment as people there choose between democracy and extremism.

In his weekly radio address, Mr. Bush says America will defeat terrorism by strengthening young democracies in Lebanon and Iraq.

How is supporting Israel's attack on Lebanon aiding its freedom? Did it make the Lebanese people and moderate Arabs more friendly to America? Did it tell the Arabs that it pays to be a friend to America, as Lebanon was?

Disarming Hezbollah will aid Lebanese freedom. Until Hezbollah is disarmed, the Lebanese people will remain Hezbollah's prisoners/hostages.

"The way forward will be difficult, and it will require sacrifice and resolve," he said. "But America's security depends on liberty's advance in this troubled region, and we can be confident of the outcome because we know the unstoppable power of freedom."

The president says he is determined to keep U.S. troops in Iraq as he says it is better to fight terrorists abroad than to fight them at home.

The idiot still doesn't get it. What we are fighting in Iraq are local Sunnis insurgents created by our invasion of Iraq. We are not fighting Al Qaeda or international terrorist. What presence they have in Iraq is minimal and unimportant. Osama bin Laden is in Afghanistan and Pakistan, an area we are leaving and giving over to the UN and NATO forces.

Your psuedology is so obvious, it is ridiculous.

Yes we are fighting Sunni terrorists in Iraq. Yes we are fighting Shia terrorists in Iraq. Yes we are fighting al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. Yes we are fighting international terrorists in Iraq.

We have been doing all that since 2001.

From 2001 to July 31, 2006, about 1,044 civilians per month were killed by violence.

In 2000 - 2002, Saddam's regime killed about 1,599 civilians per month by violence.

In 1992 - 1999, Saddam's regime killed about 5,915 civilians per month by violence.

In 1985 - 1991 Saddam's regime killed about 3,728 civilians per month by violence.

In 1979 - 1984, Saddam's regime killed about 4,036 civilians per month by violence.
...

I think the Islamo-fascists are a serious threat to the survival of humanity as well as to America. That threat will grow more rapidly than it is currently, if we pull out and merely search boxes and bags for bombs or poison gas.

Remember 19 captured 4 airliners with box cutters and murdered about 3,000 American civilians. They didn't use weapons stored in their bags and boxes.

Remember, 19 murdered 3,000 after visiting a hardware store.
Surely 190 can murder 30,000 after visiting a hardware store.
Surely 1,900 can murder 300,000 after visiting a hardware store.
Surely 19,000 can murder 3,000,000 after visiting a hardware store.

Need I go on?

People lose what liberty they have when they are murdered.

To control the high rate Islamo-murderers murder, we must murder Islamo-murderers, their helpers, and their rooters at an even greater rate.

THINK!

THINK SOLUTIONS, NOT FAULT FINDINGS, NOT STUPIDITIES, NOT SLOGANS, NOT DOCTRINES, NOT DOGMAS, NOT MYTHS.

... and stop wasting time convincing yourself how no damn good Bush is! Hell, in two years 6 months, Bush will be irrelevant, but the Islamo-murderers won't be irrelevant if the Islamo-murderer problem isn't solved by then.

Bush will be gone but his idealogical views are shared by many of the same ilk, they would just take up where he left off if voters are not constantly reminded that the policies and beliefs that the administration holds and practices are bad for the country and any other country or person unlucky enough to come in contact with them.

... and stop wasting time convincing yourself how no damn good Bush is! Hell, in two years 6 months, Bush will be irrelevant, but the Islamo-murderers won't be irrelevant if the Islamo-murderer problem isn't solved by then.

To control the high rate Islamo-murderers murder, we must murder Islamo-murderers, their helpers, and their rooters at an even greater rate.

Revel, I bet there are a great many of us who do not need to be reminded how unsatisfactory are Bush's idealogical views. What we need to be reminded is, who in the hell possesses better idealogical views and why it's believed so.

Does anyone want to watch a video in which President Bush repeatedly claimed Iraq/Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?

Click here

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate




March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Does anyone want to watch a video in which President Bush repeatedly claimed Iraq/Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?

