Mismanaging the aftermath of swift military victory in Iraq has led to a situation that threatens to spread through civil into regional conflict. Such a regional conflict could quickly involve other non-local nations with perceived interests, and become a world war. Despite America's having the military power to survive such a conflict, our national interests and influence will inevitably be consumed by it. We have power at the top of the escalation ladder in our nuclear weapons to destroy whatever we want, but doing so ruins our ideological and moral force forever. Meanwhile at the bottom rungs of the escalation ladder, we are squandering our moral force, failing to provide needed tools to our infantry, keeping the finest mobile warfare machine in history tied down in an occupation, failing to engage our allies, and many other errors. War is politics by other means. When the political http://www.2pauls.com

http://green-tea.airmode.de/Green-tea.html

Wow, you libs love to give the benefit of the doubt to America's enemies.
"Saddam, al Qaeda of course they had no connections" "Of course Saddam wasn't a threat"

Bush just made it all up, right?

Bush convinced the UN, France, Germany, Russia, the Brits all to lie for his cause, ya thats it.
You guys need to get out of DailyKos world and look back at the building threat that Iraq has been for a decade.
Look back at the quotes from Democrats (http://63.247.134.60/~pobbs/archives/001411ties_between_al_qaeda_and_the_saddam_hussein_regime.html)
and then actually look at the ARCHIVES of this newspaper, NEWSWEEK, TIME magazine and the rest of the press talking about what a threat Iraq was and stop living in the current news cycle. The fact that you people give a free pass to our known enemies and attack our leaders who wish to protect us makes you as unAmerican and unpatriotic as anything I can think of.

I think you really should disable the comments feature on this page.

What a collection of anti-American and Christian-bashing bigots!

It's so good that you guys lose elections!

And what was that about Clinton's Kosovo Quagmire? The people we defended have ethnically cleansed everyone else out of there. Some victory!

Evangelicals are members of a death cult, by definition. It is grotesque that they have take over the government of this country. Now the normal people are caught between St. Georgie's death cult and Osama's death cult. Great. Just where I want to raise MY children. If what we want is a polite demise, we can just keep on being led like sheep over the cliff. Or, as I have decided to do, we can kick and scream and fight. Nothing polite is worth listening to anymore. I've heard enough polite lies to last me a lifetime. From now on, until the Evangelicals are sitting in the backwater they came from, I will FIGHT! And I'm going to be as mean and nasty as they are, every bit... and more.

Want to stay in Iraq? What for? Think it's going to keep them "free"? Keep WHO free? NOT THE WOMEN! Sharia Law makes slaves of them all, permanently. Think you are keeping the Radical Islamists from making it an Islamist State? That is exactly what their new "constitution" is making for Iraq, an Islamist State. George's war accomplished zip, zero, nada for the Iraqis and for us. We stay, so what? We go, same difference. Georgie Porky gave 'em what they wanted; another Islamic country. One for their side. Next!

Oh, the evil Christian Fundamentalists, we can't let them take over or it will be just like England in the 1600s. Sure thing. We should follow the Enlightened Model of purely secular states such as the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, and Cuba. They really know how to treat their people correctly! They were (are) models of peace, progress, human rights!

People ought to study the Oliver Cromwell era in the 1600's in Britain. Goes something like this: Christian Fundamentalists take over Parliament, execute King Charles II, inflict all kinds of repressive acts and fines, taxes, etc. on the poor, and plunge Britain into two civil wars from which it took well over 100 years to recover. Ya' know what happens then? These losers emigrate to America and start burning witches!

People ought to study the Oliver Cromwell era in the 1600's in Britain. Goes something like this: Christian Fundamentalists take over Parliament, execute King Charles II, inflict all kinds of repressive acts and fines, taxes, etc. on the poor, and plunge Britain into two civil wars from which it took well over 100 years to recover. Ya' know what happens then? These losers emigrate to America and start burning witches!

Here is one article,dated April 2005, re evangelical problems at the Air Force Academy:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600127625,00.html

An excerpt:
----------------
AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. -- Less than two years after it was plunged into a rape scandal, the Air Force Academy is scrambling to address complaints that evangelical Christians wield so much influence at the school that anti-Semitism and other forms of religious harassment have become pervasive.

There have been 55 complaints of religious discrimination at the academy in the past four years, including cases in which a Jewish cadet was told the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus and another was called a Christ killer by a fellow cadet.
The 4,300-student school recently started requiring staff members and cadets to take a 50-minute religious-tolerance class.
"There are things that have happened that have been inappropriate. And they have been addressed and resolved," said Col. Michael Whittington, the academy's chief chaplain.
More than 90 percent of the cadets identify themselves as Christian. A cadet survey in 2003 found that half had heard religious slurs and jokes, and that many non-Christians believed Christians get special treatment.
"There were people walking up to someone and basically they would get in a conversation and it would end with, 'If you don't believe what I believe you are going to hell,' " Vice Commandant Col. Debra Gray said.
Critics of the academy say the sometimes-public endorsement of Christianity by high-ranking staff has contributed to a climate of fear and violates the constitutional separation of church and state at a taxpayer-supported school whose mission is to produce Air Force leaders...."
-------------

I personally think that God reveals himself in different ways to different peoples -- and that fallible humans should be reluctant to think that they know what God wants or to judge another person's beliefs.

Doing so led to many horrors in Europe during the Middle Ages -- the slaughter of tens of thousands of Albegensian "heretics", burning of people at the stake by the Inquisition, massacres of large numbers of innocents in religious wars, etc.

I think many of our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights to prevent such evil from gaining a hold in this country. People who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution should remember that.

Re zz's comment "Well now, the WP has published another interesting story just today: Air Force Withdraws ;Paper for Chaplains Document Permitted Proselytizing "
-----------
There have been earlier reports of evangelicals becoming a problem at the Air Force Academy.

I have not been in the service -- but I worked with Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel for 20+ years and they did not strike me as being any more religious than civilian society. I liked most of the guys I worked with -- in my opinion, they are some of the most virtuous members of our society. What pisses me off is that they give much to the USA and are often screwed like dogs after doing so.

Much of what Hollywood shows is utter bullshit. We have this impression of military officers as being mega studs -- which may be valid for junior officers in the combat arms units.

But the system neuters them as time goes on. In my opinion, senior military commanders (Lt Colonels and above) are some of the most servile people on the planet. These guys are not Afghan warlords -- everything they have can be taken away from them at any time and they know it.

The military has few slots at the top and the "up or out " policy hangs over everyone. Plus if they really screw up and are discharged before putting in their 20 years, their retirement goes out the window. They usually have little savings --because of low military pay -- and few job prospects in the civilian economy unless they've done a defense contractor a really, Really big favor.

The point is -- senior officers don't wonder off the reservation by accident. General Boykin and others would not be playing to the fundamentalist power groups if they were not being encouraged by the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and White House.

Which really sucks if you are subordinate to these guys. Because they can form a clique in no time simply by giving noncommittal performance reviews to men who don't support their views. Our soldiers deserve our support -- and we should not let their careers be destroyed simply because they are not willing to sign up for a religious crusade. The military already goes too far in my opinion -- e.g., court martialing good officers for morals charges like adultry.

It also sucks for good officers who are in competition for promotion with men like Boykin and who get passed over because they don't wear their religion on their sleeve, even though they've made major contributions to the national defense.

Plus, in my opinion, General Boykin damaged national security when, in discussing a battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, Boykin told a public gathering, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." (Ref: LA TImes article at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm )

The reason is that we can find our hard core enemies -- Al Qaeda cadre -- only with the help of people in the Muslim world. General Boykin closed off a lot of intelligence leads with his comments. Which seems a poor way of doing his job as
deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence. Especially since he supposedly is responsible for finding Bin Ladin.

zz:
Trying to explain the separation of church and state to evangelicals is like trying to explain to the Taliban that women should vote.

Its not in their culture. Many live exclusively within their evangelical communities, regarding anyone not in that community as "not us". And like the bible, the Constitution's text is only taken when it agrees with their doctrine. They have said many times they do not believe there should be a separation of church and state.

So, since the evangelicals are in power, or at least helped put Bush and many republicans in power, one of their many goals, to tear down the constitutionally protection from government establishment of religion, is being realized through republican legislation and the unenforcement of laws and regulations regarding the separation.

Its that simple.

Want to change it, vote the republicans out in 2006. That will stop this cancer in its tracks and have a new attourney general begin enforcing the law. Nothing else will work. These are determined people who do not care for America, just that their little evangelical community becomes the national religion.

Mr. Arkin closed his Shared Fantasies of Bush and al Qaeda?
blog commentary by writing:

"We may fantasize about a great crusade we are embarked upon, but our greatest danger in the future is a tin ear we also have to Islam's and al Qaeda's equal fantasies. Their fantasies, and our actions, like it or not, drive the violence all around us."

