Skip to main content

In his post-veto campaign to justify continuing with his failed war policy, George Bush declared that:

Al-Qaida is public enemy No. 1 in Iraq.

In fact, Bush mentioned Al-Qaida no less than 27 times in a speech that covered his usual spiel; we're fighting them there, the central front in the war on terror, emboldening, surrender, and of course, September 11th.  He waxed poetic about progress the Iraqi government is making, declining sectarian violence, early signs of his "surge" succeeding, and that there is no civil war, just Al-Qaida mounting "spectacular attacks" to sap the will of the American people.  In fact, it seems that Al-Qaida is all that stands between the Iraqi government and a flowering democracy in the Middle East.

But today we learn that:

The number of attacks with the projectiles rose to 65 in April, said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who oversees day-to-day U.S. military operations in Iraq. "The overwhelming majority" were in predominantly Shiite eastern Baghdad, Odierno said in an interview this week. Officials have said the projectiles are used almost exclusively by Shiite fighters against U.S. military targets.

April being the month where 104 U.S. troops were killed in one of the deadliest months of this war, and in a month where it was revealed that:

A department of the Iraqi prime minister's office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad.

But Al-Qaida is the enemy we are fighting in Iraq, and:

-- we support Prime Minister Maliki and I think he is trying to do what is best for his country.

 

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:04 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  is the hydrocarbon law passed yet? (9+ / 0-)

    i don't know who we're fighting... but we're gonna keep on fighting them until bush gets his oil buddies legislation passed over there.

    Keep Religion in Church

    by titotitotito on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:01:18 AM PDT

    •  The Oil Law Is Dead (7+ / 0-)

      The Kurds have cut their own deals with Norwegian and Turkish Companies. (Think about that for a minute.) Yes, the Kurds supposed enemy the Turks are going to be involved in developing a new field. And likely exporting the oil through Turkey. This is a sign of independence of the Kurds.

      The Shiites have broken into factions, with the Sadr faction out of the government and opposed to American involvement.

      And the Sunnis are opposed to foreign control.

      I have done 2 diaries on the oil law this week from my perspective that includes an undergrad degree in geology.

      "It's the planet, stupid."

      by FishOutofWater on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:39:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Will things suddenly quiet down then? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heart of the Rockies, DSPS owl

      I keep wondering about that?   It's a pretty dark thought, but what if we are actually behind a lot of the violence and the unspoken deal we are offering Iraq is 'you get peace if you sign over your oil'.

    •  Call me old school (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      barbwires, DSPS owl

      I hate to be a stickler, but shouldn't it be "Whom Are We Fighting?" Hard to get past a headline that contains incorrect grammar. On the point in question, Bush is simply following the GOP/Rovian game plan: repeat a lie often enough and people will accept it as truth.

      •  Hurrah for grammar police! (0+ / 0-)

        Title stopped me for half a minute, also.  It seemed incomplete, I tried seeing "Who Are We Fighting For?", but that didn't work either.

        I do try to keep these policing tendencies under controll, and you probably do, too.  But we have to allow ourselves once in a while, I think.

        §:c)

        The Republicans are defunding, not defending, America.

        by DSPS owl on Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:12:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly What They Are Doing (0+ / 0-)

        They are feverishly trying to shift the violence from being in the middle of a 'civil war' to it's all al queda.

        They can't win the civil war argument and they know it - nor can they stop the civil war so the best strategy for them is to make the civil war go away by shifting the focus to al queda.

        Unfortunately the facts on the ground won't let that happen.

        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

        by talex on Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:41:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Bush feels he HAS to say that. (7+ / 0-)

    It's all he has left and it's fodder for his Cult of 28%.  You know -- these guys:

    http://www.amazon.com/...

    If he didn't have THAT, well, then, his cult of 28% would -- well, pretty much remain at or near 28%, because they're his cult.  If they haven't left him by now, they'd stick with him if he invaded Canada next week.

    So, George -- cool off -- they're yours.

