Today on Blogcritics
Home » Karl Rove, George Bush, and the GOP: Osama’s Best Friends

Karl Rove, George Bush, and the GOP: Osama’s Best Friends

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The scandal swirling around Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and the GOP continues to expand and become more damaging with each passing day. As they continue to cling to Karl Rove as if he is some kind of savior, they are blissfully unaware that they are associating themselves and their political movement with a man and an operation that has intentionally and purposefully conferred great benefit on Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, and the terrorists who killed thousands on 9-11.

It is now known that Robert Novak testified to the grand jury that “two administration officials” leaked the name of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame to him. It is also known that after an intense appellate process that went all the way to the Supreme Court, Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper recently met with the grand jury and admitted it was Karl Rove who first leaked the CIA status of Joseph Wilson’s wife.


Furthermore, it is now known that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby claimed under oath to the grand jury that they were told by reporters first of Plame’s identity. Libby claimed it was MSNBC’s Tim Russert, but Russert testified to the contrary. Rove claimed it was Novak, both Novak and Matthew Cooper have contradicted that.

It is also now known that a State Department memo widely circulated and available to administration officials had indicated that Valerie Plame’s identity was secret. Yet in an act of desperate and petty retribution, it appears Libby, Rove, and potentially other Republican officials blew the cover of this agent, by outing her to the media in an attempt to strengthen their false argument that we needed to invade Iraq immediately because they might nuke us.

The act of blowing this agent’s cover undermined national security and is a serious criminal offense under a number of criminal statutes. An undercover operation spanning the globe to root out terrorists and weapons of mass destruction is now out of commission. Spies throughout the globe who had contacts with terrorists are now compromised and endangered. America is in a worse position because of it, and the terrorists have been given a big gift from seditious individuals within our own government. This petty retribution bordered on treason and certainly emboldened our enemies in a real way, not a fictitious way as was suggested by the right against Dick Durbin–who had spoken out forcefully against the torture at Guantanamo Bay that was described in an FBI document.

One Republican after another lined up and went on record claiming they had knowledge that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby had nothing to do with it, including President Bush. This turns out now not to be the case. The president said he would fire anyone involved in the leak. Now that we know Rove and Libby were intricately involved, the president flip-flopped and refuses to fire them. The president has repeatedly said he wants to get to the bottom of it. All he has to do is walk down the hall of the White House and ask Karl Rove, “What happened?” or “Why did you do this?” It would not be that hard if the president was really a man who meant what he said and not a man with a shifting moral compass.


Better yet, given the facts we know, no explanation is needed from Rove or Libby, they should be summarily dismissed. But the president is showing the American people that to him and the GOP, the war on terror is a political game they pay lip service to in order to get a political advantage, not a real issue they care about. How else could one explain the president keeping these men in their positions requiring security clearances when they have already undermined the war on terror, and are essentially enemies of the state? Further, how else could one explain the Republican-controlled Senate, voting along party lines, refusing to revoke the security clearances of two men who have used those clearances to undermine the war on terror simply because they are Republicans?

These serious offenses would be expected to elicit anger by all Americans, specifically when you analyze the Republican response to the actions of Sandy Berger, a fine patriot who was helping the 9-11 commission do its job, at a time that Bush and Cheney were fighting against it and stonewalling it. Mr. Berger took a copy of a well-known and readily available document out of the National Archives to help him prepare for the hearings, something that was not permitted technically under the law. Yet such a minor infraction by a man who is helping strengthen national security evoked cries of treason and wild false rhetoric against him unjustifiably including “he stole a secret document” and “he stuffed the documents down his pants,” both statements provably false.

Earlier, Bill Clinton had launched a cruise missile strike against Osama bin Laden and the right-wing cried “No Blood for Monica” and made other wild statements that undermined and demoralized the troops and their mission. These people pronounced Bill Clinton, the President of the United States, guilty of a crime, when it was not even conceivable that one had been committed. These are the same people who impeached Bill Clinton for a personal mistake, claiming falsely that it was a “high crime” under the Constitution, then claiming indignantly “it wasn’t the sex, it was lying about the sex.”

It appears now that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby not only leaked a name, but also lied about the leak, and not only that, all of this occurs in the context of a criminal investigation. This is not an unpatriotic fishing expedition into the president’s personal life (as happened to Bill Clinton), it is a real criminal case with ramifications of endangering this country and strengthening the hand of Osama bin Laden. The silence on the right is deafening.