Earlier in this blog, under zz and zz ziled, I posted a couple of comments; one was a satirical ditty about West Point graduate and US Army Captain Chaplin Yee, who practices the Islamic faith and who lost his position it appears because he was cast into a Catch-22 position at GITMO. The other comment was about the situation in Afghanistan as documented by Kathy Gannon and then a sarcastic comment on: Mr. Bush's comments on 'his direct personal hotline to his god' - which now is reported by the Administration as a misunderstanding. [See: George Bush: 'God Told Me to End the Tyranny in Iraq' By Ewen MacAskill- The Guardian UK -Friday 07 October 2005 President told Palestinians, God also talked to him about Middle East peace.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html
Well now, the WP has published another interesting story just today:
Air Force Withdraws ;Paper for Chaplains Document Permitted Proselytizing
By Alan Cooperman , Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, October 11, 2005; Page A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/10/AR2005101001582.html?referrer=email

Personally, I'd like to know how Karen Hughes in her new Office and "Public Diplomacy Ministry" is going to explain this little nuance.

Under the directive of the US Constitution, we are suppose to have a wall between the Church and State in this country, we are suppose to have no State religion.

From my view, given this USAF policy , it seems we now have hard evidence of a 'toxic military public diplomacy spill' which needs to be quickly addressed and explained to the US Public and the non-US people we are trying to convince of our benevolent, democratic and non-sectarian even handed intentions. Any comments? Mr. Don Williams what do you have to say about this, anything?

I have observed that POGO has become very popular again, due to the cartoon quote long ago: "We have met the enemy and it is us."

The following are exact excerpts from Bush's own "War on Terror at the National Endowment for Democracy" (the very speech in discussion here):

"Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken seriously - and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.
They exploit modern technology to multiply their destructive power.
They target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence.
They have endless ambitions of imperial domination...to make everyone powerless except themselves.
And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor (people)* is that they become killers...though he never goes along for the ride."

* I substituted "people" for "Muslims".

My god, DubyaDown, look into the mirror and meet that enemy!

After 68 years on this planet, seeing the bodies of ordinary people in mass graves following the holocost in Germany when I was a child, after the fear of Korea when my friends boyfriends were seeing action, after McCarthy, after the Viet Nam war that many believe was a war for profit and power ostensibly based on "freedom" and the "domino theory", after the "cold war", I long to see our country, our people, coming together in a dialog that demonstrates a determination to come to some kind of peaceful and charitable consensus. When we speak to each other we could be at least polite, understanding of each persons fears and ideals, and honest about where we are coming from as contributors to the overall good. Devisive retoric is useless and barren. Honesty is the only road to understanding and resolution. I commend those who understand this and contribute hard won truth as they see it.

I fully recognize that the Bin Laden family has publicly 'disowned' Mr. Osama Bin Laden. However, the impact of long-standing business relationships between power-brokers in Washington and those worldwide, on the lives of average citizens, worldwide, should not be discounted. Members of the elite international business 'club' exhibit more similarities than they do cultural differences. Good to know that at least some of the 'people' are benefiting from these on-going relationships.

The "investments" made by the US in the Middle East are matched by "investments" made in the US by many Middle Eastern businessmen/women:

"Their huge construction company, the Saudi Binladen Group (SBG), banked with Citigroup and invested with Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch. Over time, the bin Ladens did business with such icons of western culture as Disney, the Hard Rock Cafe, Snapple, and Porsche. In the mid-nineties, they joined various members of the House of Saud in becoming business associates with former secretary of state James Baker and former President George H.W. Bush by investing in the Carlyle Group, a gigantic Washington, D.C.-based private equity firm." (House of Bush, House of Saud, The Secret Relationship between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties, Craig Unger, Scribner, New York, 2004, 5-6.)

And then there is the recent increase of shares now owned by a member of the Saudi royal family in FOX News. Money in, money out. What is that phrase? "Everybody wins"?

Well its starting. Not to get too far off this blog's subject but I've been waiting to see just far Bush has sunk by seeing which republican politicians will keep him at arm's length. Its happened: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/10/AR2005101001509.html
Here's the gist of it:
"One day after announcing that he is considering another run for the presidency, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) jetted to California to show support for a set of state ballot initiatives the GOP governor is championing."

McCain, not Bush, came to Arnold's side. Now some will argue that CA has democratic leanings so you need to bring a face in that democrats can support. But I don't buy it. Its a trend I expect to continue through the 2006 campaigns. Another example is Marilyn Brewer of Irvine, CA, a leading Republican candidate for the nation's only open House seat, who talks glowingly of Ronald Reagan, but not a word about Bush in her campaign.

Iraq is a heavy chain that Bush has laid around the necks of every Republican up for election. Add to that the chains caused by the Terror Memo, Abu Graib, FEMA's response, the deficit, the debt, the choice of Supreme Court nominees, the cronyism and the blatent lies he laughs about after the fact have all built up to a disgust among members of all parties.

I was listening to the radio this morning and Bush was saying with respect to the existing federal aid going to New Orleans "Look, I'm doing the best I can and if we make mistakes we'll learn from them so we don't make them again."

I think America finally understands that Bush really is doing the best he can and its not near the standards America expects of its president. I'm just wondering where 50.1% of America was last November when 49.9% of America understood this ... oh yea, they were afraid marriage would be replaced by gay-marriage, that their taxes would be raised, that Kerry lied about his service record and Bush told the truth, that the French were our enemies and Chalabi was our friend and those WMD were still out there ready to kill us...

Next November, the Democrats will have an easy time of it IF they can effectively disrupt the Republican lying machine and give people a reason to choose them over a Bush supporter. Its the Democrats election to loose. If they do loose, America is in BIG trouble and the democratic party will effectively no longer exist.

1) In addition to the book "Countercoup" by CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt , another interesting source on the CIA's coup in Iran is the CIA Clandestine Service's secret history of the coup, leaked to the New York Times a few years backed and available online at George Washington's National Security Archive --see
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/index.html .

2) Both of these sources attest to Mossadagh holding and winning a popular vote in late July 1953 on whether he or the existing Majlis should go. (See p 152 of Countercoup and Section V (Mounting Pressure Against the Shah) , p. 31) Kermit and the CIA argue that Mossadagh pressured the voters -- a hilarious criticism since they were in the process of installing a dictator who would rule for the next 27 years.

3) The CIA's view of the Shah -- and the rights of the Iranians to their own country -- is shown rather clearly in the CIA's Secret History. Some excerpts:
-----------
"Such basic assumptions as these: ...that the Shah must be brought into the operation; that the Shah would act only with great reluctance but that he could be forced to do so..." (page 8)
----------
"From the very beginning it had been recognized that the Shah must be forced to play a specific role,
however reluctant he might prove to be. Therefore, the plan presented a series of measures designed
to rid him once and for all of his pathological fear of the "hidden hand" of the British , and to assure
him that the United States and the United Kingdom would firmly support him and had both resolved
that Mossadeq must go. The measures were also intended to produce such pressure on the Shah that it
would be easier for him to sign the papers required of him than it would be to refuse." (Section V, page 22)
----------
"This plan is based on the assumption that the cooperation of the Shah will be obtained. Such cooperation will
give the military coup the best chance of success. However, it also envisages the same type of operation through
the involuntary involvement of the Shah in this plan.
To play his role the Shah requires special preparation. By nature a creature of indecision, beset by formless doubts and fears, he must be induced to play his role , and this role must require a minimum of affirmative action and cover as brief a period as possible." (Appendix B, TPAJAX Operational Plan, London Draft, page 3)
---------
"However, should the Shah fail to go along with the US representative or fail to produce the documents for
General Zahedi, Zahedi would be informed that the United States and United Kingdom would be ready to go
ahead without the Shah's active cooperation if Zahedi agrees. We would continue to make every effort to
associate the Shah with the undertaking involuntarily and so hope to achieve the same result as if he had
actively participated." (App. B, p 10)
-------------
The material designed to discredit Mossadeq will hammer the following themes: (a) Mossadeq favors the Tudah
Party and the USSR (This will be supported by black documents.) [Don W Note: Black documents =forged]
App B, p. 16
-------------
"To prepare for the change of government, a number of the deputies [in Majlis. Don W] will be approached and purchased. It is yet to be decided whether the purchases are to be made by the British group or directly by Zahedi himself who, as long
as he enjoys the sanctuary of the Majlis building, is in an excellent position to achieve such an air. Following the
receipt from one or both of the above elements of a list of deputies with the amounts required for the purchase of each one,
a special funding operation will be established... (App B, p. 19)
----------
Page 21 explains how the CIA will use a "terrorist group"
----------
Page 23 explains how staged attacks on religious leaders will be framed as coming from Mossadaq
----------
Page 24 explains how US forged documents will [falsely ]frame Mossadaq as forming a
secret alliance with pro-Communist Tudeh party
-------
Page 25 explains how unrest and demonstrations will be staged so as to provide coup leader General
Zehadi with an excuse to call out the troops
------
Page 26 explains that UK/US Plan may be disrupted by Iranians, noting that "Given the recognized
incapacity of Iranians to plan or act in a thoroughly logical manner, we would never expect such a plan
to be restudied and execution in the local atmosphere like a Western staff operation."
---------
Page 26 also notes "Recent coups in other Near Eastern countries were far easier to carry out since they were not complicated by a large pro-Communist opposition or hampered by the presence of a head of government having powerful
popular following" [DonW --thus CIA itself acknowledged Mossadaq's popular support ]

1) To follow up on the post below re the CIA coup in Iran, note that Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA officer who overthrew Mossadagh, is hardly a "liberal" source. Yet he notes on page 56 of his book
"Countercoup" that Mossadegh had served thrity years in the Iranian Parliament --the Majlis. Service in the Majlis was by popular elections.