    Bush doesn't listen to anyone but the competing voices in his head. The winner he calls "God" and runs with it.

    by dov12348 on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:08:20 AM PDT

    •  It's the same old lie (8+ / 0-)

      He's got exactly one card in his hand: 9/11.  He has to play it over and over, because there's nothing else to even remotely justify continuing his insane war.  The only important question for historians to consider will be: how much did he actually "believe" his own bullshit (e.g., because it's all his advisors keep telling him), and how much was he directly in on the blatant attempts to continue deceiving the American public?

      Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

      by dnta on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:17:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  we have seen the enemy and it is us!!! we need (7+ / 0-)

    get the hell out of Iraq and let happen whatever happens  keep the no fly zones in force and contain any camps that get set up by Al Qaeda with precision weapons...just my 2 cents

    "A journey of a thousand miles begins with but one step"

    by testvet6778 on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:08:23 AM PDT

    •  The Lone Arranger rides again!! (0+ / 0-)

      Harry Ried was spot on when he said we had already lost the war, we lost the war the moment we invaded Iraq.
      The "big picture war", the one the American people WANT the Administration to prosecute is the hunt for the 9/11 terrorists, and before we invaded Iraq we were winning hands down. We had won the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Islamic, especially Shiite Moslems for standing up to bin Laden and freeing Afghanistan from the foreign (Arab and Pakistani) Taliban occupation.  

      The invasion and occupation of Iraq changed all of that.

      The longer we occupy Iraq, the worse we lose the Wider War against al Qaida and its successors.  The Bush Legacy, like that other Texan President, is that we have met the enemy again and he is still us.

  •  no one who believes the Commander Guy (12+ / 0-)

    No one could believe the Commander Guy when he says that --  if they've read more than a paragraph or two past the headlines, or if they've ever looked beyond the evening McNews.

    Which of course means plenty of Americans believe him. How come I get the kind of government they deserve? We are the laughingstock of the world for having elected and RE-elected a frigging moron as our leader.

    Hey-ho, the DLC has got to go!

    by ebie on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:09:36 AM PDT

  •  Al-Qaida is short-hand (11+ / 0-)

    for Muslim.

    "Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." George W. Bush 12/7/06

    by kitebro on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:10:02 AM PDT

  •  In a war if you cannot define who your enemy is (10+ / 0-)

    then you have absolutely no buisness being involved in that war.  

    If you cannot define the reasons for fighting a war then you have no buisness being in that war.  

    If you don't know what defines victory then you have no buisness being in that war.  

    If you are spending hudreds of billions of dollars and are stressing the military to the point of breaking and you don't know why you have no buisness in that war.

    If you are the President and you have let all of these things happen, you have no buisness being President.

    "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

    by Quanta on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:10:19 AM PDT

    •  Sadr ordered to attack Americans (4+ / 0-)

      http://www.cnn.com/...

      BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A powerful and radical Shiite cleric implored his followers Sunday to stop killing Iraqis and focus their violent efforts on ousting American forces from the war-torn nation.

      Muqtada al-Sadr also called on Iraqi forces to join the insurgents in the battle against "the occupiers."

    •  Quanta, text of Twain's "War Prayer" is very (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heart of the Rockies, BarbinMD

      moving, entirely sensible!

      Do you have quick link for us?

      Aloha  . . .

      •  Here's a link for "The War Prayer" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Heart of the Rockies, dolphin777

        here

        I agree, "The War Prayer" is one of my favorite works by Twain.  It also has so much relevance today since it was written in opposition to the Spanish-American war.

        It is doubly well since for some reason the religous right is for this war.  Its sad how history tends to repeat itself.

        "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

        by Quanta on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:07:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Many mahalo! I've read it before, but (0+ / 0-)

          truth bears repeating again and again!!

          Aloha . . .

        •  Twain's Mysterious Stranger (0+ / 0-)

          There has never been a just one, never an honorable one -- on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful -- as usual -- will shout for the war. The pulpit will -- warily and cautiously -- object -- at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers -- as earlier -- but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation -- pulpit and all -- will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

    •  Says it all (0+ / 0-)

      In a war if you cannot define who your enemy is, then you have absolutely no buisness being involved in that war.  

