The democrats and the Iraq War

[Ranger12 46]

Alot of these quotes were brought up during the election, but the mainstream media chose to ignore the facts around these quotes. Now President Bush has brought them front and center. How are the dems going to respond to such overwhelming evidence that they supported the war and came to the same conclusions about Hussien that everybody else did? Dems would have you believe that they were the only ones against a war and they did not believe the Saddam was a threat. Now, their own words expose their hypocrisy. I encourage everybody to play the video so you can see for yourself. Don't rely what is posted on the board.

Link to Video Website

[Bottomfeeder 244]

The real hypocrisy is the intelligence factor. The intelligence that congress has is very small compared to that that of the adminstration. And, while we are criticising those Democrats, let review the service records of both sides.

http://www.ostroyreport.blogspot.com/#111505A

Lt. Bush Heads the GOP Hero-Wannabe Unit

There's this myth that's been perpetuated for years in conservative Washington and among the right wing press that the Republican Party is the party of strong, courageous, heroic defenders of America, while the Democrats are namby-pamby sissy-boys that cannot and should not be entrusted with the nation's security. How and when this started--although I'll give much of the credit to Karl Rove--I'm not exactly sure. But a simple look into the military service, or lack thereof, of prominent politicians and spin monkeys offers a not so surprising revelation into who the real tough guys are in Washington:

Democrats

* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.

* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.

* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.

* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.

* Bob Kerrey: Lt. J.G. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.

* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.

* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.

* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.

* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.

* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.

* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.

* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.

* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.

* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.

* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.

* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, and Purple Heart.

* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.

* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.

* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57

* Chuck Robb: Vietnam

* Howell Heflin: Silver Star

* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.

* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.

* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.

* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953

* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and AirMedal with 18 Clusters.

* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.

Republicans

* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.

* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.

* Tom Delay: did not serve.

* Roy Blunt: did not serve.

* Bill Frist: did not serve.

* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.

* Rick Santorum: did not serve.

* Trent Lott: did not serve.

* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.

* Jeb Bush: did not serve.

* Karl Rove: did not serve.

* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.

* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.

* Vin Weber: did not serve.

* Richard Perle: did not serve.

* Douglas Feith: did not serve.

* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.

* Richard Shelby: did not serve.

* Jon Kyl: did not serve.

* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.

* Christopher Cox: did not serve.

* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.

* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.

* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.

* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.

* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.

* Phil Gramm: did not serve.

* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.

* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.

* John M. McHugh: did not serve.

* JC Watts: did not serve.

* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem, " although continued in NFL for 8 years.

* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.

* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.

* George Pataki: did not serve.

* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.

* John Engler: did not serve.

* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.

* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

* Sean Hannity: did not serve.

* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')

* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.

* Michael Savage: did not serve.

* George Will: did not serve.

* Chris Matthews: did not serve.

* Paul Gigot: did not serve.

* Bill Bennett: did not serve.

* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.

* John Wayne: did not serve.

* Bill Kristol: did not serve.

* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.

* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.

* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.

* Ralph Reed: did not serve.

[AUJarhead 70]

* John Wayne: did not serve.

198676[/snapback]

Hollywood Actor who should have been a Marine.

* John Bobbit

Marine who should not have been a Hollywood Actor

[AUdaREALsecTigers 2]

The real hypocrisy is the intelligence factor. The intelligence that congress has is very small compared to that that of the adminstration.

Okay... but didn't Clinton agree with the same intelligence that W had?

There's this myth that's been perpetuated for years in conservative Washington and among the right wing press that the Republican Party is the party of strong, courageous, heroic defenders of America, while the Democrats are namby-pamby sissy-boys that cannot and should not be entrusted with the nation's security. How and when this started--although I'll give much of the credit to Karl Rove--I'm not exactly sure.

W followed up on this intelligence with a strong response while the former administration just pouted and cried....Maybe that's it.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

The real hypocrisy is the intelligence factor. The intelligence that congress has is very small compared to that that of the adminstration.

Okay... but didn't Clinton agree with the same intelligence that W had?

