Iraq Escalation

[Jason Tate]

This week, the House of Representatives is debating a resolution opposing President Bush’s Iraq escalation. The resolution is just 58 words (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0011) long, and has only one purpose (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0011): “Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”

But a leaked letter obtained today by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-MD) office reveals that conservatives have formulated a strategy to avoid talking about the central question of the debate.
In the letter, leading conservative Reps. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) inform their allies: “The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily.” Shadegg and Hoekstra warn, if conservatives are forced to debate “the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.”
Read it (http://majorityleader.house.gov/docUploads/ShadeggHoekstraDearColleague.pdf):
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/letter.GIF

Instead, they write, “the debate must be about the global threat of the radical Islamic movement.” The problem is they lose that debate too (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/02/terrorism_index.html/).

[Ambulance Y]

Smart idea. The Republican party knows what they're doing.

[Sleepaway]

Republicans ftw.

[Jason Tate]

Republicans ftw.
Didn't read the whole thing?

[Sleepaway]

I read your entire post but I don't want to look into your links, because I think that sending more troops in is the correct thing to do.

[Jason Tate]

I read your entire post but I don't want to look into your links, because I think that sending more troops in is the correct thing to do.
Easy to say when it's not your country sending most of them in. I'd love to fight battles with your army.

Here's the link you should read (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/02/terrorism_index.html/), has only to do with the war on Terror.

[VeloriumCamper]

sending more troops, especially 20,000 I think is bad move.

America will look back on this in 10-20 years and think WTF were we doing?

[Love As Arson]

sending more troops, especially 20,000 I think is bad move.

America will look back on this in 10-20 years and think WTF were we doing?
The majority of Americans already regret going into Iraq.

[Sleepaway]

Easy to say when it's not your country sending most of them in. I'd love to fight battles with your army.

Here's the link you should read (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/02/terrorism_index.html/), has only to do with the war on Terror.


I would be happy if Britain decided to send more troops into Iraq.

[Jason Tate]

I would be happy if Britain decided to send more troops into Iraq.
+44 (0) 20 7219 3000

Call 'um up then.

[Sleepaway]

I don't really understand why you posted that.

But anyway, can we move back to the original topic?

[Jason Tate]

I don't really understand why you posted that.

But anyway, can we move back to the original topic?
It's the duty of the people to tell those in charge what they want, is it not?

[Burnout2888]

If this doesn't have "mistake" written all over the Republican's name, I don't know what does.

[Sleepaway]

It is not necesserily what I WANT. I just wouldn't mind if that was the case. If I did want that anyway, me calling up obviously would have absolutely zero significance.

[x togepi x]

I read your entire post but I don't want to look into your links, because I think that sending more troops in is the correct thing to do.


if you were 18, would you enlist?

[richter915]

if you were 18, would you enlist?
i always ask that question to those people who vote Red and are part of our campus Republicans. If you support the party so much, why are you not fighting. I always get the lame bs excuse "i'm doing my part at home by supporting the troops...you're such a terrorist lover"

[aminorthreat55]

Yeah, imagine that, debating what actually fucking matters.

[Sleepaway]

if you were 18, would you enlist?


I can enlist now, at 16. One of my friends was turned down actually because he is too short.

But I am seriously considering it. Well I'm considering the TA(Territorial Army) especially, which is like a weekend thing. I really don't know. I have ambitions to go into music management, but if that doesn't work and i'm stuck in some dead end job then i'm definately going to enlist.

[justinevans]

i always ask that question to those people who vote Red and are part of our campus Republicans. If you support the party so much, why are you not fighting. I always get the lame bs excuse "i'm doing my part at home by supporting the troops...you're such a terrorist lover"

I normally vote Red, but it doesn't mean I agree with the war considering Democrats elected voted for it too...

People supported Hilary and Kerry...they voted yes. Kerry urged Clinton to ponder it during his term.