2) On page 84, Roosevelt notes the background to Mossadegh's appointment as Prime Minister in 1951 --two years prior to the CIA coup in 1953:
"Seven [Iranian] governments had fallen between 1946 and 1951; a dramatic move was necessary. Much as H.I.M [the Shah] might distrust Mossadegh, the old man was gaining ever more popular backing. A "popular" Premier had become a practical necessary. "
On page 85, Roosevelt continues:
" So now Mossadegh was summoned to the palace. The Shah promised support if he would carry out nationalization [of the oil industry] and raise the standard of living. Mossadegh accepted and became Prime Minister on the day that nationalization was approved. Nine days later the Majlis voted confidence in his government by the impressive majority of 99 to 3. "

3) As noted later by Roosevelt, the British mounted an embargo on export of oil from Iran -- tankers from other countries left the Persian Gulf after a British cruiser arrived. The British pushed America to join with them against Mossadegh , even though the International Court refused to support their claims.

In the next two years, Mossadegh did become more authoritarian under the economic pressure of the British Embargo and covert actions. He did dissolve the Majlis but was heavily supported by a popular referendum. As an Iranian nationalist , he tried to play the Russians off against the Americans-- selling oil to the Russians as a way to raise money under the British embargo.

4) Roosevelt notes on page 115 that Truman and Dean Acheson had been charmed by Mossadegh on his visit to Washington in 1951 and that it was necessary for a Democratic administration to be replaced by a Republican one before the CIA-oil companies coup could get the go-ahead (p.95.) As he notes on p. 115, "Allen Dulles and I might well be in sympathy with our [British] cousins, as indeed we were. However, we had to wait for the US elections--which had just taken place --to produce the actual changes in office before we could move."

Roosevelt shows the typical arrogance and stupidity of an Eastern WASP, smug over being the grandson of Teddy Roosevelt. His descriptions of travel through the Middle East and Iran are replete with descriptions of grand scenery and palaces --but has little discussion of the people , their desires, and needs. He obviously felt confident that he knew what was better for the Iranian people than they could decide for themselves. On page 9, he notes how Israel joined with the CIA in creating the Iranian SAVAK.

From later developments, it appears that the Israeli service and CIA inculated SAVAK with their customary values and morality --which is to say , none.

Even Kermit never indicts Mossadegh for more than being a potential unwitting tool of the Soviets -- and that more in terms of future possibilities than tangible reality.

A few years ago, the New York Times finally ran a series confessing that it and other US newspapers had been "duped" by CIA spin into presenting a false picture of the coup in 1953--the story should be in their online archive.

Having seen how the Intelligence Community uses the NY Times as a submissive proprietary in the present day, I smirked at the Times' claim to have been "duped" in the 1950s.

Re Abozaky's comment "Things did not start in Iraq; things did not start on 911. Go back in memory and start to remember the Iran hostage disaster that is when things started to take form and shape. We were attacked and we proved incapable of defending our selves, from there on a countless attacks took place"
Actually, if you want to understand Iran's dislike for the US , you have to go back even further -- to the 1950s.
1) In the 1950s, the US government overthrew the legally elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mossadagh, and installed the puppet Shah on the throne. For the next several decades, they sold the Shah the military equipment necessary to keep the Shah in power while the Shah's Savak tortured and killed in order to terrorize the Iranian people and keep them cowed. The US oil companies got some nice concessions from the Shah -- in exchange for the US propping the Shah up while his Savak police tortured and killed thousands. The US government evidently didn't care if the Shah kept the bulk of the oil royalties as long as he let Houston loot the birthright of the Iranian people.

The CIA official (Kermit Roosevelt) who mounted the coup against Mossadagh noted in his book, Countercoup, that the coup was first suggested by the British oil companies who feared the Mossadagh government would interfere with their operations. After the CIA coup installed the Shah, the US oil companies got to feed at the trough as well.

2)The student takeover of the US embassy circa 1978--the taking of hostages -- was done to deter the US government from mounting covert operations to restore the Shah's family to the throne -- i.e., to give the revolutionaries time to establish an Iranian government that was not a puppet of Houston.

3) One of the more ignorant remarks by Bush supporters after 911 was the
cry "Why do they hate us?". If you look at some of the places where Al Qaeda cells have been reported --Indonesia and the Philippines-- the answer's obvious.

The US government not only put Indonesia's Suharto in power in 1966, they give him lists of PKI members and supported Suharto's massacre of at least 100,000 PKI members. In the decades since, Suharto's family stole everything not nailed down -- accounting for the peoples' deep poverty today, a poverty which will last for decades. The US supported Suharto during most of his reign. See http://www.namebase.org/kadane.html ,
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB52/ , and the section "Western Support" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suharto

4) Similarly, the US supported Marcos in the Phillipines while he looted that small poor country of $billions.

5) Bush's campaign to promote "Democracy" in Iraq is laughable to anyone who has looked at the government the US restored in Kuwait -- or who has looked at the oil dictators in the Caspian Sea region that Dick Cheney has been sucking up to for the past decade.

The only reason I can think of for Bush to promote "Democracy" in Iraq is that Karl Rove can't rig an election if an election isn't held.

So the Bush Administration will go through a hypocritical ritual while Bush establishes a puppet government in Iraq that will screw the vast majority of Iraqi citizens in favor of Bush's campaign donors. Already, Ahmed Chalabi -- the felon who provided the White House neocons with "evidence" of Hussein 's Weapons on Mass Destruction -- has been installed as Iraq's Minister of Oil.
6) Cries of "Democracy" are also hilarious when we recall how the support of the Northern Alliance warlords in Afghanistan was purchased by CIA officers carrying suitcases of US dollars. Which helped install a former consultant of Chevron as President.

7) None of this is in the interest of the average US citizen, who pays for the US empire in taxes -- and, as occurred on Sept 11, in blood. Roughly $50-80 billion of our tax dollars are used every year to support US military control of the Middle East so that Houston can import roughly $25 billion of oil. Plus, Bush's advanture in Iraq will waste at least $200 billion.

US citizens would be far better off if even a small fraction of the tax money wasted in the Middle East was spent on energy research. Greater use of coal supplies for electricity generation, for example, would lift the people of Appalachia out of their deep poverty. Practicable Fusion would create enormous wealth. Investments in scientific research would pay off for centuries --by contrast, the $Billions we spend every year on military control of the Middle East is a continuing cost that has to be repaid year after year after year.

The "Christians" and their supporters in Washington have managed to divide the people of the United States, by shining example of 'Christian-like' behaviors, into factions of 'left-liberal Clinton-supporters' versus 'right-wing Bush fanatics'. While this division was always part of politics as usual, the lines of demarcation have been heavily bolded since the current administration has been in office. Even politicians that are not self-proclaimed "Christians" routinely use language that is confrontational and divisive. And, the American people have learned, by example, how to argue rather than discuss, how to malign rather than respect, and how to be so engaged in labeling and categorizing ('left', 'right', 'hero', 'terrorist') that they 'forget' to actually think about whatever topic may be at hand. It IS easier to simply name-call and consider the discussion over or 'won'; an example of this would be any 30-second political commercial, by a Republican or Democrat on one's local television or radio station. "S/he is an (****), I am better", end of story.

The POTUS seems to view this type of 'arguing' as a part of an active democracy, as reflected in recent remarks made by him in reference to disagreements between officials in Iraq. But, the issue is larger than the simple smirk that was attributed to it, as cited above. Additionally, add the word "Christian" to the mix, whether self-applied or otherwise, and the political 'argument' becomes a question of 'moral character'. What is fascinating about this is that very often individuals whom profess to be "Christians" seem to crave very UN-Christian-like publicity. They seem to require a degree of reinforcement of their own identity, not as a Christian or an individual with a certain set of religious beliefs, but as a "good Christian, or better than (you) Christian, in fact, I get properly dressed and attend services every Sunday". I see. It is appearances and what one says or claims and not what one DOES in everyday life (at the office and at home, DEEDS), that matters?

It is said that 60-70% of Americans believe in some (higher) power and yet not all Americans are publicity-seeking Christians, political or otherwise. So, why do some individuals seem to need to conduct personal or political "Christian" parades for themselves? Religious beliefs are a 'selling-point' in a campaign to a certain sector of the American population, but at the same time, some Americans have 'learned' not to trust government officials, even if they do proclaim to be "Christian". The next time a politician decides to ask the American public to consider him/her for office, will the American people ask for an accounting of that person's attendance at church or will they be asking the following, or similar, questions: What is your background? What was your childhood like? Have you ever known hardship or poverty? How did you overcome it? What will you do for senior citizens, the mentally/physically handicapped, the homeless and the poor? What will you do for the children? What will you do for the average American citizen? What is your view of how the US should be viewed by the rest of the world? Will you carry on the current policy against 'terrorism' or do you have new ideas to offer? What are your past business associations? Do you have any friends or family members who are NOT part of the Washington/business/international 'elite'? How have you voted on issues in the past? Will you continue to build US military bases throughout the world? WHERE and WHY?