There's this myth that's been perpetuated for years in conservative Washington and among the right wing press that the Republican Party is the party of strong, courageous, heroic defenders of America, while the Democrats are namby-pamby sissy-boys that cannot and should not be entrusted with the nation's security. How and when this started--although I'll give much of the credit to Karl Rove--I'm not exactly sure.

W followed up on this intelligence with a strong response while the former administration just pouted and cried....Maybe that's it.

199112[/snapback]

I believe so. But, don't forget GHW Bush used to work for the CIA, and still has contacts there. As far as Clinton goes, he disagrees with the way the war was handled.

By VOA News

17 November 2005

Former president Bill Clinton has criticized the U.S.-led war in Iraq as a "big mistake," saying officials failed to plan for what would follow the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Speaking to students at the American University in Dubai, Mr. Clinton said it is a good thing that Saddam is gone, but he doesn't agree with what was done.

He said U.S. officials made several errors, such as not sending enough troops and dismantling Iraq's authority structure.

Mr. Clinton added that U.S.-led forces failed to secure the country's borders, allowing foreign terrorists to enter Iraq…

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-11-16-voa93.cfm

So there we have it, a Democrat in his own words.

[AURaptor 1,126]

GHW Bush used to work for the CIA, and still has contacts there.

GHW Bush was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 1976-77

Was Vice President from 1981-89

Was President from 1990 - 1993

Today is Nov 17, 2005.

It's been almost 30 years since GHW Bush directed the CIA. I don't know what sort of contacts he kept while being VP and President, but how many folks does Bush41 still know since leaving the WH over 12 years ago ?

I'm guessing it's a short list. Got any names?

[Bottomfeeder 244]

GHW Bush used to work for the CIA, and still has contacts there.

I don't know what sort of contacts he kept while being VP and President, but how many folks does Bush41 still know since leaving the WH over 12 years ago ?

I'm guessing it's a short list. Got any names?

199268[/snapback]

I'm sure it is a short list. There is no need of a long list, if the contacts are the right ones.

[Tigermike 3,053]

The real hypocrisy is the intelligence factor. The intelligence that congress has is very small compared to that that of the adminstration.

Okay... but didn't Clinton agree with the same intelligence that W had?

W followed up on this intelligence with a strong response while the former administration just pouted and cried....Maybe that's it.

199112[/snapback]

I believe so. But, don't forget GHW Bush used to work for the CIA, and still has contacts there. As far as Clinton goes, he disagrees with the way the war was handled.

By VOA News

17 November 2005

Former president Bill Clinton has criticized the U.S.-led war in Iraq as a "big mistake," saying officials failed to plan for what would follow the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Speaking to students at the American University in Dubai, Mr. Clinton said it is a good thing that Saddam is gone, but he doesn't agree with what was done.

He said U.S. officials made several errors, such as not sending enough troops and dismantling Iraq's authority structure.

Mr. Clinton added that U.S.-led forces failed to secure the country's borders, allowing foreign terrorists to enter Iraq…

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-11-16-voa93.cfm

So there we have it, a Democrat in his own words.

199255[/snapback]

Oh yeah, the tag team media darlings Slick Willie and Hillary the centrist. Look back BF, the dynamic duo immediately came out on opposite sides; Hillary for & Slickum Maximums against. They have been playing both ends for several years now. Bill Clinton, sexual harasser extraordinaire, has appeased and appealed to the far left whackos & Hillary the Centrist has attempted to appeal the center and right.

No The real hypocrisy is the left continually saying "We support the troops!", "We are big on national defense!" When both statements are outright blatant lies. The democrats have polarized and politized the WOT & the troops from the word go. The democrat leftist would have us cut and run from the war on terror. Let me ask you one simple question, if the US does what you people want and leaves the Middle East, do you really think the Islamic terrorists will stop their plans to attack the US? Europe? You talk about WMD's, but never, ever bring up the fact that the Russian nuclear arsenal is insecure and vulnerable to Islamic terrorists on the black market. Do you think our borders are secure? North or South, Canada or Mexico, the US borders are porous.

[Tigermike 3,053]

Democrats are using the Iraq War for trivial political fodder.

Let's be clear: There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of an American president; to the contrary, we have written extensively about President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and politically motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk, however, are nothing short of—and we don't use this term lightly—treasonous.