  •  Was a liar is a liar and always will be liar (4+ / 0-)

    If it wasnt for lies he wouldnt have anything to say...

    From the Book of Horrible Questions , Would you push a red button for $10 million but 100 random people would die of natural causes, Survey said 55% would ?

    by FAUX GOP DEATH TV on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:10:32 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps (6+ / 0-)

    I should rethink starting my day off by visiting Daily Kos. Every day I think...this is the day my head will explode!  Please, make it stop.
    2009 is just too freaking far away.

  •  How the hell do we know who we're fighting, (7+ / 0-)

    who we're killing. With our lack of Arabic speakers we are relying on Iraqis and other native Arabic speakers to tranlate. All of them may have, shall I say, divided loyalties. How better to win the backing of the US military and air support than to claim a personal enemy to be "Al-Qaeda".( Just speculation on my part.)

    "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,,,they never stop thinking of ways to harm our country and neither do we" G W Bush

    by irate on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:12:05 AM PDT

  •  Bush is unfit to be commander guy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BarbinMD, epppie

    Since he cannot seem to figure out that al Qaeda is far less of a danger to our troops than the Shiite militias, then he needs to be sacked.   His incompetence makes him public enemy number 1.

    A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. - Aristotle

    by DWG on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:13:13 AM PDT

  •  Al Qaida is the major force that is everywhere (4+ / 0-)

    yet somehow, when it comes to stopping it, nowhere in Iraq-- that's the President's message.  

    That Al Qaida has converged on Iraq and is fighting us (in a glorious, generations-triumphant, Manichaean battle of evil vs. good) over there rather than fighting us over here-- but doing so in the form of hundreds of little attacks each day that target a wide range of civilians and military personnel, destroying not large targets but homes, cars, marketplaces.  

    That every time we doubt the plainly successful war effort, Al Qaida wins-- even though the administration is trying constantly to pressure news outlets NOT to cover the failures and damage and turmoil in the region, and even though most of the news about what's going on over in Iraq is kept hidden by the administration from US citizens.  

    We have to stay in Iraq to battle Al Qaida, according to the President--- even though generals and soldiers on the ground say that it is not Al Qaida that is sending shells into marketplaces, doing individual suicide bombings, and sniping at automobiles.  

    What the President is saying is that we have to stay in Iraq because he has decided that we have to, and that we have to believe his version of a fiction about why we have to, and that anyone who calls his insistence on success in Iraq blind or perverse or wrong is simply not part of the fiction and needs to be written out of the script.

    That is terrifying-- to think that the President of the United States has dispensed with millions of US voters and their real, lived concerns, and has relegated them to being, not Americans, not actual thinking citizens, but a form of writer's block preventing his grand narrative from being told.

    •  Baghdad (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BarbinMD

      has become the Plain of Armagedden to these people.

      That is one million percent truth-n-fact, moonbat!

      by calipygian on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:18:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It reminds me of an exhibit I visited in Amish (3+ / 0-)

        country in Ohio.  It's a building that houses a panorama telling a story about Mennonite emigrants to the US who escaped persecution and who have been able to live in their version of glory with God.  It is somewhat crudely painted yet bold and huge in its size and proportions-- clearly the intent is to communicate the importance of that story and none other in the construction of a regional reality.

        And yet one goes back outside the building and there are roads paid for by taxpayers in a secular state in a nation made of, not one people's living of a Biblical prophesy of glory, but many peoples' amazing negotiations of everyday life in a shared commitment to a common future not predicted in the Bible.

        The administration and the Dominionists and the right-wing Christian wackos are inside a panorama of their own devising, seeing painted across walls of their own construction a grand narrative that only they can see.  Yet they are using our tax dollars, our lives, and our future to indulge themselves in this Biblical fantasy.

  •  Bush is now playing his last card (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BarbinMD, dnta, gsbadj, DWG, dolphin777, Da Rock

    All he has left in his hand is the 9/11 Fear Card. And that's what he's playing. If I took a drink every time the man invoked 9/11, I'd be in rehab--and not one of those Britney Spears luxury spa clinics either.

