In general, I don't think Unger is as good as Keith Olbermann. I agree with some of your points. However, you claim that because Unger said the War on Terror is not related to the War in Iraq, he is saying there is no terrorism there. Iraq was not connected to the terrorist groups we were fighting before the invasion. The insurgency that has been created consists of the foreign fighters drawn in only because we're there and can be hit and the domestic insurgents who hate us becuse the failed occupation has been so disastrous. The terror in Iraq was bred and attracted by the invasion.

Oh, also, I think Countdown covered the polls yesterday. They don't feel like covering the same story twice.

Then again, they could cover why FOX's polls usually give the President an edge compared to other polls.

Where exactly was Zarqawi in January 2003? Not sure? Check last week's Newsweek for the answer.

This doesn't mean that Saddam was complicit in terrorism, but it does illustrate that there were terrorists, tied to al Qaeda, in Iraq before the US invaded.

Oh please. Iraq, long before we invaded, was offering cash rewards to the families of suicide bombers. But Unger said it's been proven there's no connection between the war on terror and Iraq. He's either an idiot or a liar, and I don't think he's an idiot.

> I think Countdown covered the polls yesterday. They don't feel like covering the same story twice.

Well the polls yesterday didn't show Bush out of the 30s. Countdown is perfectly happy to cite Fox polls (which are in line with other polls, contrary to your unsupported assertion) when they show Bush in the low 30s. But when he rebounds to 40%, it doesn't get reported. That's why we call it The Hour of Spin.

And we all know Countdown won't cover any story two days in a row. Just look at the coverage of Plamegate.

Right, Zag. Or Ann Coulter. Or Bill O'Reilly.

Krazy Keith isn't actually on vacation. He's on assignment. He's trying to "one up" O'Reilly's Gitmo visit and is covering the D.C. "drunk tank." His special report will include interviews with any members of the Kennedy family in residence at the time.

You're all right. I should have posted they "didn't" feel like covering the same story twice. Countdown's got spin, but they did cover the increased approval ratings. That they didn't cover another poll is not a big deal (though it does show the bias that even I admit Countdown has).

Also, you can talk all you want about supporting suicide bombers, but so did the PLO. We didn't attack Arafat in the War on Terror, did we?

When we invaded Iraq, there was a lot of anti-Al Qaeda momentum. The administration slowed down the process of finding those responsible for 9/11 and future attacks by invading a country that was not a terror priority. Don't forget that the pretenses for war were nonexistent WMDs, not suicide bombers.

Iraq diverted attention from the true war on terror. In fact, it could easily be argued that Iraq is now a battleground in the War on Terror, but only because we created conditions that would allow for a massive terrorist influx and centralization/organization if it collapses. Before 2003, Iraq was not boiling over with terrorists as it is now. We do have to worry about what happens if the insurgents win in Iraq, but we wouldn't have that problem without the U.S. created chaos.

"Unger said it's been proven there's no connection between the war on terror and Iraq. He's either an idiot or a liar"

No. He was probably just citing the bi-partison 9/11 Commission which stated Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11-th attacks.

We all know there's all kinds of terrorism in the world... but, weren't we going after the terrorists that hit us? Iraq had nothing to do with that.

Or is the 9/11 Commission are part of the alleged liberal media conspiracy?

> you can talk all you want about supporting suicide bombers, but so did the PLO. We didn't attack Arafat in the War on Terror, did we?

No we didn't, but that's not the point. Unger claimed Iraq had NO CONNECTION with a war on terror, and that that has been PROVEN. They obviously did. The point is Unger's lie, not your opinion of who we should or shouldn't have attacked.

> He was probably just citing the bi-partison 9/11 Commission

The 9/11 commission was not charged with, and did not opine on, the connection between Iraq and terrorism. It only dealt with Iraq's connection to 9/11.

Unger did not say there was no link between Iraq and 9/11. If he had, I obviously wouldn't have any criticism. No, he said there was no connection between Iraq and fighting TERRORISM. Which makes him either an idiot or a liar.

Unger claimed Iraq had NO CONNECTION with a war on terror, and that that has been PROVEN. They obviously did ... No, he said there was no connection between Iraq and fighting TERRORISM. Which makes him either an idiot or a liar.