Here are their accusations:

Reid: "We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq... the Vice President is behind that." (Reid, you may recall, recently called the President "a loser" while speaking to a high-school civics class.)

Durbin: "I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." (Durbin, you may recall, recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.)

Kennedy: "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." (Kennedy, you may recall, got kicked out of Harvard for cheating. In addition, you may recall, he drunk-drove his car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while he went back to his hotel, called his lawyer, concocted an alibi and went to sleep.)

The MSM is reporting Demo charges as de facto truth.

Naturally, the Democrats' media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these and other Demo-gogues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington.

Leading the bogus "Bush lied" charge, Ted Kennedy proclaimed last week, "What was said before does matter. The President's words matter." Indeed they do, as do the words of Kennedy and his fellow revisionists. What follows, then, is a collection of words that will shine a bright light on their treachery. We'll begin with an important piece of Clinton-era legislation.

The Iraq Liberation Act: Passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1998, the Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition.

Here's what Democrats were saying before the 2000 election of George W. Bush:

President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

"[saddam] will develop, deploy and use WMD." —Bill Clinton

Clinton on Operation Desert Fox: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right—it was a "baby formula" factory.

Vice President Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat... to the security of the world."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief: "[saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

"[saddam] is too dangerous to be given carte blanche with WMD." —Harry Reid

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."

"[saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening." —Dick Durban

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

After the 2000 election:

When President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years' worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years—years of appeasement, when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free to get drivers licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr. Bush retained Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, who was the arbiter of Bush administration's position on Iraq's WMD.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

"Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." —Ted Kennedy

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."

"Hussein has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that." —Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."

In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."

These assessments were echoed by intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.

So, Ted, Dick and Harry ... what's your real agenda?

Clearly this Democrat "leadership" is willing to turn our national-security interests into political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of lying us into a war. Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom—only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office: that of defending our liberty against all threats.

President Bush's only motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom was in fulfillment of the highest obligation of his office: defending our liberty against all threats.

Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their perfidy—and they've placed America's uniformed Patriots in the crossfire.

For his part, President Bush has finally responded: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."

"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.

In the end, American Patriots must call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al., for what they are: TRAITORS. How else to describe political leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and erode the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?

Until you are ready to call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid and Company for what they are: TRAITORS, you have absolutely no room to talk about the entire situation. Democrats liars, hypocrites and traitors extraordinaire.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

What I believe is not the same as what the brainwashed public believes. According to the PNAC very own web site, a "New Pearl Harbor" was needed to bring to fruition their agenda. Yes, Bill Clinton is just as much to blame for not knowing that intelligence was flawed, but he isn't responsible for conducting a war, which was insufficiently supplied. Bill Clinton is not the pResident anymore. Remember? Dungya is, for three more miserable years of torture. And what if Willy knew, so what, he is still apart of the same group degenerates that control our country. Remember the Iran Contra affair with the landing of drugs at an airport in Arkansas with the full knowledge of the then governor Willy Clinton. He is criminal, too.

The truth is the greedy #@%$#& that control our country have no interest in bettering the lives of those who pay their salaries. Instead, they wish to further enslave us with inflation, imimigration and economic policies unfriendly to middle-class working men and women. Their only interest is protecting the multinational corporations who fund their campaigns with millions of dollars stolen from workers pensions plans and stockholders.

Tax cuts for the middle class. I didn't get a tax cut, and if I did, it would have been spent on necessities like rising energy bills, gas prices (I drive a Honda), and the like. So, if you did get a tax cut you probably had to sock it away to pay for rising health care, rising tuition fees, rising insurance premiums, and everything else that inflation affects.

Alan Greenspan controls the economy with the elbows of the White House. The White House has economics policies that either favor corporations or Americans. Determining which one this White House favors is entirely up to the individual to interpret according to his or her own political and economical beliefs. Reality is the ruler of all interpretation. So, what is your reality?

Has the military industrial complex killed someone you know? If so, how much money were they worth to this economy? Meaning, could they have contribute to the enrichment of our economic strength and security? Apparently not, because this administration thought they were only worth the blood they spilled in a foreign land.

The military industrial complex, along with the oil barons, have been itching to oust Saddam for years now. 9-11 was allowed to happen to set the stage for their agenda.