Click here

"February 5, 2003 Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council on Iraq and falsely said that a tape recording he held revealed that Osama bin Laden was pals with Saddam Hussein. In fact, a translation showed that in the tape, bin Laden called for Hussein's assassination, as reported in Wilson's Almanac."
From Wilson's Almanac Book of Days for February 5

Misleading the Public
By Firas Al-Atraqchi
YellowTimes.org Columnist (Canada)

On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell dropped a bombshell at a Congressional hearing on Iraq and revealed that he had a transcript of an "upcoming" audio message from Osama bin Laden that betrays the links between bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

However, the White House may have put its foot in its mouth this time around.

Upon careful scrutiny of the audio message from bin Laden (and broadcast at 3pm EST on the Arabic News Network Al-Jazeerah), it appears the Bush administration may have been so desperate to pin anything on Saddam and bin Laden that they did not wait to actually hear the contents of the message, nor provide adequate and reliable translation.

The bin Laden message expresses solidarity with the Iraqi people, advises them to remain steadfast in the coming invasion of their country and declares that Saddam and his aides are not important. "It is not important if Saddam and his government disappear," the man thought to be bin Laden says. "This is a war against you, the Muslims, and you must take arms to defend yourselves."

U.S. officials were quick to point out that the bin Laden message directly incriminates Iraq and proves the existence of ties between bin Laden's al-Qaeda and Saddam. U.S. media touted the official line before even hearing the tape, or awaiting a reliable translation. "Undeniably links Iraq with al-Qaeda," says one CNN anchor.

And then something happened that neither the U.S. administration nor the media anticipated: bin Laden called Saddam an apostate.

The audio message goes on to reveal that bin Laden believes Saddam to be a socialist and declares that "socialists and communists are unbelievers," thereby labeling Saddam an apostate of Islam, an infidel. It is worth mentioning that the government of Iraq is quasi-socialist and secular, and not Islamic.

Walid Phares, an Arabic-speaking MSNBC analyst finds that the audio message undermines Saddam's regime: "Osama bin Laden does not care about Saddam, in fact he can't wait till the demise of Saddam; he is trying to position himself to offer Iraqis an alternative ideology -- he calls socialism abhorrent to Islam."

The voice alleged to be bin Laden's in the audio message also called on the spilling of Saddam's blood: "His blood is halal." This wording is used to indicate what is permissive or legally allowed for the killing of a usurper or criminal.

The audio message also called forth the overthrow of governments supporting the U.S. -- Nigeria, Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

If bin Laden is effectively calling on Muslim Iraqis to overthrow Saddam and that Saddam is irrelevant in the coming war and Iraqis should not fight for him, how then can the U.S. administration use this message to prove Saddam and al-Qaeda are linked?

That question left some analysts baffled.

Kenneth Pollack, CNN analyst and anti-terrorism specialist, says that this is not the first time that bin Laden has used the plight of Iraq under sanctions and under Saddam to rally Muslims to his cause. In fact, bin Laden has spoken of the Iraqi issue since 1996, and has not hidden the fact that he is growing distaste for Saddam's socialist, Baathist regime.

"The October audio message this year was a four minute tape and bin Laden expressed sympathy for the Iraqi people," says Peter Bergen, CNN consultant on terrorism. "I don't see today's audio message as endorsing Saddam," he concludes.

If anything, bin Laden's message directed to the people, not leadership of Iraq, (any Arab speaker with two ears can testify that the opening lines of the audio message distinctly declare that this is a message to the Iraqi people) is ambiguous as pertains to alleged links with Saddam.

Nevertheless, U.S. officials maintain that this is all the proof they need. However, the U.S. viewing public must be aware that the they were only allowed to view excerpts of the 16-minute audio message, and contrary to what CNN has been proclaiming, it is not all about Iraq. The audio message also includes advice on refraining from alcohol and illicit sex, and respecting one's parents, in addition to other spiritual advice.