+ + + + +

Yes! No matter how little that old CIA flunky Sadaam the torturer (even worse that the Abu-Ghraib ever was and for much longer and with lots more Lyndie Englands) was in cahoots with Al-Q and Bin-L, he deserved to be regime changed because was a torturer and he double crossed us and he has (had, Ha!) our oil. Iraq is the biggest hottest bed of terror in the world today, thanks to George Bush, the greatest President who ever lived. And thanks to him, we can now fight and die and kill them over there rather than over here. Would you prefer that! Moonbat! Ha!
.

NBC is pathetic as hell
Their newsroom belongs in a cell
Keith is their man
(He's got a good tan)
Spokesman for the lies that they tell

So glad that you mentioned Shrum.

Eight (or nine) times he has tried to gather a majority and failed. He has never succeeded. This is a guy with his finger on the pulse for the democrats?

Rove is 2 for 2, if you are counting at home. Will probaly be 3 for 3 in 08.

Iraq now is not itself part of the War on Terror. It's us trying to make up for what we screwed up so it doesn't become a battleground in the war on terror. The insurgency is primarily due to a desire to get us out of there.

Iraq won't truly be a battleground in the War on Terror unless it becomes a major base of planning /operations for major attacks against us. That may or may not happen if we pull out, but right now, Al Qaeda's presence there is mainly if not fully to attack us there.

> Iraq now is not itself part of the War on Terror.
> Al Qaeda's presence there is mainly if not fully to attack us there.

Say what? Iraq is not part of the war on terror, but Al Qaeda is there attacking us? Can you try to be consistent at least from paragraph 1 to paragraph 2?

Unger went even further than you did. He said there is NO CONNECTION between Iraq and fighting terrorism. That would only be true IF there was NO TERRORISM in Iraq. Only an imbecile would think that is the case. And as I said, Unger is not an imbecile. That means he is a liar.

The "War on Terrorism" is not linked to the "War in Iraq." This administration and the Republicans in Congress have been trying to link the two. The war on terrorism is a war on an ideology, the war in Iraq is a war with the hopes of establishing a peaceful democratic government.

If the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism were linked we wouldn't even need a Congressional discussion. I agree, there are terrorists in Iraq, now, but the goals of the war in Iraq are completely different than the war on terror.

An argument can be made either way, depends on which way you look at the issue. I look at it from one way, you look at it from another.

But a comment of yours, johnny, is when you say: "Which makes him either an idiot or a liar" I have problems with. I've pointed out statements of yours in which you've fudged the truth or purposely left something out, I called you a liar once and you got upset, yet you don't seem to have any trouble with calling Unger a liar when he says something you disagree with.

Forget, "I'd rather be facing them over in Iraq than in Boston."

I'd rather be fighting them in Iraq than Afghanistan. If we had just exclusively gone to Afghanistan, we'd have three time the casualties. The terrain is not conducive to large forces, you can't use helicopters or air power, and the soviets demonstrated the futility in the effort. Al-Queda could come and go as they please in an infinite war.

Iraq isn't relevant to the war on terror? Seems that Al-Queda disagrees, but unlike Afghanistan, we have an exit strategy in Iraq.

Wait, that reply was badly worded, I'll give a better one tomorrow, but my overall point remains: The goals for the war in Iraq are different that the goals for the war on terror. What congress is doing isn't linking the two "wars" but rather redifining both of them.

> I agree, there are terrorists in Iraq, now, but the goals of the war in Iraq are completely different than the war on terror.

Some of the goals are different. Others (like kill terrorists) are not. My only point is that Unger said there is NO CONNECTION between the war in Iraq and fighting terrorism. NONE. It's a completely irrelevant action in the war on terror, according to Unger. Despite the fact that Al Qaeda is fighting us there!

You can't believe he is so stupid as to believe that, and neither do I. When you couple that with his fake report about Bush favoring Iraq amnesty, and the way he reported a 12-hour old story but didn't bother telling viewers that the story had been shot down, and then putting words in Karl Rove's mouth that he never said...I don't call that being uninformed or making a mistake. I call it lying.

Forget (pt2), 'Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11'.

What country did attack us? Saudi Arabia, Yemen Egypt et al?

