[Tawiskaro]

I was sufficiently annoyed by this piece of "news" that I thought I should share it. There's an e-mail address for the motivated.

I haven't posted in quite some time, so I hope I've done this properly.

[Chris Talk]

"brutal and unnecessary war in Iraq."

The author of this piece of tripe, I suppose, wishes Saddam were still in power. What about our warfare was in any way "brutal?" This was a "war" designed by a schoolmarm, risking our side's lives to spare those of our enemies.

[Cicero]

It's all grist for the mill. Thanks for posting this.

[Jackson Brown]

Niagra Falls Reporter's Slogan --

To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

Sounds like they have an agenda and it not to report the truth. Advocacy "journalism"

[Lion in Winter]

Serial IDIOT blix is caught!

One of your buddies?

[Tacis]

This is actually a wonderful piece. It proves what I've been saying about the hatred of Bush being so visceral with many crap weasels. The answer is self-loathing. They hated having to lie for Willie and corrupting their own reputations saying untrue things to back the worthless filth of a criminal. This guy is simply saying about Bush what he believed but was never able to say about Willie. If we have a psychiatrist on board, check me. I think the term is either transference or sublimation. But, just because we understand their motivation, doesn't mean that their attacks will be any less powerful. This guy really doesn't hate Bush, he hates himself. Let me suggest some serious counseling or therapy. Hey, I say this out of love. I forgive you!

[eeriegeno]

Let us first remember that the WMD phrase was originated by Bill Clinton and Madelyn Albright in 1998. I used to get sick of hearing them spew the term without defining it. Then Bill Richardson picked up on it. Then the media picked up on it. Then the general public picked up on it. Then the media picked up on it some more.

Make no mistake about it. Sadaam could or could not have had a weapon that would have created mass destruction. With his record as a rogue leader, I am happy that he is now behind bars regardless of whether he left behind any WMD's.................

[jpf]

I was looking at the history channel website when I found a speech delivered by Winston Churchill in 1934. It would be five years before Germany invaded Poland and yet he still saw the writing on the wall and it reminded me of our own times.
Churchill was discussing how people in England felt, that the best way to avoid war was to dwell on its horrors and its cost. Meanwhile, in Germany, the glory of fighting and dying in battle was being actively promoted by the Nazi regime. Churchill joked that if the Germans invaded England perhaps they could just sit them down and explain why war was such a bad idea and they might be persuaded to go back home.
But he had second thoughts about doing even that. “They might say, it seems to me, ‘you are rich and we are poor, you seem well fed and we are hungry, you have been victorious, we have been defeated, you have valuable colonies and we have none, you have your navy, where is ours? You have had the past, let us have the future. Above all I fear they would say; ‘You are weak and we are strong.’”
What made Winston Churchill so far ahead of his countrymen and much of world? Was he clairvoyant? No, he simply listened carefully to his enemy, understood what he was saying, and was courageous enough to face the harsh reality that it presented. Are we doing the same?
Do we not hear a similar mantra in Middle East today? Doesn’t Bin Ladden use the same arguments? Does he not say the United States is rich while the Middle East is poor, that the United States has too much power and wealth and that we are responsible for the suffering in the world? And does he not also say that we have grown fat and lack the will that he and his followers have? Does he not count on us being soft, indecisive, and weak? Did Saddam Hussein not say many of the same things?
Do we understand that when Osama Bin Ladden named our sanctions against Iraq during the 1990’s as his top reason to attack us, he was doing so because support of Hussein’s Iraq fit into his plans? Do we understand that as a second reason for attacking us he mentioned our troops in Saudi Arabia (there for no other reason than to contain Iraq) and that he did so to push us out of the Middle East and leave himself free to work his will without threat of reprisal? Listening to the debate here at home I fear we do not.
It is bad enough when Osama Bin Ladden and Saddam Hussein say that we invaded Iraq merely to exploit its oil, it is far worse to hear John Kerry and Howard Dean thoughtlessly parroting that slanderous rhetoric. In his victory speech the other night in Wisconsin Kerry said that we must put this nation on the road to energy independence “ – so that young Americans in uniform will never have to fight or die for Mideast oil.” It is not that I am against energy independence, but the slander of our forces in Iraq is far beyond the bounds of what a politician should say in order to win office. For this reason if no other, John Kerry should never be President of the United States.
But what if he did gain the Presidency by this line of attack? What would he then have to say to the people of the Middle East and especially the people of Iraq? When our enemies, determined to destroy us and all we represent have no doubt, confront a President Kerry with his own clear statement of our nations’ guilt and demand our immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq and perhaps the region, what response would he make to them? “We invaded for oil, but that’s all in the past now?” Or, “I was only speaking hypothetically?” Clearly his only choices would be between utter defeat or boldfaced hypocrisy, neither of which would further American security or that of the region as a whole, or that of the world.
It is easy to forget that the struggle in which we are engaged is mortal, the smoke from the fires that burned the world trade center have long since died out and life seems more or less to have returned to normal. Plainly some do not even believe we are at war at all. The pictures from Afghanistan and Iraq seem very far away and it is easy to loose ourselves in the lawyerly details of whether or not the President lied or not or whether our war in Iraq was just or unjust.
Only one man will ever really know if he lied to us or not, but the undisputed fact is that our enemies lie all the time, both to the world and their own people. I do not believe our President lied, but even if he did from what I know now there is no question in my mind that our war with Iraq was just. If it had not been there would even now be armies of petitioners asking for the release Saddam Hussein and there are not. There would be those demanding his re-instatement as head of the Iraqi state but there are not. There would be people arguing that the world was better off with him in power, but no one does or would for fear of being laughed at and scorned. So clear is it that Iraq, the world, and we are better off without him that not even Howard Dean dares to dissent. Yet the hand wringing goes on to the delight and advantage of our enemies and at the expense of more American blood. You would think that the removal of Saddam was a happy coincidence of the war and not it’s central purpose, so much have the opponents of the war conceded its chief benefits.
I hear voices talk of the casualties in Iraq and though any price always seems too high, 530 dead in 11 months is roughly one sixth of those killed in New York one clear September morning. If we had six such years in Iraq, and we will not, it would not equal the toll taken by 19 individuals on our home soil. There are those who persist in seeing no connection between terrorists and terrorist states but such hairsplitting is folly in war. There are those who need a direct connection, as if terrorists and their state sponsors play by the same rules and Saddam Hussein, not the President of the United States has earned the benefit of the doubt. The mere presence of terrorists in Iraq, the clear expressions of common cause against us, and the obvious effort in the aftermath of the war by foreign terrorists in Iraq are plainly not enough to convince the opponents of war that they are wrong. But if these facts are not enough than no set of facts ever will be enough.
Senator Kerry may believe that his slander is only against the President but it is not. The Congress voted for the war, including Senator Kerry himself, the American people approved of the decision in poll after poll, and our military zealously and skillfully carried out our wishes. The stain, if there is any, is on us all no matter what the Jr. Senator from Massachusetts may wish to think. And the world, our enemies most especially, will undoubtedly see it that way.
Not far from here by airplane there is place were schools teach hatred of Americans and Jews, where all dissent is brutally and violently repressed, where suicide attacks are glorified and where Bin Ladden’s participation in September 11th is considered propaganda. There are millions of people in that place in partial or total sympathy with the idea that killing Americans is a holy duty. To that place our words travel by satellite, translated for all to hear and by hearing decide which side of this conflict they are to be on.
The Democratic party has chosen to tell these people that the United States can not be trusted, that our only motives are selfishness and greed, and that we are weak In this election, make no mistake, we will either correct that misconception or confirm it. The kind of world that we live in from now on will be determined by that choice and that choice alone.
Churchill’s words of 1934 went un-headed and by the time war finally did come between Germany and England those who believed they were saving lives had cost the lives of many millions. We have had a much more vivid warning and yet some still cling to the notion that we are in a police action and not a war. For the sake of untold millions I can only hope this notion is quickly and decisively rejected.