I don't care if things change since then, they voted yes initially like the Republicans and now we are stuck there.

[Jason Tate]

Okay, this is pretty great. You couldn't ask for a more perfect illustration of the emptiness of the GOP charge that the media's reporting on Iraq is "liberal" than this.
Yesterday over at Election Central we reported (http://majorityleader.house.gov/docUploads/ShadeggHoekstraDearColleague.pdf) that GOP Reps. John Shadegg and Pete Hoekstra had sent out a letter containing a set of talking points for GOP Congressmen to use in the debate in the House this week over escalation. As we noted yesterday, the letter was pretty interesting, particularly in that it urged members not to talk about escalation and instead to change the subject to the wider war with Islamic radicalism.
But there's another part of the letter that I'd missed yesterday -- and it may be even more revealing in a perverse sort of way. Look at what these two leading Republicans told their GOP troops about the media (http://majorityleader.house.gov/docUploads/ShadeggHoekstraDearColleague.pdf):
Thanks to the liberal mainstream media, Americans fully understand the consequences of continuing our efforts in Iraq -- both in American lives and dollars. The American people do not understand the consequences of abandoning that effort or the extreme views, goals, and intentions of the radical Islamist movement that is fueling the war in Iraq and the attacks on westerners and unbelievers throughout the world. I think that's as clearly revealing as one could want. The problem with the liberal media, according to these two top Republicans, is that it's enabling Americans to "understand the consequences of continuing our efforts in Iraq" -- in other words, to understand the consequences of the President's war. But the media's bias is preventing it from reporting the "consequences" of not doing what the President wants.
This is really, really interesting when you unpack it. The media is being faulted for emphasizing the factual -- that is, for reporting on the factually observable things associated with the war that are happening right now, i.e., mounting deaths and skyrocketing costs.
Meanwhile, the thing that these two Republicans are criticizing the media for not doing is reporting on the "consequences" of pulling out -- that is, what might happen if we pulled out of Iraq. But those consequences, of course, are the ones that are being envisioned by the war supporters. The idea here seems to be that the media should be doing more speculating -- or more accurately, doing more speculating along the lines of what's imagined by war supporters. In other words, it's "liberal" to report facts about the war without speculating about the future in the way conservative war supporters want the media to.
Bottom line: The media is being faulted here merely for telling the American people what the consequences of the President's war policies have been. This has long been the subtext of the GOP's attacks on the "liberal" media, but the absurdity of it has never been revealed quite so clearly -- and it's striking to hear it come out of the mouths of Republicans in such key positions.



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/house_gopers_to.php

[Jason Tate]

Two weeks before last November’s election, when he was on the verge of losing his House seat to anti-war challenger Diane Farrell (D), Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) suddenly announced that he supported setting a timeline (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/25/shays-withdrawal/) for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Shays won the race by 3 points (http://election.nationaljournal.com/2006/house/ct.htm).
Flash-forward three months. Yesterday, Shays declared on the House floor that he would not vote for the resolution opposing escalation in Iraq (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0011). “It is counterproductive for 535 members of the House of Representatives and Senate to micromanage the war.” He added that the resolution opposing escalation “sends the wrong message to the President, to our troops and to our enemies. … The only way we should leave Iraq is the same way we went in, together.”

[Jason Tate]

Number of Iraqis who may flee their homes this year because of “unrelenting violence and insecurity (http://www.examiner.com/a-569000%7E1M_Iraqis_May_Flee_Violenc e__Report_Says.html?cid=rss-Top_News)” in Iraq, according to the International Organization for Migration. Approximately 1.7 million Iraqis have been displaced from their homes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601478.html) since the start of the Iraq war in “one of the fastest-growing refugee crises in the world.”