Balletshooz
Staff Writer,
Rights and Freedoms Coalition


About Balletshooz

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    Balletshooz:

    What we now know is that various people have provided contradictory testimony to the Grand Jury, not who is lying, as you claim in this piece. Rove says one thing, Cooper says another. Libby says one thing, Novak says another. Fleischer says one thing, some unnamed government leaker says another. This is a “he said/he said” debate in which it is not yet clear who’s lying. Please don’t claim otherwise. You may, of course, be right. But if you are, at least have the courtesty to wait for the indictments before you hang the criminal. Or at least remember the adage, “innocent until proven guilty.” The lynch mob on the left has the rail, tar, feathers, and rope all ready to go, but we’re not even sure who committed the crime. Indeed, I’d go further and suggest that we still don’t know what crime—if any—has been committed. You suggest a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in the revelation of Valerie Plame’s name. Perhaps, but even the media doesn’t think a crime has been committed there, if its amicus curiae briefs on behalf of Judith Miller are any indication. And, as I said, if perjury is the issue, until the indictments are handed out, we’re not sure who’s perjured himself (or herself).

    You write, “Yet in an act of desperate and petty retribution, it appears Libby, Rove, and potentially other Republican officials blew the cover of this agent, by outing her to the media in an attempt to strengthen their false argument that we needed to invade Iraq immediately because they might nuke us.” First, you’re assuming facts not in evidence, namely, that Libby, Rove, et al did the leaking (as Cooper claims) rather than Cooper and Novak (as the White House claims). Again, at least wait for an indictment. Second, you make the demonstrably false statement that the WH argued “we needed to invade Iraq immediately because they might nuke us.” I dare you to provide documentation of this. And read “The Imminence Myth” by Stephen F. Hayes (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/713rhzvm.asp).

    This paragraph is BS from start to finish: “The act of blowing this agent’s cover undermined national security and is a serious criminal offense under a number of criminal statutes. An undercover operation spanning the globe to root out terrorists and weapons of mass destruction is now out of commission. Spies throughout the globe who had contacts with terrorists are now compromised and endangered. America is in a worse position because of it, and the terrorists have been given a big gift from seditious individuals within our own government. This petty retribution bordered on treason and certainly emboldened our enemies in a real way….” How did it undermine national security? Prove that the law was in fact violated. Show how this revelation put the global war on terror “out of commission.” And quit using phrases like “seditious individuals.” No one has committed treason, which is punishable by death, by the way. At worst, someone may have violated the IIPA, which is punishable by jail time.

    And regarding your little foray into Clinton’s offenses. It was never about sex. At first it was about real estate, for which Ken Starr ultimately secured more than a dozen convictions, including one of Arkansas governor Jim Guy Tucker. The impeachment was always about perjury. It just so happened that Clinton had perjured himself about sex with a WH intern. (Why didn’t the Left decry the sexual harassment of a young employee?)

    Look, events may prove that Libby, Rove, and other WH officials perjured themselves. I sincerely doubt they violated the IIPA. Then again, events may show that Cooper or Novak perjured themselves. Until we get some indictments, quite claiming to know what we do not in fact know or what we in fact know to be false.

  • WTF

    I seriously doubt Bin Laden gives one iota of a hoot about American politics. He seems a bit more focused than that.

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    Yeah, more focused on evading the Pakistani and American forces out to get him.

  • Balletshooz

    I give GPW props for being thorough, but dont you strain your credibility by asking for me to be precise with my wording and asking me to withold judgment until the indictments come, then in the same comment saying:

    “The impeachment [of Clinton] was always about perjury”

    When exactly was he indicted for perjury? I guess I missed that one.

  • billy

    i dont think osama has any problems, he is safely in pakistan with his gold robes being protected by our “ally”, he only appears every once in a while on TV at the perfect time to boost Bush’s approval rating or election chances.

  • http://againsttheleft.com George Paul Wood

    Let me be exact: House Report 105-830 contains a resolution to impeach President Clinton for perjury. Go here. Each of the four articles of this resolution mention “perjurious” testimony. He gave that testimony in the course of being investigated for sexually harassing Paula Jones. Sorry for the imprecision of my terminology. Now, will you concede that Clinton was impeached for perjury?

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    And not for sex with Monica?

