10th]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;
[11th]Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
EVEN MORMONS JUMPING OFF BUSH BANDWAGON AS WAR TAKES ITS TOLL
By Bill Gallagher
DETROIT -- Iraq is lost militarily and politically. Even the Mormons are now abandoning President George W. Bush's mad war. That's akin to the Swiss Guard deserting and leaving the pope to fend for himself with the Vatican under siege.
Other than his own greedy family members, oil barons and military contractors, no group of Americans has stood so steadfastly behind the Bush administration than the members of the Church of Latter-day Saints.
Voters in Utah, the Mormon theocracy, have supported Bush with loyalty they usually reserve for the Brigham Young football team. In 2004, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney's criminal enterprise got 71 percent of the vote in Utah.
The Salt Lake Tribune reported that a two-year compilation of Gallup polls showed staunch support among Mormons for the war in Iraq and Bush's handling of the violence: "American Mormons, more than any other religious group over that period, believed the United States was right to invade Iraq."
But a recent survey found "just 44 percent of those identifying themselves as Mormons said they backed Bush's war management." Mormon support for the war has plunged 21 percentage points in just five months.
The defection of the Mormons is a seismic political event, and you can bet Bush's political brain, Karl Rove, turns pale when he sees those numbers. The head of the Church of Latter-day Saints is expressing doubts about war, and the mayor of Salt Lake City is leading the charge to impeach Bush.
LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley may have set the stage for the precipitous plunge in Mormon support for the war. Speaking to students at Brigham Young University last fall, Hinckley spoke of "the terrible cost of war."
While not mentioning Iraq or Bush directly, the church leader said of war, "What a fruitless thing it often is," adding, "And what a terrible price it extracts." In the Mormon tradition, the words of the church president are carefully weighed.
Kirk Jowers, the director of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics, told the Salt Lake Tribune the church leader's remarks "may have been interpreted by the LDS community as an indictment against the world's violence."
Jowers said, "Small phrases by President Hinckley are to the LDS community as Alan Greenspan's words were to the financial community."
Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a lapsed Mormon, rejected subtle pronouncements and ambiguity. He said Bush should be impeached for committing "high crimes and misdemeanors." Anderson had the guts to say what every clear-thinking American ought to be shouting from the mountain tops.
Anderson told CNN, "If impeachment were ever justified, this is certainly the time. This president, by engaging in such incredible abuses of power, breaches of trust with both the Congress and the American people, and misleading us into this tragic and unbelievable war, the violation of treaties, other international law, our Constitution, our own domestic laws and then his role in heinous human rights abuse; I think all of that together calls for impeachment."
Whatever Democratic candidate for president will say and embrace similar words of truth has my support. That sure as hell will not be the calculating, triangulating Hillary Clinton. Such crisp honesty escapes her. Other leaders in the Democratic Party are similarity afflicted with the play-it-safe syndrome.
Anderson made his fellow Democrats cringe, saying forthrightly, "The fact that anybody would say that impeachment is off the table when we have a president who has been so egregious in his violation of our Constitution, a president who asserts unitary executive power, that is absolutely chilling."
Anderson denounced the "culture of obedience" that has so damaged our nation and weakened the Democratic Party.
Bush will now blame Congress, the Democrats and the Iraqi people for the disaster in Iraq that was doomed from its inception. Those of us who rejected the "culture of obedience" are seeing the horrible tragedy we predicted unfolding every day.
Bush's surge is just another slogan. There is no military solution that will undo the fiasco the invasion and occupation have brought.
Bush only wants to keep the war going long enough to pass the bloody baton to his successor. Then he will fade into ignominious oblivion, hiding out at his ranch in Texas, even more disconnected from the suffering his messianic megalomania and unrivaled incompetence have brought the world.
Last week, 152 people were killed when a truck bomb exploded in Tal Afar, making it the single deadliest bombing attack since the war began. Bush claimed last March that Tal Afar was a great Iraq success story. If Americans knew more about these stories, the White House argued at the time, they would have more confidence in Bush's victory strategy.
On March 23, 2006, Bush told a crowd of supporters in Cleveland he had found the magic bullet in Tal Afar, driving terrorists from what he hailed as a "free city."
Bush gushed about his success in the northern Iraq city, bellowing to the faithful, "The strategy that worked so well in Tal Afar did not emerge overnight -- it came only after much trial and error. It took time to understand and adjust to the brutality of the enemy in Iraq, yet the strategy is working."
The reality in Tal Afar destroys "Bubble Boy" Bush's grand delusions. In revenge attacks, Shiite police rounded up 70 people in a Sunni neighborhood and summarily executed them. Can Bush and his strategists explain for us what brutal enemies are responsible for this bloodshed?
