Iraq War: Time To Expose The Real Liars

[Lunatock]

Friends,

The past few weeks we have seen shameless and cowardly actions that undermine
our military men and women, not to mention the American mission to rid the world
of international Islamic terrorism.

The likes of Congressman John Murtha, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, former
Democrat Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, MoveOn.org
and others sunk to new lows.

I know that you must be as sick and tired of these people as I am. Well,
actions have consequences. And, we have to call them out for what they have
done to undermine American morale and encourage the terrorism in believing they
can wait out our resolve to defeat them.

Today I wrote a column, the content of which is being widely distributed via the
Internet and talk radio stations: "The Liars of the Anti-War Movement."

You can read it for yourself here:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47685

The anti-war leadership will sink to any level to advance their twisted and sick
extremist political views, and they must be held accountable.

And, in the coming weeks, we at Move America Forward WILL hold them accountable.

This column is the opening salvo, and I thought you should read it.

-- Melanie Morgan
Chairman, Move America Forward
http://www.MoveAmericaForward.org

P.S. I would welcome hearing your thoughts on this important subject as well.
Please don't hesitate to email me back.

[Swift Sword]

Ok folks, thats a wrap!

Would the next demagouge please step up to the mic?

And I thought Cindy Shehan was glimmer glam flim flam.

Regards,

W.

[Bluesman]

Ok folks, thats a wrap!

Nope, not NEARLY a wrap. Let's get some more input on it.

Would the next demagouge please step up to the mic?

Nice of you to yield the floor. Yielding seems easy for you.

And I thought Cindy Shehan was glimmer glam flim flam.

Regards,

W.

Well, I'm amazed: you are right every once in awhile. Sheehan IS 'glimmer glam flim flam'.

Some of the other stuff you post, though...

[Bulgaroctonus]

That column is too heated and righteous for my liking. Also, my old liberal upbringing starts to see red flags when there are adds on that site like "End Abortion Now", "Get Any Three Conservative Books for $1" and "Help Support Persecuted Christians Around the World."

If I agreed with the article, I'm afraid of the people I'd be agreeing with. I'd rather just let the Conservatives and Liberals bleed each other dry, and laugh from the sidelines.

I'm also confused about one thing. Is Lunatock Melanie Morgan? I can't tell...

[Lunatock]

I'm also confused about one thing. Is Lunatock Melanie Morgan? I can't tell...

You act like a smart person, figure that out...or go sit with everyone who thought I was Asia Argento while using a pic of her as an avatar.

[Garry]

Friends,

The past few weeks we have seen shameless and cowardly actions that undermine
our military men and women, not to mention the American mission to rid the world
of international Islamic terrorism.

Lunatock, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism...... there was no terrorism there. It came there after US unilaterally removed a bloody regime there, which was fighting Islamic fundamentalists as the threat to its rule.

Now when Iraq is full of terrorists, this war will last long. There is a way how to clear Iraq from terrorists.... install another brutal regime which will fight them with brutal means.... tourtures and murdering.... US army can not do it. It is too much exposed to media.

The true liars were Bush and his company.... they sold invation to Iraq as war against terrorism to domestic clients, and as a concern over WMD to foreign clients. It is not clear what they were - liars or full. I don't know what is worse.

ps. Russians did install brutal local powers in Chechnya.... the number of soldiers they lose their reduced dramatically from around 10 a week to 2-3. I doubt any other stability is possible there.

[Shek]

Lunatock, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism...... there was no terrorism there. It came there after US unilaterally removed a bloody regime there, which was fighting Islamic fundamentalists as the threat to its rule.

Now when Iraq is full of terrorists, this war will last long. There is a way how to clear Iraq from terrorists.... install another brutal regime which will fight them with brutal means.... tourtures and murdering.... US army can not do it. It is too much exposed to media.

The true liars were Bush and his company.... they sold invation to Iraq as war against terrorism to domestic clients, and as a concern over WMD to foreign clients. It is not clear what they were - liars or full. I don't know what is worse.

Garry,

While I'm tired of debating the Bush lied meme, the decision to end the bellum interruptum with Iraq was absolutely due to American self-interest with regards to both terrorism and WMD. 9/11 was a wake up call that two oceans couldn't protect the homeland, and there was a realization that non-state actors, i.e. terrorists, posed a significant threat to the homeland. Given this new paradigm, or prism, or lens, or whatever you call it, the potential combination of terrorists with WMD was a potential that now carried a greater risk. Thus, the decision was made to stop playing games with Saddam and end the threat that he posed. This is exactly why a NIE was written that addressed "Iraq and Terrorism."

As far as WMD, I have yet to see any credible evidence of any intel agency that concluded that Saddam did not have any WMD. There is certainly dispute over the nuclear aspect, although there isn't conclusive unclassified/leaked evidence that allows a definitive judgement of what should have been concluded in March 2003. Furthermore, it will be decades before documents are declassified that will allow historians to judge what impact still classified documents will have. In fact, there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi documents that are sitting in a Qatar facility that remain untranslated that may provide further information. Do a Google for "Stephen Hayes" and "Freedom of Information Act" and "DIA," and you will find some interesting questions that need to be answered.

As far as terrorism, there were ties between Saddam and terrorists. I'm not convinced that they were significant in March 2003. However, I don't think anyone would want to argue that Saddam is 100% rational, and so you run the risk of leaving the status quo remain, with an eroding and ineffective sanctions regime that was failing to contain Saddam's regime at a necessary level.

Next, can you provide me some more info on how Saddam was fighting AQ and other Salafists?