The audio message will not go down so easily in Europe and the Middle East and will be seen as a desperate attempt by a U.S. administration that has taken a bashing in NATO and at the U.N. to turn the tables around.

According to the BBC, "BBC's security correspondent, Frank Gardner, said the figure on the tape voiced support for Iraq, but that in no way did it prove a link between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi leadership."

Arabic speakers are sure to pour scorn on the official U.S. line. U.S. Congressional leaders, who have appeared on talk shows immediately following the excerpted broadcast of the audio tape have alluded to incorrect translations of the original Arabic content.

By default, the U.S. public is offered a half-censored, half-baked version of the audio tape.

While U.S. officials have conceded that the voice on the tape is indeed that of bin Laden, no one has bothered to focus on why the man U.S. President Bush vowed to get "dead or alive" is very much alive and a clear and present danger.

Years after it was obvious to all, Powell admitted ... a bit
"Former United States Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a television interview that his United Nations speech making the case for the US-led war on Iraq was 'a blot' on his record.

" In the February 2003 presentation to the UN Security Council, Mr Powell forcefully made the case for war on the regime of Saddam Hussein, offering 'proof' that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The presentation included satellite photos of trucks that Mr Powell identified as mobile bio-weapons laboratories. But after the invasion, US weapons inspectors reported finding no Iraqi nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

"'It's a blot' on my record, Mr Powell said in an interview with ABC News.

"'I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now.'"

Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says
"In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.

"Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph.

"A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: 'We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails.'

"The sentence took Drumheller completely by surprise ..."
Washington Post, June 25, 2006

At Press Conference, Bush Stays the Course

George W. Bush keeps trying to rally popular support for his war in Iraq. But he has little to offer other than stay-the course-ism. He cannot point to progress in Iraq. Nor can he point to a plan that would seem promising. Thus, he is left only with rhetoric--the same rhetoric.

That was on display during a presidential press conference at the White House on Monday. Here's a selective run-down.

One reporter asked,

More than 3,500 Iraqis were killed last month, the highest civilian monthly toll since the war began. Are you disappointed with the lack of progress by Iraq's unity government in bringing together the sectarian and ethnic groups?

Bush replied,

No, I am aware that extremists and terrorists are doing everything they can to prevent Iraq's democracy from growing stronger. That's what I'm aware of.

He could not bring himself to say he is disappointed by the government's inability to curb the sectarian violence? That was an odd way to defend his actions in Iraq. Bush did go on to say,

And, therefore, we have a plan to help them--"them," the Iraqis--achieve their objectives. Part of the plan is political; that is the help the Maliki government work on reconciliation and to work on rehabilitating the community. The other part is, of course, security. And I have given our commanders all the flexibility they need to adjust tactics to be able to help the Iraqi government defeat those who want to thwart the ambitions of the people. And that includes a very robust security plan for Baghdad.

A question: when would it be fair to judge the plan's success? The plan has supposedly already been implemented. Yet the death count is rising in Iraq. A sharp-eyed (or sharp-eared) reporter should have asked, "If the death count goes up next month, will that mean the plan is a failure? And how should Americans (and Iraqis) evaluate whether the plan is working?" Or as Donald Rumsfeld might say, what are the operative metrics?

Bush repeatedly said that it would be disastrous for the United States to disengage from Iraq. He claimed,

It will embolden those who are trying to thwart the ambitions of reformers. In this case, it would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales.

Regarding the "reformers"--and Bush noted this included reformers throughout the region--the US invasion of Iraq and the recent (and partially still ongoing war between Israel and Hezbollah) has undercut the reformers of the Middle East, or so say many such reformers. These reformers report they are on thinner ice because of US policies. Bush's actions, according to the grunts of Middle East reform, have not emboldened them. As for turning Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists and extremists, Bush has already accomplished that. An American journalist who had recently returned from Baghdad told me a few weeks ago that neighborhoods within a mile or so of the Green Zone in Baghdad are totally under the control of insurgents. Whole swaths of Iraq are beyond the authority of the Iraqi government. These areas can be safe havens for all sorts of miscreants. And it's fear-mongering to suggest that if the United States were to withdraw that anti-American jihadists will control the state and be enriched by oil revenues. Last time I checked, the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds all had an interest in Iraq. These groups are unlikely to turn the nation over to the few jihadist terrorists operating within Iraq.