We were attacked by a region. A region characterized by instability. Saddam was actively funding suicide bombers, openly paying 25K to their families. That is what state sponsors of terrorism do. Do not sell short the departure of Syrai from Lebanon, which would not have happened without US presense. Same for Lybia and WMD's(although we just promised Qadaffi Limbaugh's weight in oxycontin and the deal was done).

It seems that the right to be a state sponsor of terrorism, fell out of vogue when Saddam got taken down.

We had ignored all sign and all escalating acts of terrorism. (one of the 93 WTC bombers was hiding in Iraq). Zarqawi was working with Ansar Al-Islam in northern Iraq, on chem/bio weapons.

Saddam had nothing to do with sponsoring terrorism? Get real.

I wrote, "He (Brian Unger) was probably just citing the bi-partison 9/11 Commission"

Johnny Dollar replied "The 9/11 commission was not charged with, and did not opine on, the connection between Iraq and terrorism. It only dealt with Iraq's connection to 9/11."

You ignored the point I was trying to make, though. Terrorism will always exist in the world. Bush is naive to think he can 'rid the world of terror.'

And the terrorist we were SUPPOSED to be going after were the ones who attacked us on 9/11. They were NOT in Iraq.

By going into Iraq, we've ignored the terrorists we were supposed to be going after... and engaged an entirely new enemy.

Iraq was not our problem. Throw all the UN resolutions Saddam was breaking at me you want... we should not have gone in there... and Dick Cheney agreed. This is what he said not long after the Gulf War...

"...it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."
- Dick Cheney, the Washington Institute's Soref Symposium, April 29, 1991

Going into Iraq would have been a mistake then... it was a mistake this time. Bush was wrong, his own Vice President told him he was wrong a decade before he screwed up.

Terrorist that attacked us on 9/11 were our enemy - not Iraq.

paul, that isn't even the thing that makes me mad about the war in Iraq. It was the justifications and how they changed. First it was 9/11, then it was WMDs, then it was terrorists were inside Iraq, then it was Saddam was a bad guy, then it was liberation for the Iraqi people, well, now they're liberated and all we can say to justify our stay there is that people think violence will escalate if we leave. Not only was my government lying to me, because of their lies we're in a war that will last decades.

Lets not forget the basis for attacking Iraq in the first place: Saddam needs to give up his WMDs in 48 hours or we'll attack. Now picture that in hindsight:

>Turn over your WMDs
>Don't have any
>You're lying, turn them over or we'll attack
>Seriously, I don't have any
>*attacks*

Collin Powell admitted his lie, he's lost all respect in my book.

I can understand why many people may be for the war now that we have troops in Iraq, but what I can't understand is how people still support the reasons why we went into Iraq.

Badly organized rant, but you can see my frustration.

Please harbor no illusion that BUnger is at all any different than the Keefster. One of his many "accomplishments," in addition to an Eggo waffle commercial, is as the "star" of a video/dvd presentation entitled "Bushisms," one of those thingies that was tossed-off to ridicule GWB via any retrievable bit of footage of a flub, malaprop or blooper all for the edification of those so inclined to go hebephrenic over such nonsense. His co-star: Al Franken

Har-dee-har-har-har.

NF-
I'll throw you a bone on this. You are dead on about the mixed messages that were being sent. It was the only way to get us into Iraq that the public could digest.

The Neocon(I am one) theory was that the problem was regional-fueled by the endless funding of terrorism on Israel. Poor goverments without any hope of change. The US, in knocking over the largest military in the region, was correcting the perception in the region that the US was unwilling to commit forces and effort. The leaders felt immune, realizing that evrything must go thru the UN, and would be stopped.

To tell the public that we are going to war to change a region is too difficult to explain. The hidden pressure behind the urgency is that we do live in a world of nuclear proliferation, and if not dealt with now, we would face it down the road.

Looking at the next 10 years...the gamble had been made that we could change it, by a show of force.

It is too difficult an argument to make-
it is the first elective war, but it was directed at a an opponent we had never faced, and had no plan for dealing with.

One more charity bone.

Cheney is our foreign policy. The troubling thing is that I would like to say that Cheney was so moved by 9/11 he changed his beliefs about the ME.

The problem? Halliburton.
It is a company that is designed to work specifically in the ME providng all sorts of logistics and oil services. It's stacked with retired special forces.

Why did Cheney build it?