    "Those who argue that we should somehow defer to the President are wrong."--Senator Russ Feingold

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:14:18 AM PDT

    •  Last card? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dump Terry McAuliffe, BarbinMD

      That's been the ONLY card he's EVER played.

      Even Saddam had to go because he might have given them WMD... if he could ever gotten his hands on any.  It could have happened.

      All fear, all the time.

      "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright

      by gsbadj on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:22:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  strange hand (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dump Terry McAuliffe, BarbinMD

      He is holding the ace of spades (Cheney), the queen of clubs (Rice), the deuce of hearts (Gonzales), the jack of diamonds (Rove), and a four of hearts (Snow).  Time to fold.  

      A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. - Aristotle

      by DWG on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:27:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gonzo = Joker (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DWG

        John Edwards - the repugs worst nightmare!!

        by Da Rock on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:04:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That was my first thought, too (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DSPS owl

          Except the jokers are not used in poker and Gonzo is less of a buffoon and more of a calculating henchman.  It is not an accident he wrote the torture policy, justified violating the Geneva Conventions, ignored violations of the FISA laws, and endorsed eliminating the writ of habeas corpus for anyone designated as a troublemaker to the administration.  He has been behind the deliberate attempt to destroy Constitutional protections.  

          A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. - Aristotle

          by DWG on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:32:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  By the Pubs' own rhetoric, it is cool to leave (4+ / 0-)

    After all, since Iraq is only a part of the Global War on Terror, leaving the Iraq part to free up resource to fight said GWOT elsewhere should be a non-problem...

    ...except when Republicans need it to be.

    Just as, once before, Iraq needed to be justified as part of the GWOT.

    pause

    Which invites the follow-up question for Pubs: So, is Iraq a separate war from the War on Terror...again? :)

    M-O-O-N! That spells Iran!

    by cskendrick on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:15:50 AM PDT

  •  I'm just wondering (7+ / 0-)

    If Al-Qaeda is the enemy in Iraq, how come we are not going after the head of Al-Qaeda's world wide operations? Why is he still free after more than five years? Its like saying that the German Army was our opponent in France and doing nothing to try to disrupt/catch/kill the leadership of the German Army in Berlin.

    That is one million percent truth-n-fact, moonbat!

    by calipygian on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:16:58 AM PDT

    •  was just thinking the same thing (4+ / 0-)

      Why not pull the troops out of Iraq and send themn into Pakistan since that is where the head of the snake is
      Remember Bush said he could run but not hide
      Any government that shielded him would do so at their own peril.

      Poverty and the homeless Out of sight and out of mind

      by betterdeadthanred on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:19:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bingo. But they NEED not to capture the leader (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      calipygian, BarbinMD

      because then if they did a) "terrorism" would no longer be a bogeyman of worldwide proportions they could trot out to threaten Americans with every time they wanted to get their way, and b) they wouldn't have any excuse to keep funneling tax dollars to private contractors and corporations and institutes set up by corporate board members all in Iraq in the name of capitalist freedom.

  •  As Country Joe and the Fish said about Vietnam.. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BarbinMD, dnta, munky, dolphin777, ClapClapSnap

    Well, it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for? What the hell are we doing in Iraq?

  •  "in one of the deadliest months of this war" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BarbinMD, DSPS owl, epppie

    Barb, you complain about the absurd words the shrub uses, and yet you and most others continue to refer to the insane continued occupation of Iraq as

    war

    . I feel like a broken record. What will it take to get folks to stop playing his game?

  •  You see, this kind of thing is what stupid people (5+ / 0-)

    do.

    And Bush is stupid.

    Bush would get pissed-off if a shoe store refused to sell him a burger, or would buy a ladder so he could learn to play the kazoo.

    When he was 3 he never could quite get that game where the pegs go in the round holes and the blocks go in the square holes.  Haunts him to this day.  

    BenGoshi
    ____________________________________________________

    New pithy saying nominees being considered. . .

    by BenGoshi on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:24:07 AM PDT

  •  Zawahiri, Osama (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BarbinMD, munky, epppie

    No excuses for not finding and prosecuting them.

