In a primetime address to the nation on Iraq last night, Bush wasted a
precious opportunity to level with the American public about the
struggle we face ahead of us in Iraq, the mistakes that have been made,
and the need to change course. Instead, we heard a president who had
only two objectives on his mind: 1) wrap 9-11 and Iraq together to help
bolster his public approval and support for the war; and 2) stubbornly
refuse to change course. As the New York Times noted in an editorial
today, Bush "raise[d] the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to
justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the
terrorist attacks." The speech "offered few new ideas for dealing with
an insurgency that has claimed more than 1,700 American lives" and
"rejected any change in course, ruling out either a deadline for troop
withdrawals or an increase in troop levels."

HOW BUSH TURNED IRAQ INTO A TERRORIST TRAINING GROUND: The thrust of
President Bush's address last night was that the Iraq war has now
become the "latest battlefield" in the war on terror, and that we must
"defeat [the terrorists] abroad before they attack us at home." There
is little doubt, as a new CIA report concludes and director Porter Goss
said previously, that Iraq has become the new Afghanistan -- the
training ground for the next generation of insurgent fighters. But Iraq
certainly wasn't this type of breeding ground before the war. In fact,
one rationale Bush proffered for the war was to prevent Iraq from
becoming "a training ground" for terrorists. Bush said in November
2002: "Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a
training ground..." We don't have to imagine anymore; Bush's war has
made it a reality due to the whole host of mistakes that were made in
the post-war phase.

THE 9-11 STRATEGY: Last night, President Bush called on Americans to
remember "the lessons of September 11th." Coming on the heels of Karl
Rove's politicization of the 9-11 attacks, it seems clear the White
House has turned to the aid of that tragic day to help prop up a
reeling president. In a speech littered with references to 9-11, Bush
circumvented the real problems facing U.S. forces in Iraq by attempting
to inspire imagery of another attack on our homeland. The Washington
Post helped propagate Bush's deception: "[C]ritics long have accused
Bush of falsely drawing a connection between Iraq and Sept. 11 as a way
to justify the original decision to launch the war in Iraq. That was
not the point Bush made last night." Oh really? Here's what Bush said
last night: "The troops here and across the world are fighting a global
war on terror. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001."
The argument that we had to go to war in Iraq because we were attacked
on 9-11 is blatantly false. And Bush knows it -- he previously said he
"couldn't make that claim" that Iraq was connected to 9-11 and that he
had "no evidence" that Saddam was connected to 9-11. Yet, it appears
that not everyone has caught on to the deception.

BUSH FAILED TO BE CANDID ABOUT THE REAL PROBLEMS: As the daily toll of
America's sacrifice in lives and dollars in Iraq continues to increase,
Bush did little last night to allay the fears of those who see no end
in sight. Moreover, he gave little impression that he understands the
nature of the insurgency raging in Iraq. Bush declined to weigh in on
the dispute between Rumsfeld and Cheney about whether the insurgency is
in its "last throes" or will last another decade. He described the
insurgents as filled with "blind hatred" yet he did not comment on
Rumsfeld's confirmation that the U.S. is now negotiating with the those
insurgents. Bush failed to admit any mistakes that have been made (and
thus give any indication that he has corrected course), and he failed
to explain any new strategy for winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis,
defeating the terrorist insurgents, reconstructing Iraq, and bringing
our troops home.

BUSH RECYCLED OLD IDEAS AS "NEW": Bush claimed last night to offer
"three new steps" which weren't new at all. His supposed three new
ideas were to "partner coalition units with Iraqi units," embed
"transition teams" inside Iraqi units (if you don't know the difference
between those two, you're not alone), and third, work with the Iraqi
Ministries of Interior and Defense to "coordinate anti-terrorism
operations" (which is really newsworthy only because the coordination
apparently wasn't taking place before). In May 2004, Bush delivered a
much-hyped speech at the Army War College that was supposed to outline
"specific steps" for achieving our goals in Iraq. In that address, he
said we were working with Iraqi forces to establish both a "chain of
command" and an improved "vetting and training" process. Bush also said
in that May 2004 speech that "America and other countries will continue
to provide technical experts to help Iraq's ministries of government."
The media wasn't fooled into thinking that Bush was offering anything
new last night. The New York Times reported, Bush "offer[ed] no new
strategies in a war that has now stretched for 25 months," and he
delivered what was "in essence, a repeat of a speech he delivered 13
months ago...during an appearance at the Army War College."

