IslandDog

They love our invasion of Iraq. They use it as proof we are the Great Satin as they claim. They have hated us for a long time but our actions in Iraq and the prisoner issues play right into their hands. Iraq was no threat. Bush had Intel that indicated his claims of Nuclear and Chem. threat was not true. He ignored ANY Intel that did not support what he wanted to do. We attacked a paper tiger that has turned into a terrorist operation because of our invasion and the fact we did not have the manpower to control these radical elements from the day Saddam fell.

I'll agree with the Col on one point - I have been disappointed with the lack of seriousness about securing our borders. I believe the President could have pushed much harder than he has and that he's allowed his supporters in the corporate/business community to cloud his judgment on this issue. Other than that, the Col is as full of it as ever.

And it is manifestly not true that we are less safe now, even on our borders - we are at worst just as safe as we were on 9/10/01. Furthermore, although the media have generally ignored them, a substantial number of plots have been spoiled since 9/11. There have been some missteps, too, such as the Muslim convert in Washington state(?) who was wrongly accused, but I can live with a few false alarms - it tells me someone is awake at the wheel.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I did not say we were not doing far more to prevent another attack. What I said is that the Iraq War has not reduced the threat from the radicals. We have added to the numbers that are willing to attack us.

we did not have the manpower to control these radical elements from the day Saddam fell

No amount of manpower would have, Gene. That's the whole point. If we had not toppled Saddam, we'd have a flourishing terror industry and Saddam thumbing his nose at the US while the French, Germans and Russians continued to suck his tit. Whether you are willing to admit it or not, Saddam was sympathetic to Al Qaeda's efforts and lent it support, clandestine & overt, as we now know, and as long as he was in power, the opportunity for him to get seriously behind terrorist groups was going to be there. Further, we know what he is capable of - using chemical weapons on his own population to kill thousands just for starters. There is this cold fact, Gene - the opportunity for the government of Afghanistan or the government of Iraq to engage in state sponsorship of terrorism is gone. What is left for the terrorists is the equivalent of a loose coalition of street gangs capable only of blowing up themselves and as many of their own as they can in the process. American soldiers are a miniscule proportion of their victims.

Cheers,
Daiwa

What I said is that the Iraq War has not reduced the threat from the radicals. We have added to the numbers that are willing to attack us.

Col, the only way to reduce the "threat" is to eliminate islam. If you don't attack them, they recruit because of our weakness. If you do attack them they get "offended". I'd rather fight.

But as usual col. You whining is pointless. Hillary Clinton told me Iraq was a threat and I believed her. No matter what you do nothing will change. Bush was elected and re-elected, and if you liberals continue you will lose again.

What I said is that the Iraq War has not reduced the threat from the radicals. We have added to the numbers that are willing to attack us.

Col, the only way to reduce the "threat" is to eliminate islam. If you don't attack them, they recruit because of our weakness. If you do attack them they get "offended". I'd rather fight.

But as usual col. You whining is pointless. Hillary Clinton told me Iraq was a threat and I believed her. No matter what you do nothing will change. Bush was elected and re-elected, and if you liberals continue you will lose again.

I have been disappointed with the lack of seriousness about securing our borders. I believe the President could have pushed much harder than he has and that he's allowed his supporters in the corporate/business community to cloud his judgment on this issue.

--Daiwa

I agree here, too. Amazing. Anyway, I think it also has something to do with the fact that he's been involved in the politics of a border state, too. That fact is also clouding his judgement, perhaps. Illegals could potentially be a nice voting bloc if their favor could be curried.

Iraq will most likely go through a civil war before the nature of the country or countries emerge. There is little chance of anything like a unified country that will be anything but another problem. Although Saddam was an evil dictator, he did not pose a danger to us.

Iraq will most likely go through a civil war before the nature of the country or countries emerge

Col, the only people hoping for a civil war are liberals and terrorists. Not much difference there.

There is little chance of anything like a unified country that will be anything but another problem.

You are so full of it that's it's not even funny anymore.

Although Saddam was an evil dictator, he did not pose a danger to us.

But democrats told me he was a threat. Why would they lie?

How many times are you going to repeat the same rhetoric?

If EVERYONE had the Intelligence in late 2002 and early 2003 that Bush and Cheney had which indicated Saddam DID NOT have WMD, I wonder what the vote in the Congress would have been for the Iraq War. WHY did Bush ignore the intelligence in late 2002 from the CIA, DIA and Dept of Energy that discredited his assertion that Saddam had WMD? This was especially true as to a nuclear threat that Cheney said risked Mushroom clouds OVER OUR CITIES! They knew there was creditable intelligence from not less then three Federal agencies that contradicted their assertions that Saddam had WMD. Bush and Cheney presented it as FACT and Powell was not told of this intelligence and presented the U N incorrect information on Feb 5, 2003. Gen. Powell has said he is very sorry he presented that false information to the U N. In fact he said it was the LOW point in his career!

