The Army's hard sell

With all the good that is being done in Iraq, I would think that Jenna and Barbara Bush would want to go there and make Dad proud and be a part of this important fight against terrorism.

My sons volunteered after 9/11...where is President Bush's relatives in the fight against terrorism.

Its usually chickenhawks that are eager to go to war using other people's children.

 

I believe the goal was something like 6100. Read that somewhere but right this second can't remember where.

 

Yes. It is shameful until you learn the truth behind Michael Moore's propaganda and editing:

59 Deceits in Farenheitt 9-11

Once you see the true deceits behind Michael Moore's lies, you have to come to the conclusion that perhaps he wasn't really looking for the truth when he made that movie for an election year. And also, the way he exploited the suffering of military families at a loved one's gravesite and veterans who were wounded show that he is the one who bears the full weight of shame with his slander and disrespect. Shameful, Indeed. But, probably not in the way you were hoping or thinking.

Joseph Botwinick

 

bump

 

Be careful about using the word "slander" when referring to anyone who is bashing President Bush, Joseph. The Bush bashers on this board won't like it and will report you to the moderators.

A great post, Joseph, showing how despicable the Bush bashing side can act.

 

Where is my Crazy Howard Dean Picture?

Here it is:



Joseph Botwinick

 

Absolutely, positively...YES.


It's All About 9/11

By Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review Online
June 29, 2005

President George W. Bush forcefully explained last night — some of us would say finally forcefully explained last night after too long a lull — why our military operations in Iraq are crucial to success in the war on terror.

It was good to hear the commander-in-chief remind people that this is still the war against terror. Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Who spent the eight years before those atrocities murdering and promising to murder Americans — as their leader put it in 1998, all Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world where they could be found....

The president needs to be talking about Saddam and terror because that's what will get their attention in Damascus and Teheran. It's not about the great experiment in democratization — as helpful as it would be to establish a healthy political culture in that part of the world. It's about making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us.

On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam's regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990's, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam's ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden's fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam's official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke's assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke's memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet's October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

- entire column at SOURCE

 

Hey, Travelsong, have you ever actually read the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq passed by both Houses of Congress? If not, I urge you to do at

www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

You might be surprised at what the Congress said the basis for invading Iraq was. This resolution is what counts, not some speeches given here or there.

 

Ken, I want to congratulate you on posting a credible link to affirm your position. Fine example in that post of carrying on a civilized debate on the issues. Thank you.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

Since there hasn't been another surprise attack since the ones on 9/11/2001, the answer is yes.

 

Thanks, LE.

I don't always resort to the nuclear option.

 

bump

 

NO MAJOR TERROR ATTACKS IN AMERICA SINCE THE INVASION OF IRAQ!

That's zip. Nada. Zero. None.

Any more questions?