    OMFG where the HELL is Zawahiri and Osama?!

    by LandSurveyor on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:33:21 AM PDT

  •  Today: I heard Oliver Stone's comparison of Iraq (4+ / 0-)

    to Viet Nam; watched Jim Lehrer  grill George Tenet;
    witnessed a far-too-deferential interview of George Tenet by Charlie Rose...

    Aloha . . .

    •  And the weird thing about that Rose interview, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dolphin777

      is that it was the most attacking I've seen Rose behave, when not interviewing a Dem or lw.

      As for Tenet - wow - I think he makes me more sick than McCain does.

      •  epppie, my already-strained budget (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        epppie

        going to increased supply of antacids ( for constant nausea!!), many boxes of alum wrap for renewed tinfoil hat!!

        Tenet is everywhere I look! Out there pimping his f'n book, telling the same f'n lies!!  ARRRGGHH!!

        Aloha . . .

        •  And when was the last time you saw, oh, I dunno, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dolphin777, cumberland sibyl

          Noam Chomsky on Charlie Rose?  Greg Palaste?  Hell, Paul Krugman!!  What about Sybil Edmonds?  

          •  Great idea! I'll send an email to ole Charlie (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            epppie

            suggesting a slate of higher quality guests! Just giving George Tenet currency, yeah that IS a pun(!), pisses me off no end!!

            If Tenet's a pimp, those who give him air time must surely be whores!!

            Aloha . . .

          •  I sqaw ABC's Baghdad correspondent Terry (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            epppie

            McCarthy on Charlie Rose a few nights ago.

            He was saying that the Sunnis are leaving the Maliki government, that Saudis and Jordan are arming Sunnis to fight Shia in Iraq - that this insurgency is being directed by former Saddamists who are now living in Saudi Arabia or Jordan - that Iraqis are now considering this the long war to see who will control Iraq after Americans leave.

            Charlie Rose was incredulous, like he'd never heard anything like this before.  Of couree this was just after he'd "interviewed" Bush and Petraeus

            I posted a short diary on this but it got little traffic.

            Buy a Boat. Save the Seed.

            by cumberland sibyl on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:01:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  occupation not war in Iraq (4+ / 0-)

    Till the word for the troop involvment in Iraq is "occupation" ,understanding of who were fighting will  continue to be blurred.The "war"  word helps W with the last holdouts who support staying in Iraq.The Occupier role is odious to anyone thinking this thing thru in any way.Fighting Iraqi people who dont want us there is hard for W to defend.

    have we hit bottom yet?

    by eddienic on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:37:25 AM PDT

  •  Crazy Angry Liberals! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl, epppie, Da Rock

    Fellow Freepers

    We have to remind those democrats (rats get it - ha I should send that to Dennis Miller) that only a tiny fringe group (a measly 70%+)  don't support our glorious leader on Iraq.

    They still don't get it - if we don't them fight them over there and um 9/11 and something about traitors, Jane Fonda, Nazi Communists  and look over there - a gay!

    Wait am I on the right site?

    •  I'm with you Chad (0+ / 0-)

      how could so many people be so WRONG??

      bush is the best president we've had since ... ummmm Ray Gun ... now there was a MAN .. even had a pet monkey ... its name was Gonzo I think ... I saw a home movie about it once ... Bedtime for Gonzo was the title.

      John Edwards - the repugs worst nightmare!!

      by Da Rock on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:18:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes (4+ / 0-)

    Al-Qaeda, a Sunni Muslim terrorist organization, is leading the Shiite militias in Iraq just to piss off George W. Bush.  Even though Osama bin Laden and most of his leadership subscribe to a belief that all non-Sunni Muslims are heretics and should be sent to hell.

    Yep George, you've always got the nail right on the head.

    We will appoint as...officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well. -- Magna Carta, #46 (-6.25, -7.18)

    by DH from MD on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:44:52 AM PDT

  •  If those projectiles really are coming from (0+ / 0-)

    Iran, why doesn't the US take it's case to the UN?