[Jason Tate]

Number of Americans who would vote to cut off funding for President Bush’s escalation plan (http://tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/feb/15/fox_news_poll_americans_would_vote_ to_de_fund_escalation) if they were in Congress, according to a Fox News poll: 54%

[Jason Tate]

“Frustrated by the inability of Democrats in Congress to pass a resolution opposing President Bush’s policies in Iraq, state legislators across the country…are pushing forward with their own resolutions,” the New York Times reports. “Resolutions have passed in chambers of three legislatures, in California, Iowa and Vermont. The Maryland General Assembly sent a letter to its Congressional delegation, signed by a majority of the State Senate and close to a majority of the House, urging opposition to the increase in troops in Iraq. Letters or resolutions are being drafted in at least 19 other states (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/us/16pressure.html?_r=1&oref=slogin).” Much more at the Progressive States Network (http://progressivestates.org/).

[Jason Tate]

The House of Representatives renounced President George W. Bush's latest strategy to resolve the four-year war in Iraq. (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E8JvByvQDgMWFFuMBHIWpdc Ysq2aMi3nUaz90qlNAFDRDr4/0-0-0&fp=45d6b9110bdc210d&ei=7RzWRdfOO4WuoQKT_J3_BA&url=http%3A//www.bloomberg.com/apps/news%3Fpid%3D20601087%26sid%3DaueP4 N0qy2rw%26refer%3Dhome&cid=1113213622&sig2=wOLfs1SX7EI7hnoDi7O8uQ)

[senatorlamb]

eRBUW3W_7Pg

This is amazing! Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio annhilates the opposition with his defense of the Iraq Resolution condemning the troop surge. A MUST SEE!

[Jason Tate]

eRBUW3W_7Pg

This is amazing! Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio annhilates the opposition with his defense of the Iraq Resolution condemning the troop surge. A MUST SEE!
:jawdrop:

"I do not yield."

I wish the audio was synced correctly.

[thejetstolehome]

Two weeks before last November’s election, when he was on the verge of losing his House seat to anti-war challenger Diane Farrell (D), Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) suddenly announced that he supported setting a timeline (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/25/shays-withdrawal/) for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Shays won the race by 3 points (http://election.nationaljournal.com/2006/house/ct.htm).
Flash-forward three months. Yesterday, Shays declared on the House floor that he would not vote for the resolution opposing escalation in Iraq (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0011). “It is counterproductive for 535 members of the House of Representatives and Senate to micromanage the war.” He added that the resolution opposing escalation “sends the wrong message to the President, to our troops and to our enemies. … The only way we should leave Iraq is the same way we went in, together.”

fuck you, Shays. thanks for making me look like a douche in breaking party lines to vote for you.

[Jason Tate]

AP reports: “The Senate gridlocked on the Iraq war (http://www.examiner.com/a-571071%7ESenate_Gridlocks_on_Iraq_W ar_Resolution.html) in a sharply worded showdown on Saturday as Republicans foiled a Democratic attempt to rebuke President Bush over his deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops. The vote was 56-34.” That was four short of the 60 needed to advance the measure, which is identical to a nonbinding resolution (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0011) that passed the House on Friday.

[IAPAI]

AP reports: “The Senate gridlocked on the Iraq war (http://www.examiner.com/a-571071%7ESenate_Gridlocks_on_Iraq_W ar_Resolution.html) in a sharply worded showdown on Saturday as Republicans foiled a Democratic attempt to rebuke President Bush over his deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops. The vote was 56-34.” That was four short of the 60 needed to advance the measure, which is identical to a nonbinding resolution (http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0011) that passed the House on Friday.

brutal

[senatorlamb]

fuck you, Shays. thanks for making me look like a douche in breaking party lines to vote for you.

I think a lot of moderate Connecticuters are going to be regretting their votes for Lieberman/Shays.

[thejetstolehome]

I think a lot of moderate Connecticuters are going to be regretting their votes for Lieberman/Shays.

i didn't vote Lieberman. he's from the town right next to me, though.