That is the central argument that dems should have used against Halliburton. Not that it was getting contracts, but why it was getting contracts.

No competition. No one else can provide what they were designed to do, and now they are doing it.

It will all work out for the best.

Let me offer some other reasons why Iraq was a good choice.

It has always been a secular society.
It is one of the richest, especially per capita, if you include oil.

Wolfowitz was chastised for saying that Iraq could pay for the war itself. What he meant to say was that they could pay for their own future without the support of the US, unlike Afghanistan.

A wealthy, relative rich, secular country replacing a despotic regime which was feeding into the regional anarchy?

It was the fattest domino out there.

And NO ONE has ever offered plan 'b'.

The thing is, paul, I don't care if the reason was to give everyone pieces of candy, I don't like it when my government sends me "mixed messages" and leads our country into a war on charges they know are false.

Of course another reason I'm against the "change the region" theory is I believe that oppressed people in the country should stand up against the government (MLK). This doesn't apply in some instances like Nazi Germany when the oppressive government attacked another country (which is why I don't have a problem with the first Gulf War).

The argument that we should attack Iraq simply because it was available for attack isn't a good argument at all. It should not be the foreign policy of the United States to lie to its citizens and then attack a country that did not attack us or our allies. It reeks of selective morality.

Paul,

Well said. The only thing I would add is that people need to realize that the folks in the Middle East are extremely Nationalistic. They think of themselves as Arabs (or persian with regard to some of Iran) first, Muslims second, and whatever country of origin third. The only way to affect this region is through a realist approach and in a world with only one hegemon, we are the cops.

A liberal wouldn't say that in an overall attack on poverty that drugs, crime, racism etc... should all be fought independent of one another. So why then, is it so hard for a liberal to understand that Iraq is just one piece of the war on terror. It wasn't like Saddam wasn't a repeat offender in which probation and treatment was not working.

If you want to understand how a conservative realist views the world, Charles Krauthammer's article is the best I have read.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19912,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

I miss Olby. He would have been all over that farce of a resolution in the House today. WTF are they wasting our time and money debating a meaningless non-binding resolution while our troops die in Iraq? 2,500 dead today, BTW.

When you accuse someone of "cut and run", just what are you saying about their character? Unger didn't make it up, Rove meant "coward" and you know it.

The Iraqi aide that made the statements resigned but has not withdrawn his statements.

"The Maliki aide who resigned, Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi, stood by his account of amnesty considerations, reported Thursday by The Washington Post. Kadhimi said Maliki had indicated the same position less directly in public. "The prime minister himself has said that he is ready to give amnesty to the so-called resistance, provided they have not been involved in killing Iraqis," Kadhimi said Thursday." (via WaPo)

Kill Iraqis, bad, kill Americans, okay, you get amnesty.

"Bush suggested he would not like to see terrorists given amnesty as part of the process." Would-not-like-to-see. Boy that's a strongly worded statement for letting go the killers of our troops. How about a little effing outrage? Bush really doesn't care about the troops does he?

You forgot to mention that FIVE REPUBLICAN SENATORS CAME OUT IN SUPPORT OF IRAQI AMNESTY TODAY. Holy crap! I knew republicans had no regard for the troops, but amnesty for their killers? While the war is still going on?

The argument about WMD's was that they were SEEKING them. (If the admin was so nefarious, they could have planted them post war, but they didn't). Sooner or later they would have them.

The famous sixteen words were about Iraq 'seeking', not having. The same guy who was publicly saying it never happened, had done little to dispell the notion that it was true. He submitted no written report. A few years earlier he was confirming that they were seeking.

If Saddam had wmd's or a program, he had six weeks plus to drive them across the border to Syria.

If you challenge the argument of the 16 words-you are basically denying that he was not a person who would seek to acquire them. He was just interested in buying standard military goods from NK, and didn't want WMD capability?

When you are bribing the security council of the UN, you should expect something in return.

I am a a power to the people guy (MLK) but that was never going to happen in Iraq. His sons would have carried on the tradition, letting it slide into the third world.

Who lied to the people? Tenet and/or Clinton? We bombed Iraq under the guise of taking out their WMD's and nobody made a peep in 98. How had intel changed to convince us otherwise?