  •  Stuart Bowen being Investigated (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl, FMArouet

    This may be the wrong place to post this, but I haven't seen it discussed anywhere else.  If this is redundant, please forgive me.

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    The gist of the story is that Stuart R. Bowen, Jr. (a Bush crony from Texas, BTW) who has been surprisingly rigorous about investigating (what we know of) Iraqi corruption, is now himself being 'investigated' for so-called problems within his office.  The charges sound like disgruntled workers' complaints, but...who knows?

    What we DO know is that many of the complaints seem to have originated (or were stirred up by)House Government Oversight Committee Ranking Member Rep. Tom M. Davis III of Virginia where, coincidentally, Bowen was considering a congressional run.

    Further, the work of Bowen (again, he's an oversight guy and his finding last week that $5 billion PER YEAR was being pissed away in Iraq)(and that's just what he's telling us) must be embarrassing to His Decidership.  The 'investigation' of Bowen will be conducted by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (LMFAO) headed up by Supreme Bush Ally Clay Johnson - a guy who's known The Decider since their Andover days.

    More sleaze and corruption.  

    Get this straight:  even old friends who dare to question the Commander Guy will have to go.

  •  Grammar suggestion: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heart of the Rockies

    whom are we fighting?

  •  We're fighting evil, of course (0+ / 0-)

    Next question?

  •  Barb, Barb, Barb..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FMArouet

    ....you have obviously failed to grasp the simplest of simple truths in BushLand.

    In the world of Bush and the 28% who still believe in him: brown skinned Arabs are all the same.  Shia, Sunni, Baathist....the O'Reilly viewers don't know what the difference is and they really don't care.  To them, the Arabs are all heathen sandni@@ers and they're all part of Al Queda.

    To a Fox viewer, the Iranians are some of the most dangerous Arabs of all.

    It's all really very, very simple.

    -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

    by xynz on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:57:40 AM PDT

    •  You forgot to mention the Sikhs. (0+ / 0-)

      A few days after the eleventh of September 2001 I was worrying about why I hadn't cried yet.  The horror called for it, but I hadn't cried.  

      Then I heard that some gun-owning patriot had shot and killed a gas station manager in Arizona.  The guy was not-quite-white and wore a turban.  A Sikh.  A Sikh was killed in retribution for 9-11.  I bawled for half an hour.

      The Republicans are defunding, not defending, America.

      by DSPS owl on Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:40:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What I don't understand is... (3+ / 0-)

    Gen. Petraeus, Bush, television and many Democrats keep saying "al-Qaeda" is enemy number one, but military officers have said the exact oppoosite.

    In 2006, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, said

    attacks by terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq account for only a fraction of the insurgent violence.

    Gen. John Abizaid, speaking last year as the top general at CENTCOM, said:

    al Qaeda in particular, in Iraq, is not popular. I don‘t believe that it can become mainstream there.

    In a Nov. 28, 2006, broadcast by NBC News, the U.S. military confirmed al-Qaeda represents only 2% of insurgents in Iraq.

    America's top intelligence official said it's "unlikely" (his word) that al-Qaeda would follow U.S. troops back to America once withdrawal from Iraq happens.

    I wish Dems would cite these quotes more often, but I think many people -- even some Kossacks -- have bought into the lie that "al-Qaeda" is a substantial force in Iraq.

    "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." - Abe Lincoln

    by munky on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:03:55 AM PDT

  •  that's why war is NOT AUTHORIZED under law. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heart of the Rockies, munky

    We arne't in Iraq fighting alqaeda, we are propping up a government and occupying an entire country.

    That's why the current military operations aren't authorized by the 2001 AUMF, as I said all day yesterday.

  •  civil war civil war civil war (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heart of the Rockies, DSPS owl

    I guess the WH can never exhaust its credibility when it comes to making basic factual statements on what is happening in Iraq.  Bush can ignore the massive sectarian conflict he unleashed, thanks to our bootlicking media.  All credible testimony about what is happening in Iraq, from what Sec. Gates and the generals and the CIA have said, to the Iraq Study Group, to the current on the ground reporting, contradicts his ridiculous hyping of the Al Qaeda problem in Iraq.