Last week, more than 500 people were killed. The death toll will continue as long as American troops remain in Iraq. Only political reconciliation can salvage the nation, and Iraqis must determine their own destiny. The arrogance and cruelty of western occupation will never bring peace and stability to Iraq.
The extent of the civilian casualties in Iraq will make us despised in the Middle East for decades to come. Bush's war gives the bin Ladens of the world just what they want.
The British, our only significant ally in Iraq, are now confirming that the scientists who concluded more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion were spot-on.
The study done by researchers from Johns Hopkins University and the Al Mustansiriyia University in Baghdad was originally published last October in the British medical journal "The Lancet."
At the time, the U.S. and British governments rejected the death-toll survey. Bush dismissed the report as "unreliable," while failing to offer a scintilla of evidence to support his claim. The toadies in the corporate media let him get away with it.
The chief scientific adviser to the British Ministry of Defense, Roy Anderson, reviewed the methodology used in calculating the Iraq death toll. He told the Independent newspaper the methods were "robust" and "close to best practice." Another official told the paper it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones."
Now that our aggression has shattered Iraq, Bush and his neocon Amen Chorus are now blaming the Iraqis for their fate. They just don't appreciate what we've done for them. Sure, there have been a few casualties, but that's the price of freedom, these condescending cowards are saying. We gave them a chance, and those ignorant, unruly desert people are rejecting our gifts.
The other promised benefits from Operation Iraqi Liberation -- OIL -- are just not materializing. A Saddamless Iraq was sure to stabilize and democratize the Middle East, and make Israel safe and secure. Our "moderate" Arab friends would join in our crusade, and peace would spread like wildfire. But somehow Bush's hubris has collided with reality, and his geopolitical fantasies are manifest failures.
Even Bush's hand-holding buddy Saudi King Abdullah has abandoned him. The king cancelled his appearance at a White House dinner planned to honor him next month. This extraordinary diplomatic insult is a measure of the Saudis' anger and the strain on their long friendship with the United States.
The Busheviks have rejected everything the Saudis have tried to do to broker a deal to jump-start talks with the Palestinian government, settle tensions in Lebanon and bring Iran into regional discussions.
King Abdullah now calls the U.S forces in Iraq "an illegal foreign occupation." The Saudis are skeptical of any hope for peace in the region. Like the Mormons, they are bailing out on Bush's war.
Hinckley, the prophet and seer for millions of Mormons around the world, spoke about how fleeting the power of military and political leaders can be in his remarks at Brigham Young.
"They ruled with near omnipotence, and their very words brought terror into the hearts of people," he said. And yet, he added, "they have all passed into the darkness of the grave."
Bush's war in Iraq is lost. Nothing can be done to recover from it. The war and the people who created it have descended into the darkness of the grave.
Xingu, wow
Thanks
Cycloptichorn
...
Quote:[10th]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;
[11th]Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
However they were not there by invitation of Saddam Hussein and were outside of his control. Since America was the one country that could have destroyed that tiny base next to the Iranian border we are the ones, not Saddam Hussein, who allowed Al Qaeda to remain in existence in Iraq.
Even Bush's hand-holding buddy Saudi King Abdullah has abandoned him. The king cancelled his appearance at a White House dinner planned to honor him next month. This extraordinary diplomatic insult is a measure of the Saudis' anger and the strain on their long friendship with the United States.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Roadside bombs killed nine British and American soldiers and gunmen shot dead 10 Iraqi troops in one of the bloodiest 48-hour periods for coalition and Iraqi security forces in recent months.
Four British soldiers and an interpreter were killed by a roadside bomb that destroyed their armored fighting vehicle when they were ambushed on the outskirts of Basra, said British military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Kevin Stratford-Wright.
"The unit was involved in an operation elsewhere. As they were on their way back from the operation it was targeted by a roadside bomb in conjunction with small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades," he said from Basra.
The nationality of the interpreter was not clear, he said.
The British military denied accusations by Iraqi police that British troops had stormed a police checkpoint close to the scene of the attack shortly afterwards and beaten some police.
Six British soldiers have been killed in Iraq this week, making it one of the deadliest for British forces to date.
At least 140 British soldiers have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. More than 3,260 U.S. soldiers have been killed.
Gunmen also killed 10 Iraqi soldiers and wounded one in an attack on Thursday on their checkpoint near Mosul, an army source said.
The source said at least 40 gunmen attacked the checkpoint at dawn northwest of Mosul, setting vehicles on fire and seizing the soldiers' weapons.
"Apparently the soldiers were asleep when the attack happened. They were taken by surprise and did not have a chance to respond," said the army source, who declined to be named.
