So what your saying is that we had better enemies in WWII? I heartily agree.
That really wasn't my point. mfree made an ahistorical comparison of the current US occupation/counterinsurgency war in Iraq to the US occupation of Germany and Japan. I simply recommeded that he read some history. Were he to read, for example, the U.S. Army's official history, The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Germany 1944-1946, he would discover that not only was there no Nazi insurgency against the Allies, but that fraternization between former enemies was considered a bigger problem. As the distinguished German historian Golo Mann summed it up in The History of Germany Since 1789, "The [Germans'] readiness to work with the victors, to carry out their orders, to accept their advice and their help was genuine; of the resistance which the Allies had expected in the way of 'werewolf' units and nocturnal guerrilla activities, there was no sign. &"
His foolish claim that Japan and Germany are to this day under US "occupation" is foolish and absurd, and shows that he doesn't grasp the meaning of the word "occupy."
So... we should leave Iraq...?
The Iraqis want us out.
The Bush administration and its supporters have long claimed that there is a silent majority of Iraqis who regard coalition forces as liberators, want those forces to stay for a prolonged period, oppose insurgent attacks on coalition troops, and are enthusiastic about creating a Western-style democracy for their country. According to a 2004 Gallup survey of Iraqi public opinion, that just isn't true.
57 percent wanted US-UK troops to leave "immediately." In the *expletive deleted*it areas, the sentiment is 61 percent and in the Sunni areas it is 65 percent. (And in Baghdad it is a stunning 75 percent). 51 percent supported attacks against coalition forces.
At least the Kurds like us. They probably ought to just split Iraq into Kurdistan, Shiastan, and Sunnistan, declare victory, and then leave. But is the alternative? "Stay the course" as American soldiers continue to get killed and wounded with no end in sight? Some 20 K American casualties to date. That's a lot dead soldiers, grieving families, soldiers with missing limbs, scars, etc. We've poured more than $308 billion down that rat hole. When's it going to stop?
Report: CIA Shutters Unit Leading Hunt for bin LadenSame old lefty talking points, blah,blah,blah.
Ah yes, by lefties such as Buckley, Will, Buchanan, Novak. Anyone who criticizes the president must be a "leftist."
I'm a gun-owning Texan capitalist who has benefited from Bush's tax cuts. No one in my family will ever have to work at Walmart, join the military or go without. I don't have a leftwing bone in my body. But I sure do recognize a majorleague f*ckup when I see one.
Yes, al Qaeda would be rushing to our aid and offering humanitarian assistance in Iraq against Saddam Hussein if we hadnt invaded. I find this argument especially repulsive because it is so stupid.
What an active imagination you have there, Rabbi. No one makes such argument.
And that little "run up to 9-11" thing, let's see... GW was officially in office for what, a bit under a year?
How terribly unfair of us to expect Bush to do his job competently. All that work, and all those meetings, having to read those complicated government reports and stuff..... we ought to give the guy a break. /hankie
Joe Conason has calculated that up until Sept. 11, 2001, Bush had spent 54 days at the ranch, 38 days at Camp David, and four days at the Bush compound in Kennebunkporta total of 96 days, or about 40 percent of his presidency, outside of Washington.
Hey Bush, ever hear of that crazy little thing called "the work ethic"?
In December 2005 Bush justified warrantless wiretaps by invoking the case of two 9/11 hijackers whom the feds failed to trace before the attacks. Bush declared, "Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late."
Bush neglected to mention that the two culprits were renting rooms in the house of an FBI informant prior to the hijacking.
These two known Al-Qaeda operatives were at a summit of terrorist plotters in Malaysia in 2000. The CIA knew that the two already possessed visas permitting them to travel to the United States. Yet the CIA failed to place their names on the "terrorist watch list," which would have alerted other federal agencies to the danger and blocked them from entering the United States. Sen. Richard Shelby observed in late 2002 that the CIAs negligence "allowed at least two such terrorists the opportunity to live, move, and prepare for the attacks without hindrance from the very federal officials whose job it is to find them."
On August 23, 2001 the CIA finally placed the names of al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi on the terrorist watch list and notified the FBI that the two men were likely somewhere in the United States.
Once the CIA notified the FBI of the presence in the United States of two suspected terrorists, the FBI could have quickly run a few Internet searches to snare the San Diego residential address of al-Mihdhar. They were in the country operating under their own names, had bank accounts, etc. But this step was not taken until after the 9/11 attacks.
Perhaps Bush considered these facts and drew the natural Washington conclusion: the more federal agencies screw up, the more entitled Bush becomes to absolute power.
Yes, Clinton screwed up also. So what? At least he didn't get us bogged down in a Middle East quagmire.