[Snuffington]

George W. Bush has made the world a far more dangerous place, we are stuck in a bloody mess in Iraq and our nation is less secure! George W. Bush's tax cuts benefit the richest Americans at the expense of the middle class and corporations are paying the lowest taxes since the 1930s! George W. Bush should be run out of office on a rail!

They should just lead the piece with this concluding paragraph. That way the sane audience could steer clear of this nutty piece of idiocy.

[Tax Government]

It's comforting to know that even morons have time and money to drool in print, in pieces of web trash like "Niagara Falls Reporter."

I am heartened by this show of prosperity; Bush deserves some thanks.

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

Well, it's nice to hear from the Stalanist point-of-view (yawn).

[sauropod]

Mr. Gallagher. You are a picknose for extracting lies from a record of a shared history.

[Jorge]

It is refreshing to see many in the big, corporate media who were literally gushing over Bush's flight suit photo op finally asking the tough questions and giving George W.'s murky military service the attention it richly merited long ago.

It's gotten attention EVERYTIME Bush has run for office. And Bush's political enemies have been unable to touch him.
Polls show the great majority of Americans consider this issue unimportant.

But of course since you want to bring up the subject, let's hear what those who served with Bush say;

"Lieutenant Bush is an outstanding young pilot and officer and is a credit to his unit," Lt. Col. Bobby Hodges wrote on May 27, 1971. "This officer is rated in the upper 10 percent of his contemporaries."

Another, written by Maj. William Harris on May 26, 1972, was just as glowing: "Lieutenant Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer."

No wonder Bush looks good in a flight suit!

[cookcounty]

Was the Alabama ANG flying the F-102 or not in the end of '72-and 1973? Am I wrong that the entire series had been grounded and therefore he could not have flown if he had wanted to?

[ditto h]

Nader runs, you lose..again, and Mr. Bush is President... once more. SORRY!!!!

[lady lawyer]

Big surprise. A Swedish leftist wants to do in President Bush. This has nothing to do with the Iraq war. The European leftists were already doing everything they could do to undermine Bush even before 9/11. He stands in the way of their leftist, internationalist agenda. They hated him from the day he took office and made it clear that the "international community" was not going to dictate US foreign or domestic policy.

[eleni121]

It's people like this schmuck and the morons that publish him that hammered the last nails into the coffin of Niagara Falls in the last 30 years. The city had to beg the Seneca Nation to open a casino. There is no more corrupt and backward area anywhere in this country and people like Gallagher merely fit into the slime.

Gallagher did his dirty business here and hightailed it out of town for Detroit.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

Really? Those phantom weapons, of course, were the primary justification for the war

Um how wrong can they be? Primary justification was failure to comply with UN disarm/disgorge rules. They had WMD, they used WMD, they probably still have them. The war was just.

[F16Fighter]

"Bill Gallagher, a Peabody Award winner, is a former Niagara Falls city councilman who now covers Detroit for Fox2 News. His e-mail address is gallaghernewsman@aol.com."

It's cyber-diarrhea email time.

[TigersEye]

Bush's superior in Alabama says he never saw him.

And a short time later General Turnipseed (Bush's superior in question) admitted he was not on the base. Caught this "reporter" in a lie it seems. Nothing else that he writes is worth a turnipseed.

[TheSpottedOwl]

*snicker* No problem, bro...