jamiroguy1

Another nutty, fanatical Newsmax editorial. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/18/82202.shtml

That's just plain stupid.

It doesn't take more than a year, as I have explained in previous post, to repair telecommunications infrastructure. 3 months. That's how long it took Iraqi engeneers under UN sanctions in 1991 with no help from Bechtel or Halliburton, Chief.

What about their phone service(besides mobile service)? Drinking water? Security? These types or issues aren't being handled in a timely manor. If you look at how the Iraqi's themselves have repaired their own infrastructure after 1991's bombing campaign on baghdad you'll see better results. They were able to get the phone service and drinking water back to pre-bombing levels in 3 months and this is without the help of billion dollar contracts to Bechtel/Halliburton.

I know some people on this board might want them to use life ammunition.

At least for the immediate future I think it's worsened. If we can globalize our efforts in Iraq and truly begin helping the Iraqi people that can only help subside the threat...at least in my opinion.

Blix says Iraq war may have worsened terror threat By Andrew Stern Friday March 19, 10:25 AM CHICAGO (Reuters) - The invasion of Iraq has polarized the Middle East and may have worsened the threat of terrorism, former United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix charged on Thursday. On a tour of the United States to promote his book, "Disarming Iraq," Blix criticized U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair for engaging in a "witch hunt" to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq one year ago. In a speech sponsored by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, Blix listed the negatives he believes have resulted from the war: polarized societies in the Middle East, a rift in NATO, damage to the U.N. Security Council, and no easing in the threat of terrorism. "The terrorism threat has not abated," he said. Asked to expand on his comments in light of the March 11 train bombings in Spain that killed more than 200, Blix said "it's clearly an increase in the terrorism. "It was ... al Qaeda or some related terrorist movement trying to tell states that they should not participate in the actions in Iraq," he said. Blix said his task of seeking weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was undermined by the Bush and Blair governments, which probably knew they were exaggerating the threat to justify the invasion. "(The war) was more punitive than preemptive," he said. Apart from removing Saddam from power, Blix said he saw no benefit from the invasion and was skeptical of U.S. claims that Libya's subsequent decision to disarm was based on a fear that it could be next. What bothered him most, he said, was the manipulation of intelligence on Iraq and the lack of support for the weapons inspections process and the UN in general. "They are politicians, and we understand the need for hype. But still, as citizens, as voters, we want critical thinking, we want sincerity, not advertising hype," he said. Blix said the UN could play a key role in a fight against terrorism. "First of all, the struggle against terrorism must be a multilateral one, and I think the United States realizes that," he said. "This is not just an alliance of the willing, of big industrial states, but must have the rest of the world behind it." Link to article http://in.news.yahoo.com/040319/137/2c32t.html

I think it's hard to argue that 19 terrorist hijacked and flew passenger airplanes into the world trade center and the pentagon just because they're jealous of Americans.

Predictable response of a neocon mouthpiece.

Valiant Neocons, Spanish Appeasers: Manipulating Madrid's Tragedy by Christopher Deliso balkanalysis.com Given that 90 percent of Spaniards had opposed their leaders' support for the Iraq War, it's not hard to understand that the government would be punished in elections held immediately after the worst terrorist attack in Spain's history. Neocon mouthpieces maintain that, until the Madrid bombing, the Popular Party of incumbent Prime Minister José María Aznar had been expected to win. Therefore, they cry, this shows that terrorism gets results, and that the weak-kneed Spaniards are now guilty of "appeasing" terrorism. The neocons fear this scenario will be repeated in other countries, with future terrorist attacks forcing pro-American governments to be voted out of power. This, of course, is a temptation for stout-hearted voters to resist. In other words: "Buck up, Europe! The moment will come for you, too, to show more gumption!" However, the real appeasing occurred one year ago, when the Aznar government slavishly signed up for George Bush's war on Iraq. That disastrous war has only radicalized the world more, creating terrorists where there had been none and turning much of Europe into a juicy symbolic target. These latest terrorist attacks come as no surprise – the only amazing thing is that it took so long for them to arrive. The grim, apocalyptic world of constant terror and carnage predicted by the neocons is here. Yet the warmongers commend themselves as geniuses when it's only their malevolent, self-fulfilling prophesies that are coming true. Link to full article (clickity-click)

I love watching Rummy squirm. Damn, chicken hawk!

It's either Bush or Kerry. There is no one else. I'm not too fond of Kerry but I'll take him over Bush any day. We have got to dethrone these fanatics.

Man, you really are a fanatic! The bodies of these people aren't even cold yet and you're bitching about them not whipping themsleves into a bloody frenzy for war. You really are a war monger.

Igloo...no comment?