Factor in that Clinton cut our military budget/size by 2/3 of 91. Foreign intel suffered far more drastic cuts. (I don't blame him-I made a ton in the 90's-but the whole balanced budget was easy, with the money from the cuts. His FP team sucked or didn't care.)

The 'domino theory' would never have flown. If you look at the actual iraq resolution of what we said we were going to do, and were doing it.(If the press was really doing its job, it would have talked to Rep. Jimmy Duncan, a Vet who pretty much foresaw all the problems, but people should also take note that he has accepted the decision that he was against. Instead they were chasing the stars of the democratic party for the nifty headline.)

Crash-
Actually the people in the ME go further than just seeing themselves as Arab. Try Sunni, Kurds, Shia, Baathists...

I'm off to walk my dog, but will definitely read Kraut. Can't get enough of his work. thanks for the link.

Try to find a statement in here where Bush says he's not okay with amnesty. At best, he tries to rename it "reconciliation" without consulting the Prime Minister of Iraq. Just tell him what to say and he'll say it George.

Q: What are your feelings about discussions in the new Iraqi government of amnesty for insurgents?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- I talked to the Prime Minister about -- his question is, possible amnesty. The Prime Minister I think would say "reconciliation." This is an issue that is on the minds of a lot of the folks there in Iraq. In other words, they're trying to figure out how to reconcile an ugly past with a hopeful future. And part of that is reconciliation.

Funny how today, the Prime Minister never said it even though Bush says he did.

I'm reading the article you linked Crash and there are a few things he says that I can understand and a few that are pure neo-con. It seems as if in the first section of his article he stands up for isolationism and seems like he was against U.S. involvement in WWI and WWII, and then in his second section he acts like isolationism is the worst thing for the United States to engage in and George Washington was a dimwit. I agree that isolationism isn't much of a credited school of thought today, but that didn't change because of 9/11 it changed because the war of 1812, and manifest destiny, and most importantly World War II.

He tries to pin Vietnam as the watershed moment in which liberals turned from an interventionist group to an isolationist group. I don't know how the author doesn't see Wilson/Truman/Kennedy/FDR in modern Democrats. Wilson created an idea that would eventually turn into the UN, FDR not only set up social programs for Americans at home, but he knew how to interact in the foreign community. He seems to want to say that liberals wouldn't attack an enemy even if the enemy attacked us, and he couldn't be more wrong. It seems as if this guy supports invading other countries that do nothing to us simply to change the political environment...right.

He's also understating the main Democratic objection to the Iraq war. The foreign approval was part of it in the beginning, but it's definitely not the reason why Democrats are opposed to this war.

I haven't finished reading the article, I'll do so later, but all it seems like this guy does is set up straw men arguments and then deconstruct them.

NonFactor,

Krauthammer's point is more like: What happened to the Truman, JFK foreign policy democrats? I think he is in Conneticut being marginalized by his own party.

I don't think there is any doubt that Vietnam spawned the belief that you can be against the war and for the troops (initially not even for the troops either). I think that is a fine position to proudly state if you are a civilian, but as a government official, it is tricky. I also think that this spawned the protest culture which is against a lot and FOR very little. This is similar to what happened to conservatives during FDR's reign until LBJ. It wasn't until Goldwater came along and suggested that conservatives weren't just against much of the NEW DEAL and GREAT SOCIETY entitlements but should be focused on private ownership, free markets, limited government, low taxes etc... (btw I am not happy with the Bushies on most of those things)

What are the Dems for? What's the last great Liberal idea? Was it the Great Society? It sure wasn't "peace through strength".

Krauthammer writes:

"The history of the 1990s refutes the lazy notion that liberals have an aversion to the use of force. They do not. They have an aversion to using force for reasons of pure national interest. "

"And by national interest I do not mean simple self-defense. Everyone believes in self-defense, as in Afghanistan. I am talking about national interest as defined by a Great Power: shaping the international environment by projecting power abroad to secure economic, political, and strategic goods. Intervening militarily for that kind of national interest, liberal internationalism finds unholy and unsupportable. It sees that kind of national interest as merely self-interest writ large, in effect, a form of grand national selfishness. Hence Kuwait, no; Kosovo, yes."

The article goes on to suggest that the Bush policy is more "Democratic Globalism", falsely called "neoconservatism"; a kind of meld of realism and liberal internationalism with very little root in isolationism.