[Jason Tate]

The White House and its conservative allies have been arguing that the congressional debate over a non-binding resolution on Iraq is sending the wrong message to Iraqis about our commitment. “What signal does it send to the Iraqis (http://www.coxwashington.com/news/content/reporters/stories/2007/01/20/BC_IRAQ_RESOLUTION18_COX.html) in terms of steadfastness?” asked Press Secretary Tony Snow this week.
But in her recent trip to Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice used the debate as part of a diplomatic strategy to urge Iraqi political leaders to accelerate their efforts to produce results on the economic and security conditions in Iraq. The NY Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/world/middleeast/18iraq.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast&oref=slogin):
Ms. Rice said she used the restiveness in Washington to underline for Iraqi officials the spread of American frustration with Iraq’s lagging political and economic progress.
She said she had ”made clear that some of the debate in Washington is, in fact, indicative of the concerns that the American people have about the prospects for success” if Iraq’s leaders did not quickly take actions to ensure longer-term stability.
Iraqi leaders took note. Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister, said Rice “emphasized a great deal the issue of urgency (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/18/MNGPCO6THA1.DTL&type=politics).” Rice stressed to Iraqi leaders that “patience is not unlimited in the United States and that there’s a great deal of frustration,” Zebari added.
Noting the irony, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) said, “It’s interesting that finally [the administration] understands the power of what we are doing in the Congress.

[Jason Tate]

BBC reports (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6380933.stm): “Tony Blair is expected to announce a timetable for the withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq. The prime minister is due to make an announcement in the House of Commons on Wednesday in which he is expected clarify the details. Mr Blair is expected to say hundreds of troops will return from Basra within weeks with more to follow later. Some 7,000 UK troops are currently serving in Iraq and about 1,500 are expected to return within weeks.”

[Nortimus]

Some quick thoughts:

Blair's head is damn near the chopping block. If he wants any political future, he needs to pull out and he knows it.

Iraq is a disaster. It's been a disaster since the first lies told to bring us in. Hell, most of the Iraqis don't even trust us over there as it is.

It is going to take brave people, and not two-faced politicians, to stand up, deny more troops sent, and fight for them to come home.

Tim Ryan is fucking awesome.

[Jason Tate]

