• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

STFU Bush!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Of course we all know prior to that:[/b]
How many of those attacks were connected with Iraq?

It's irrelevant to my question. Since 9/11 how many have there been? 3? 1? 0? Why cant you just answer? Its not a trick question....

You have been answered. The 23,000 American soldiers killed or injured since 9/11 in Iraq. Shall I repeat this a fourth time?

ORLY? Shall we include all soldiers involved with war-type missions with my list? Hmmm? You would have to include Vietnam in those figures then.


edit: BTW you absolutely suck at reading comprehension. My questiuons was, "Has there been any direct attacks on the USA including embassies, bases, war ships, etc SINCE 9/11?"

Is your answer 23,000?
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Of course we all know prior to that:[/b]
How many of those attacks were connected with Iraq?

It's irrelevant to my question. Since 9/11 how many have there been? 3? 1? 0? Why cant you just answer? Its not a trick question....

You have been answered. The 23,000 American soldiers killed or injured since 9/11 in Iraq. Shall I repeat this a fourth time?

ORLY? Shall we include all soldiers involved with war-type missions with my list? Hmmm? You would have to include Vietnam in those figures then.

Unless my history book has a typo in it, the Vietnam War did not occur between 9/11/2001 and the present. The soldiers in Iraq are not involved in a mission against the perpetrators of 9/11, so you can not cite the war as an extension of that. Therefore, Islamic extremists have killed or maimed 23,000 American soldiers performing unrelated operations since September 11, 2001.

The reason why we haven't seen any attack on Cincinnati, Houston, Tampa Bay, or any other American city is because they can so easily pick off American targets in Iraq. 23,000 of them.

edit for your edit: How is an attack on an American soldier not a direct attack on the USA? What are you trying to clarify here?
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Of course we all know prior to that:[/b]
How many of those attacks were connected with Iraq?

It's irrelevant to my question. Since 9/11 how many have there been? 3? 1? 0? Why cant you just answer? Its not a trick question....
Your list is so broad, you're giving Bush credit for preventing attacks from literally everyone. Puerto Rican resistance, crazy Americans (Timothy McVeigh, Unabomber), Colombian guerillas, Islamic extremists, everyone.

The last anti-USA bombing by the FALN (Puerto Rican resistance) was in Chicago back in 1979. Shouldn't the person who was POTUS in 1980 get credit for stopping them, using your loose logic?
 
Fvck me, I hate reading stuff like that. Still, 1/3 of this country approves of him. I STILL have educated, literate "friends" who tout the benefits of the war and say it was right. Argh, it is frustrating.

What makes me happy ,for what it's worth, is that P&N is really running low on bush supporters. It seems that through collective reading and competency most of us have come to the very valid conclusion that not only is Bush a complete cluster-fvck, but so was Iraq. Our opinions are not inline with the general public's on many issues, though. This is probably because the general public doesn't spend hours/day reading news.
Im curious about something. Has there been any direct attacks on the USA including embassies, bases, war ships, etc SINCE 9/11?
Again, a non sequitur. It means nothing. You don't know if the lack of attacks is because of Iraq or not. I am telling you right now that since 9/11 I have painted my toenails green every day. IMO, that's what has prevented the attacks. Morover, given how big and easy a target the US has been in Iraq and Afghanistan, why would terrorists have to galavant around the planet when they have an endless supply of americans to kill at home? The US saved them the effort of travel, quite simply.

Your list also sucks. If you're going to include mcveigh, a domestic non-islmaist terrorist, please include the anthrax attacks in 2001. If you're going to include a non-fatal attack in lebanon in 1998, please include the NYC bombing a couple of weeks ago in the recruiting center. Your list has everything, whereas if we chalk up the attacks by "terrorists" since 9/11, there are literally THOUSANDS in Iraq. So, a more meaningful list would be domestic attacks and suddenly your list has only a few items on it. Before 9/11 we had mcveigh and then the WTC before that, right? So there were several years between attacks anyway. THe US has never had a domestic terrorism problem. 9/11 was an exception to what was otherwise a basic non-mentionable.
Im simply stating the President's statement that we are safer seems to be true.
This despite the fact the government admitted last year that al qaeda is as strong as it was before 911? Ok...
Has there been any direct attacks on the USA including embassies, bases, war ships, etc SINCE 9/11
Of course. THere have been US embassies attacked since 9/11. I think one was attacked just a couple of months ago in god knows where, maybe kosovo? 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Of course we all know prior to that:[/b]
How many of those attacks were connected with Iraq?