I don't know if this is a completely accurate description, but you cannot deny that Bush is FOR establishing Democracies (even through force) on the principal that Democracies aren't apt to cause war. He really seems to believe that Freedom is what we all want and that is what will keep us all at peace. Incidentally, that is exactly what Goldwater believed ( just read his 1964 Republican convention speech ).

"> Iraq now is not itself part of the War on Terror.
> Al Qaeda's presence there is mainly if not fully to attack us there.

Say what? Iraq is not part of the war on terror, but Al Qaeda is there attacking us? Can you try to be consistent at least from paragraph 1 to paragraph 2?"

I was consistent. Iraq is not a part of the war on terror. It is a civil war in which groups formed that affiliated themselves with Al Qaeda to do more damage to us, the "oppresors." Iraq's importance to Al Qaeda has only been in our presence there (so they can attack us). If we went somewhere else, I guarantee there would be less foreign fighters in Iraq.

There is no connection between Iraq and the War on Terror. There may be someday, but until Al Qaeda does more than atttack us there, it is more a place to reach the end of killing us than the means of planning and preparing.

What I'm saying is that calling Iraq part of the War on Terror would be like calling any country we're attacked in part of the war on terror. It is a convenient target for attacks becausewe're there.

Finished walking the dog, and read the article.

Dems have been squealing for Bush to own up to his mistakes, and I'll give the biggest:

We expected Blue Helmets would be part of this mission, after the fall of Saddam. So did they as evidenced by the effort to establish a UN base in Iraq soon after he did fall.

When their offices got blown up(we had offerred them security and had advised them that they were trying to locate in a space they couldn't control{Their motive was that they wanted to be able to shuttle in and shuttle out cultural leaders, without the prying eyes of the US military}.

Not enough troops? yes and no.
Rummy percieved that the more troop present, the lesser the urgency for the Iraqis to step up and far greater exposure.

If there was a need for more troops, it should have been addressed by the UN. They (thru NATO) owe us for our taking the point in the Balkans. They tried once, Zarqawi smakced them, and they ran away.

A mistake for Bush?
Anticpating that the UN was an organization that would make every effort to stabilize a region. They won't. Kinda says what they believe in, and are willing to do in the effort to promote world peace.

It should be pretty clear that the US is perceived as a superpower beyond just militarilly. We have been rejected by the world out of the fear that we are dominating the world financially. Many countries would have wished for a more costly war for us. The EU is specifically designed to compete with the US, and we see how that one is coming.

Had the EU been formed, they would have, briefly, been the financial equal of the US. The problem? We continue to average growth at 3.5%, while they are lucky to get 1% growth as a region.

We, becuase of our sytem of taxation, are growing 350% faster than they are. They don't want to change their government to improve it, they want to see the US crash to legitimize their system.

We had the world behind us after 9/11? Are you sure?

Kraut is right on one very important point...

We were the last nation of power, after the fall of USSR. All our military and intel was geared towards the Soviets, and when they were gone, it was not unreasonable to cut our military size and intel services.

What we failed to do in the 90's, despite ample indication, was to realize that we were facing a growing threat from the ME region, thru asymetrical warfare. We didn't need intel officers in the ME, when we were facing the Soviets, and that assumption continued.

Pozner's book-"While america Slept" is the best summary of how badly we failed.

Look at the Larry Johnson article a month before 9/11. (Although LJ hadn't been in the CIA since 89 after a four year stint-unoffically it was the last job he held, as he worked out disability deal.)

Look at Kerry's book on Terrorism, that he was touting. The yakuza.

You'd have thought that someone would at least write a book about ME terrorism and the threat it presented, in the effort to appear relevant, but no one(in the politcal realm) did. Had Kerry written about the Persian Gulf, he'd be banging Momma 'T' in the Lincoln bedroom.

Which brings us back to cheney. He knew that the region was key, but probably not why specifically.