Conservatives are out there in full force trumpeting a poll that appeared (http://www.nypost.com/seven/02212007/news/nationalnews/america_says_lets_win_war_nationaln ews_andy_soltis.htm) on the front page of today's New York Post allegedly showing that there's much more support for the Iraq war than anybody thought.
The poll -- which was done by the big GOP firm Public Opinion Strategies and ran under the glaring headline "America Says Lets Win War" -- iss being promoted heavily by wingnut talk show hosts, bloggers and others. They are aggressively using it to pump up GOP morale and to undermine Dems' resolve in advance of a showdown between Congress and the White House. Rush Limbaugh said (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022007/content/01125102.guest.html) that it's going to "shock the Democrats," while PowerlineBlog's Paul Mirengoff sagely observed (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9993.html#more-9993) that it shows that "the Democrats' defeatist approach to Iraq may not be a winning political strategy." Some liberal bloggers have already started to debunk the poll -- don't miss Steve Benen's skillful skewering of the survey right here (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9993.html#more-9993).
But guess what: I've just gotten off the phone with a Republican pollster who says he originally supported the war -- let me repeat that, a Republican pollster who says he supported the war. His take? He basically says the poll's a crock. The pollster, David Johnson, the CEO of the respected Strategic Vision (http://www.strategicvision.biz/index.html) firm, tells me that many of the questions were leading and designed to elicit the answers they got. "This poll is not the quality we've come to expect from national polling firms," Johnson tells me.
First, let's look at what the poll "found." (http://www.nypost.com/seven/02212007/news/nationalnews/america_says_lets_win_war_nationaln ews_andy_soltis.htm)
In a dramatic finding, a new poll shows a solid majority of Americans still wants to win the war in Iraq -- and keep U.S. troops there until the Baghdad government can take over. Strong majorities also say victory is vital to the War on Terror and that Americans should support President Bush even if they have concerns about the way the war is being handled, according to the survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies.
The poll found that 57 percent of Americans supported "finishing the job in Iraq" - keeping U.S. troops there until the Iraqis can provide security on their own. Forty-one percent disagreed.
By 53 percent to 43 percent they also believe victory in Iraq over the insurgents is still possible....
Only 25 percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement, "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home." Seventy-four percent disagreed.
Now let's look at the actual questions. They're here (http://www.moriahgroup.com/downloads/IRAQNATIONALPOLLDATA.pdf).
The first finding -- that 57 % support "finishing the job" -- is based on asking respondents whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” What does Johnson, the pollster I spoke to, think about this question?
"It's designed to elicit a positive response by putting respondents in the position of saying that they don't support `finishing a job," Johnson says. "It's not a straightforward wording at all. It's also put in the first person to personalize it. In polling when you use the first person you generally get a more positive response."
The second finding -- that Americans think victory is "possible" by 53%-43% -- is based on asking whether respondents agree or disagree with this: "Victory in Iraq, that is creating a young but stable democracy in Iraq and reducing the threat of terrorism at home, is no longer possible for the U.S." Pretty tricky, eh? Note that this question is framed as a negative -- forcing people to disagree with a negative. And it asks whether people think it's "no longer possible" to reduce the threat of terrorism at home -- something that's clearly worded that way because fewer would agree with it.
"This wording is completely unprofessional," Johnson says. "It's designed to confuse the respondent. People are being asked whether two different things can be accomplished -- establishing democracy in Iraq and reducing the threat of terrorism at home -- and doesn't clarify which one people are talking about."
Finally, let's look at the finding that only 25% agree with the statement, "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home."
"That's a leading question," Johnson says. "It's forcing people who want the troops brought home to say they disagree, because it's forcing them to say they don't care what happens if they're pulled out. "Most Americans don't want the troops there but they're also concerned about what will happen if they're pulled out." Asked if he was merely badmouthing a competitor, Johnson said that they were "not often" in competition because his firm does state polls while Public Opinion Strategies focuses on national ones.
So there you have it. I could go on, but for now, that will suffice. Of course, all this is not terribly surprising, given who's out there pushing it.


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/gop_pollster_sa.php

[Jason Tate]

Last week, Iraq war veteran and VoteVets founder Jon Soltz appealed for members of Congress to “put country above party (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/16/votevets-iraq/)” and vote against escalation in Iraq.
Majorities in both the House and Senate answered Soltz’s call. But at least 25 members of Congress caved to partisan pressure and voted in favor of escalation, despite having publicly criticized President Bush’s strategy in the weeks prior to the vote. Here are four examples:
Rep. Virginia Brown-Waite (R-FL): “It’s too little, too late, and should have been done a year ago. … I just get a feeling our country is being used. (http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/13/Worldandnation/New_plan_for_Iraq_pos.shtml)”
Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM): “I am not a supporter of a surge (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0108/p03s03-usfp.html) to do for the Iraqis what the Iraqis will not do for themselves.”
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ): “I have little confidence that a surge in troop levels will change the situation in Iraq in any substantive fashion. It seems clear that the violence in Iraq is increasingly sectarian, and inserting more troops in this atmosphere is unlikely to improve the situation (http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/02/12/daily55.html).
Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH): “I am skeptical that a surge of troops will bring an end to the escalation of violence and the insurgency in Iraq… I’m absolutely against the surge. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0117/p02s01-uspo.html)“
When it came time to vote, these four members — and 21 of their colleagues — couldn’t muster the courage to buck their own party and vote against escalation. These members appear to understand the danger of sending tens of thousands of U.S. troops into Iraq’s bloody civil war. They just don’t care enough to do something about it.
The full list of the “Party-Over-Country” 25:
HOUSE
Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
Virginia Brown-Waite (R-FL)
Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
Charles W. Dent (R-PA)
Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)
Mike Ferguson (R-NJ)
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
David Hobson (R-OH)
Kenny Hulshof (R-MO)
John McHugh (R-NY)
Candice Miller (R-MI)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Deborah Pryce (R-OH)
Mike Rogers (R-MI)
Edward Royce (R-CA)
Mark Souder (R-IN)
Tom Tancredo (R-CO)
Mac Thornberry (R-TX)
Greg Walden (R-OR)
Heather Wilson (R-NM)
SENATE
George Voinovich (R-OH)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)

