Posted on 11/21/2015 9:31:21 PM PST by WilliamIII
The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.
The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice†when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support†to the armed Syrian opposition.
Terrorism has come about in assimilationist France and also in multicultural Britain. Why is that?
That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance†boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scaleâ€. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line†of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
IN “ America’s Victiries”, using Iraqi morgue statistics I calculated between 2001-2006 in Iraq and Afghanistan we killed, wounded, or caltured 125,000 terrorists-—and that is the low estimate. Given that these are deaths we could prove (not guys vaporized, dead in mountains or deserts where we couldn’t see them, or not brought into morgues at all), the likelihood is that the number is much higher-—at least double.
G W was not my first choice for the nomination in 2000, but, that being said, he took charge of a situation that no one looked for during the election. If Barry had been in office, we would have had an apology tour, not preemptive action.
You sound like you believe the media/liberal lies about Bush. Maybe he was not the best, however he’s far from the worst.
Why Don’t I support Jeb? How about that defending the presidency of GW has absolutely nothing to do with whom I feel is the best candidate for 2016.
Get a life and study a little history. If not for GW, algore would have been busy with inconvenient truths and Saddam would be working on his nuclear program. Sounds a little like Barry and Iran, huh?
G W was a disaster. His invasion of Iraq radically destabilized the Middle East. Iraq under Saddam was an enemy of Iran, and Saddam had his boot on the jihadis in his country. Iraq after we invaded was taken over by Shiite allies of Iran, and the jihadis were freed to go on a Christian killing-spree.
At home W was a wild deficit spender and government-grower. left us with the worst economic reversal since 1929-1932. There were even fears of bank runs in late 2008. If you liked Herbert Hoover, G W was your guy. W also tried to ram amnesty down our throats, and his open borders policy belied his talk about a war on terror
Yet Jeb says this catastrophic president - his brother - did a great job. That massive show of bad judgment by Jeb is why nobody is supporting him (other than GOPe)
Notice that Trump leads even though (or partly because?) he calls W a disaster and says we only helped Iran by invading Iraq
Actually I think that the CIA under Allen Dulles started this with his overthrow of Mossedegh...
“The other and perhaps most curious issue is the role of the Dulles brothers. The two of them were partners with the American firm (Sullivan & Cromwell) representing the AIOC interests in the United States before their positions as head of the CIA and State Department. The Dulles brothers’s firm had done work with United Fruit Company, one of the corporations which benefited the most from the CIA’s coup in Guatemala in 1954. Both brothers were also major shareholders in United Fruit.”
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/six-myths-about-the-coup-against-irans-mossadegh-11173
The justification for spending (or rather, borrowing) $1 trillion and losing 4500 American lives,to turn Iraq over to the Shiites (and make it an ally of Iran) is insanity.
Insanity is allowing the Muslim Terrorists to go on the offensive and attack us on home turf. 9/11 cost us almost 3,000 lives in one morning. The NYMEX was closed for about 1 week. The Pentagon partially destroyed. Air traffic completely halted for how many days? The US economy came to an almost complete stop. How many hundreds of billions did we lose in one morning? Crap, you are talking about years of war In Iraq that cost (tragically) 4,600 lives. Most Americans get that. But you don't which makes you what?
And those are the facts, Jack.
9/11 cost us almost 3,000 lives in one morning.
And, as the 9/11 commission, Bush and Cheney all said - Saddam Husein had nothing to do with 9/11.
What Saddam was, was the counterbalance to Iran. We took him out, and Iran became the defacto ruler of Iraq. And that happened well before Obama came in.
But I can’t talk facts with a Bushbot. Stay in your daydreams if reality is too disturbing and threatening. and Happy Thanksgiving.
So, your answer to Iraq would have been what?
We had Iraq under control and on the way to becoming an Arab democracy if Barry hadn’t f’d up the status of forces agreement and told the jihadists exactly how long they had to wait before destabilizing the country.
In addition, it’s always fun to hear someone parrot the dem talking points about how Saddam kept the whack jobs in check. He paid the families of suicide bombers, had terrorist training camps in Iraq, and had used chemical weapons against his own people. You think he would have hesitated to sell some to bin Laden?
Not only that, but, your argument is akin to saying, “well, that Hitler fellow sure did keep Europe quiet, and Stalin, well there weren’t many problems with the Russian mob back then.
I agree with you on GW’ s domestic politics, he stunk, but we also controlled both houses of congress so there’s a lot of blame to go around there.