`We had the world behind us after 9/11? Are you sure?`

------------

TODAY WE ARE ALL AMERICANS -- NATO ALLIES PLEDGE SUPPORT

By ALAN FREEMAN
Thursday, September 13, 2001

LONDON -- NATO`s decision to declare that terrorist attacks carried out against U.S. targets in New York and Washington can be considered an attack on the 19-member military alliance signals an unprecedented Western move against terrorism. `An attack on one is an attack on all ... At the moment, this is an act of solidarity,` Lord Robertson said. `It`s a reaffirmation of a solemn treaty commitment which these countries have entered into.`

Yet the reaction by European nations to the latest terrorist attacks appear to mark an unprecedented consolidation of European support for the U.S. position. It was not surprising to hear British Prime Minister Tony Blair saying his nation would stand `shoulder to shoulder` with the United States, but that same rhetoric could also be heard in Germany and even France yesterday.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called Tuesday`s attacks a threat to peace and freedom everywhere. `We won`t let these values be destroyed -- in Europe, U.S., or anywhere in the world,` he said. Peter Struck, parliamentary leader of Mr. Schroeder`s governing Social Democratic Party, said that `today, we are all Americans.`

That theme was echoed yesterday by the influential French daily, Le Monde, which published an editorial titled We Are All Americans.

----------

yep, they was all with us -- even them stupid Freedom Fries Frenchies -- till we decided to attack the wrong country at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons.
.

I'm going to channel Olby and tell anon this:

Only a complete a--hole would post something like that. Also, as I noted on another thread, you leftists owe royalties to the Soviets -- these images are right out of their playbook in content and style.

Let the libs go.

The only time they need the military is to show it wounded. I imagine most amputees from the war bear no love for Bush, but also do not find much gratitude in the fact that their predicament is being used to make ludicrous arguments.

I counter the World is behind us argument, which is just diplomatic words, with the UN Oil for Food scandal, which happens to be deeds.

They were behind us: if the US did not enforce sanctions against Iraq, there would have been no reason for bribes from which France could benefit.

It also bears noting that a majority of NATO countries are in Iraq.

The

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-02/2005-02-09-voa89.cfm

Title: "More NATO Countries Offer to Help Train Iraq Forces"

Money Quote?
"Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said he thinks the 26-member alliance had turned the corner on the Iraq issue since the watershed elections for an Iraqi national assembly."

One more question about dems concern for the wounded...

With the exception of Murtha, it seems that Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, Reid et al are avoiding visiting the wounded.

They cannot afford an amputee/or his family cursing them out of the room getting captured on tape, so they stay away.

Yes! Only we Republicans REALLY care about the troops. It was Republican patriots like Donald Rumsfeld who taught the troops how to use a reduced, agile fighting force so they wouldn`t have to use 300K boots on the ground in Iraq like that stupid pascifist Shinseki said ... and WE taught them how to scrounge vehicle armor parts from trash heaps and get body armor from their families at home ... and WE showed them how the army will let them pay for their own uniforms ... and don`t even talk to me about veterans benefits! (cause the stupid lefty moonbats will say it`s veterens benefits have been cut ... but that`s a lie! stupid lefty moonbats -- THEY don`t care about the troops, WE care about the troops, that`s why we`re letting them stay in Iraq for two and three tours of service (and letting them stopgap their way to extra promotions on top of it all!).

Waaah! There's a cable news show that doesn't kiss neo-con ass for a whole hour. Waaaaaah! Waaaaaaaah! He said a bad word, mommy! Waaaaaaaaah, waaaaaaaaah!

Funny how progressives keep citing cartoons.

Got any actual pics of a dem near a VA hopsital?

DSMC-

"Rumsfeld who taught the troops how to use a reduced, agile fighting force so they wouldn`t have to use 300K boots on the ground in Iraq like that stupid pascifist Shinseki said..."

Do you want to argue that the miltary wasn't reduced by 2/3 after Gulf War 1?

Seems the quote, "you go to war with the army you got" sums it up. I anxiously await the liberal mantra that we need to restore military funding. You do want a safer America, don't you?

The thing is, paul, I don't care if the reason was to give everyone pieces of candy, I don't like it when my government sends me "mixed messages" and leads our country into a war on charges they know are false.

Dramatic difference between "mixed messages" and "different reasons". There were numerous REASONS to do it.

If the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism were linked we wouldn't even need a Congressional discussion. I agree, there are terrorists in Iraq, now, but the goals of the war in Iraq are completely different than the war on terror.

Yes, because politicians would never, ever make factually incorrect claims --- such as "Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda EVER" --- for political gain.