One exchange did not inspire confidence. A reporter asked,

Mr. President, I'd like to go back to Iraq. You've continually cited the elections, the new government, its progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You've had to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why not?

Bush responded,

You've covered the Pentagon, you know that the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have the flexibility from the White House to do so.

The reporter--who was not asking about tactics--interrupted:

I'm talking about strategy.

Bush then said:

The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy.

Actually, that's not a strategy. That's a goal. A commander in chief should know the difference. A strategy is how one goes about--in a general way--accomplishing goals. Tactics are how one implements the strategy. After Bush talked about giving military commanders in Iraq the "flexibility" to "change tactics on the ground," this interesting back-and-forth occurred:

Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy --

THE PRESIDENT: Sounded like the question to me.

Q: You keep -- you keep saying that you don't want to leave. But is your strategy to win working? Even if you don't want to leave? You've gone into Baghdad before, these things have happened before.

THE PRESIDENT: If I didn't think it would work, I would change -- our commanders would recommend changing the strategy. They believe it will work.

Seems as if Bush was saying that his commanders are in charge of the strategy. But isn't that his job?

Later on came this exchange:

Q: But are you frustrated, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country.

To recap: he is not "disappointed" (see above), but he is occasionally "frustrated." Yet hardly "surprised." Wait a moment. Does that mean he invaded Iraq realizing that the war there would turn into an ugly sectarian conflict that would bog down US troops for over three years? If so, why didn't he say something before the invasion about this? Or, better yet, why didn't he and the Pentagon prepare for such an eventuality? Citizens should hope he was damn surprised by what has happened in Iraq--even though that would not make him any less culpable.

Bush repeatedly acknowledged there is a legitimate debate whether the United States should disengage from Iraq. He noted,

I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me.

This statement is--how should we put it?--not as accurate as it could be. Campaigning for congressional Republicans in 2002 Bush said that Senate Democrats were "more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." That certainly is not how one would describe a patriot. More recently, Bush's own Republican Party accused the Democrats of plotting to weaken the country. After a federal judge ruled that Bush's warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional, the GOP sent out an email headlined, "Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda To Weaken National Security." Accusing someone of having a gameplan to "weaken national security" is indeed questioning their patriotism. Has Bush decried this Republican National Committee tactic? Not in public.

The press conference allowed for a brief exploration of Bush's rationale for invading Iraq. One journalist inquired,

A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out [such as chaos in Iraq, terrorist running amok, etc.] seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

Bush fired back:

I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Well, as both Charles Duelfer and David Kay--administration-appointed WMD hunters--reported, Saddam did not have any serious capacity to produce WMDs. None. He had no weapons and no serious production capability. So, yes, one would have to "imagine" such a threat. As for Saddam's relations with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (now deceased), there is no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with him before the war. As Colin Powell noted in his disastrous UN speech, Zarqawi at the time was operating out of northern Iraq, which was territory not under Baghdad's control. Once more, a healthy dose of imagination is required to follow Bush's argument.

The president continued:

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

That led to this point-counterpoint:

Q: What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q: The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize....Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

Not exactly. Dick Cheney and other hawks in the administration repeatedly said that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, citing an unconfirmed, single-source intelligence report that 9/11 ringleader Mohamad Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague five months before the attack. Yet the FBI and the CIA (and later the 9/11 Commission) had concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate this report and that the meeting likely did not happen. True, Bush officials did not claim that Saddam had "ordered" the attack, but they did suggest that Baghdad had participated in the attack--even when there was no evidence to support that assertion.