The PNAC:

The Project for a New American Century provides an answer. Founded in 1997, its principals have been agitating for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the driving force behind the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act. The names of every prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him for not implementing the Act by sending troops into Baghdad. In the months before the invasion, PNAC created a new sub-group called The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Staffed entirely by PNAC members, The Committee set out to "educate" Americans about the need for war in Iraq. This group met in February 2003 with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding the ways and means of this education.

Do these names look familiar?

Why is PNAC an important piece of the Iraq puzzle? It is important because individuals, soon to become high-ranking members of the Bush administration, signed on to their goals, their policies, and their ideology:

Vice President Dick Cheney;

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld;

Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz;

National Security Council member Eliot Abrams;

Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton;

Vice President Cheney's top national security assistant Lewis Libby;

President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq Randy Scheunemann, who was Trent Lott's national security aide and who served as an advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001;

Chairman of PNAC Bruce Jackson, a position he took after serving for years as vice president for Lockheed-Martin, and who headed the Republican Party Platform subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign. Jackson’s section of the 2000 GOP Platform explicitly called for the removal of Saddam Hussein, and was inked before George W. Bush became the nominee.

http://www.mousemusings.com/DennisKucinichWasRight.html

'Al-Qaeda' is a Manufactured Intelligence Front

The terrorist event of New York 11 September 20001, and the terror event of Madrid on 11 March 2004, and other terror events commonly connected to Islam, are clearly not related to Islam if we consider that the Al-Qaeda terror organization was established by the C.I.A in the 1980s. Al-Qaeda is nothing but a conveniently "Islamic" front which enables the C.I.A. to commit crimes in the name of Muslims. It is well known that the Mujahadeen terrorists of Afghanistan were organized, trained and funded by the C.I.A. using the Pakistani ISI as a "cut-out" in order to lure the Soviet Army into Afghanistan at the end of 1979. The Mujahedeen can be seen as C.I.A. terrorism with an islamic name and "islamic" perpetrators. Afghanistan has, for all purposes, been destroyed by these fanatics in furtherance of American interests.

The Al-Qaeda terror organization has caused immense damage to Islam, to Moslems worldwide and to the interests of the peoples of all Arab and Muslim countries. The actions of Al-Qaeda have only served to promote the interests of the U.S. and Israel, which are clearly interested in "reshaping" the Middle East in such a way that they can more easily rape and plunder the region at will.

In fact the C.I.A is using the terrorist actions of its proxy Al-Qaeda in order to give the U.S. an excuse to extend their power into and invade the Arab countries, first countries with rich plunder (Oil) like Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, and second any country which is a "threat" to Israel, or more exactly which Israel dislikes for whatever reason. The third objective for which the C.I.A. is using its proxy Al-Qaeda is to engender fear and hate of Islam and Muslims worldwide. This corresponds to an old and tried ploy of colonizers: to slander and denigrate the target population so that it is acceptable and even called for to commit genocide against them. The peoples of Ireland, Africa and the Americas have all suffered this tragedy, and these regions have been colonized. The next obvious victims are Arabs and Muslims by extension because they live in geographic areas rich in oil and other resources, and because Muslims as a collective are not white enough to be respected as full humans by the criminals in London, Washington and Tel Aviv.

http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/0...cturedfront.htm

In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda.

In the early fall of 2002, a joint House-Senate intelligence inquiry committee, which I co-chaired, was in the final stages of its investigation of what happened before Sept. 11. As the unclassified final report of the inquiry documented, several failures of intelligence contributed to the tragedy. But as of October 2002, 13 months later, the administration was resisting initiating any substantial action to understand, much less fix, those problems.

Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

What I Knew Before the Invasion, By Bob Graham

This presidency is such a failure, as evident in the NOLA problems, that the real recovery of this nation will not take place until this failure of a man, Dungya, is replace with a real man or real woman. What that says about Dungya, is the fact that a real woman can manage a country better than an undone man, like Dungya. That is a sad, sad state of mind and being. As evident by the fact that Dungya is not communicating with anyone that doesn't remind him of his mother. What a cry baby. Concluding evidence that woman can run a country better than a man.