Christianity, as I understand it, is best reflected in deeds, not words. Some of the finest, most "Christian-like" individuals that I have ever known did not attend Sunday services and yet gave to others, time and time again, without a request ever having been made to do so. Money, power, and publicity are not required in order to be a good "Christian" OR person. Good 'people' exist at large in America, they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. "Christianity" in America, as manipulated by politicians and those seeking to be 'known' as 'good' Christians, has been severely degraded. Actions speak louder than words. Inevitably, a woman's/man's deeds will provide an accurate measure of honor. A measure of one's "faith" constitutes a personal journey - one that does not require a camera, or an audience.

Re: 100,000 Re: Don Williams

To say this British Medical group is objective, or even CNN for that matter, id like believing the devil is a saint...

"Democratic imperialism..."...kinda leftish...wouldn't you say? But despite that, the article itself states exactly what I had mentioned earlier. Its based on the hearsay of a very small sample...which they also state is not exactly random...

"He added that the study's central observation--that more civilians have died following air strikes--is convincing"

This study, by its own admission, made no observations...and relied for the most part on unsubstantiated heresay.

The highly exaggerated reports of civilian deaths by the terrorists groups and their sympathizers is known a "propaganda", and its purpose is to sway "public opinion", just as this article is made to sway public opinion.
Air strikes have not been used to any large degree since the fall of Saddam. They're used only in extreme instances, and precision bombs have been the only ones used.
That there have been, and are, civilian casualties is undeniable. But I still question the figure of 100,000.
Here's a classic example of how a propagandist works, taken from the article you quote:
"some non-government estimates have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000."
"Non-government"...the impression given is that the article is reporting an official [British]government study.

Now don't get me wrong...I did not agree with the reasons given for invading Iraq. It was common knowledge that Saddam and al qaeda were not sleeping together...nor did I believe Saddam had WMD.
However...IF he did have the WMD...there's nothing to say those in control of it might not make it accessable to terrorists; or that Saddam himself might not use the terrorists to further his cause by slipping it to them. I think that at the time; I for one would not have wanted to be in Bush's shoes...
because if he did nothing and Saddam did have it...and did slip it to someone who used it...
why imagine then...what you'd be saying about Bush now! And about what he "failed" to do to prevent it...

And then of course; the flip-side...which is what we have...where Saddam didn't haven't...and hindsight is perfect...and you know what you're saying about Bush now...
Given a choice; he took the one that made sure...

And again; at the time I did not agree with it. But once it happened I also recognized that at least in the long run; the Iraqi people have had a scourge removed from upon them. Of course...Ol' Rummysfelt has screwed that up so bad its sickening...but that's a different issue. At this point; to walk away from Iraq would be a black mark on this country for years to come.

Recall the fall of the taliban in Afghanistan. Recall the people of Afghanistan asking us "please don't leave us this time"...
we did it once...and they suffered a horrendous price for it. Hopefully we don't repeat that mistake in Iraq. The die has been cast.

Don't claim to be a christian, either...
I just care about people...
I've been there...
and I've seen the good things happening that you never read about in the media.

And it IS there...but only if you read between the lines...or read the story hot off the wire...before its taken off the and buried. And you certainly won't see it on TV.

Vaya con Allah

I've noted this before in an earlier thread, but I'll repeat myself.

I think Bush invaded Iraq because Hussein was seen as a threat to Israel by Sharon -- and Bush is going to great lengths to court American billionaires who are strong supporters of Israel and who have also been the primary financiers of the Democratic Party. Every one of those men that Bush can get on his side not only strengthens the Republicans --it wounds the Democrats.

The really desperate war
is not the "war on terror" -- it is the war for power and control of the federal government. Because Bush and the Republicans have put this country into a disastous financial condition and their wealthy patrons are terrified that they will have to pay to fix the damage.

That is why Bush and the Congressional Republicans will tell any lie --and commit any act -- to keep power and to maintain the coverup.

$Trillions of dollars are at stake -- so morality is the first thing that gets tossed off the sled. Social Security /Medicare Trust Funds are the second. The lives of US soldiers are the third.

Bush's February Budget showed that the federal debt in 2008 will be $9.9 TRILLION --$3.8 Trillion MORE than what he promised only a few years ago in Feb 2001.
THIS is the disaster that no one wants to acknowledge.

Of that $9.9 Trillion of debt, over $4 Trillion consists of money that Bush and the Republican Congresses have stolen from the federal Trust Funds for Social Security, Medicare , and Military Retirement.

Yet, in a prime example of Republican deceit, that $4 Trillion is listed as "assets" in the Social Security /Medicare accounts. Yet those "assets" consist of nothing but a Bush IOU saying that we will get the money back from a future administration -- PROVIDED we first GIVE that administration the money that we are to receive in the form of taxes.

Suppose a banker borrowed $200,000 from you and gave you an IOU.

Suppose you looked at the IOU 10 years later and found that the fine print of the IOU said that YOU --NOT the banker -- was on the hook to pay the $200,000 back to yourself. Would you think that you had dealt with an honest man or with a crook?

Yet this is exactly what Bush and the Republican -controlled Congresses have done in the past several years.

The rubber will start to hit the road around 2008 as the baby boomers begin to retire. The huge political power of AARP will swell as its ranks are enlarged by the baby boomers -- and the promises made over the past 40 years come due. NO administration --Republican or Democrat --will survive by letting the elderly starve.
At least, not so long as Americans can cast paper ballots.

Yet --even if we accept Bush's $4 Trillion IOU as fictional assets -- Social Security is still underfunded by $8 Trillion and Medicare by over $31 Trillion. Note that this money will have be raised by running a government SURPLUS --over and above the ongoing costs of government -- and that SURPLUS will have to be raised every year for the next 30 years. How likely is that?

Note also that much of the US wealth -- which is held by a small fraction of the population -- is now based on overseas investments -- an empire which requires a $400 billion/year defense budget to protect it. Note also the hundreds of Billions needed every year just to pay the INTEREST on the Reagan/BUshI/Bush II debt.

The issue is the extent to which the Reagan/BushI/BushII debt will be raised by "soaking the rich" and how much will be raised by very high taxes (60%+) put on baby boomer IRA/401K savings when those savings are withdrawn in retirement. (Remember that those savings are in "before tax " dollars and can be taxed at 99% if need be).

For this reason, the superrich of this country badly need to keep their Republican whores in power long enough to make their income tax cuts permanent. The reason is that it will be far easier in 2015 for their puppets to block any increase in their taxes than it will be to pass laws to reduce their taxes.

What's hilarious is that 50 million middle class Red State Republicans don't realize that their life savings are being turned to ashes by Bush and the Republican Congresses. By the time they realize what's happening , it will be too late.

I enjoyed reading all your comments, many of them are really true. But what is interesting to point out indeed here is the fact that there is a long history behind what we are seeing here and now. Things did not start in Iraq; things did not start on 911. Go back in memory and start to remember the Iran hostage disaster that is when things started to take form and shape. We were attacked and we proved incapable of defending our selves, from there on a countless attacks took place, over the years, from hijacking plans, to attacking our embassy in Lebanon, to Somalia, Saudi, Yemen bombing, etc. etc. complete history in 20-30 years that we failed one case after another. We failed to understand and still failing to understand the Islamic mentality. Yes it is partly about the (72) virgins and paradise (with milk and honey), this is very true and written in their book. But it is further than one person desires (or despairs) in this life and life after, it is true hatred to any thing that is non Islamic, they are true believers in their own religion which is to rule as their book states. Look around over in India, in south Russia, in Kosovo, in the middle east, in Spain, in London in 9/11, any where there are unrest and no piece there is one common element, Islam. They know history well, they know how they invaded everywhere they are today, by the sword, they know how they succeeded, they know basic statistics of society and out numbering the population (a man may marry 4 women at the same time to bring offspring to Islam). That is about the recent Islamic movement called it al qaaeda or Zarqawi or any other name.
Bush administration similar to previous ones are not truly educated on the culture and the motives of the true Islam and the culture around its people and what moves the majority of them no matter where they are in the London, Spain, or New York and whenever they are, or their social level or education a true Muslim is a true Muslim. One last comment, yes I believe it was very wrong to remove Saddam whom had the lid on the Islamic movement now it is lifted off and there is no way that it can be put back on, we have created a belt from Afghanistan triangle to Iran, to Iraq to Syria and without full understanding of the threads, the Islamic religion and culture, and long term planning and cross administration execution of this plan our possibility of success diminishes over time.