Gloating at Madrid's graveside March 14, 2004 Has anybody else noticed an element of gloating at the horror in Madrid among pro-war commentators? Amid the expressions of revulsion and sorrow at the killing of 200 Spaniards on Thursday, some seem almost excited by the prospect that Europe has been 'shocked' back to its senses and might now do its duty in the war against terror. According to Andrew Sullivan, the mass murder in Madrid might at last help Europeans to 'realise what Tony Blair and George Bush have been warning about for so long. The enemy is clear.... It's up to Europe now. Maybe now they'll get it.' In response to a Le Monde editorial denouncing the bombings, Sullivan asks: 'Whatever happened to all those sophisticated European "grey areas"? With any luck, they died in the wreckage of Madrid's trains.' 'Welcome to reality', was Australian journalist Tim Blair's response to the bombings. Blair has some words of warning for Europeans who think they are safe from such outrages. In response to Dutch terrorism expert Edwin Bakker, who claims that the Netherlands is 'relatively low down on the list of countries that faced the "wrath of Islam"', he writes: 'Bakker can step as lightly as he wants in those felt-soled peace clogs of his. Islamist killers would be as happy to blast him to death as they would anyone not screaming their support for extreme Muslim lunacy.' If you don't quite get what Blair is saying, his Comments section contains the Just For Kids version. On some sites, particularly of the pro-war persuasion, Comments often read like a less mediated, more uncouth interpretation of what the author him or herself thinks. Post-Madrid, one such Comment on Blair's site says: 'I will recognise Europe's rise from the bowels of evil as soon as they realise that terror in Madrid is just as evil as terror in Tel Aviv. Until then, fuck the slimebag nazi Europeans.' Nice. For some, the Madrid massacre provides comforting confirmation that they are good and their enemies bad; that the black-and-white war against terror continues. 'Somehow this evil puts everything else in perspective, doesn't it?' writes Sullivan. In this, Sullivan echoes the response of UK prime minister Tony Blair, who explicitly defined his mission in stark contrast to the terrorists': 'We will match their determination with our own. We will be as resolute as they are fanatical, as strong in defence of good as they are hell-bent on doing evil.' The smoke had barely cleared from Madrid's railway tracks than some were gleefully telling Europeans, 'We told you so'. The dead had barely been counted before Tony Blair and others were pointing to Madrid as a new frontier in the war against terror, as a brutal reminder of what we are fighting against in defence of 'our way of life'. Like so many around the world, I have been asking who could perpetrate an act as heinous as that in Madrid. But there is another question: what kind of people define their mission, their political vision, their entire belief system, in response to bloody, meaningless, nihilistic murder? Full editorial http://www.brendanoneill.net/archives/000122.html#000122

You must remember that the president tried to put the blame on ETA when evidence showed otherwise. This is what caused a backlash in the vote. The bombing should have solidified support for the hardliners thereby handing them the election. This didn't happen so it's kind of hard to call them sheep when they didn't buy the bullshit their government was selling them about ETA.

Apologist.

I am troubled by this as well however the other side to that coin would be if the Spanish people allowed the hardliners in their government to use this terrorist attack as excuse to give them a blank check to "fight" and unwinable war on terrorism as we have done with our country. That said, I really hope this doesn't encourage further attacks on Spain.

I like this one... "I said on my program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." - Bill O'Reilly, on ABC's Good Morning America, 03-18-03

I'd like to wait and see what developments there are before I believe it's ETA.

GOP boss ads insult to 9/11 families By MAGGIE HABERMAN DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER The head of the Republican Party angered 9/11 families again yesterday by saying only a "small segment ... who are very anti-war" objected to President Bush's use of Ground Zero scenes in his reelection ads. The father of one 9/11 victim called the comment "insulting." The statements by Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie highlighted a controversy that the GOP had tamped down with the help of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and First Lady Laura Bush. It also comes two days before President Bush is to attend a 9/11 memorial service on Long Island. The ads, which showed scenes of the destroyed towers, firefighters and the removal of a flag-covered corpse from the rubble, drew praise from some families and harsh criticism from others. During a voter-registration drive in Washington Heights, Gillespie described those who complained as a "small segment of those who are very anti-war, not only anti-war in Iraq but were opposed to the military removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan." He cited a press conference by an anti-war group called 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows and noted the event involved Moveon.org, which is running ads bashing Bush. Several victims' relatives who aren't part of Peaceful Tomorrows disputed Gillespie's claim. "I'm not anti-war on terrorism, and I'm pro-Bush and everybody knows it," said Jack Lynch, who lost his firefighter son Michael. "I still think that neither party ... should be using images of 9/11 for political gain." Clyde Frazier, who lost his son, called Gillespie's comments "very insulting." "I feel terribly bad that they used that ad," he said. Tom Roger, whose daughter was a flight attendant on doomed American Airlines Flight 11, said most of the families who complained were upset by what they say is Bush's unwillingness to cooperate with the commission investigating the pre-9/11 intelligence. Meanwhile, Republicans challenged the legality of a $4.5 million ad campaign criticizing Bush that was launched yesterday in 17 states by Media Fund, a group largely financed by Bush-hating billionaire George Soros. Bush's reelection campaign plans to ask the Federal Election Commission to investigate the ads, claiming they violate campaign finance laws. Link to article http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/172142p-150002c.html

Horrible.

:laugh:

I have to give credit to Smith. He's a very persuavive "journalist"...if that's what we're calling him now. However, he does leave a whole slew of facts out of his sensational reports. For example, no where in the article does it say that these weapons weren't already claimed by Iraq. Interesting how he left that fact out.