It's irrelevant to my question. Since 9/11 how many have there been? 3? 1? 0? Why cant you just answer? Its not a trick question....

You have been answered. The 23,000 American soldiers killed or injured since 9/11 in Iraq. Shall I repeat this a fourth time?

ORLY? Shall we include all soldiers involved with war-type missions with my list? Hmmm? You would have to include Vietnam in those figures then.

Unless my history book has a typo in it, the Vietnam War did not occur between 9/11/2001 and the present. The soldiers in Iraq are not involved in a mission against the perpetrators of 9/11, so you can not cite the war as an extension of that. Therefore, Islamic extremists have killed or maimed 23,000 American soldiers performing unrelated operations since September 11, 2001.

The reason why we haven't seen any attack on Cincinnati, Houston, Tampa Bay, or any other American city is because they can so easily pick off American targets in Iraq. 23,000 of them.

edit for your edit: How is an attack on an American soldier not a direct attack on the USA? What are you trying to clarify here?

You are AB.SO.LUTE.LY clueless.

I know you dont like to read my posts, but when you do, are you reading every other word? Did you see the two words "my list", which, most people would understand it refers the list of attacks on America posted on the previous page. You are somehow linking deaths and injuries in Iraq to direct attacks on America? WTF is wrong with you? Maybe it's the same in your mind, but guess what buddy-it isnt. As far as my list goes, starting in 1975, there were still MANY deaths related to Vietnam for many years afterwards. But you know this already.

Now answer my question. Has there been any direct attacks on the USA including embassies, bases, war ships, etc SINCE 9/11? And since 1975 have we had a longer period of time in between direct attacks?

No, and no.

You actually avoid and spin worse than Bush does.
 
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Of course we all know prior to that:[/b]
How many of those attacks were connected with Iraq?

It's irrelevant to my question. Since 9/11 how many have there been? 3? 1? 0? Why cant you just answer? Its not a trick question....

You have been answered. The 23,000 American soldiers killed or injured since 9/11 in Iraq. Shall I repeat this a fourth time?

Yes, but killed and wounded soldiers are not close relatives of those who run the country. Why should they care?
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im curious about something. Has there been any direct attacks on the USA including embassies, bases, war ships, etc SINCE 9/11? Of course we all know prior to that:

January 1975: USA, NYC, Bar Bomb 4 killed It is one of a series of 49 bombings between 1974 and 1977 attributed to the Puerto Rican National Liberation Army.

December 1975: USA, NYC, La Guardia Airport Bomb planted in luggage department 11 dead, 75 injured

May 1981 : USA, NYC, JFK Airport, toilet of Pan Am terminal Bomb 1 dead Puerto Rican Resistance Army.

August 1982: Honolulu, Hawaii. Pan Am airplane. Bomb 1 killed, several injured Palestinian terrorist Mohammad Rashid

April 1983: Beirut, U.S. Embassy Suicide car bomb 63 killed Radical Shiite Muslim group takes credit

October 1983: Beirut, U.S. Marine barracks Bomb 241 killed Lebanese Party of God faction

December 1983: Kuwait City, U.S. Embassy Suicide truck bomb Six killed; dozens injured 17 pro-Iranian terrorists convicted

September 1984: Beirut, U.S. embassy Suicide car bomb 16 killed Islamic Jihad claims responsibility

April 1985: Spain, Restaurant near U.S. Air Base Bomb 17 Killed

June 1985: TWA flight 847 Hijacking to Beirut One killed Lebanese Party of God faction

June 1985: El Salvador Machine gun 13 killed

August 1985, Germany, American base in Frankfurt car bomb Two killed, 20 injured

October 1985: Egyptian coast, Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro Hostage situation One killed Palestine Liberation Front

November 1985: Egypt Air flight 648 Hijacking to Malta 60 killed Abu Nidal's Arab Revolutionary Command

December 1985: Rome and Vienna Airport attacks at U.S. and Israeli airport check-in desks 16 killed

February 1986: Lisbon, U.S. embassy Car bomb No injuries Leftist guerrillas take credit