Still, at the end of the day, had we not nominated the worst possible candidate to run against Mr Hopey Changey, the middle east would look a lot different today.
As for your complete misunderstanding of the financial crisis, you can thank Carter and Clintoon for distorting the free market with the Community Reinvestment Act and not reigning in Fannie and Freddie.
HE wasn’t perfect, but, if you were even old enough to vote in 2000, I’m sure hope that Al Gore bumper sticker peeled right off of your Subaru.
My answer to Iraq would have been the same as Reagans answer to the communist world. Unlike dummy George W with his stupid losing war, Reagan didnt invade the Soviet Union, but he still beat them and won the Cold War
Really? We tried that for a decade under Bush 41, Clintoon, and the UN. Not a rousing success, obviously.
After 9/11 all bets were off and if I had to wager a guess, I don’t think that the gipper would have agreed with your analysis. Superpower with nukes=containment. Little tin-pot dictator=glass parking lot.
bfl
“bfl”
Last words - or sputtering a - of someone who lost an argument.
George Will and Donald trump don’t agree on much. But they both call the invasion of Iraq a piece of monumental stupidity. The mess we created there - a mess that’s still biting us in the butt - makes it hard to argue with them. Unless you’re a bushbot impervious to reality
Council of Foreign Relations on Saddam and Terrorists
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-iraqi-ties-terrorism/p7702
Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to Palestinian terror groups. The Bush administration said it believed Saddam could pass weapons of mass destruction to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network or other terrorists. In the first few weeks after Saddam's fall from power, though, convincing proof of an Iraq-al-Qaeda link remained lacking.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/
The report, titled “Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents,” finds that:
-The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
-In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to “form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia.” At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.
-Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.
WMD
NYT admits there were WMD in Iraq confirming Bush's belief
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
Iraq's 500 tons of yellowcake shipped to Canada
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/
Russia Says U.S. Policies (Obama) Helped Islamic State, Interfax Reports
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-22/russia-calls-for-un-brokered-moves-in-fighting-terror-ifx-says
Your argument over WMDs isn’t w me , it’s with Bush and Cheney. They have both said, publicly, that their intelligence was wrong and there were no WMDs in Iraq
Of course, if there were WMDs , common sense says Saddam would have used them against us to save his skin. He knew he would be executed if the US won, so if he had WMDs he would have used them. And if he had WMDs and chose not to use them to save his own life, then they were no threat because he would never have used them
In any case a real leader, Reagan, won the war against a power that really did have WMDs. - the USSR - and he did so without invading. Reagan - smart. Bush - dumb
I am reserving my opinions of the Donald, and not because I will not support him, but, because there is a lot of Demoncrap water under his bridge and I, for one, would prefer someone who didn’t invite Hitlery to His wedding as our standard bearer. Not that I am not happy to see him bring some sanity to the immigration debate, but, he was not sitting in the Oval office on 9/11 and I hate Monday morning armchair quarterbacks.
As for little Georgey Porgey, Bill Buckley has been doing a lot of spinning in his dirt nap with some of the idiocy that has escaped his lips (fingertips). Something to do with too many Washington cocktail parties methinks.
Seriously, take the time to do some research. If you think that Iraq was such a mistake, you are pontificating from hindsight. There was a reason why GW’ s poll numbers were stratospheric and he was supported by almost every politician of both parties and most world leaders at the time.
I’ve always found it interesting that the same chickens#*t who as Chairman of the Joint chiefs stopped us from removing that dirtbag in 91 was the same lilly livered douche who was Sec State and handcuffed our guys with crazy ROE’ s.
We lost Iraq to the same enemy that allowed the rape of Saigon (hint: it wasn’t the enemy we were shooting at).
You mention Bill Buckley. He came around to believing the Iraq War was a mistake, and said so very publicly. Google it, you’ll see
What the heck? I just did what I often do -- scan all the day's headlines and mark the ones I like but don't have time to read today as "bfl" -- "bump for later." I don't recall having any conversation with you.
sorry about that. I looked up bfl and found the definition as “big f——g lie”. My mistake, I’m not internet-slang savvy.
Very gracious reply — thanks!
I think “bfl” at FR is mostly FR-speak; it used to be “bttt” (for “bump to the top”; meaning push it to the top of one’s own Comments page for later review), but now more folks seem to be in such a hurry that they only want to type 3 letters instead of 4 — self included!
No They lost their power and they wanted it back!!! They always treated the Shiites with disdain and they hated them..
The Sunni were the Minority in Iraq but with Saddam in power he kept them in power.. Also DS left Iraq with no force to control the Chaos!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.