Freeway bloggers versus walls of honor and respect

<i>I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.</i>

Read it, read it again and read it for a third time. This doesn't say AT ALL that Saddam was behind 9/11, it says that the US will go after any nation supporting terrorism and that Iraq is one of them and about that there can be no doubt.

I can't help it if the media don't know or don't want to read properly and then inform their public accordingly.

So you just proved my point.

Everybody, including many senior Democrats with access to classified information, were convinced that Iraq was atreat to the US.

For example, Hillary Clinton in October 2002:
"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, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

But they seem to have conveniently forgotten that. So if Bush lied, then everybody lied. Speaking of a vast conspiracy.

"I don't think Bush ever said that Saddam Hoessein was behind 9/11..."

He didn't have to - but he did. Public opinion polls showed a solid 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attack, and no wonder, since his letter to Congress said the following:

<i>I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.</i>

"... at one time he actually denied this."

Well sure, everyone (except Dick Cheney) did after the war had already started.

"I think that the Iraqi campaign is consistent with what Bush has been saying ever since 9/11. The WMD, democracy and other arguments fit nicely within his narrative. If only people would bother to listen, really listen, they would know what the mission is."

This is nonsense. The US attacked Iraq for two reasons. First, because Iraq was supposed to be a serious, immediate threat to US security. Cheney and Rumsfeld said we knew exactly where chemical and biological weapons were stockpiled. Rice and others scared the crap out of people by saying Iraq would soon be capable of putting "mushroom clouds" over US cities. Second, this may or may not be obvious to Europeans, the US loves just revenge, as if are marshals in the Old West. Look at Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger movies - violent, justified revenge is a favorite theme. I have a lot of friends in Europe, and they still can't quite believe me when I say cowboy culture is alive and well just a few miles in from each of our coasts. The movies not as pretend as most Europeans think. That cowboy thing Bush does? He's a genuine representative of a lot of gun totin' pickup drivin' good old boys. He’s not an anomaly.

Somebody's ass needed kicking following 9/11, and Bush did that Orwell thing by just changing the name of the enemy from bin Ladin to Iraq.

"For more than two years now, I hear about civil war, a Vietnam quagmire and Islam theocracy, but, you know, none of those things have come true."

Not that it means much, but for three years, I’ve been calling Iraq, “America’s West Bank.”

I’ll check back with you on that theocracy thing.

The mission: "<b>Islam is cancer</b>." Roger that. There's only one little problem with that, the US is secular, and Constitutionally 'respects no religion.'

Keep inventing missions all you want. The soldiers of my country haven't been told what it really is.

BTW, you're not telling the truth about this bit:

"However, both the Kay and Duelfer reports state that SH presented a bigger threat than anticipated. There WAS at least one nuclear scientist, Dr. Mahdi al-Obeid, who hid centrifuge parts and plans for enriching Uranium. And an Iraqi delegation DID approach the Niger government to buy yellowcake."

... but I think you know that. Are you "supporting the troops" with lies like that?

C'mon.

What mission? In his letter to Congress requesting the use of force, Bush said Iraq was behind 9/11. For a couple of years, this basic lie convinced 70% of Americans that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. That's why at the time a slim majority supported the invasion of Iraq. Americans went to war thinking Iraq supplied al Qaeda's hijackers.

Is it to get bin Ladin? Americans thought that too.

Is it because the next "smoking gun" might be an Iraqi "mushroom cloud?" Most Americans thought Iraq had a functional nuclear arms program, something international experts and our own Dept of Energy knew to be false.

Is it because Iraq should be the "fly paper" to draw all terrorism away from the West? Lovely. To quote the former head of the CIA's bin Ladin unit, the Iraq war turned bin Ladin from a relatively small group to a global Islamist movement.

Is it to create a Middle Eastern liberal secular democracy? A hint, this isn't a popular talking point in the States. Americans don't send their kids to die for this sort of thing. And now that the inevitability of a mafia-style theocracy is becoming clear to even the most optimistic, it's even less popular.

What IS the mission? Please let me know, and I'll pass it on to the American people...

Wait! I found the mission, and it's shown up in the short time this thread has been active:

"If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. "They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition." (George Bush, August 30, 2005 in San Diego.)