So over three years after Bush ordered US troops into Iraq, he is still claiming that Saddam was something of a WMD threat and he is refusing to acknowledge that his administration did attempt to link Saddam to the 9/11 attack--all while professing he has a strategy (or is it a set of tactics?) to win in Iraq. This is not the sort of stuff that will hearten a nation. Bush remains lost in Iraq, with the rest of the country (and the world) held hostage by the mistakes and miscalculations he will not concede.

Does anyone want to watch a video in which President Bush repeatedly claimed Iraq/Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?

Click here

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Anonymouse wrote:

Does anyone want to watch a video in which President Bush repeatedly claimed Iraq/Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?

Click here

Anyone who can recall the beginning of the film "Fahrenheit 911" will recall a cluster of video clips of Cheney and others saying precisely the opposite.

The lying liars.

xingu wrote:

Quote:

Bush: Troops in Iraq Make America Safer

VOA
Agosto 19, 2006, 15:44 EDT

White House --
President Bush says the Middle East is at a pivotal moment as people there choose between democracy and extremism.

In his weekly radio address, Mr. Bush says America will defeat terrorism by strengthening young democracies in Lebanon and Iraq.

How is supporting Israel's attack on Lebanon aiding its freedom? Did it make the Lebanese people and moderate Arabs more friendly to America? Did it tell the Arabs that it pays to be a friend to America, as Lebanon was?

Disarming Hezbollah will aid Lebanese freedom. Until Hezbollah is disarmed, the Lebanese people will remain Hezbollah's prisoners/hostages.

"The way forward will be difficult, and it will require sacrifice and resolve," he said. "But America's security depends on liberty's advance in this troubled region, and we can be confident of the outcome because we know the unstoppable power of freedom."

The president says he is determined to keep U.S. troops in Iraq as he says it is better to fight terrorists abroad than to fight them at home.

The idiot still doesn't get it. What we are fighting in Iraq are local Sunnis insurgents created by our invasion of Iraq. We are not fighting Al Qaeda or international terrorist. What presence they have in Iraq is minimal and unimportant. Osama bin Laden is in Afghanistan and Pakistan, an area we are leaving and giving over to the UN and NATO forces.

Your psuedology is so obvious, it is ridiculous.

Yes we are fighting Sunni terrorists in Iraq. Yes we are fighting Shia terrorists in Iraq. Yes we are fighting al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. Yes we are fighting international terrorists in Iraq.

We have been doing all that since 2003.

From March 20, 2003 to July 31, 2006, about 1,044 civilians per month were killed by violence.

In 2000 - 2002, Saddam's regime killed about 1,599 civilians per month by violence.

In 1992 - 1999, Saddam's regime killed about 5,915 civilians per month by violence.

In 1985 - 1991 Saddam's regime killed about 3,728 civilians per month by violence.

In 1979 - 1984, Saddam's regime killed about 4,036 civilians per month by violence.
...

I think the Islamo-fascists are a serious threat to the survival of humanity as well as to America. That threat will grow more rapidly than it is currently, if we pull out and merely search boxes and bags for bombs or poison gas.

Remember 19 captured 4 airliners with box cutters and murdered about 3,000 American civilians. They didn't use weapons stored in their bags and boxes.

Remember, 19 murdered 3,000 in 2001 after visiting a hardware store.
Surely now 190 can murder 30,000 after visiting a hardware store.
Surely now 1,900 can murder 300,000 after visiting a hardware store.
Surely now 19,000 can murder 3,000,000 after visiting a hardware store.

Need I go on?

People lose what liberty they have when they are murdered.

To control the high rate Islamo-murderers murder, we must murder Islamo-murderers, their helpers, and their rooters at an even greater rate.

THINK!

THINK SOLUTIONS, NOT FAULT FINDINGS, NOT STUPIDITIES, NOT SLOGANS, NOT DOCTRINES, NOT DOGMAS, NOT MYTHS.

... and stop wasting time convincing yourself how no damn good Bush is! Hell, in two years 6 months, Bush will be irrelevant, but the Islamo-murderers won't be irrelevant if the Islamo-murderer problem isn't solved by then.