What I want to know is the truth. Bush apparently told Abbas that we went to Iraq to end tyranny, see BBCnews or The Guardian.
Is he lying to world leaders, the Congress, the American people, or all three?
By the way, it is said that Bush heard this from God, go into Iraq to end tyranny. I guess God knew there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Well I don't know if I'd blow myself up for just 12 virgins ... but if you give me 72 virgins and a stint in paradise...

The Bush and al Qaida visions of the future middle east remind me of something said during the Cold War by General Eisenhower: "The people want peace; indeed, I believe they want peace so badly that governments will just have to step aside and let them have it".

I can see, one day soon, the people of Iraq telling the West and al Qaida to just step aside. They can do it if they unite in that cause and get their act together. All their ethnic and other problems pale in comparison to their current issues with these two groups. And remember, only one has said it plans to eventually leave. I really do not believe Iraqi's want al Qaida in their country. They want what we all want ... to be left alone in peace.

My name is Don Williams, I hate Bush because he is bad, I wish Saddam were back in power because he promised to give me a pony.

I used to hate those suicide bombers and feel they were totally out of their collective minds. Why else would someone sacrifice his own life, without any doubt of the outcome, unless this life held nothing compared to the promises in the 12-virgin afterlife?

Upon careful examination, what else can they do? The United States, which I love dearly, has been turned from the last best hope for mankind into a disgusting bully watchdog of the world. And for what reason? The Bush administration's own self interests, period.

Today, I equate these suicide bombers/terrorists/fanatics, however one may wish to label them, with our very own Minute Men of the American Revolution. How else would David stand up to Goliath; and if you think about it, David played dirty. And so do these individuals today; the main difference being the advanced weaponry, which by the way has been developed over the years by the continuing paranoia of our dear ol' Pentagon.

Thus, if one reads anything besides an American-produced history book, one may understand why these suicidal killers truly believe today that their life is not as important as trying to defeat the "infidel" by any means possible.

I have the Bush administration thinking to thank for my own exploration into our present bleak situation, as soon as DubyaDown started with his WMD's.

As for alQaeda's plan to create a Caliphate spanning the Islamic neighborhood, Bush also wants to unite the region.
The difference being W's crusade to upgrade the local religion to Jesus 2.0 and replace the historical Ataturk by installing himself as the Atajerk.
I think he's a shoe-in.

The 100,000 estimate was in a Lancet article , as noted below. Here is the CNN report on the study:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

The larger point is the mental behavior of Bush supporters. First, they argue that we are rescuing the Iraqis. Yet when I present evidence that massive numbers of Iraqis have died -- both from the sanctions of the 1990s and then more as collateral damage from US military operations since 2003 -- the Bush supporters do NOT objectively examine the evidence.

Instead, they twist and turn in order to avert their eyes away from a reality that contradicts whatever emotional impulse is driving their support. They really don't seem to give a damm about what has happened to the Iraqis.

The Bush invasion has given control of the IRaqi government to Shite fundamentalists. Do Bush supporters really think those Shites are going to support democracy and equal rights for the Sunnis? For Shite women, for that matter?

Yet, in a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, Bush supporters loudly proclaim that they are "Christians" -- as opposed to those godless, immoral liberals.

A few words from Jesus to those alleged "Christians":
-------------
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty , and ye gave me no drink
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked , and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 The shall they also answer him, say, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick , or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. "

-- As told in Matthew 25, verse 41-46

"I've seen estimates of over 100,000."

"Pssst...hey Don...this really isn't saying much...I saw estimates of over 10,000 dead from hurricaine Katrina. I question the credibility of your sources for the comments you've made."

Psst...hey Eric, speaking of credibility of sources, that is saying much, the 100K estimate is from a respected British Medical journal, The Lancet. Where's your research that the number is different? Maybe if the army kept/allowed there to be accurate information, we might have a different picture, but obviously there is good reason for them to try to hide this information. Time will tell all, I'm afraid.

"I've seen estimates of over 100,000."

"Pssst...hey Don...this really isn't saying much...I saw estimates of over 10,000 dead from hurricaine Katrina. I question the credibility of your sources for the comments you've made."

Psst...hey Eric, speaking of credibility of sources, that is saying much, the 100K estimate is from a respected British Medical journal, The Lancet. Where's your research that the number is different? Maybe if the army kept/allowed there to be accurate information, we might have a different picture, but obviously there is good reason for them to try to hide this information. Time will tell all, I'm afraid.

First off, anyone who believes Bush's speechwriters that Al Qaeda (Mossad), or more specifically, Bin Laden and Zarqawi, would take over Iraq if US troops left Iraq has to be out of their minds. With rightwing Sunni radicals making millions off US "contracts" and Israeli bribes to the Kurds, not to mention the Mahdi Army and the reinvigorated Badr Brigades, has got to be completely nuts.

Black is white and white is black. The next time Bush refers to the terrorists and their latest evil doing's, substitute our Iraq Coalition, then you'll begin to understand. This is nothing more than a mafia feeding frenzy in a race to bust the economy. Why do you think the Bush/Clinton cabal have been hording all that Phillipino and Iraqi gold?

I'm not agreeing with much in this blog. First of all, al Qaida's goals are pretty clear, and America is not directly in their sites. Their goal is a Caliphate that stretches from North Africa through Indonesia. For those unfamiliar with a Caliphate it is similar to the Ottoman Empire. Basically, a Muslim dictatorship over all Muslim peoples.

America was first attacked because of the presense of troops and US support of the Saudi rulers. Bin Laden never mentioned Israel in early proclamations, and it was US troops in Saudi Arabia protecting them from Iraq (and anyone else) that made the US a target.

Its worth noting that al Qaida did not write kindly about Saddam in the past. The presense of Americans in Iraq surely makes them upset now but Iraq is a totally seperate issue with al Qaida's goals of a Caliphate. In fact, it probably made their job easier since they could never have established themselves in Iraq when Saddam was in power.

So while America has tried to help peoples and governments in the middle east and elsewhere that does not influence al Qaida in any way unless it interferes with their dream of a Caliphate. And if we ever want to be a buyer of oil, we cannot let a Caliphate ever be established. That means we must destroy al Qaida and thwart its goals everywhere.

Bush was an idiot for invading Iraq since it made al Qaida's job easier. Leaving Iraq would make it a lot easier. I'm almost of the opinion that we let Saddam go free, say we're sorry for that little WMD issue and any inconvenience we caused and leave Iraq. You'll then see al Qaida gone in short order from Iraq through Saddam's usual ruthlessness.

The most effective psychological operation scheme to turn the Muslim world's "hearts and minds" away from Islamist ideology and toward America would be to set off bombs in Muslim areas that kill large amounts of innocent Muslims, which can be blamed on radical Islamists. The Muslims will disown the "Islamist terrorists", and turn to America for protection from "them." If the Russians had been capable of this when they invaded Afghanistan - stage terrorist attacks by "jihadis" against Muslim civilians in other countries, then they could have prevented a large number of foreign jihadis coming against them. America should be capable of this, because of their strong connections with the Muslim countries tyrannical security agencies. With their help, they could state such attacks in Iraq (against Shia), in Egypt, in Indonesia, etc., wherever they need to stem public support for the insurgency, and win "hearts and minds". Is there anyone who really thinks they are not already doing this?

IT IS VERY INTERESTING THAT MANY OF PRESIDENT BUSH'S SUPPORTERS BELIEVE THAT WAR IS JUSTIFIED AND NECESSARY. WE AS A NATION HAVE NO BUSINESS TRYING TO IMPOSE OUR WESTERN PHILOSPHIES OF LAW AND DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES ON EASTERN SOCIETIES AND CULTURES. OUR NEW EMPIRE IS JUST WAITING TO BE STRECHED TO THE POINT WHERE WE LOSE TOTAL CONTROL BY BEING INVOLOVED IN TOO MUCH CONQUERING OF OTHER FAR OFF PLACES. ANOTHER INTERESTING POINT IS THAT THESE WUSSES WHO ARE SO ADAMANT ABOUT USING MILITARY FORCES TO CARRY OUT MERCENARY WORK FOR THE CORPORATIONS THEY ARE IN CAHOOTS WITH, NEVER SERVED IN A WAR WHEN VEITNAM WAS HERE. I THINK IT IS CHICKEN SH@#$ THAT THESE GUYS ARE CALLING THE SHOTS OF A WAR AND PEOPLE ARE DYING FORM NOTHING! HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE NEED TO DIE BEFORE AMERICANS BEGIN TO EMPLOY CRITICAL THINKING AS A WHOLE. JUST BECASUE SOMEONE IS QUESTIONING THINGS DOESN'T MAKE THEM A CONSPIRACY THEORIST, OR A HATER OF ALL REPUBLICANS. THE TRUTH ABOUT HIDDEN AGENDAS AND POWERS THAT BE WILL NEVER BE WIDELY ACCEPTED. WHAT ABOUT THE BILDERBERG GROUP HUH. IS THAT JUST A CONSPIRACY THEORY?

I was reading the post from Disgusted who said that the people who say it is about the oil should stop driving and quit complaining about new refineries.

One thing you probably don't know is we are paying a falsely created high price for fuel because the major oil companies closed 55 refineries in the 90's to create a false shortage to raise the price now we are going to pay big amounts to build new ones?