April 1986: West Berlin night club Bomb Three killed, 150 injured A Libyan diplomat, two Palestinians and two Germans

April 1986: Rome to Athens TWA flight Bomb Four killed Mohammed Rashid, Palestinian terrorist, members of Iraqi backed May 15 organization

June 1987: Rome, U.S. Embassy Rocket fired on embassy Minor injuries Japan-based Red Army terrorists

February 1988: Southern Lebanon Kidnapping One U.S. Marine executed Lebanese Party of God

March 1988: Bogota, Colombia Rocket- propelled grenade Minor damage Guerrilla group

December 1988: Lockerbie, Scotland, Pan Am flight 103 Bomb 270 killed Libyan intelligence agents

Feb 26 1993: USA, NYC, World Trade Center A bomb planted in an underground car parked at the World Trade Center 6 killed, 1000 injured Four Muslim fundamentalists are convicted of conspiracy and other charges related to the bombing, thought to have been ordered by Saudi terror master Osama bin Laden. In 1998, the so-called mastermind, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, is convicted and sentenced to life plus 240 years in prison.

July 1993: Lima, Peru Bomb explodes in bus outside embassy One killed Shining Path guerrillas suspected

March 1995: Karachi, Pakistan, U.S. Consulate Murder Two American diplomats killed Possible retaliation for World Trade Center bombing conviction

April 19 1995: USA, Oklahoma City Car bomb left outside a federal building 168 killed, 600 injured Timothy McVeigh, 33, a member of an anarchist group hostile to the federal government, is convicted of the attack in 1997 and is executed in June 2001.

September 1995: Moscow, U.S. Embassy Rocket-propelled grenade Minor damage No suspects

Oct 1995: USA, train travelling between Miami and Los Angeles and derailed in Arizona Derailed by sabotage. Two of the bolts on one of the joints of the track were removed.
1 killed, 80 injured Previously unknown group calling themselves "The Sons of the Gestapo".

November 1995: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, U.S. military headquarters Bomb Seven killed Four anti-royal Saudi Arabian dissidents, possible connections to Party of God an Iran; beheaded in Saudi Arabia

February 1996: Athens, U.S. Embassy Anti-tank missile attack No injuries National Struggle terrorist group

June 1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers Truck bomb 19 U.S. airmen killed Unknown

July 1996: USA, Centenary Park in Atlanta, Georgia. Olympic Games. Bomb 2 killed, 110 injured

November 1997: Karachi, Pakistan Murder of American oil-company employees Five killed Possible revenge for U.S. conviction of Pakistani for murders of two CIA agents

May 1998: Unabomber sentenced to life Parcel bombings 3 killed, 28 injured Theodore Kaczynski, alias the "Unabomber", is sentenced to life imprisonment for an 18-year campaign of parcel bombings as part of an "anti-modernist" crusade

June 1998: Lebanon, U.S. Embassy Rocket-propelled grenades No injuries

August 1998: Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. embassies Simultaneous bombings 263 killed, 5000 injured Possibly Osama bin Laden, Saudi financier

October 2000: The Destroyer USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden Bomb blast 17 killed

September 11, 2001:
USA, NYC, World Trade Center, Pentagon, Pensylvania Airplane crashes Over 6000 killed, thousands injured Possibly Osama Bin Laden with the help of the Taliban and international cells and states.

When the topic has to do with Bush's comment on how our foreign invasion has made us safer, you mentioned at least 3 incidents in which American born citizens attacked America on our soil. Unibomber, Olympic park bombing, and the Oklahoma federal building. If you're gonna mention those you'd have to mention virtually any bombings that have taken place in the US regardless of how "terror" related they were. And you very much left out the anthrax mailings. Also I'm sure that our largely ignoring Afghanistan for rthis quagmire in Iraq will come back to bite us in the ass again soon.
 
Originally posted by: thraashman

When the topic has to do with Bush's comment on how our foreign invasion has made us safer, you mentioned at least 3 incidents in which American born citizens attacked America on our soil. Unibomber, Olympic park bombing, and the Oklahoma federal building. If you're gonna mention those you'd have to mention virtually any bombings that have taken place in the US regardless of how "terror" related they were. And you very much left out the anthrax mailings. Also I'm sure that our largely ignoring Afghanistan for rthis quagmire in Iraq will come back to bite us in the ass again soon.