    And the weirdest thing is that everyone knows, and no one (not even the fly-paper theorists) denies, that the Al Qaeda fighters who are in Iraq are there for just one obvious reason: THAT WE ARE THERE.  They are not trying to take over the gov't, or do anything even remotely resembling what Paul Berman and other fantasists have imagined to be an "Islamic fascist" agenda.  They are there to blow up U.S. soldiers, and to make their pacifying mission impossible by inflaming and exacerbating the pre-existing sectarian conflict.  If we weren't there, they wouldn't be either.  It's that simple.

  •  More of the same disquised as good news (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    munky, DSPS owl

    Al-Qaida ousted from one Iraqi district

    Across the walls of the villas they seized in the name of their shadow government, black-masked al-Qaida militants spray-painted the words: "Property of the Islamic State of
    Iraq."

    They manned checkpoints and buried an elaborate network of bombs in the streets. They issued austere edicts ordering women not to work. They filmed themselves attacking Americans and slaughtered those who did not believe in their cause.

    For months, al-Qaida turned a part of one Baqouba neighborhood into an insurgent fiefdom that American and Iraqi forces were too undermanned to tackle — a startling example of the terror group's ability to thrive openly in some places outside Baghdad even as U.S.-led forces struggle to regain control in the capital.

    U.S. forces took back the entire Tahrir neighborhood during a weeklong operation that wrapped up Sunday in Baqouba, a city 35 miles northeast of Baghdad that al-Qaida declared last year the capital of its self-styled Islamic caliphate.

    Wow! We took back the whole neighborhood. Now that is something to be proud of.

    Of course, the next couple paragraphs tend to undue all that...

    Though the operation was a success — it forced the guerrillas to either flee or melt into the population — soldiers say the extremists are likely to pop up anywhere else that's short on American firepower.

    Indeed, even as the Tahrir operation took place, insurgents stepped up attacks on a new police post in the adjacent Old Baqouba district — which was also cleared recently — pounding it daily and killing Baqouba's police chief in a suicide car bombing.

    Insurgent teams, meanwhile, have tried to infiltrate back into Tahrir, U.S. Capt. Huber Parsons said Tuesday.

    Troops spend a week clearing this area and just two days later, insurgents are already trying to come back in.

    This is perpetual whack-a-mole but furthermore, if you read the entire article, you're likely to completely miss this part because immediately afterwards, is paragraph after paragraph about what it was like before the troops came, when Al-Qaida was there forcing women to wear black and tea shops to close, etc.

    But all that's different now! The troops are here and they cleared the entire city! Break out the flowers and candy!

    The way the article is written makes it sound like progress is on the march when in fact, while progress may currently be king of the hill, the hill was just overtaken and is already back under attack.

    Phillybits - "...quoting a senior defense department official speaking on condition of anonymity..."

    by Stand Strong on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:13:41 AM PDT

  •  5 wars in Iraq - another viewpoint (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl, FMArouet

    The Baghdad Gulag
    By Pepe Escobar

    DAMASCUS - There are three overlapping wars in Iraq: the Sunni Arab guerrilla struggle against the US; strands of Sunni Arab guerrillas against assorted Shi'ite militias/death squads; and al-Qaeda in Iraq against the puppet, US-backed Iraqi government in the Green Zone. Make it four wars: the Sunni Arab guerrilla war against the government inside the Green Zone. Better yet, make it five wars: the Sadrists, from Sadr City to Kufa and Najaf, against the Americans.

    All strands of these five overlapping wars will never allow the United States - or Anglo-American Big Oil - to control Iraq's oil wealth. Even if the new oil law is ratified by Parliament before June, implementation will be a certified nightmare, and security for billions of dollars of necessary investment non-existent.

    Strands of these five overlapping wars also will never accept the long-term imposition of vast US military bases under a Status of Forces Agreement negotiated with dodgy politicians who spend more time in London than in Baghdad.