Why don't we force them to start the 55 they closed and lower our prices now rather than tax us for them building new ones?Oh that's right how would Haliburton or it's breakoff corps make any money from the U.S. government that way.

You people say the Dem's have no solutions but that is just because you won't listen to them.

As far as Terrorism goes one big solution for lasting stability is don't create a war without the right intelligence and the biggest coalition to support it after you start it.And another big one is have the right comander in chief who nows when to listen to the people who execute the war and not just bullying them to agree with him.

Re: Don Williams' comments

"I've seen estimates of over 100,000."

Pssst...hey Don...this really isn't saying much...I saw estimates of over 10,000 dead from hurricaine Katrina. I question the credibility of your sources for the comments you've made.

There are credible estimates of Saddam killing at least 100,000 Shiites and Kurds not long after the the Gulf War.

And while any Iraqi civilian casualty as a direct result of our military activities is tragic; there is virtually no credible method of obtaining an accurate number...because even the most sincere efforts of doing so are to a large degree based on hearsay.
And by the way; I'm pretty sure that at this point, its an accepted fact that the number of Iraqi civilians killed by the terrorists, (the misinformed label them insurgents), operating in Iraq, far outnumber those killed by American military operations. Is the estimate you quote skewed by the inclusion of these casualties? Beware of basing opinion and fact on what you see in the mainstream
media.

First time I have read your article and some of the comments. Keep writing Mr. Arkin! Part of the solution is for people to be informed. I suspect by the time this administration is over there will be a new hunger for honesty and ethics much like we saw after Nixon. Honesty and elected politicians who go to Washington to attempt to represent the people are part of the solution. Politicians who understand that representing large corporations really does not equate with representing the people. Part of the solution includes the election of politicians like Teddy Roosevelt or Eisenhower who saw the dangers of large corporations in our society and politicians like Carter who certainly seemed more honest and politicians like Clinton who at least tried to balance the needs of the people and the private sector. We got a c student as a leader who has ran the economy in the ground by pushing legislation which flushes our tax dollars to wealthy private corporations like insurance HMO's, to a trumped up war and and most recently to the private sector oil companies. We need balance that moves the economy ahead for all. We need to get our dollars out of the entire middle east and funnel our dollars to the people to make it worthwhile today to purchase fuel effcient cars, electric cars, use solar, and windpower for our homes and friendly legislation to nuclear power.

Re BillA's comment "We stood up to this tyrant[Hussein] to prevent his murderous campaign"

-----------
Isn't it strange. The bulk of Hussein's reported killings occurred during the 1980s -- and during that time, Donald Rumsfeld was in Baghdad shaking Hussein's hand as Reagan's emissary.

Isn't it also strange that Donald Rumsfeld refuses now to give any count of the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the past two years by Bush's invasion of Iraq.

I've seen estimates of over 100,000.

One can understand Rumsfeld's silence on this subject -- arguing "We had to kill them to save them " has echos of Vietnam.

Would any of Bush's supporters like to compare the number of IRaqis killed by Bush in the past two years to the number killed by Hussein in the eight years prior to the invasion??

Oh wow nice article who payed for this Al Queda ?

Lets see the US was in Iraq before 911. true.

And what where they doing ? PREVENTING SADDAM FROM MURDERING FELLOW MUSLIMS !

Saddam murdered muslims in Iran. He murdered muslims in Kuwait. he was killing the Kurds and Shiia.

We stood up to this tyrant to prevent his murderous campaign.

Now we are to blame that we didnt let him kill more !

Mr Arkin please take you Bush hating bliders off. And also please read some history it will prevent your misguided histronics

I think its funny that of all the possible reasons for Islamic/Arab dislike for the U.S., Mr. Arkin fails to mention the one that's the most permeating, and to which all others fall subsequent. It has been the U.S. policy of blind support for the Zionist nation of Israel for the last 57 years which has led to the events at hand; and will continue to do so until that policy has changed. From its single seed, countless events have blossomed that have served to reinforce Islamic/Arab dislike for the U.S., to the point where it has become self sustaining.

Bush has maybe tossed a few sticks of wood on the fire; but the fire has been burning strong for decades. The "real" reasons behind today's terrorist acts against the U.S. and its allies, begin in Palestine in the 1948, and remain there until very recently. And of course, those with a narrow scope of vision will say that has nothing to do with al qaeda's agenda...and of course, they'll be right. But...the only reason al qaeda is able to exist in any number is "because of" that underlying hatred for America.

But I'm not surprised that Mr. Arkin failed to mention this reason, because the media is also guilty of closing their eyes to countless wrongs perpetuated by Israel against the Palesinians. The media has effectively blindfolded the American public to the truth about the Arab/Israeli conflict for 57 years, and by doing so has helped to fuel Islamic/Arab hatred for the U.S. far more than Bush has ever done.

Yes Mr. Arkin, Bush might indeed be wearing two faces; but I question your right to suggest that he does, without first revealing "both" of yours.

Bill, you've created Able Danger. (The deranged email that follows this posting.)

He sees conspirasies, powerful controlling super secret groups out for their own interests running amuck.

This is what stands for rigorous debate these days. Unfounded accusations and agendas.

I ask again, what are you doing to be part of the solution, not the problem?

Mitch L.

JUST FOR SPECULATION'S SAKE:
If a pre-9/11 "Downing Street Memo" actually existed detailing how the US government would twist the truth to support its planned agenda of aggression against Iraq...
If Osama bin Laden had actually been a paid CIA operative in the US's 1979-89 War against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan...
If detailed unrefuted evidence existed that the September 11th plot had been planned and carried out by secret operations within the US military and government...
If the president had directly lied to the American people in a 2003 pre-Iraq War State of the Union Address saying that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons...
If sources within the government had tried to silence Joseph Wilson from disproving the president's lie by outing his wife, Valerie Plame...
If it was patently evident that the president had never legitimately been elected president, but was "selected" in 2000 by Florida SoS Katherine Harris and a Republican Supreme Court, and then in 2004 by Republican software corporations ES&S, Diebold, Sequoia, et al in the biggest election rigging scandal to ever hit the planet...
If the president himself were a criminal cited in 4 cases of insider trading during the 1980s (most notorious being his swindling of holders of Harken Energies stock out of $848,560 worth of stock before a quarterly report's revelation of losses caused their value to be reduced by 75%)...
If all of these things were true, would one not somehow expect that the president would once again make a speech to spread lies and deception in a desperate attempt to maintain his feeble grip on power (and to give his illegitimate empire the semblance of legitimacy)? Would it not become increasingly evident that perhaps the former member of R.M. Nixon's Whitehouse, John Dean, is right, and that this president needs to be impeached? All speculation aside, all of the above facts and considerations are indeed true, so what should the American people do about it?

DOING THE OBVIOUS:
It is evident that the American people have been deceived in a most criminal and injurious manner. To deceive the US Congress is a felony. The revelation of top-secret intelligence operations within the CIA is also a very high offense. Patrick Fitzgerald's Grand Jury investigation will soon be releasing its report.

THE SOLUTION:
The American people have been deceived into incurring a record amount of National Debt by a person with a record of cheating those that he represents out of their money. When are the American people going to wake up and say: "You got us into this war by deliberately falsifying information relating to the highest levels of national security, and now you WANT US TO PAY FOR YOUR WAR?" Impeach and Sue for Recovery of Our Falsely Incurred Debt, that's my common-sense solution to the growing deficit imbalance and all of the problems that go along with it.

Hey Bill,

You are an empty shell of a critic.

Your facts are 'semi-accurate' and worse, you present no ideas of your own. Much like the Democratic Party.

Their 'platform' is:

"We hate Bush and we hate the Republicans!"

Ok. Fine. Free country. But what do you stand for Bill? We know, ad nauseum, what you stand against, but what do you stand FOR?

We are starving for new ideas, real ideas that address the amazing complexity of the new world order. And I'm not talking about, feel good, 'get out now!' Vietnam redux.

What are your solutions to these complex problems?

How are you supporting a real debate, not a school yard shouting match, but a real debate with ethics and hard questions and open minds?

This world has great danger in it, but there is also tremendous opportunity for a prosperous, healthy, revitalized planet if we don't blow ourselves up in the meantime.

What are you ideas about introducing this kind of dialogue into the marketplace of ideas?

Let's shift this adolescent arguing into real dialogue. It's less sexy though, hmmm Bill? Doesn't sell Newspapers as well as polarizing does?

I'll wait to see how you handle this. Although, unfortunately, I've learned not to hold my breath.

Mitch L.

You people need to get over your lingering issues with authority figures. I think you simply don't like Bush because of his personality.

Fact is, Islamist terror was around long before Bush came on the scene.

Fact facts. If the bombs weren't going off in Iraq - if the US wasn't in Iraq - they would be going off in Afghanistan. If not in Afghanistan, they would be going off in... Washington? New York? London? Take your pick.

You need to bohn up on your history to truly understand the nature of the Middle East - with its medieval-level tribalism, Jihad and blood feuds. People there will kill for reasons most quaint westerners would find opaque. And they fight dirty.