There was more than enough debate in the Congress about standing up to the Soviets.

The problem? Halliburton.
It is a company that is designed to work specifically in the ME providng all sorts of logistics and oil services. It's stacked with retired special forces.

Why did Cheney build it?

That is the central argument that dems should have used against Halliburton. Not that it was getting contracts, but why it was getting contracts.

No competition. No one else can provide what they were designed to do, and now they are doing it.

It will all work out for the best.

One small problem: Halliburton isn't making money on the ME contracts. The subsidiary that is in charge of those contracts is not making squat.

yep, they was all with us -- even them stupid Freedom Fries Frenchies -- till we decided to attack the wrong country at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons.

That "We Are All Americans" headline actually was above a virulently anti-American editorial in Le Monde. Books QUICKLY became popular in France stating 9/11 was an inside job. Schroeder began assaulting Bush, electorally, well before any action in Iraq took place.
-=Mike

"Halliburton isn't making money on the ME contracts."

Not to throw fuel on the fire...

but they were paid to put out all oil fires, and it was anticipated there would be hundreds.

I think there were five.

They pocketed the difference, becuase the contract was given with the assumption there would be more.

Mike in SC-

I am an unabashed neocon, love Bush/Cheney/Rummy, and support this mission, but I'm going to say something smells if it does.

That `We Are All Americans` headline actually was above a virulently anti-American editorial in Le Monde.

There you go again.
It`s hardly a virulently anti-American editorial.
Would you care to point out all the virulent anti-American parts? http://listserv.cuny.edu/Scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0109b&L=opera-l&T=0&P=52946

-------------

Books QUICKLY became popular in France stating 9/11 was an inside job.

So What? The Same Thing Happened Here.

-------------

Schroeder began assaulting Bush, electorally, well before any action in Iraq took place.`

So What? The fact remains that immediately after 9/11 there was a tremendous amount of support for the U.S. around the world which was squandered by this administration in it`s mishandling of the U.S. response.
.

"there was a tremendous amount of support for the U.S. around the world"

Sending sympathy cards should not be taken as a manifestation of actual goodwill.

The EU(see European socialist movement) perceives the US as its primary competitor, and we have been embarrassing them financially with our 'capitalist' success for decades, well actually just post-Carter.

"Halliburton isn't making money on the ME contracts."

Not to throw fuel on the fire...

but they were paid to put out all oil fires, and it was anticipated there would be hundreds.

I think there were five.

They pocketed the difference, becuase the contract was given with the assumption there would be more.

Just as a start, they have to pay for their own security and they cannot change what they offered to charge for their services.

So, if you were scheduled to make a 3% profit and suddenly your security costs double, your profit is slashed massively.

The military does not subsidize security for them. If they could get out of the contract, they likely would. The subsidiary is a drain on Halliburton.

That `We Are All Americans` headline actually was above a virulently anti-American editorial in Le Monde.

There you go again.
It`s hardly a virulently anti-American editorial.
Would you care to point out all the virulent anti-American parts? http://listserv.cuny.edu/Scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0109b&L=opera-l&T=0&P=52946

Let's look at it:

But the reality is perhaps also that America has been trapped by its own
cynicism: if Bin Laden is really the man who ordered the 11th of September
as the American authorities seem to think, it must be remembered that he was
trained by the CIA and that he has been an element of a policy turned
against the Soviet states that the Americans found viable. Wouldn't it then
be America who has nurtured this devil?

Not only factually inaccurate (the CIA never gave a dime to OBL) but basically blaming us for the entire thing.

Books QUICKLY became popular in France stating 9/11 was an inside job.

So What? The Same Thing Happened Here.

Care to name them?

Schroeder began assaulting Bush, electorally, well before any action in Iraq took place.`

So What? The fact remains that immediately after 9/11 there was a tremendous amount of support for the U.S. around the world which was squandered by this administration in it`s mishandling of the U.S. response.

Care to explain what Bush did to alienate Schroeder in less than a year? I'm curious.
-=Mike

************DEVELOPING ON DRUDGE***********

MSNBC will be dropping some of its talk-show lineup in favor of more taped reports.. Developing...

KEITH IS GONE! WATCH!!!!

************DEVELOPING ON DRUDGE***********