    Setting a precise date for a total US withdrawal - the crystal-clear demand insistently formulated by Muqtada al-Sadr - would be the only way for the Bush administration to salvage a modicum of not totally humiliating defeat. Instead, the world had better be ready for the imminent arrival of the Baghdad gulag.

    Excellent article. The full story is available here. This will help understand what lies ahead for the people of Baghdad if Bushco gets their way.

  •  Our troops are fighting to support... (0+ / 0-)

    ...a government that wants to go easy on the people who are killing them.

    But, you know, opposing the war is bad for morale.

    Shorter GOP economic theory: Deregulate. Promote corruption. Concentrate wealth. Slash the safety net. This will promote economic growth and prosperity for all.

    by expatjourno on Fri May 04, 2007 at 06:12:10 AM PDT

  •  Poetic Wax (0+ / 0-)

    [Bush] waxed poetic about progress the Iraqi government is making, declining sectarian violence, early signs of his "surge" succeeding, and that there is no civil war, just Al-Qaida mounting "spectacular attacks" to sap the will of the American people.

    We once had a pres named Bush
    Who about Al Qaeda would gush
    They’re all over Iraq
    This is not crock
    And nothing I say can be mush.

    Duncan Kinder http://www.billingsgatereport.net/

    by Duncan Kinder on Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:10:21 AM PDT

  •  Bush is a liar, liar, liar. He will say anything (0+ / 0-)

    to keep the troops there until he has left the country.

    We will never eliminate poverty in America unless we do it comprehensively and nationally....no more incrementalism. - John Edwards

    by Gorette on Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:24:00 AM PDT

  •  I don't get it either (0+ / 0-)

    Why are we dedicating all these assets for a group with less members than the Mexican Mafia?
    Why are we still calling the occupation in Iraq a 'war'?
    And, countries in Europe are not worried enough to commit troops to fight Al-Qaida in Iraq.
    We overreacted after 9-11 and everyone knows it but us.

  •  I agree with Bush. (0+ / 0-)

    (Heh. That title was fun to type while throwing up in my mouth a little.)

    Bush says:

    ...and I think he [President Maliki] is trying to do what is best for his country.

    I agree.  I believe that President Maliki is trying to what he thinks is best for his country.  I believe that Muqtada al Sadr is trying to what he thinks is best for his country.  I believe that Raed Jarrar and his family are trying to what they think is best for their country.  Ditto for many other actors, those whose names we know and those who are unknown to us.

    The Republicans are defunding, not defending, America.

    by DSPS owl on Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:55:08 AM PDT

  •  only hope--diplomacy (0+ / 0-)

    Since there is no way to solve the mess in Iraq militarily and a political solution the only way to go, diplomacy is the only hope left. Rice at least made an effort at the side of the international Iraq conference in Egypt but, unfortunately, Cheney is going to the Middle East next week and likely nixes whatever Rice tried to initiate.
    See also,
    http://www.reflectivepundit.com/...

  •  IED supplies from Iraq? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing

    and everyone in the Bush administration gets all indignant that this is happening.

    What if China invaded the US and our good friends in Canada and Mexico stealthily provided military supplies to resist the invasion.

    Sounds loyal and supportive, no?

    Guess it all depends whose ox is being gored.

    We can only negotiate our way out of this mess so let's get started.

  •  Pretzel-Boy doesn't know the difference.. (0+ / 0-)

    between "al Qaida" and al Sadr.

    Why am I not surprised?

    Republicans: Proudly placing yellow smiley-face stickers on the face of doom since 1969 -8.88 -5.08

    by SecondComing on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:49:54 AM PDT

  •  We're fighting everyone but our allies (0+ / 0-)

    the Turks and the Kurds.  Here's to our United Front!

    This is like the Fish Cheer revisited:

    And it's one, two, three, who are we fighting for?
    Don't ask me I don't give a damn; next stop is Iii-ran!

    My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

    by Major Danby on Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:23:18 AM PDT

  •  We could kill... (0+ / 0-)

    ....every single member of al-Quaeda in Iraq and it wouldn't make a damn difference to the casualties that US forces suffer, nor to the ongoing civil war in Iraq.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site