  • baba

    GPW,

    I actually think you did a good job arguing your case… but the arguments only hold if we aren’t allowed to be thinking people. What you say is true, that, “What we now know is that various people have provided contradictory testimony to the Grand Jury, not who is lying, as you claim in this piece.”

    Likewise, if we know that you have made the above statement, and that this is a post about Rove, we of course don’t know for certain that you are a Rove supporter… But I think it’s a pretty good deduction.

    Likewise, we know what everyone has said, and we know that only the Bush team had access to the Secret information, and so it’s a pretty good deduction that the leak came from them, and not the other way around. To say otherwise is to say that water in the river is actually flowing backwards.

    In light of this, the rest of your post is pretty weak.

  • Balletshooz

    Clinton was not convicted, and the partisan Congress was certainly no criminal case, so according to Bush’s own standard, Clinton is just fine.

    Will you not admit, Rove and Libby’s alleged acts, if found guilty, dwarf anything Clinton did, and did not justify 6 years of investigation and focus at the very time Al Qaeda was building up to attack us.

    Our Republican politicans should have focused on terror when it counted, not after we were slaughtered for them taking our eye off the ball.

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    Baba:

    I’m not so much for Rove as I am against the Left, or at least the Left that Balletshooz speaks for. In the end, Rove, Libby, and others may be indicted on criminal charges, although we don’t know for what yet. And, if there’s a trial, they may be convicted. But, Balletshooz’s hysterical rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, no reasonable person has charged Rove, Libby, or others with treason. At worst, they’re guilty of violating the IIPA, which is not a treasonable offense, as I understand it. Of course, if they’re guilty, so are the reporters who conveyed the information publicly. Less worse, but still bad, they’re guilty of perjury. At best, no offense has been committed except in the perfervid minds of Leftist nutjobs. If Rove et al are guilty, then they deserve whatever punishment they have coming. My larger problem with Balletshooz’s treatment of this story is its incredibly unwarranted assertions about national security being threatened and spies becoming unsafe and the global war on terror spinning out of control, solely because of the revleation of Valerie Plame’s name. Frankly, that’s just ridiculous. And it will continue to be ridiculous even if Rove et al have committed a crime.

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    Balletshooz:

    Impeachment is a kind of criminal case, insofar as it can only be undertaken for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” And, although no criminal court tried Clinton for perjury, if I remember correctly, the Bar revoked his license to practice law because of his perjury. Certainly that would indicate the legal profession looked dimly upon Clinton’s actions, even if no Congress or court ever convicted him. That’s why the final phrase of your first paragraph is so bizarre: “so according to Bush’s own standard, Clinton is just fine.” If by Bush’s standard, you mean that a non-indicted or unconvicted person should not be treated like a criminal, then I guess your right. I just wish you’d apply Bush’s standard to Rove et al.

    You write: “Will you not admit, Rove and Libby’s alleged acts, if found guilty, dwarf anything Clinton did, and did not justify 6 years of investigation and focus at the very time Al Qaeda was building up to attack us.” Given that Rove’s alleged criminal acts took place in 2003, I’m not sure how they could possibly justify “6 years of investigation and focus,” four years of which haven’t yet occured. I think what you mean is that Clinton’s acts did not justify 6 years of investigation. Given the number of convictions arising out of those years of the Special Counsel’s investigation, and given what seems to me to be the plain fact of Clinton’s perjury, even though he was not “convicted” by the Senate, I’d say that those investigations were quite revealing. Justified? I don’t know. If Clinton had simply told the truth, I’m sure quite a few months could have been shaved off the tail end of Starr’s inquiries. So, blame Clinton for thwarting the investigation and delaying the process.

    I find it downright silly that you blame Republicans for “6 years of investigation and focus at the very time Al Qaeda was building up to attack us.” President Clinton could have gone after Al Qaeda more aggressively. He didn’t. Blame him for national security lapses. If he hadn’t been so busy diddling an intern, perhaps he could have focused like a laser beam on national security.

    “Our Republican politicans should have focused on terror when it counted, not after we were slaughtered for them taking our eye off the ball.” You mean during the Clinton Administration? We should hold Republicans responsible for national security lapses during a Democratic administration? Don’t you guys on the Left take any responsibility for your own actions? What about Democratic politicians? Do they bear no blame for the terrorism that happened while their guy was president? Once you’ve stopped blameshifting for the Clinton administration, why don’t you rejoin the debate.