I never mentioned the word "invasion". The truth is, although most of you hate the phrase, and I admit it has become a little cliche, The WOT has in fact yielded results. Most of the guys we have captured have in fact been OUTSIDE of Iraq. Now, whether or not we prevented any further attacks, there's no way to know at all. We all love to speculate though, dont we?

Most of you on this board seem to think the hatred of America has been stepped up and renewed because of our presence in Iraq. If that's true, why hasnt the number of attacks on America increased? Although there's MUCH I dont like Bush for, his statement IS true. We *are* in fact safer. Again I point to the list-we havent had a 7 year period of no attacks since 1975. And who knows before that. And certainly the number of attacks in the mid 80's AND the mid 90's is staggering. Especially when compared to THIS decade.

Like it or not, it's the truth. Unfortunately most of you dont or cant admit it, and instead throw up the straw man of number of wounded or killed in Iraq. As terrible as it is, it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with mine, or the President's point.
 
blackangst, do you agree that either Carter or Reagan (not GWB) should get credit for stopping FALN attacks?
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
blackangst, do you agree that either Carter or Reagan (not GWB) should get credit for stopping FALN attacks?

Well, sure. Although we have no idea how many were stopped. We do know how many bombs were set off though.

And then, our President without a spine fuckin Clinton granted clemancy to 16 of them. Un-fucking-believable.
 
blackangst has a very valid point. The one respect in which the Bush Iraq policy has been an unqualified success: "We are fighting them over there so that we do not have to fight them over here". By creating a "target-rich environment" in Iraq, W & Company have eliminated any need for Jihad Johnny to come to the United States to kill all the Americans he wants. The troops they set out as bait are all volunteers, as are the KB&R mercenaries (sorry, I meant to say "civilian contractors"), so should we not all happily let them die in our stead? A secondary benefit is the removal of Americans from the ranks of "collateral damage". What do we care how many innocent Iraqis are blown to bits in the War on Terror, so long as the American voters get to sleep safely at night? As long as we have no new attacks on the Homeland, who cares how many Americans and foreigners die overseas?
Also, the president gets to ponder the great romantic adventure he and his fellows have provided to the troops. Can you not see how much he now regrets not taking the opportunity to go to Viet Nam himself, back in the day? He had to settle for playing fighter pilot in Texas. He did get to wear cool flight suits, though; just like he did on the Abraham Lincoln! It's too bad he hasn't had another good Mission Accomplished moment lately. We shouldn't lose hope, though. As long as W and Dick keep declaring success, and proclaiming how much better off we are for this magnificent venture in Nation Building (are we still allowed to call it that?) and Spreading Democracy, that flight suit may find its way back out of the closet, yet.
 
Iraq has placed Iraq on the map, never before Iraq has so many terrorist attacks against US citisens ever happened.

In fact, NEVER BEFORE IRAQ have the Muslims even been CLOSE when it comes to worldwide terrorist attacks, the Iraq war created these battlegrounds against Americans that were never there before.

Bush is a Uniter, definently, he has singlehandedly given Al-Quaida the strength they need to actually get people in every part of the world that are Muslim to react.

Of course, this is then blames on other things.. before the invasion, do you honestly think the Muslims even cared?

GW fucked this up and there is no repairing it, the fight is on and OBL now threatens Europe, the more he can get against him the more he can get to agree, that will be his legacy.

GW's legacy will be that of the worst traitorous president in all time.

He should suffer the same fate as SH.
 
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
He should suffer the same fate as SH.
He should live a long life in Nixonian isolation, savoring the disdain of the nation he has so miserably failed.
 
i like bush and cheney parroting themselves over and over again. it reminds me that even though they are still in office, they have already become an anachronism on the world stage. the world is moving on and these two clowns are stuck in a looped sound bite from the distant past. i can see both of them (if they live that long) 20 yrs. from now droning on with that same looped message, if only to keep deceiving themselves about the roles they played in scamming the nation into preemtively invading and occupying iraq and the debacle it became, all due to their myopic arrogance and ignorance of reality. frustratingly pitiful and pitifully sad in that regard.

with both houses of congress and a compiant judiciary in their back pocket, one can only imagine the amount of good these guys could have done.

instead, we have a tanking economy that the tax cuts for the rich should have prevented (according to bush anyway) and an endless occupation of a soverign nation that's costing us dearly in lives and debt and on and on and on.

what a mess. what a legacy to have to live with.
 