Two roadside bombs in and around Baghdad killed four American soldiers on Wednesday, the U.S. military said. A similar bomb in Diyala Province to the east killed another on Thursday.
Those attacks followed a relatively quiet period in Baghdad, where U.S. and Iraqi forces have deployed thousands more troops to enforce a security crackdown regarded as a last-ditch attempt to stop the country tearing itself apart.
Sectarian violence between Sunni Arabs and majority Shi'ite Muslims has escalated since the bombing of a Shi'ite shrine a year ago. Since the U.S. invasion in March 2003, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and millions displaced.
BIG CRATER
The attack in Basra tempered jubilation among British troops in Iraq after Iran sent home 15 British military personnel it had held for two weeks after seizing them in the northern Gulf.
"We heard two explosions that shook the house. I went out and saw one armored vehicle that was completely destroyed and another with less damage," said one resident.
Prime Minister Tony Blair said in February Britain would begin withdrawing a quarter of its 7,000 troops, who are stationed mainly in the Basra area, in coming months so Iraqis could eventually take full control of Basra province.
Iraq's government announced on Wednesday that Iraqi forces would assume control of southern Maysan province from British troops later in April. British forces have already handed back two other southern provinces.
The U.S. military said an army helicopter with nine people on board went down south of Baghdad. Four were injured.
A statement did not give the cause of the incident or any other details. Witnesses reported seeing heavy gunfire force the aircraft down in an insurgent stronghold south of the capital.
I hope that the truth about 9/11 comes out during ican's life time.
BTW -- Since when is an aggressive war moral? Since when is it moral to replace the head of a sovereign state through military action?
I hope that the truth about 9/11 comes out during ican's life time.
BTW -- Since when is an aggressive war moral? Since when is it moral to replace the head of a sovereign state through military action?
plainoldme wrote:BTW -- Since when is an aggressive war moral? Since when is it moral to replace the head of a sovereign state through military action?
Since 1945! Germany! Japan! Italy! I too think the morality of such replacement depends on what that head was doing prior to his replacement.
At this point, ican, it can safely said by honest people, that we are not reaching our objectives of making Iraq safer, why would you think more time and more lives and more destruction and more, more money would make any difference no matter how much longer we stay there. At what point, would you say, all right, its time to admit we are not going achieve our objectives and go home?
...
It seems to me that Iraqis are in this action for the long haul no matter how long that is.
What is it that [you] wish?
What would [you] have?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it Almighty God.
I know not what course others may take, but as for me: give me liberty, or give me death!
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
ican711nm wrote:plainoldme wrote:BTW -- Since when is an aggressive war moral? Since when is it moral to replace the head of a sovereign state through military action?
Since 1945! Germany! Japan! Italy! I too think the morality of such replacement depends on what that head was doing prior to his replacement.
Uh... but back then, we attacked you...
If you're using WWII as an example, you seem to be saying that it is moral to defend your country from a foreign aggressor trying to invade and occupy your country, and that it is moral to try to replace his head of state....
(Whom should the insurgents pick to replace Bush with?)
WE will leave Iraq when the Iraqi people ask us to leave!
The so-called insurgents otherwise known as al-Qaeda in Iraq, are making war on the Iraqi people.
We are there to help the Iraqi people find a way to stop al-Qaeda in Iraq from making war on the Iraqi people
-- and resuming their war on Americans.
It is the leaders of al-Qaeda in Iraq whom Bush is trying to lead us to help the Iraqi people replace.
WE will leave Iraq when the Iraqi people ask us to leave!
If we were not to leave when the Iraqi people ask us to leave, then and only then should our president at that time be impeached and removed.
ican wrote :
Quote:WE will leave Iraq when the Iraqi people ask us to leave!
i know this is a bad joke , but i just can't help myself - i'll plead old age as an excuse if necessary .
this is like invading a neighbour's house , beating the crap out of him and sitting on him .
when i'm asked when i'll leave , i'll say : "he hasn't asked me yet " .
hbg
Congress's Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...
[10th]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;
[11th]Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...
Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
Conclusion 6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.
American Soldier, by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers
page 483:
"The air picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges an a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Isla terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile] bashing. Soon Special Forces and [Special Mission Unit] operators, leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted."
page 519:
"[The Marines] also encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Lybia who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad. Those foreign volunteers fought with suicidal ferocity, but they did not fight well. The Marines killed them all. "
revel wrote:At this point, ican, it can safely said by honest people, that we are not reaching our objectives of making Iraq safer, why would you think more time and more lives and more destruction and more, more money would make any difference no matter how much longer we stay there. At what point, would you say, all right, its time to admit we are not going achieve our objectives and go home?