  • http://againsttheleft.com George Paul Wood

    Balletshooz:

    I failed to answer your one direct question: “Will you not admit, Rove and Libby’s alleged acts, if found guilty, dwarf anything Clinton did…?” If they violated the IIPA, which the mainstream media and I think is doubtful, then yes, their offense is greater than Clinton’s. But if they merely perjured themselves, then they committed the exact same crime as Clinton. Given the vehemence with which you argue Rove et al’s guilt, I look forward to seeing you just as vehemently—if somewhat retrospectively—argue that Clinton should have been punished for lying. I mean, what’s sauch for the goose, right?

  • http://againsttheleft.com George Paul Wood

    BlogCritics needs spell checking. That last line shoudl have read: “I mean, what’s sauce for the goose, right?”

  • mjh

    It is amazing how much propoganda has infiltrated the American media. It was very clear to the outside world that none of the claims related to Iraq were correct-thus, the lack of support for the invasion in the so-called “mother of all alliances”. It is also, and remains, very clear that everything that your government is doing is fueling the generation of new “terrorists”. Perhaps you should reflect on your own history-a nation founded by “terrorists”. You call these “terrorists” heroes, much like Bin Laden and colleagues are viewed throughout the middle east. Perhaps if America didn’t continue to intervene in the activities of sovereign nations for reasons that are clearly NOT related to any ethical or moral high ground, there wouldn’t be a need for a disinformation campaign to obscure the truth. You have to be a fool to believe that 1) this story did not originate in the White House and 2) as head of the disinformation campaign that has characterized the Bush government, Rove is innocent in all of this. By the way, it is illegal even to confirm the information in question. Hence, it only matters that Rove and Libby spoke to these reporters and acknowledged the accuracy of their information.

  • http://www.branwenscauldron.com Branwen

    >>My larger problem with Balletshooz’s treatment of this story is its incredibly unwarranted assertions about national security being threatened and spies becoming unsafe<<

    As I understand it, Plame worked for an organization in Europe that was a front for CIA opperatives. With her cover blown, everyone in that organization will now be suspect. I don’t know if it puts their lives in danger, but it certainly derails an intelligence operation that had been in existence at least 15 years. That could have an effect on national security. I don’t have a print source on this, but the information was given by a former CIA agent interviewed on MSNBC.

  • M Paulding

    Sometimes it’s helpful to take a look back at the road that got us from there to here.

    President Most-remembered for

    Kennedy being assassinated
    Johnson Viet Nam War
    Nixon Watergate
    Ford Pardoning Nixon
    Carter Teheran hostages
    Reagan Iran-Contra
    Military aid to Osama
    Military aid to Iraq
    Bush I Iraq War
    Clinton Cigars as Sex Toys
    Bush II Phony Iraq War

    I’m not adding the fall of the Soviet Union to Reagan’s list of ‘achievements’ because CIA was already forecasting the Soviets’ demise when Reagan entered office.

    As far as Rove is concerned, I’ll believe that Bush decided to do something about Rove when they find him bound and gagged on the sidewalk in the sixteen-hundred block of Pennsylvania Avenue wearing nothing but a dog collar and a light stick up his ass.

    Maybe we should have a draft. If we did, on the day after Matt Cooper’s appearance on “Meet The Press” last Sunday there probably would have been 100,000+ in front of the White House with torches demanding Bush’s resignation and Rove’s balls.

  • The Duke

    M. Paulding makes an interesting case… my point of view differs somewhat.

    Kennedy being assassinated—Bay of Pigs, starting Viet Nam conflagration
    Johnson Viet Nam War—Escalating the Viet Nam war
    Nixon Watergate—Ending the Viet Nam war, ending the draft and keeping my ass out of Viet Nam, and saving my brothers ass, by bringing him home early.
    Ford Pardoning Nixon—Ford hitting people on the head with golf balls
    Carter Teheran hostages—Great human being, to soft hearted for the job
    Reagan Iran-Contra—Freeing eastern Europe (ask any East European, he’s a hero)
    Military aid to Osama—Busting the economy of the USSR with a Starwars ruse
    Military aid to Iraq—Busting Iran’s balls over expansionism in the region
    Bush I Iraq War—Not going far enough into Iraq and grabbing the oil
    Clinton Cigars as Sex Toys—Foolish sociopath, needed prozac, an embarrassment
    Bush II Phony Iraq —Smacked upside the head with a major terrorist event on U.S. soil, responded in kind. Didn’t employ nuetron technology

    Oh did I mention that I didn’t vote for any of them? Just to let you know where my loyalties lay….