Originally posted by: tweaker2
i like bush and cheney parroting themselves over and over again. it reminds me that even though they are still in office, they have already become an anachronism on the world stage. the world is moving on and these two clowns are stuck in a looped sound bite from the distant past. i can see both of them (if they live that long) 20 yrs. from now droning on with that same looped message, if only to keep deceiving themselves about the roles they played in scamming the nation into preemtively invading and occupying iraq and the debacle it became, all due to their myopic arrogance and ignorance of reality. frustratingly pitiful and pitifully sad in that regard.

with both houses of congress and a compiant judiciary in their back pocket, one can only imagine the amount of good these guys could have done.

instead, we have a tanking economy that the tax cuts for the rich should have prevented (according to bush anyway) and an endless occupation of a soverign nation that's costing us dearly in lives and debt and on and on and on.

what a mess. what a legacy to have to live with.

You know whats funny? Bush was tricking the country when he was still governor!

TWICE!!!
February 19, 1998



Dear Mr. President,

Many of us were involved in organizing the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf in 1990 to support President Bush's policy of expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Seven years later, Saddam Hussein is still in power in Baghdad. And despite his defeat in the Gulf War, continuing sanctions, and the determined effort of UN inspectors to fetter out and destroy his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has been able to develop biological and chemical munitions. To underscore the threat posed by these deadly devices, the Secretaries of State and Defense have said that these weapons could be used against our own people. And you have said that this issue is about "the challenges of the 21st Century."

Iraq's position is unacceptable. While Iraq is not unique in possessing these weapons, it is the only country which has used them -- not just against its enemies, but its own people as well. We must assume that Saddam is prepared to use them again. This poses a danger to our friends, our allies, and to our nation.

It is clear that this danger cannot be eliminated as long as our objective is simply "containment," and the means of achieving it are limited to sanctions and exhortations. As the crisis of recent weeks has demonstrated, these static policies are bound to erode, opening the way to Saddam's eventual return to a position of power and influence in the region. Only a determined program to change the regime in Baghdad will bring the Iraqi crisis to a satisfactory conclusion.

For years, the United States has tried to remove Saddam by encouraging coups and internal conspiracies. These attempts have all failed. Saddam is more wily, brutal and conspiratorial than any likely conspiracy the United States might mobilize against him. Saddam must be overpowered; he will not be brought down by a coup d'etat. But Saddam has an Achilles' heel: lacking popular support, he rules by terror. The same brutality which makes it unlikely that any coups or conspiracies can succeed, makes him hated by his own people and the rank and file of his military. Iraq today is ripe for a broad-based insurrection. We must exploit this opportunity.

Saddam's long record of treaty violations, deception, and violence shows that diplomacy and arms control will not constrain him. In the absence of a broader strategy, even extensive air strikes would be ineffective in dealing with Saddam and eliminating the threat his regime poses. We believe that the problem is not only the specifics of Saddam's actions, but the continued existence of the regime itself.

What is needed now is a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime. It will not be easy -- and the course of action we favor is not without its problems and perils. But we believe the vital national interests of our country require the United States to:

*

Recognize a provisional government of Iraq based on the principles and leaders of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) that is representative of all the peoples of Iraq.
*

Restore and enhance the safe haven in northern Iraq to allow the provisional government to extend its authority there and establish a zone in southern Iraq from which Saddam's ground forces would also be excluded.
*

Lift sanctions in liberated areas. Sanctions are instruments of war against Saddam's regime, but they should be quickly lifted on those who have freed themselves from it. Also, the oil resources and products of the liberated areas should help fund the provisional government's insurrection and humanitarian relief for the people of liberated Iraq.
*

Release frozen Iraqi assets -- which amount to $1.6 billion in the United States and Britain alone -- to the control of the provisional government to fund its insurrection. This could be done gradually and so long as the provisional government continues to promote a democratic Iraq.
*

Facilitate broadcasts from U.S. transmitters immediately and establish a Radio Free Iraq.
*

Help expand liberated areas of Iraq by assisting the provisional government's offensive against Saddam Hussein's regime logistically and through other means.
*

Remove any vestiges of Saddam's claim to "legitimacy" by, among other things, bringing a war crimes indictment against the dictator and his lieutenants and challenging Saddam's credentials to fill the Iraqi seat at the United Nations.
*

Launch a systematic air campaign against the pillars of his power -- the Republican Guard divisions which prop him up and the military infrastructure that sustains him.
*

Position U.S. ground force equipment in the region so that, as a last resort, we have the capacity to protect and assist the anti-Saddam forces in the northern and southern parts of Iraq.