In the end, I'd agree that in trying to go the UN route, while we had multiple motivations for ending the cease fire with Iraq, we were forced to emphasize WMD, which has now become a thorn in the side of the legitimacy of the decision. Unfortunately, many want to believe in unselfish reasons as a guide for foreign policy decision making, which is not a basis for these decisions. The reality is that we went into Iraq for selfish reasons; however, this is not mutually exclusive of doing good.

One last thought - AQ is on the strategic defensive in Iraq. Without Afghanistan as a caliphate, they are searching for a country where they can set one up. They couldn't just let "infidels occupy" the holy land, and so they had to fight us in Iraq. A loss in Iraq is a devestating blow for them and their cause, and through luck, the publicized spats between Zawahiri and Zarqawi is discrediting AQ in many passive supporters. So, AQ has not experienced any strategic success. History will ultimately be the judge decades from now, but I'd say the initiative doesn't lay with AQ.

[Ray]

Shek,

From a military point of view, the two ocean surely protects the USA.

There is no chance of any country ever, in the foreseeable future, being capable of mounting an invasion on the USA.

9/11 was no invasion.

It was merely a bold and dastardly pinpricks organised by a maniacal freak of nature.

It would be an insult to the Americans if aircrafts plummeting into buildings is considered an invasion.

The USA is made of sterner stuff.

The idiotic though bold scheme has got the USA's hackles up and they are paying a heavy price for their folly.

[Bill]

What heavy price would that be ray?

[dalem]

Shek,

From a military point of view, the two ocean surely protects the USA.

There is no chance of any country ever, in the foreseeable future, being capable of mounting an invasion on the USA.

9/11 was no invasion.

It was merely a bold and dastardly pinpricks organised by a maniacal freak of nature.

It would be an insult to the Americans if aircrafts plummeting into buildings is considered an invasion.

The USA is made of sterner stuff.

The idiotic though bold scheme has got the USA's hackles up and they are paying a heavy price for their folly.

The deaths of thousands of Americans on our own soil will never be accepted as mere "pinpricks".

-dale

[TopHatter]

Shek,

From a military point of view, the two ocean surely protects the USA.

There is no chance of any country ever, in the foreseeable future, being capable of mounting an invasion on the USA.

9/11 was no invasion.

It was merely a bold and dastardly pinpricks organised by a maniacal freak of nature.

It would be an insult to the Americans if aircrafts plummeting into buildings is considered an invasion.

The USA is made of sterner stuff.

The idiotic though bold scheme has got the USA's hackles up and they are paying a heavy price for their folly.

In my lowly civilian opinion:

al-Qaida shot their "aircraft as cruise missiles" bolt.
They achieved complete strategic surprise, true. But that's all they get, a single chance.
They made a pretty good showing of it, with 3 out of 4 aircraft also achieving complete tactical surprise.
The 4th aircraft had an unscheduled passenger named Murphy that managed to cast away that tactical surprise and a couple dozen ordinary men and women took full advantage of it.

What all this means is, I don't think we'll see another successful attack like that again. No plane-full of passangers will meekly submit to a terrorist takeover, even with the threat of a bomb.

[Bill]

"What all this means is, I don't think we'll see another successful attack like that again. No plane-full of passangers will meekly submit to a terrorist takeover, even with the threat of a bomb."

Not if any of us is on it it won't...

[Lunatock]

Lunatock, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism...... there was no terrorism there. It came there after US unilaterally removed a bloody regime there, which was fighting Islamic fundamentalists as the threat to its rule.

Now when Iraq is full of terrorists, this war will last long. There is a way how to clear Iraq from terrorists.... install another brutal regime which will fight them with brutal means.... tourtures and murdering.... US army can not do it. It is too much exposed to media.

The true liars were Bush and his company.... they sold invation to Iraq as war against terrorism to domestic clients, and as a concern over WMD to foreign clients. It is not clear what they were - liars or full. I don't know what is worse.

ps. Russians did install brutal local powers in Chechnya.... the number of soldiers they lose their reduced dramatically from around 10 a week to 2-3. I doubt any other stability is possible there.

Just because Saddam might not of been as friendly with OBL as some might of said doesn't mean he dind't have any terrorist agenda's. Try Saddam's instances of dropping scuds on Israel during the first Gulf War, harboring Abdullah Abbas, the leader of the Achille Lauro takeover (Found and arrested in Baghdad...shortly after was reported to have died of a heart attack) and paying no less than ten thousand dollars to the families of Palistinian suicide bombers. Not to mention the influx of foreign volunteers that were brought in by Saddam before the invasion of Iraq even began. That consisted of a rabble from KSA, and upwards of two hundred volunteers from Islamic Jihad, imported from Palestine.

As for Russia, they can thank the United States for the drop in their own casualties, since more foreign jihadi's are going after the Coalition in Iraq, and not the Russians occupying Chechnya.

Although your last paragraph begs the question. Bush strategy is bad, but it's ok for Russia to practice their unique strategy in Chechnya, which involves levelling every house, hopsital, and especially Mosques without provocation?

Even when Muqtada Al-Sadr was holed up in the Imam Ali mosque not so much as a spitball was used against it. And neither did any mass executions of Iraqi towns such as Mosul and Fallujah occur. Unlike the villages of Samashki and Bamut, which are situated in northern Chechnya. The half of the countr that's pretty much pro-Russian no less. The loyalty of those two villages was rewarded, now wasn't it?

ETA there was also a massacre in the village of Noviye Aldi. I'm not sure if that village was located in the north or south of Chechnya, but quite a list of info can be found by a google search on Aset Chadayeva, who survived the massacre in Noviye Aldi and later fled the region for America.