  • http://na 59million americans and republican haters

    To take a quote from bush “you are either with us or against us.” NOW THAT THE FACTS ARE KNOWN ABOUT BUSH/ROVE TREASONIST BASTARDS – IF YOU STILL SUPPORT BUSH – YOU ARE A TRAITOR TOO!!

  • lefty

    bush should do the right thing and suspend their security clearances until the investigation either clears them or produces indictments.

  • Righty

    Not to mention, putting Sandy Berger behind bars for lifting classified documents…. if he was an enlisted military puke he would have been hung.

  • lefty

    i guess you were asleep. he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and paid a fine, sort of like a speeding ticket. keep dreaming. the 9-11 commission already had the document, so whats the harm. rove endangered thousands of cia agents lives and he will be hung for real, not just in your twisted mind.

  • Anthony Grande(if there were 59 million republican hater then way did Bush mop the floor with Kerry

    If Bush and Osama were best freinds then why did Osama endorse Kerry during the election.

    The Karl Rove thing is not damaging. He is part of a liberal witch hunt. As long as they go after something they have no chance of getting then the rest of the republican party is safe.

  • billy

    i dont remember seeing that endorsement. i just remember osama appeared and bush’s approval rating jumped like 3 points. osama is evil but he isnt stupid, he wouldnt do that if that is not the result he wanted.

  • Righty

    I guess I was asleep. But that’s not uncommon if you work 2 jobs and are finally finishing up an MBA after 15 years away from the books.

    I would have put his lame ass in lock up. Stuffing classified documents in his flippin’ socks, that theft of classified information. Who the hell slapped his wrist?

  • Anthony Grande

    Oh yeah, I am so sure Osama would rather have Bush fighting him than Kerry.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    mjh says that my country was started by terrorists…I’m trying to find ANYWHERE in the history of the colonies that colonists targeted innocent civilians in there efforts towards freedom…or better yet, there efforts towards democracy…anyone care to help me out here???

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>mjh says that my country was started by terrorists…I’m trying to find ANYWHERE in the history of the colonies that colonists targeted innocent civilians in there efforts towards freedom…or better yet, there efforts towards democracy…anyone care to help me out here???<<

    Sorry Andy, they did. There were lynchings, tar and featherings, house burnings and general intimidation of loyalist civilians during the 1770s. The Sons of Liberty were responsible for most of it. They WERE terrorists by technique, and deserve no forgiveness for their methods. There’s a reason why Sam Adams never got anywhere politically. They do get a break historically because they were on the side of right in the larger sense – like the IRA – but their methods were still unacceptable.

    Dave

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    I stand corrected…thanks Dave.

  • Ray Medley

    Why is Elliot Abrams on the WH staff? Bush’s statements about having to be convicted of a crime before dismissal is about average for his IQ, but why has no one pointed out that he already has a convicted criminal on his staff—pardoned, true, but still convicted.
    For the life of me, I do not understand how the main stream media can bow down to this reprehensible administration of liars.

    Ray Medley
    Stone Mountain, GA

  • Nancy

    I have to agree on Sandy Berger; I don’t care which party he’s with, or who he is; stealing documents from the National Archives is a felony deserving of a hell of a lot more than a fine & getting his library pass suspended. He should be doing hard time for felony theft of federal property.

  • Anthony (my country was not founded by terrorists) Grande

    The Loyalists that were killed were not innocent citizens. They aided the British, they told the Brits where American Militia camps were and who was in them (watch the patriot). The militias in tern had to intimidate them.

    The American’s did not blow up little girls.

    The American’s had no choice to rebel against the Brits. The Brits were stealing our resources and taxing the hell out of us when we bought their products. The Brits killed women and children who’s husbands were in the militia. They also killed women who were treating the wounded Americans. The Americans fought for a democracy while the terrorists fight for a dictatorship.

    The people of Iraq are not being taken over and oppressed like the Americans were. We are not even taken oil from Iraq or any of their resources let alone tax them. We are just standing by protecting their developing democratic government.

    After the Revolution all the loyalists fled to Canada. George Washington then invited them to come back and get free land. Talk about a terrorist tyrant.

  • http://www.arcaneoracle.com Billy Braindeath

    For the life of me, I do not understand how the main stream media can bow down to this reprehensible administration of liars.