Once you make it unambiguously clear that we are serious about eliminating the threat posed by Saddam, and are not just engaged in tactical bombing attacks unrelated to a larger strategy designed to topple the regime, we believe that such countries as Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, whose cooperation would be important for the implementation of this strategy, will give us the political and logistical support to succeed.

In the present climate in Washington, some may misunderstand and misinterpret strong American action against Iraq as having ulterior political motives. We believe, on the contrary, that strong American action against Saddam is overwhelmingly in the national interest, that it must be supported, and that it must succeed. Saddam must not become the beneficiary of an American domestic political controversy.

We are confident that were you to launch an initiative along these line, the Congress and the country would see it as a timely and justifiable response to Iraq's continued intransigence. We urge you to provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.

Sincerely,



Hon. Stephen Solarz
Former Member, Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. House of Representatives

Hon. Richard Perle
Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Former Assistant Secretary of Defense

Hon. Elliot Abrams
President, Ethics & Public Policy Center; Former Assistant Secretary of State

Richard V. Allen
Former National Security Advisor

Hon. Richard Armitage
President, Armitage Associates, L.C.; Former Assistant Secretary of Defense

Jeffrey T. Bergner
President, Bergner, Bockorny, Clough & Brain; Former Staff Director, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Hon. John Bolton
Senior Vice President, American Enterprise Institute; Former Assistant Secretary of State

Stephen Bryen
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

Hon. Richard Burt
Chairman, IEP Advisors, Inc.; Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany; Former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs

Hon. Frank Carlucci
Former Secretary of Defense

Hon. Judge William Clark
Former National Security Advisor

Paula J. Dobriansky
Vice President, Director of Washington Office, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Member, National Security Council

Doug Feith
Managing Attorney, Feith & Zell P.C.; Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy

Frank Gaffney
Director, Center for Security Policy; Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces

Jeffrey Gedmin
Executive Director, New Atlantic Initiative; Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Hon. Fred C. Ikle
Former Undersecretary of Defense

Robert Kagan
Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Zalmay M. Khalilzad
Director, Strategy and Doctrine, RAND Corporation

Sven F. Kraemer
Former Director of Arms Control, National Security Council

William Kristol
Editor, The Weekly Standard

Michael Ledeen
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Former Special Advisor to the Secretary of State

Bernard Lewis
Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern and Ottoman Studies, Princeton University

R. Admiral Frederick L. Lewis
U.S. Navy, Retired

Maj. Gen. Jarvis Lynch
U.S. Marine Corps, Retired

Hon. Robert C. McFarlane
Former National Security Advisor

Joshua Muravchik
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Robert A. Pastor
Former Special Assistant to President Carter for Inter-American Affairs

Martin Peretz
Editor-in-Chief, The New Republic

Roger Robinson
Former Senior Director of International Economic Affairs, National Security Council

Peter Rodman
Director of National Security Programs, Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom; Former Director, Policy Planning Staff, U.S. Department of State

Hon. Peter Rosenblatt
Former Ambassador to the Trust Territories of the Pacific

Hon. Donald Rumsfeld
Former Secretary of Defense

Gary Schmitt
Executive Director, Project for the New American Century; Former Executive Director, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

Max Singer
President, The Potomac Organization; Former President, The Hudson Institute

Hon. Helmut Sonnenfeldt
Guest Scholar, The Brookings Institution; Former Counsellor, U.S. Department of State

Hon. Caspar Weinberger
Former Secretary of Defense

Leon Wienseltier
Literary Editor, The New Republic

Hon. Paul Wolfowitz
Dean, Johns Hopkins SAIS; Former Undersecretary of Defense

David Wurmser
Director, Middle East Program, AEI; Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Dov S. Zakheim
Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense



AND AGAIN! WTF! VIDEO EVEN!
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: tweaker2
i like bush and cheney parroting themselves over and over again. it reminds me that even though they are still in office, they have already become an anachronism on the world stage. the world is moving on and these two clowns are stuck in a looped sound bite from the distant past. i can see both of them (if they live that long) 20 yrs. from now droning on with that same looped message, if only to keep deceiving themselves about the roles they played in scamming the nation into preemtively invading and occupying iraq and the debacle it became, all due to their myopic arrogance and ignorance of reality. frustratingly pitiful and pitifully sad in that regard.

with both houses of congress and a compiant judiciary in their back pocket, one can only imagine the amount of good these guys could have done.

instead, we have a tanking economy that the tax cuts for the rich should have prevented (according to bush anyway) and an endless occupation of a soverign nation that's costing us dearly in lives and debt and on and on and on.

what a mess. what a legacy to have to live with.

You know whats funny? Bush was tricking the country when he was still governor!

TWICE!!!
February 19, 1998



Dear Mr. President,

Many of us were involved in organizing the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf in 1990 to support President Bush's policy of expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Seven years later, Saddam Hussein is still in power in Baghdad. And despite his defeat in the Gulf War, continuing sanctions, and the determined effort of UN inspectors to fetter out and destroy his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has been able to develop biological and chemical munitions. To underscore the threat posed by these deadly devices, the Secretaries of State and Defense have said that these weapons could be used against our own people. And you have said that this issue is about "the challenges of the 21st Century."

Iraq's position is unacceptable. While Iraq is not unique in possessing these weapons, it is the only country which has used them -- not just against its enemies, but its own people as well. We must assume that Saddam is prepared to use them again. This poses a danger to our friends, our allies, and to our nation.

It is clear that this danger cannot be eliminated as long as our objective is simply "containment," and the means of achieving it are limited to sanctions and exhortations. As the crisis of recent weeks has demonstrated, these static policies are bound to erode, opening the way to Saddam's eventual return to a position of power and influence in the region. Only a determined program to change the regime in Baghdad will bring the Iraqi crisis to a satisfactory conclusion.

For years, the United States has tried to remove Saddam by encouraging coups and internal conspiracies. These attempts have all failed. Saddam is more wily, brutal and conspiratorial than any likely conspiracy the United States might mobilize against him. Saddam must be overpowered; he will not be brought down by a coup d'etat. But Saddam has an Achilles' heel: lacking popular support, he rules by terror. The same brutality which makes it unlikely that any coups or conspiracies can succeed, makes him hated by his own people and the rank and file of his military. Iraq today is ripe for a broad-based insurrection. We must exploit this opportunity.

Saddam's long record of treaty violations, deception, and violence shows that diplomacy and arms control will not constrain him. In the absence of a broader strategy, even extensive air strikes would be ineffective in dealing with Saddam and eliminating the threat his regime poses. We believe that the problem is not only the specifics of Saddam's actions, but the continued existence of the regime itself.

What is needed now is a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime. It will not be easy -- and the course of action we favor is not without its problems and perils. But we believe the vital national interests of our country require the United States to:

*

Recognize a provisional government of Iraq based on the principles and leaders of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) that is representative of all the peoples of Iraq.
*

Restore and enhance the safe haven in northern Iraq to allow the provisional government to extend its authority there and establish a zone in southern Iraq from which Saddam's ground forces would also be excluded.
*

Lift sanctions in liberated areas. Sanctions are instruments of war against Saddam's regime, but they should be quickly lifted on those who have freed themselves from it. Also, the oil resources and products of the liberated areas should help fund the provisional government's insurrection and humanitarian relief for the people of liberated Iraq.
*

Release frozen Iraqi assets -- which amount to $1.6 billion in the United States and Britain alone -- to the control of the provisional government to fund its insurrection. This could be done gradually and so long as the provisional government continues to promote a democratic Iraq.
*

Facilitate broadcasts from U.S. transmitters immediately and establish a Radio Free Iraq.
*

Help expand liberated areas of Iraq by assisting the provisional government's offensive against Saddam Hussein's regime logistically and through other means.
*

Remove any vestiges of Saddam's claim to "legitimacy" by, among other things, bringing a war crimes indictment against the dictator and his lieutenants and challenging Saddam's credentials to fill the Iraqi seat at the United Nations.
*

Launch a systematic air campaign against the pillars of his power -- the Republican Guard divisions which prop him up and the military infrastructure that sustains him.
*

Position U.S. ground force equipment in the region so that, as a last resort, we have the capacity to protect and assist the anti-Saddam forces in the northern and southern parts of Iraq.

