CIA says Iraq is now a terrorist training ground
Wed Jun 22, 3:35 PM ET
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, officials said on Wednesday."
If you liked September 11, you'll LOVE Bush's second coming. :-(
Monday, June 27, 2005
Friday, June 24, 2005
and then they try to accuse the Democrats of what THEY THEMSELVES DO!
from the Washington Post:
"Rove, the architect behind President Bush's election victories, on Wednesday night told a gathering of the New York Conservative Party that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
"He added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.""
WHAT CAN BE DONE?!?!?
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO MOVE AGAINST BIN LADIN.
THEN THEY ACCUSE DEMOCRATS OF BEING SOFT ON TERRORISM!
and there are Americans who actually believe them!
"Rove, the architect behind President Bush's election victories, on Wednesday night told a gathering of the New York Conservative Party that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
"He added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.""
WHAT CAN BE DONE?!?!?
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO MOVE AGAINST BIN LADIN.
THEN THEY ACCUSE DEMOCRATS OF BEING SOFT ON TERRORISM!
and there are Americans who actually believe them!
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
The don't even want anyone who COULD find bin Ladin
"When FBI counterterrorism managers were interviewed under oath, they said terrorism expertise wasn't important when promoting or hiring agents"
Wow!
Not only are they not going after bin Ladin, they don't want to hire anyone who COULD go after bin Ladin.
Feel safer after electing Bush, America?
"In sworn testimony that contrasts with their promises to the public, the FBI's top counterterrorism managers say Middle East and terrorism expertise wasn't important in choosing the agents they promoted after Sept. 11."
This whole story is just too unbelievable, that they are finally admitting, after the election, that they just don't give a fried flip about national security, they would rather abolish Social Security. What more do you need to impeach this administration?
Wow!
Not only are they not going after bin Ladin, they don't want to hire anyone who COULD go after bin Ladin.
Feel safer after electing Bush, America?
"In sworn testimony that contrasts with their promises to the public, the FBI's top counterterrorism managers say Middle East and terrorism expertise wasn't important in choosing the agents they promoted after Sept. 11."
This whole story is just too unbelievable, that they are finally admitting, after the election, that they just don't give a fried flip about national security, they would rather abolish Social Security. What more do you need to impeach this administration?
Sunday, June 19, 2005
They really DON'T want to catch bin Ladin!
"The director of the CIA says he has an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but that the United States' respect for sovereign nations makes it more difficult to capture the al-Qaida chief."
Bush's incompetence in foreign policy was foreshadowed when he couldn't name the Pakistani president during the campaign.
Anyone else remember when Bush warned Syria not to allow any "Bathists" into the country? I mean he really did NOT know that Syria was under Ba'ath Party rule. As if his father had warned China not to allow any Communists into the country.
Under Bush pere and Clinton our worst nightmare in Iraq was a Shi'ite theocracy allied with Iran. Now under Bush fils it's our best option. Ayatollah Sistani plans on us handing Iraq over to him. What's the choice? Civil War with us in the middle? That's a real possibility now. Civil War without us? Great, then the alternative to Shi'ite theocracy is al-Qa'ida theocracy. Invading Iran? Please, we have enough problems with Iraq.
Not to mention the economy. The US is going down the tubes, and those of us who try to point it out and stop it are reviled as traitors. What a country!
Bush's incompetence in foreign policy was foreshadowed when he couldn't name the Pakistani president during the campaign.
Anyone else remember when Bush warned Syria not to allow any "Bathists" into the country? I mean he really did NOT know that Syria was under Ba'ath Party rule. As if his father had warned China not to allow any Communists into the country.
Under Bush pere and Clinton our worst nightmare in Iraq was a Shi'ite theocracy allied with Iran. Now under Bush fils it's our best option. Ayatollah Sistani plans on us handing Iraq over to him. What's the choice? Civil War with us in the middle? That's a real possibility now. Civil War without us? Great, then the alternative to Shi'ite theocracy is al-Qa'ida theocracy. Invading Iran? Please, we have enough problems with Iraq.
Not to mention the economy. The US is going down the tubes, and those of us who try to point it out and stop it are reviled as traitors. What a country!
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
They've given up finding bin Ladin!
The Bush administration is reviewing its anti-terror strategy with an eye on broadening its current focus from targeting Al-Qaeda leaders linked to the 9/11 attacks to "violent extremism" a leading American daily reported on Sunday, May 29.
"What we really want now is a strategic approach to defeat violent extremism," a senior administration official told the Washington Post on condition of anonymity.
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2005-05/29/article06.shtml
"What we really want now is a strategic approach to defeat violent extremism," a senior administration official told the Washington Post on condition of anonymity.
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2005-05/29/article06.shtml
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Top 10 Questions Progressives Should be Prepared to Answer
Questions from "Democracy Arsenal"
Answers from myself:
1. So? He wasn't a threat. Sure he's a nasty meany, but so are the guys who run Equatorial Guinea, Myanmar, North Korea and China. Get the Middle East moving? Where are they going? Besides, since when is Wilsonianism a Republican idea? Since it lost its mind?