    Because they know that we never get anything but an administration of liars, because politicians are liars and hire liars because liars have the mental flexibility to get the job done.

    As for the Bush administration, they get a break from the media because they’re liars who are willing to play along and help the media make money. The media is a business first and a service to the public a distant second.

    After the Revolution all the loyalists fled to Canada. George Washington then invited them to come back and get free land. Talk about a terrorist tyrant.

    Actually, the Continental Congress seized all the loyalist land and sold it at auction to land speculators, most of whom were involved in the government. They then told loyalists who returned tha they would not be persecuted and would be allowed to claim unoccupied land on the indian frontier in the west the same offer they made to any immigrant during the post-war period.

    BB

  • mjh

    “The American’s had no choice to rebel against the Brits. The Brits were stealing our resources and taxing the hell out of us when we bought their products. The Brits killed women and children who’s husbands were in the militia. They also killed women who were treating the wounded Americans. The Americans fought for a democracy while the terrorists fight for a dictatorship.”
    Perhaps you are not aware of the bunker-busting bombs that killed innocent Iraqi’s during the first Gulf war. Perhaps you are not aware that the U.S. government militarily removed the first democratically elected government in the Middle East (Iran). The innocent casualties of the invasion and occupation of Iraq have been estimated as high as 100,000. More than all of the people who were killed during the entire reign of Saddam Hussein. This is liberation! I think that the parallels between your own history and what has taken place are a lot closer than what you might care to think. The sooner that you recognize that the terrorist attacks represent a response to U.S. foreign policy, the sooner you will have recognized the path to a genuine security. Recent intelligence in the UK has suggested that there is a direct link between the involvement of Britain in the Iraq war and the recent bombings there.

    “The people of Iraq are not being taken over and oppressed like the Americans were. We are not even taken oil from Iraq or any of their resources let alone tax them. We are just standing by protecting their developing democratic government.”
    The Iraqis consider the Americans an occupation force, not a liberation force. You must also be careful for what you ask for, a truly democratic Iraq may elect a government with resources and intentions that are a far greater threat to western security than anything that Saddam could muster. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, the weapons inspections worked and revealed no WMD. As the Downing Street memos revealed, the Bush administration had every intention of invading Iraq no matter what the intelligence truly revealed.

    One news report that you may not be aware of was the murder by U.S. troops of the nephew of the Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. The young man escorted US soldiers into a room to show the soldiers where the single weapon, an unloaded rifle, was kept in the house. A short time later, the young man was dead.

    I’m not condoning anything that Bin Laden or any other militant group does but I do recognize that this is a response to decades long Middle East policy that is primarily designed to secure access to cheap oil. The war was initiated long ago by Americans and America has fared remarkably well in this war, in contrast to Arabs throughout the Middle East. When you start a war, you can’t expect the enemy to follow your rules on how wars should be fought. Their approach, what you are calling terrorism, could be considered another form of combat and one that is much more successful than any armed confrontation against the US military. Wars have casualties. When wars take place, innocent civilians are invariably caught in the crossfire. Although it is possible that the outcome of this invasion may be positive, in the form of a secular and democratic nation arising from the ashes of Iraq, the ends do not justify the means and it is a no-brainer that this is going to generate far more radical western-hating Arabs that are willing to sacrifice their lives to punish the West for their manipulation of the Middle East.

    Finally, why, when all of the terrorists could be tracked back to Saudi Arabia, was Saudi Arabia never threatened? This has nothing to do with terrorism. It has nothing to do with liberation and the institution of democracy. The motives lay elsewhere and are not entirely clear at this point. While Saddam was certainly a barbarian, there are no shortage of them in the world. Africa for example. No American intervention there-no resources there. Coincidence?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>The innocent casualties of the invasion and occupation of Iraq have been estimated as high as 100,000.< <

    Estimates actually go as high as around 200,000, but like your 100,000 figure they are grossly innacurate. An accurate count is closer to 30,000, and that includes deaths from terrorists after the conclusion of the active military operations. Those killed by US forces can reasonably be estimated to be under 10,000.

    >>More than all of the people who were killed during the entire reign of Saddam Hussein.<<

    Even your 100,000 figure is substantially lower than the estimated 500,000 killed by Saddam’s mismanagement of Iraqi food resources and misdirection of funds from the oil for food program alone.