...
It seems to me that Iraqis are in this action for the long haul no matter how long that is.
Yes, "at this point ... we are not reaching our objectives of making Iraq safer."
I do not know now whether "more time and more lives and more destruction and more, more money [will] make any difference no matter how much longer we stay there." I do not know now whether such [will not] make any difference.
I do know now that if this kind of death and destruction were occuring inside America, and if we were not currently reaching our objectives of making America safer, I would want us to nonetheless persist trying to reach our objectives.
Yes!
Quote:What is it that [you] wish?
What would [you] have?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it Almighty God.
I know not what course others may take, but as for me: give me liberty, or give me death!
I believe the vast majority of Iraqis are like me and are not murderers of non-murderers. I believe they like me are endowed by God with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and do not deserve to lose those rights. Consequently, I believe we should persist in our efforts to secure these rights for them as well as for us.
WE should leave Iraq only when the Iraqis ask us to leave!
In other words:Quote:Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
WE should leave Iraq only when the Iraqis ask us to leave!
"Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing my deepest appreciation and gratitude to the men and women of our Armed Forces, to the families of those who have died, who have been wounded or are presently in harm's way.
"My prayers and all of my efforts as a United States Congressman are devoted to ensuring the well-being and support of our military, as they fight to protect our Nation, to honoring their memories, and to helping them when they return to our country.
"Mr. Speaker, after we deposed Saddam Hussein and removed him from power, it became clear to most Americans and most people around the world that so much of what our President had told us about Iraq was not true. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Saddam had no intention of sending Iraqi agents to slaughter Americans on our shores, and Saddam had precious little, if any, contact with foreign terrorists or anyone else who wanted to do harm to America.
"Mr. Speaker, now after nearly 4 years and the death of more than 3,100 American servicemen and -women, after more than 23,000 American men and women have been wounded, and after the United States has spent almost one-half a trillion U.S. taxpayer dollars in Iraq , I believe we have met our moral obligation to the people of Iraq .
"We have given the Iraqi people an opportunity over nearly 4 years to decide whether they will live together with themselves in peace, neighbor to neighbor, Iraqi Sunni, Shia and Kurd.
"The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi people have not yet decided they want to live together with one another in Iraq in peace.
"Our having our United States brave young men and women standing there, being shot at, being blown up is not encouraging the Iraqis to live together in peace. Not only are our troops dying and being wounded, but 80 percent of the Iraqi people say they want us to leave their country immediately.
"Mr. Speaker, President Bush implies that al Qaeda will take over Iraq if we leave. In my opinion that is nonsense. Today, you have less than 1,500 al Qaeda in Iraq. Iraq has a population of 25 million people. Today, you have not only Iraqi Shiites killing al Qaeda Sunnis, you have Iraqi Sunnis killing al Qaeda Sunnis. They don't like foreigners in Iraq, whether they be Sunnis, and especially if they are al Qaeda or Americans.
"Mr. Speaker, the only hope that our enemies have to destroy the United States is to have us remain bogged down in the swamp of the Iraqi civil war. Are we smart enough to pull ourselves out of that swamp of the Iraqi civil war? Or are we going to continue to allow our Nation to have our soldiers bled, our resources taken away, our equipment destroyed, taking our attention away from the other military threats and realities in this very hostile world?
"I believe that the United States' vital national interests will only be served if we withdraw all of our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible [with] the safety of our troops being uppermost in our minds. Then, we can leave several thousand in the region just in case. We can, more importantly, encourage the regional players, through diplomacy, to come together to help the Iraqis decide to live in peace.
"Mr. Speaker, leaving Iraq's civil war will serve America's vital national interests by allowing us to rebuild what is now a depleted U.S. Army and U.S. Marines, a military that is not fully up to its strategic requirements to deal with all the possible threats in the world.
"We need to refocus on Afghanistan and the resurgence of the Taliban. We need to be prepared militarily for the potential threats from North Korea, Iran and, yes, even the People's Republic of China.
"It is also important that we take these resources that we have been spending in Iraq not only to rebuild our military but to spend the money here at home. There is al Qaeda in 60 Nations in the world. They have pledged to come to America and harm us.
Congress wrote:
Congress's Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...
[10th]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;
[11th]Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...
Select Committee wrote:
Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
Conclusion 6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.
General Tommy Franks wrote:
American Soldier, by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers
page 483:
"The air picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges an a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Isla terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile] bashing. Soon Special Forces and [Special Mission Unit] operators, leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted."
page 519:
"[The Marines] also encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Lybia who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad. Those foreign volunteers fought with suicidal ferocity, but they did not fight well. The Marines killed them all. "