I'll agree with the Col on one point - I have been disappointed with the lack of seriousness about securing our borders.

I will concede COL Gene that point, as well... I also feel that Bush isn't doing enough to secure our borders. I have spent enough time living in Arizona to know that border security just ain't there.

But the original thrust of this article is that "The Iraq War is making America LESS Secure!" and to that I say, plah.

What I said is that the Iraq War has not reduced the threat from the radicals. We have added to the numbers that are willing to attack us.

Since COL Gene wants to speak in hypotheticals, I will too.

These newly-recruited terrorists all fired up about killing them an imperialist Zionist infidel are going to Iraq to mix it up with the 3rd Infantry Div., not to the United States. It's conservation of money and effort: why go thousands of miles when hundreds of miles will do?

Besides, it's much easier to sneak over the Iraqi border than even to sneak across the porous border at the Rio Grande.

The Iraq border is just one issue that our failure to send a sufficient number of troops in 2003 has created. Last week Former Amb. Paul Beemer reviled he asked Bush for 500,000 troops to be sent into Iraq. The original op plan 1003 called for 500,000 troops and under pressure from Bush, was reduced to 300,000. Bush sent 130,000.

Last week I read an article that claimed the CIA recruited the sister of an Iraqi PhD that worked on the Saddam Nuclear program. She went to Iraq and talked with her brother. When she returned she told the CIA her brother told her the nuclear program had all but ended in the early 1990's. That information was ignored. The CIA Intelligence that the Yellow Cake was BS, the intelligence that the mobile Chemical Vans was BS. The statements by the dept of energy that the Al Tubes were NOT for a nuclear program as Bush claimed were buried. ALL that Intelligence was available BEFORE we invaded Iraq.. EVERYTHING that did NOT support what Bush wanted to do was buried until after we invaded Iraq in early 2003.

Last week Former Amb. Paul Beemer

Who is trying to sell a book.......

Could you at least spell his name right?

Last week I read an article that claimed

From the NYT that doesn't worry about facts or proof. Just like your blogs.

Breaking news says that Iran is being referred to the UN security council.

We'll see our American allies in Tehran!

The CIA Intelligence that the Yellow Cake was BS

The debate pendulum in Washington at times swings by the winds of politics, not, as it should, by evidence. Consider the quandary over President Bush's assertion in his 2003 State of the Union Address that Saddam Hussein had sought to buy enriched uranium, "yellow cake," illicitly from Niger. Yellow cake is required in a nuclear development program. When it was discovered last summer that some of the documents the administration had used as evidence were forgeries, the pendulum quickly swung to the opposite extreme. Never mind that British intelligence insisted, and still does, that Iraq was doing precisely what Mr. Bush had said it was. As far as Washington was concerned, the case was closed: Iraq never tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger. As reported Monday in the Financial Times, however, senior European intelligence officials now say, "Illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five states including Iraq at least three years before the U.S.-led invasion" in 2003. This isn't exactly news. A 2002 British dossier on Iraq's weapons programs asserted the same thing, while providing evidence that an inquiring Iraqi official had visited Niger in 1999. In a follow-up story, the Financial Times reports, "three European intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human intelligence gathered in Italy and Africa more than three years before the Iraq war had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium deals with at least five countries, including Iraq." The other countries were North Korea, Iran, Libya and China. The newspaper reports the forged documents erroneously used by the Bush administration might in fact have been a "scam" to cover the real evidence that negotiations had taken place. If this is true, we must concede that it worked. Not long after the administration backed down from the State of the Union claim, Democrats were in full cry for an investigation, all but convinced that the administration had deliberately lied about uranium sales to Iraq. Sen. Ted Kennedy took a lead role in the condemnation, saying, "It's bad enough that such a glaring blunder became part of the president's case for war. It's far worse if the case for war was made by deliberate deception." John Kerry chimed in: "The Bush administration doesn't get honesty points for belatedly admitting what has been apparent to the world for some time -- that emphatic statements made on Iraq were inaccurate." Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe huffed, too: "This may be the first time in recent memory that a president knowingly misled the American people during the State of the Union Address." Critics of the Bush administration have been so eager to discredit every argument used to justify war in Iraq that when evidence does come along proving the administration's case, it has to be ignored. It's not clear how such kindergarten logic enhances national security. Mr. Kerry was right about one thing: Mr. Bush didn't win any points for being forthright about his mistake. We would add as well that he won't win any points for being right all along.