    Dave

  • Anthony Grande

    >>More than all of the people who were killed during the entire reign of Saddam Hussein.< <

    You need to look stuff up before you just throw figures around, which are a 100% false.

    In fact there is no credibility in comment #33.

    "Finally, why, when all of the terrorists could be tracked back to Saudi Arabia, was Saudi Arabia never threatened?"

    If you lived in Tuscon, then moved to Miami, where you killed twelve people, should the house in Tuscon(occupied by new family) be raided instead of the house in Miami???

    What would our troops do in S.A.??? Kill the terrorist's family??? While the entire network of Al Queda is laughing from their headquarters in Afghanistan. I am glad you are not president.

    >>Their approach, what you are calling terrorism, could be considered another form of combat and one that is much more successful than any armed confrontation against the US military.< <

    I suppose that blowing up little girls in just another form of combat??? No, it sounds more like terrorism.

    >>Africa for example. No American intervention there-no resources there. Coincidence?< <

    What resources have we gained by invading Iraq??? Saddam is the only Barbarian that has proved to be very dangerous to his neighbors. And we overthrew him and not a dictator in Africa. Coincidence???

    >>The Iraqis consider the Americans an occupation force, not a liberation force. You must also be careful for what you ask for, a truly democratic Iraq may elect a government with resources and intentions that are a far greater threat to western security than anything that Saddam could muster.<<

    How do you know what Iraqis think??? Were you there??? My brother and several cousins were. They have stories and pictures of them playing with kids in the streets (mostly soccer
    ). They also say that they at least 75% of Iraqis love them and some even cheer them as they pass by.

    The Iraqi people have already voted for a democratic system. And even in the future if the Iraqis elect an oppressive dictatorship so be it, but if this new dictator make a Saddam like attempt at gaining weapons of mass destruction or ivades a neighbor then he will also be dealt with.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Wow, I missed this one…

    >>Africa for example. No American intervention there-no resources there. Coincidence?<<

    Yeah, there’s no oil in Nigeria or diamonds in Rhodesia. No reason to look for resouces on THAT continent.

    How can you be so ignorant?

    Dave

  • Jim Jallos

    Regarding moving the goal posts – or so says the media who wants it their way no matter what.

    Sept 30 2003 — Pres. Bush “If there is a leak out of my administration I want to know who it is and if the person has VIOLATED LAW (for all those not understanding these words we have a first grade reader available)that person will be taken care of”.

    Terry Hunt asked the question recently and he , Mr. Hunt, attempted to change the bar by his manipulating and incorrectly reviewing what Pres. Bush had said on 09/30/2003 as compared to July 18 2005 when Mr Hunt asked “Regardless of whether a crime was committed do you still intend to fire anyone involved in the CIA leak case”. Evidently Mr. Hunt did not review the President’s statement or purposely skewed the question or attempted with his question to raise, lower or bend the bar.

    Bush did not yield to the word “regardless” but stuck to his early statement when he replied “We have a serious investigation here and it’s being played out in the press and I think its best the people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions and I will do so as well. I dont know all the facts and I want to know all the facts and the best way for the facts to be done is by someone spending time investigating it. I would like this to end as quickly as possibleso we know the facts and if someone commited a crime (he used violated law in his first statement and I believe when you violate the law you have commited a crime DAAAAAA)they will no longer work in my administration.

    Is mr. Hunt through? No he now goes and asks this question at the press briefing ” The preident seem to, ah, raise the bar and ad a qualifier today when discussing whether or not anybody would be dismissed for the leak of a CIA officers name in which he said that if someone has commited a crime they would no longer work in this administation. That has NEVER BEEN PART OF THE STANDARD BEFORE why is that ADDED NOW?”.

    Mr. Hunt’s attempts to be cute are either a lack of honest journalism or rather an abundance of dishonesty in reporting the facts. Bush said clearly the level was “VIOLATED LAW” in his first remarks and “COMMITED A CRIME” in his second answer. There is no change in the STANDARD or anything ADDED Mr. Hunt its merely a case of lousy reporting of the statements made, the case of being extremely lazy or having some evil agenda.

  • randy

    “First, you’re assuming facts not in evidence, namely, that Libby, Rove, et al did the leaking (as Cooper claims) rather than Cooper and Novak (as the White House claims).”

    Since when do reporters leak government information to the government? It started as government information – some one in government leaked it to the first reporter.