Political Punch

Even mostIraquis think Bush's blunder is making them less safe.

"A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

"In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post."

You can put lipstick on a pig and guess what it's still a pig. That's what this Iraq war is a pig, and Bush/Rice/Rummy/Chenney/Rove etc., can claim whatever they like but the death toll doesnt' lie. Neither did the previous administration when stating they gave these people a heads up, just like they found in december of 99 that Bin Laden was responsible for the U.S.S. Cole attack and gave the final CIA report to Bush and Rice, just a couple weeks prior to taking office. What did they do? They burried it along with everything else that was passed on. Because Bush is the decider and he decided that he had his own little agenda and couldn't be bothered with facts. So, him and Cheney carried out their plan to attack IRAQ, little did Bin Laden know that by attacking us on 9-11 they gave these guys the perfect ammo to carry out their invasion plan. Send a few troops to Afghanistan and pretend to be looking for Bin Laden, except they didn't plan on him actually being trapped in Tora Bora, did they attempt to take him out, NO! They were both hell bent on invading Iraq. Maybe if people read more especially the fact that while V.P. at Halliburton Dick Cheney attempted to do business with Iraq, even though they were under U.N. sanctions. When Saddam wouldn't play their game he got pissed and Bush being mad about the threat made on his Daddy said Yea, let's invade those guys, we can control the oil in the middle east and bring them democracy. Only a moran who has never read any history of the Middle East would pull a stunt like this. What do we have to show for it? 2700+ lives lost and counting, more then 20,000.00 maimed and seriously injured Americans, thousands of Iraqi's dead, thousand more injured, a country blown to hell, no water, little electricty, no jobs, no infastructure, all the while those good little Repubs who voted for Bush got primo jobs and raped the cofers of millions of dollars. We need to dump this disaster and get some oversight back into our government. Until we do, well expect more and more of the same. Every vote this November for an incumbent tells these people it's o.k. keep spending, killing, torturing, trampling the constitution. If your a sadist then I guess you like these guys. I prefer Brains myself, hot air never did much for me. Thanks

You know, I can't help but wonder why you, Jake, and other members of the "Gang of 500" as Mr. Halperin and his cadre enjoy referring to political journalists, don't actually go to the source of many of the questions and answers: former Counter-Terrorism Czar and now your (ABC) VERY OWN Terrorism Consultant, Richard Clarke? Read his book (I have). It will scare you and make you angry - at least if you have a modicum of common sense. Why doesn't Charles Gibson, or Good Morning America, or The Note or ABCNews.com bring him in - he does work for you after all - and interview him about this topic? Could it possibly be because you don't really want him to say on national TV or in front of a national audience what you know he will say? That Clinton is right, that the Bush administration pooh-poohed the previous administration's assertions about terrorism, that they did demote him and the importance of his office, and that they did not pay attention until it was too late? Nah, that couldn't be it.

BTW - nice job on GMA this morning, Diane, of trying to pawn off "The Path to 9/11" on the Entertainment division - like the two divisions aren't part of same company - in trying to explain why "The Clintons" declined your offer to appear to discuss this topic. But our old favorite partisan Newt was sure ready to step in for you. Too bad you couldn't find a single Democrat to come in ... I'm sure you tried really hard to find one.

I sure hope we are going to hear more in the near future about the speech then NSA director Rice was set to deliver on 9/11 regarding the security threats faced by the United States that never even mentioned terrorism. Maybe the speech "didn't reflect the full document" either....

Face it, Jr., your lies are coming back to haunt you. Come clean on why we are in Iraq for once and for all, please.

PS: you clinton bashers, keep it coming. There's nothing funnier than a Republican trying to argue with Clinton. It's sort of like Dan Quayle trying to explain foreign policy: hopeless.

Of course there was a plan, in terms of a strategy for how to dedicate resources to preventing terrorist attacks, and even for targeting Bin Laden - there was no plan for "war", because the Clinton administration rightly understood that this was a campaign against criminals, and not a war against some mythical "Islamofascist" beast that would require a 60% increase in military spending.