So stop being naive. Realize this is a struggle. You can't just think your way out of if: it needs to be persevered.

The Bush-bashers are at it again. Arguing largely with technicalities in hand - blind to the larger picture.

The larger picture is simple: it's a struggle. It's a mess. Bush didn't make it a mess. It was brewing long before that. In some ways it's been brewing for decades - even centuries.

Anyway: if the bombs weren't going off in Iraq, they would be going off in Afghanistan.

If they weren't going off in Afghanistan, they'd be going off in... Washington? New York? London? Take your pick.

Get over your authority issues. You hate Bush because you dislike his personality - his self-assuredness. If he were gone, it wouldn't really change anything. You'd still have bombs going off.

Deal with it.

"Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least 10 serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September 11" Good job!. I thought the number of attacks on America and its allies will go down to zero after this war against terrorism. I am not sure how many terrorist plot America was facing each year before 9/11. Will this number increase or decrease. Anybody has any idea????

Threats? What threats?

Do everyone the courtesy of not pretending the Whitewash House's claim is anything more than protecting their own hides. Time and again they have resorted to lies and fearmongering when their ineptitude and incompetence have been exposed.

The "threats" are a weapon of mass distraction. Or do the name "Katrina" and "Rita" not ring a bell with you?

mattigan_corgi@yahoo.com

untill the west understand the thinking of the east, there will be no peace. The Americans just don't know that the east was full of praise of their country when President JF Kennedy sent the Peace Corps out to help the poor in the east. But now, all respect to USA were thrown down the drains since Bush becomes the president.

The Bush Corporation needed to create an enemy to Americans to stay in power, that's not to say that groups like al Qaeda are not a real threat to us, but Bush needed a big bad wolf. Bush Incorporated does not really want to capture the Big Bad Wolf, because then what could they control the Sheeple with?

There are just no facts when it comes to the Bush Corporation, there is only deceit and lies and if anyone questions the lies then that person is definitely unpatriotic.
We are not winning the war on terrorism, because winning would just defeat the mechanism in which Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Cons control America.
Until Americans stand up and demand answers about 911, Iraq, Katrina and back to Iraq and everything in between, the "Terrorists" will be the least of our problems.

American polical systems create thousands of terrorists around the globe, where people never thought of terrorism. American policies of invasion and involvement direct and indirect manner in other countrie's affairs are the key factor for terrorism. American policies create thousands of terrorist and go on hunting hundreds of them is what america is doing now.
Americans spend money on modern arms technics and if this is the way of getting rid of out dated arms, may be people of America has to change their political systems so that people has power to control and over rule the decisions made by their leaders who are creating an uncomfortable life for the rest of the world.
Americans do not play games with Chinese or Russians as they have shown in reality they are not ready to play but they will act fast and do what they have to do in full when they shot down the Korean passenger plane used for Spy service by Americans. What did Americans did in return for retaliation? I feel very mucch shameful if I am an American. I feel very pity on good american people who are stuck on with their political system.
My suggesion is for Americans to push onn for a change in their foreign policies to get rid of terrorism.

Yes, you have to get out... but only from your stupid dreams...

In what was advertised as a 'major' speech, POTUS mentioned Mr. Bin Laden and the movement known as Al-Qa'ida. I suppose the administration should be congratulated, for their ability to recognize and state the obvious, four years after 9/11. Their attempt to 'explain' the ideology of the group, however, failed miserably, in that once again, they presented only half of the facts. POTUS tried his best to tell the American public WHO Mr. Bin Laden is and what he stands for, from the administration's perspective. But, the speechwriters conveniently 'forgot' to include any statements that would explain WHY Mr. Bin Laden's is supported by so many people, even those that are not particularly religious. A deliberate omission? I think so.

We were then presented with the arguments about how 'Iraq is part of the War on Terror' and 'terrorists were interested in attacking the West before 9/11'. Again, only one of the two statements is true. And then, in a stunning effort to strengthen/prove his point about the presence of terrorists in Iraq, POTUS presented the American people with a new name - Mr. Al-Zarqawi - WHO DID NOT EXIST IN IRAQ BEFORE 9/11. Fact check: The 'insurgency' in Iraq came about as a result of the US invasion of Iraq. Al-Qa'ida IN IRAQ did not exist before the invasion of Iraq. As of today, the American public is being told that the NY subway system is under threat from men who were/are - IN IRAQ. The administration has enabled a new group of individuals to gain training and execute operations in/from IRAQ while nearly 2,000 American and allied soldiers have been killed IN IRAQ. The attempt to move from an explanation of Mr. Bin Laden's ideology to any argument about terrorists in Iraq, PRE-9/11, using Mr. Al-Zarqawi as an example, was not 'slick'. It was, in fact, rather sickening.

As for the administration's 'take' on Mr. Bin Laden's ideology? The American public has no way of judging the accuracy of the administration's interpretation of Mr. Bin Laden's statements because the American public is not privy to Mr. Bin Laden's statements/messages in full. This is to the shame of both the American media and the current administration. American citizens are not permitted to hear the words of the individual whom they are told would like to see them eliminated. They are kept 'dumb' while being blinded by spin. Given actual facts, average Americans are quite capable of conducting serious 'foreign policy discussions' on a level that I suspect is unknown to, and possibly feared by, 'administration officials'. Perhaps the reason that foreign policy decisions are reserved for administration officials only is because the American people may stand in staunch disagreement with a given administration's position? "Reserved for administration officials only?" And who is it that the 'administration' is working for again? The people. Remember? "We the people ...?"

If the US maintains its' current course, Americans will either hear or see someone's 'message', first-hand, in one form or another. Maybe then the phrase '... four million Americans, two million of which (will/should) be children' will become 'newsworthy'. Maybe then, a representative of the administration will be willing to re-state the circumstances under which the term 'collateral damage' was devised. At that point, the term is likely to be redefined.

And, Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahri's recently publicized "letter" to Mr. Al-Zarqawi? Genuine? Maybe. But, is the US foiling AQ's ability to send messages or is AQ testing the US' ability to track them? Dr. Al-Zawahri asking for funds? Somehow ... I think not. And the 'find' publicized in the main stream media in the US? Score, for AQ.

George McGovern said it best when asked how to fight terrorism. He said to Monitor their activity, Let them know you are on to them, and Take the Shot if you get it! How much simpler could it be? Stop killing innocent people and concentrate on our real enemies.

We have watched a once respected country, invade another, killing tens of thousands of men, women and children, who had no intent to harm us, nor had the capability to do so. The moron responsible for this tragedy, appointed by a court, who cannot utter ten words without notes, or utter twenty words without one of them being " terrorist" still maintains the thousands of young military, returning home in body bags or without arms or legs, or worse, are protecting our freedom. We have to concede his remarkable eyesight. He was able to see WMDs being built in Iraq , when the inspectors roaming all over the country, could not. We have now seen this moron pass over untold qualified people to head our emergency agency, appoint a " friend" , with predictable results. And again, he has passed over untold numbers of qualified judges, appointing a "friend" to the nations highest court. It is time for impeachment, or indictment along with his three other friends facing indictment.

I've been reading a lot of material about sociopathy. Some researchers estimate that roughly 4% of the population in this country alone is afflicted with antisocial personality disorder, an inability to form emotional bonds with other people or to care about anything except satisfying the drive to dominate and win. Could it be that the majority of the "movers and shakers" worldwide are sociopaths, including our political, military and financial leadership here in the United States? It goes without saying that the peoples of the developed world have been brought to our knees by the dependency on oil that is forced upon us by megalithic monopolies who will not allow the serious competition of alternative fuels. Is it really okay to exact as big a profit as possible, no matter what the cost of doing business? The motivation that drives the average person is simply the desire to survive, but for that 10% or so of extremely wealthy and powerful people worldwide, survival is not an issue, so what drives them? As a society we seem to embrace the very characteristics that define a segment of our population as essentially evil. To relate to other human beings soley as tools to be used and discarded in pursuit of domination is tragic, and not to be glorified. According to the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV, the seven defining characteristics of antisocial personality disorder or sociopathy are as follows: 1)failure to conform to social norms; 2)deceitfulness, manipulativeness; 3)impulsivity, failure to plan ahead; 4)irritability, aggresiveness; 5)reckless disregard for the safety of self or others; 6)consistent irresponsibility; 7)lack of remorse at having hurt, mistreated or stolen from another person. I don't know about anyone else, but those who come to mind are the Bush Administration, Enron, Saddam Hussein (put into power by George Bush, Sr.), the Taliban, Al Queda, the CIA, big oil, big business, your average corporation, just to name a few. Unfortunately, sociopathy is invisible to most of us, to whom possessing these traits is incomprehensible, which is why these people so readily rise to power. For myself, knowing something about this issue answers a lot of questions I've had for years. Maybe if the 96% of us not afflicted with sociopathy start recognizing it we can act to do something about it.