Once you make it unambiguously clear that we are serious about eliminating the threat posed by Saddam, and are not just engaged in tactical bombing attacks unrelated to a larger strategy designed to topple the regime, we believe that such countries as Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, whose cooperation would be important for the implementation of this strategy, will give us the political and logistical support to succeed.

In the present climate in Washington, some may misunderstand and misinterpret strong American action against Iraq as having ulterior political motives. We believe, on the contrary, that strong American action against Saddam is overwhelmingly in the national interest, that it must be supported, and that it must succeed. Saddam must not become the beneficiary of an American domestic political controversy.

We are confident that were you to launch an initiative along these line, the Congress and the country would see it as a timely and justifiable response to Iraq's continued intransigence. We urge you to provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.

Sincerely,



Hon. Stephen Solarz
Former Member, Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. House of Representatives

Hon. Richard Perle
Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Former Assistant Secretary of Defense

Hon. Elliot Abrams
President, Ethics & Public Policy Center; Former Assistant Secretary of State

Richard V. Allen
Former National Security Advisor

Hon. Richard Armitage
President, Armitage Associates, L.C.; Former Assistant Secretary of Defense

Jeffrey T. Bergner
President, Bergner, Bockorny, Clough & Brain; Former Staff Director, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Hon. John Bolton
Senior Vice President, American Enterprise Institute; Former Assistant Secretary of State

Stephen Bryen
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

Hon. Richard Burt
Chairman, IEP Advisors, Inc.; Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany; Former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs

Hon. Frank Carlucci
Former Secretary of Defense

Hon. Judge William Clark
Former National Security Advisor

Paula J. Dobriansky
Vice President, Director of Washington Office, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Member, National Security Council

Doug Feith
Managing Attorney, Feith & Zell P.C.; Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy

Frank Gaffney
Director, Center for Security Policy; Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces

Jeffrey Gedmin
Executive Director, New Atlantic Initiative; Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Hon. Fred C. Ikle
Former Undersecretary of Defense

Robert Kagan
Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Zalmay M. Khalilzad
Director, Strategy and Doctrine, RAND Corporation

Sven F. Kraemer
Former Director of Arms Control, National Security Council

William Kristol
Editor, The Weekly Standard

Michael Ledeen
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Former Special Advisor to the Secretary of State

Bernard Lewis
Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern and Ottoman Studies, Princeton University

R. Admiral Frederick L. Lewis
U.S. Navy, Retired

Maj. Gen. Jarvis Lynch
U.S. Marine Corps, Retired

Hon. Robert C. McFarlane
Former National Security Advisor

Joshua Muravchik
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Robert A. Pastor
Former Special Assistant to President Carter for Inter-American Affairs

Martin Peretz
Editor-in-Chief, The New Republic

Roger Robinson
Former Senior Director of International Economic Affairs, National Security Council

Peter Rodman
Director of National Security Programs, Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom; Former Director, Policy Planning Staff, U.S. Department of State

Hon. Peter Rosenblatt
Former Ambassador to the Trust Territories of the Pacific

Hon. Donald Rumsfeld
Former Secretary of Defense

Gary Schmitt
Executive Director, Project for the New American Century; Former Executive Director, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

Max Singer
President, The Potomac Organization; Former President, The Hudson Institute

Hon. Helmut Sonnenfeldt
Guest Scholar, The Brookings Institution; Former Counsellor, U.S. Department of State

Hon. Caspar Weinberger
Former Secretary of Defense

Leon Wienseltier
Literary Editor, The New Republic

Hon. Paul Wolfowitz
Dean, Johns Hopkins SAIS; Former Undersecretary of Defense

David Wurmser
Director, Middle East Program, AEI; Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Dov S. Zakheim
Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense



AND AGAIN! WTF! VIDEO EVEN!

thanks for all that information. i personally appreciate it.

what that info also provided me was how the reasons for invading iraq changed when bush II and cheney took over, and why these two guys had to resort to chicanery and lies to get the citizens of the USA hooked on the idea. very enlightening.

 
Back
Top