It's about time Democrats understand the value of a coordinated attack. They've been doing the circular firing squad thing for too long, while Karl Rove and Richard Vigurie coordinate an amazing range of political, media, and church-based resources to deliver a single message.

How much more money, and how many more dead and maimed Americans are we willing to sacrifice for George Bush's colossal blunder?

Oh wait, there's an election coming, Bush better invade Iran quick to distract us from the disaster in Iraq!

Well if the coordinated duck speaks the truth, perhaps we should heed the duck. Huh?

Anyway, the Bush administration ignored Sandy Berger's warnings, too arrogant to open their minds to allow for the possibility that he was onto something - that terrorism should be at the top of the priority list.

Arrogance, and social conservativism. The Bush administration was more concerned with Afghanistan's opium trade than it was with terrorist activity. see link

***

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/col/scheer/2002/05/21/executiveprivilege/index.html

Four days before the ominous CIA briefing on Aug. 6 that warned President Bush of the possibility of al-Qaida hijackings, Christina B. Rocca, assistant secretary of state for South Asia, was sipping tea in Islamabad with the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef. She offered a mixed message that aptly characterized the administration's confused priorities.

Treating the Taliban and al-Qaida as if they were distinct entities, Rocca -- in what now seems unbelievable naiveté --asked the Taliban to extradite bin Laden. Afterward, Zaeef said, "We gave Rocca our complete assurance that our soil will not be used against America and that Afghan soil will not be used for any terrorist activity." He called the meeting "very successful," adding, "The atmosphere was very cordial."

He had reason to be pleased. As Associated Press reported at the time: "In recognition of the Taliban's elimination of opium [in Afghanistan], the raw material used to make heroin, the Bush administration is giving $1.5 million to the United Nations Drug Control Program to finance crop substitution, Rocca said."

Poppies, not terrorists, were eliminated in Afghanistan. Five weeks later, terrorists smashed three planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

***

Bottom line: the pre-9/11 administration was engaging in diplomacy with the Taliban. The TALIBAN. Over opium trade! Terrorism was lower on the priority list than drug enforcement. This alarming fact has been underreported. For the record, the facts set forth above were first documented in Newsweek, but I can't access those archives.

In some ways the administration's response to Sandy Berger's warnings was respesentative of the administration's tenure as a whole: rigid application and enforcement of social conservatism and arrogance.

And Rice's recent response to the criticism gave me deja vous. Same type of revisionist history couched in bureaucratic-speak that she offered to the 9/11 Commission.

Problem is that people who want to believe in the Bushies will do so in spite of the facts. Oh Richard Clarke's observations should be dismissed in their entirety because he had a book deal. Facts shmacts, right?

Publish FACTS from the 9-ii commission record/book and the kooks come out of the woodwork. Instead of being indirect, Albright should have stated clearly what she and others in the outgoing administration told the Bushies and what reports they left for them. The Clinton bashers, even over five years after Clinton left office, will inevitably babble and babble on. That's to be expected. Some of them even believe Elvis isn't dead (he really is).

Loser listen up that was a thirteen page document that Clark had drafted in and Clinton Never implemented it never Clinton was and is a lier he coukd have killed bin Ladin but could not get his mommys permission or Hillarys who ever he wants to blame is is is is is

Clark has gone on record that there was no plan. Byron York has an article in which he quotes Clark admitting there was no plan:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjZmOTBmNjA0ZGFmMGY4ZjM5ZGY1M2IzMWQ4MTBmMTY=

Amazing how this has now become a point of discussion/distraction given the status of the war in Iraq and the pending elections.

Also, can someone tell me why people apply the "we're already there now" sentiment to the war in Iraq as support for not pulling the troops out, and then not apply it to the overall war on terror. My understanding is that pov was focused on finding a solution to today's problems...