I continue to be amazed at just how duped and/or naive most people are with regards to what is actually going on in our world. Is the populace looking at different points of view, or do they just believe whatever tickles their ears or happens jive with their political ideology? The Islamic situation is extremely complex, but only because we (the Bush Administration included) lack the courage to do what it takes to snuff out the threat. That's all going to change sooner rather than later, with a resounding, fiery, deadly series of explosions on U.S. soil. While we waste our time blaming Bush and trying to rationalize Jihadi behavior, the sociopathic leaders of Queda, like patient, venomous spiders, are planning a grisly death for us all. And when (not if) that happens, I wonder if the tone of these pathetic messages will change. Pragmatists the world over realize the deadly threat we face. The Neville Chamberlains of the world continue to hide their heads in the sand, while their fingers beat out senseless messages on computer keyboards. Unloyal, unprincipled, unbelieving, uninformed people, who change their opinions at the first drop of blood, exacerbate the deadly times in which we live. Undoubtedly, the Queda faithful chortle with glee (like they did on 9/11), as they watch the endless blame games and systematic unraveling of our society. Confusion creates opportunity for anarchists. And my God, are we confused!

I say keep Early Warning coming. You've obviously provoked both right and left, so you must be doing something right. And your comment that we're promoting a "kill-the-terrorists-one-at-a-time strategy" certainly got me thinking.

I feel sorry for all you liberals posting here, except for Don Williams, who is obviously a high-ranking Illuminati guru. Soon Bush will be gone from office, terrorist nutcakes will attack the U.S. again, and you will blame him for not doing more. So sad. It's amazing how much you're willing to blame on one person, rather than become a responsible member of society and realize everything positive or negative in the world can't be traced back to one inidividual.

I have come to the conclusion that most reporters are like film critics, they largely write critical pieces without contributing any useful insights.

I have yet to see any reporter or Democrat for that matter, come up with any useful plans different from the Bush admin. Crying and going home simply makes the U.S. more likely to be attacked as the rest of the world slides into horror. You guys okay with that?

People who complain "it is all about oil" should stop driving their cars, heating and cooling their homes. AND stop protesting every time a nuclear powerplant, or refinery is proposed. Lots of complaints, NO useful policies.

Finally, some ideas that have had a limited range of discussion for some time are gaining wider circulation. Mainly, that the 'war on terror' works for both sides, providing a focus for a continued position of power, a justification for unjustifiable actions and a trump card with which to end any reasonable conversation, change the subject, divert attention. Why even consider and end to it? Also, that our adoption of terrorist methods merely makes them more acceptable (even mandatory) to our enemies and our cause less acceptable to our would-be allies. 500 pound bombs dropped on homes because of questionable intelligence is likely to create terrorists, not overcome them. The argument that torture is OK if we do it is as corrosive to our cultural integrity as anything the terrorists could ever do. Furthermore, we have turned the threats and actions of a tiny group of fanatics into the main driving force behind American foreign and domestic policy. We have hit a flea with a sledge hammer and are in the process of turning our society upside down. We encourage suspicion of our fellow citizens and blind trust in the authorities.

I fear for the future if we do not come to our senses.

mskkinCT,

It's business. It's all about dollars and cents. If a newspaper reports something really juicy, and it turns out to be false, not only will they have egg on their face, their readers may bolt (and they depend on them for $$$$$$$), and the other news outlets will cannibalize on them (Newsweek and Rathergate anyone?).

That's why the MSM won't touch certain stories.

Censorship now is with the pocketbook. Want the media to do your bidding, take your money elsewhere (or threaten a news outlet that your kind will leave en masse -- if it's the right demographic, the news outlet will listen [CBS couldn't afford to brush off the Rathergate issue, as their margins now -- compared to 1975 -- are very narrow).

Consumers today have a heck of a lot of power -- but the corporations won't tell you about it. ;)

SandyK

When will reporters in the US have backbones and report what is really happening within the govenment? When will their editors put those stories on the front page and not worry about being called "unpatriotic"? Questions need to be asked and eyebrows need to be raised.

The writers fantasies are just that -- fantasies of the writer and have nothing to do with reality. Typical for a bleeding heart liberal. I would suggest that he move to Paris and publish his fantasies for Chirac. We don't need you in this country of a majority of people with integrity, honor and courage to help others achieve liberty and freedom.

DeepThought,

Israel gets no free passes. Like any other country, it can be criticized and poked fun of, as they deserve it.

A 2000 year war has fault in that 2 parties created it, and 2 parties keep the fighting going. Unless one cries, "Uncle" it'll continue on until both sides kill each other off.

Then that'll be the solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, huh?

So either do something to stop the finger pointing and blaming -- on both sides -- or just blow yourselves up and leave the rest of the world out of it. The rest of the world has other concerns, and it's not if someone's a Jew or a Palestine, let alone practices Judaism or Islam.

SandyK

When are we going to realize that the answers are not as simple as "get out of the middle east - permanently". These people in the middle east are warmongers as much as anyone here and they will bring this war here when they get the chance. They justify killing on any and all pretences. They are notorious throughout history for breaking deals and truces. Israel is a sovereign nation and as a sovereign nation, has a right to fully and completely defend itself. It fights an enemy that will not declare itself and hides behind masks. The end result is always the death of the innocents. The same thing goes for Iraq. Even though WMD's were not found in Iraq, does not mean that they were not there before the war, nor does it mean that there was not intention for them to be there. Saddam manipulated and used the UN for his own devices and the corruption in the UN was so deep that they were not able to truthfully deal with him. Every major government agreed that the WMD existed and Saddam continued to deny the investigators full access to locations believed to contain them. It is hilarious how some of you want to rewrite history and say that the war was wrong because did not find them. We all know that Bush did not lie and that the books were not cooked. The British, French and Russian intelligence all said the same thing and Saddam's actions indicated the same thing. No doubt that we were not fully prepared to occupy Iraq and I'm sure that many minds were at fault for not being so prepared. But honestly, I doubt anyone could have been prepared for this type of enemy. Our society is weak on these matters. We needed to take control of both the Syrian and the Iranian borders immediately and to do so would have heavily offended both countries. We also should have segregated the country and allow autonomous rule quickly in regions that could do it. It definitely is not that simple, but the disputes there are sectarian as much as anything else.

As far as Israel, some peoples hatred for Israel seems almost spiritualistic. We know that society's hatred for them reaches back into religious cultures and they are carried forward. Israel is sovereign and all land it obtained, it obtained through acts of war begun against them. This is not illegitimate. To give up this land seems foolish, but they have so decided. We can see clearly that the Palestinians do not maintain truces or promised deals as the Arab people have not for a thousand years. In 5 years, we will have attack/raid combinations going on weekly between the two sides.

I just can't wait for the perfect world where no one hates us and we don't have to do anything to protect ourselves, except stop "oppressing" other countries with our policies. I guess that will happen when the great and peaceful democrat party is back in power. .........give me a break!!

As someone from outside the US, I can say only this...the statements / pronouncements made by the present US govt. sounds really a lot like medieval busshit, sorry bull shit"

Oh, frith.

Bush: you have kicked an ant mound that didn't need to be kicked. You have now trained those ants to not only fight back, fight back the best military in world. >:(

It's like you and your cronies wanted it to be that way too (we'll fight them over there, so they won't fight us here, mentality -- which isn't comforting to the population who'll be sacrificed too). Meanwhile, as many times you cut off the snake's head, a new one grows back tomorrow. Our enemy isn't going to be killed off by firepower, that enemy has withstood centuries of hardship and can endure more centuries. That enemy is killed off by making sure those fundies have no where to turn -- their recruitment base is cut off. That base can be turned quite easily, for the history of Rome shows us how (food, entertainment [which the US exports readily], tech perks).

Guns aren't going to bring Al qaeta to the table, but an iPod with native music and pics just might.

Get it, yet??!!

SandyK

Mr Arkin can become a good reporter and spokesman for the present government of Iran.

And just in time for Ramadan, here is a non-Infidel ditty to kick off a patriot and veteran's important new book!

-----------------------------------
'Poor West Point Grad, Army Chaplin Captain Yee,
His assignment to GITMO certainly took its' fee.

Trumped up charges against Mohammedan Believer Chaplin Captain Yee
Quickly got him smeared, arrested, jailed and then kicked out of the U.S. Army.

Poor naïve Chappie Yee, thought it was about Constitution, Country and Diversity.
But instead, it was all about Army bigotry and modern day Infidel Crusader jealousy,

Oh pity, pity pity-- Chaplain, Captain Yee, before you ministered to that GITMO flock in Army duty,
Allah, and his Profit should have told you that Miller, Boykin & Bush all have hotlines to JC!'

And now to hear Army Chaplin Yee's own out of mouth diversity plea,
And more about his new book, just click and listen to this UR Link from Miss Amy.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/06/1316240

I need to repost paragraphs 4- 9 of my post immediately below because the Internet links I cited did not come through. Sorry
----------
4) For example , the State Department initially moved to condemn Sharon in April 2001 for using the F16s.
Bush, however, halted State Department criticism and gave encouragement to Sharon by selling Sharon 52 more F16s in June 2001, several months before the Sept 11 attack. (See http://www.clw.org/archive/cat/newswire/nw062001.html#Israel ,