2. Yes. The UN is what we make it. It's time the US led the world again, instead of going off on crazy crusades against it.
3. Work to get rid of EVERYONE's nuclear weapons, even our own. Good grief, the isolationists of the 1920s had the Washington Naval conference. What's wrong with today's unilateralists?
4. Yes, but you can't impose democracy on people. We never imposed it on Germany and Japan, we just gave it back to them. We could start at home by enforcing the 1965 Voting Rights Act and counting our own votes. PAPER BALLOTS!
5. How is it against our interests to be better liked? Most of the anti-Americanism I've experienced is so ignorant it's not funny. Let educate people overseas about American reality. More Fulbrights!
6. Most of the ones I've talked to actually think Saddam Hussein actually had something to do with 9/11. Way to go Faux News!
7. The track record. We haven't had a good foreign policy president since Kennedy, or maybe Carter. Reagan caused the end of Communism? Please, that's classic post hoc ergo propter hoc. Clinton? Didn't have a foreign policy, his Secretaries of State had them for him. Bush I? Hey, he got the world to go along with us. I thought you were implying in your questions that that was a bad idea. Face it, Bush II is blowing the war(s), not making hard choices, and not even understanding what the choices are.
8. As long as we are part of the equation, and the other countries involved are democracies, yes, I think the US should cooperate with the extension of international law.
9. The Kellog-Briant pact is still legally binding. Agressive war against a power that doesn't threaten you is against the law. Tojo got hanged for it.
10. For one thing we have a direct national interest in seeing to it that Mexico becomes developed before illegal aliens overwhelm us. Wingnuts like to organize vigilantes to keep the Mexicans out, but if they had good jobs at home they wouldn't come here. I'd also like to see something done about oppression of workers in China. How come wingnuts get so worked up about Saddam and ignore Red China?
Answers from myself:
1. So? He wasn't a threat. Sure he's a nasty meany, but so are the guys who run Equatorial Guinea, Myanmar, North Korea and China. Get the Middle East moving? Where are they going? Besides, since when is Wilsonianism a Republican idea? Since it lost its mind?
2. Yes. The UN is what we make it. It's time the US led the world again, instead of going off on crazy crusades against it.
3. Work to get rid of EVERYONE's nuclear weapons, even our own. Good grief, the isolationists of the 1920s had the Washington Naval conference. What's wrong with today's unilateralists?
4. Yes, but you can't impose democracy on people. We never imposed it on Germany and Japan, we just gave it back to them. We could start at home by enforcing the 1965 Voting Rights Act and counting our own votes. PAPER BALLOTS!
5. How is it against our interests to be better liked? Most of the anti-Americanism I've experienced is so ignorant it's not funny. Let educate people overseas about American reality. More Fulbrights!
6. Most of the ones I've talked to actually think Saddam Hussein actually had something to do with 9/11. Way to go Faux News!
7. The track record. We haven't had a good foreign policy president since Kennedy, or maybe Carter. Reagan caused the end of Communism? Please, that's classic post hoc ergo propter hoc. Clinton? Didn't have a foreign policy, his Secretaries of State had them for him. Bush I? Hey, he got the world to go along with us. I thought you were implying in your questions that that was a bad idea. Face it, Bush II is blowing the war(s), not making hard choices, and not even understanding what the choices are.
8. As long as we are part of the equation, and the other countries involved are democracies, yes, I think the US should cooperate with the extension of international law.
9. The Kellog-Briant pact is still legally binding. Agressive war against a power that doesn't threaten you is against the law. Tojo got hanged for it.
10. For one thing we have a direct national interest in seeing to it that Mexico becomes developed before illegal aliens overwhelm us. Wingnuts like to organize vigilantes to keep the Mexicans out, but if they had good jobs at home they wouldn't come here. I'd also like to see something done about oppression of workers in China. How come wingnuts get so worked up about Saddam and ignore Red China?
Even FauXNews.com sees that the Downing Street Memo is Mostly Ignored in U.S.
FOXNews.com - Politics - Downing Street Memo Mostly Ignored in U.S.
"Led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the signatories are mostly representatives who opposed the war in Iraq and make up the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
"Conyers says the mainstream media have ignored the story and let President Bush off the hook. He noted that liberal blogs and alternative media have been keeping the story alive. "But these voices are too few and too diffuse to overcome the blatant biases of our cable channels and the negligence and neglect of our major newspapers," Conyers said in a recent statement.
"White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said there is "no need" to respond to the memos, the authenticity of which has not been denied."
"Led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the signatories are mostly representatives who opposed the war in Iraq and make up the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
"Conyers says the mainstream media have ignored the story and let President Bush off the hook. He noted that liberal blogs and alternative media have been keeping the story alive. "But these voices are too few and too diffuse to overcome the blatant biases of our cable channels and the negligence and neglect of our major newspapers," Conyers said in a recent statement.
"White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said there is "no need" to respond to the memos, the authenticity of which has not been denied."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)