What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? What does it have to do with
boats?

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? What does it have to do with
boats?



It's All About 9/11
The president links Iraq and al Qaeda - and the usual suspects moan.


"The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg
speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with
predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11
references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had "nothing
whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks." Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen's words
"offended" about use of the 9/11 "trump card."

If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11
enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of
probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda.
It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that
connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists
are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.

And not just because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made
his way there since we invaded. No, it's because Saddam made Iraq their cozy
place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because
they've been invited to dig in for years.

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. "

Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.


http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0506290912.asp

*JimH* wrote:
What is the purpose of this thread Kevin?

I'm not Kevin, ****stain. Why do you reply to posts that I make,
calling me Kevin? Are you too ****ing stupid to figure out that I'm not
him?



What does it have to do with
boats?

Can't figure it out, huh? ****stain, did you happen to even NOTICE the
*OT* before the title? Or are you too ****ing dim to understand what
that means?

wrote in message
ups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
What is the purpose of this thread Kevin?

I'm not Kevin, ****stain. Why do you reply to posts that I make,
calling me Kevin? Are you too ****ing stupid to figure out that I'm not
him?



What does it have to do with
boats?

Can't figure it out, huh? ****stain, did you happen to even NOTICE the
*OT* before the title? Or are you too ****ing dim to understand what
that means?


Get help Kevin. You need it.

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
What is the purpose of this thread Kevin?

I'm not Kevin, ****stain. Why do you reply to posts that I make,
calling me Kevin? Are you too ****ing stupid to figure out that I'm not
him?



What does it have to do with
boats?

Can't figure it out, huh? ****stain, did you happen to even NOTICE the
*OT* before the title? Or are you too ****ing dim to understand what
that means?


Get help Kevin. You need it.



Yeah...that bitch slapping has really pushed him over the edge.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:27:09 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:


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. "

Yup, sure and bin Laden is *still* bin Missin'.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:57:19 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:

Get help Kevin. You need it.

That's telling him, moped man. Swarm and destroy!!!!


bb

P. Fritz wrote:
"*JimH*" wrote in message
...
What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? What does it have to do with
boats?



It's All About 9/11
The president links Iraq and al Qaeda - and the usual suspects moan.


"The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg
speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with
predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11
references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had "nothing
whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks." Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen's words
"offended" about use of the 9/11 "trump card."

If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11
enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of
probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda.
It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that
connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists
are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.

(snip)


No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says
By Greg Miller *
Los Angeles Times
September 18, 2003

President Bush said Wednesday that there was no proof tying Saddam
Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks, amid mounting criticism that senior
administration officials have helped lead Americans to believe that
Iraq was behind the plot.

Bush's statement was the latest in a flurry of remarks this week by top
administration officials after Vice President Dick Cheney resurrected a
number of contentious allegations about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda in an
appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "We've had no evidence
that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th," Bush said in
an impromptu session with reporters. He contended, however, that
"there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties."

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
What is the purpose of this thread Kevin?

I'm not Kevin, ****stain. Why do you reply to posts that I make,
calling me Kevin? Are you too ****ing stupid to figure out that I'm not
him?



What does it have to do with
boats?

Can't figure it out, huh? ****stain, did you happen to even NOTICE the
*OT* before the title? Or are you too ****ing dim to understand what
that means?


Get help Kevin. You need it.

Ah, let's recap... YOU continue to reply to me, calling me Kevin. You
have no facts to back that up.
YOU aren't bright enough to figure out that I'm not him.
YOU aren't bright enough to understand that I respond because you are
replying DIRECTLY to me.
You aren't bright enough to understand that OT before a thread title
would indicate it's OFF TOPIC....yet you think someone else "needs
help"?