It took years for that minor degree of candor. Sure, oil isn't the entire answer, and the answer certainly isn't al Zarqawi, since prior to the Iraq War, the Defense Dept stopped three sets of plans to bomb him when he lived in the northern Kurdish no-fly zone, at a time when we bombed anything of military value in the no-fly zone. No, al Zarqawi serves a very useful purpose to the Bush administration, as does that bin Ladin guy we are clearly not serious about finding…but did you notice the verbal sleight of hand? Linking bin Ladin to Iraq? That would be a first if it were true - http://web.archive.org/web/... . You might notice that report was eliminated from the State Dept website.

What is the reason, the mission?

Keep asking yourself that. We neither have the troops nor the new recruits to maintain current levels beyond next spring. As the violence expands, and various factions start shooting again (I mean, Badr vs. Sadr? What the Hell was that?) and Bush begins to extract troops, try to guess what the mission is/was/will be.

What about the soldiers killed by the Shia who are about to rule Iraq. What did THEY die for? Nothing. Not a damn thing. The soldiers killed by religious fanatics and Sunni nationalists? They died for an autonomous Kurdistan and a Shiite Iraq.

Mission accomplished.

respect to the poor black people in New Orleans: the ones who died, the ones who are dying, the ones who lost relatives.... all because they didn't have a car and nothing was organised to evacuate them.

Man should be more humble towards nature's power. It will be far probable that not every possible measure has been taken to be prepared against the worst. But where ends the worst in nature. As a former American president said:'You ain't seen nothing yet.' If you live under see level surrounded by
see, what could you expect to happen. Nor George Bush nor Kerry nor Michael Moore, not even Arnold Schwarzenegger is able to fight against nature's logic. Man should again learn to follow his natural instincts in these basic matters. Since years, everyone was aware of the danger. There was the time to go elsewhere, to build otherwise. Instead, most people have more
faith in governements, presidents, journalists, etc. than in their own instincts.
It doesn't surprise me that people who stayed against all logic, started looting and used violence to survive, because those are the 'basic instincts' of the predator that we 'all' become when nature takes over.
Once man starts to recognize the power of nature, above the power of governements, a lot of so called human disasters could be prevented.
After having made my point of view, as a human being in a dry(too dry) area, I really do feel sorry for all that human loss, but... also that human loss is supposed to be very natural.

Ok, ok, we hear you, it's all Bush's fault. Feel any better now? In the mean time, what have YOU done, or are you waiting for the Government to do something?

That you have a hammer and sickle in your ass dude. I prefer a Stars and Stripes flagpole you know.

J. It will not be too difficult to find other blogs which have been intended from the beginning as coffeeshop for dumb leftwing amateur-philosophers with a hammer and sickle in their ass.

Respect to Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot without any reason in the London Underground. In contradiction to what Blair ordered Scotland Yard to say to the press, the man didn't jump over the tollgate nor did he run away from the police.

http://news.indep...

(yes this is a URL of what LVB would call a "leftist" newspaper, but there are many more)

LVB, am I disrespectful?

Sul: exactly. I wonder what the blogmaster will respond on this (if he does).

I think this whole article is a complete miss. And it illustrates perfectly the color of this blog, that has become the Kaffeeklatsch point of a handful dumb-rightwing amateur-philosophers with an american flag in their ass.

To The Outlaw

That's what I would call a 'hit'.

"Many of these walls of honor and respect exist, though they are not always called that. To my surprise, googling for the term "wall of honor and respect" does not give any hits. The time has come for bloggers to post images of these walls of honor and respect (...) so that we can trace them through Google "

Well, the wall that you saw on your trip was probably the only one called like that. Did you also Google on '"wall of honor" Iraq' ? Then you might have had 31,200 Google hits.

The time has come to bloggers to laugh with pathetic colleague bloggers.

"walls of honor and respect" means respect for the servicemen who give their life in Iraq and Afganistan, not respect for Bush. The so-called freeway bloggers are fed up with the war that Bush has been fighting for alleged reasons.

However by your context setting I get the impression that you might seem to insinuate that the two phenomenons are opposite sides; if so, I find this a completely ridiculous theis. Jane Fonda was against the war in Vietnam, but certainly not against the soldiers for whom she had the deepest respect.