[Jason Tate]

Lithuania is “seriously considering” withdrawing its 53 troops from Iraq (http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/there_goes_anot.html), a Defense Ministry spokeswoman said Wednesday. “It was the first time that Lithuania, a staunch U.S. ally, indicated it would reduce its commitment in Iraq.”

[Jason Tate]

Vice President Cheney says the UK’s withdrawal plans are “a sign of progress in Iraq. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2891738)” Juan Cole responds (http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/blair-to-draw-down-british-troops-tony.html):
This is a rout, there should be no mistake. The fractious Shiite militias and tribes of Iraq’s South have made it impossible for the British to stay. They already left Sadr-controlled Maysan province, as well as sleepy Muthanna. They moved the British consulate to the airport because they couldn’t protect it in Basra. They are taking mortar and rocket fire at their bases every night. Raiding militia HQs has not resulted in any permanent change in the situation. …
Blair is not leaving Basra because the British mission has been accomplished. He is leaving because he has concluded that it cannot be, and that if he tries any further it will completely sink the Labor Party, perhaps for decades to come.

[Jason Tate]

When Britain and Denmark withdraw their troops from the U.S.-led coalition, just 22 nations (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6430901,00.html) will continue to have a presence in Iraq. Forty-nine nations (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html) originally made up the coalition.

[mercutio7]

When Britain and Denmark withdraw their troops from the U.S.-led coalition, just 22 nations (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6430901,00.html) will continue to have a presence in Iraq. Forty-nine nations (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html) originally made up the coalition.
Snap Tate, you're on top of this shit tonight! Mad props.

[senatorlamb]

Lithuania is “seriously considering” withdrawing its 53 troops from Iraq (http://www.first-draft.com/2007/02/there_goes_anot.html), a Defense Ministry spokeswoman said Wednesday. “It was the first time that Lithuania, a staunch U.S. ally, indicated it would reduce its commitment in Iraq.”

not to disrespect Lithuania's contribution, but I laughed at this.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

not to disrespect Lithuania's contribution, but I laughed at this.


i was just gonna say the same thing

[Nortimus]

22 nations, 49, whatever. The reality is 95% of the troops are American. Yeah, technically there are a bunch of countries 'helping', but some send a few dozen soliders, at most, and others send military that don't even necessarily classify as soldiers in the first place.

[Jason Tate]

In a February 21 article, headlined "America Says Let's Win War (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nypost.com/seven/02212007/news/nationalnews/america_says_lets_win_war_nationaln ews_andy_soltis.htm)," the New York Post touted the results of a Public Opinion Strategies poll (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/library/POS_Lundy_Iraq_Survey_20070220.pdf) on the Iraq war -- which has been reportedly dismissed by a Republican pollster as "designed to register certain responses" and conflicts with recent nonpartisan national polling -- to declare that "n a dramatic finding, a new poll shows a solid majority of Americans still wants to win the war in Iraq -- and keep U.S. troops there until the Baghdad government can take over." The [I]Post reported that the "poll found that 57 percent of Americans supported 'finishing the job in Iraq' -- keeping U.S. troops there until the Iraqis can provide security on their own." The question to which the Post referred asked respondents to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: "I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people." The Post also similarly highlighted responses to several of the poll's other loaded questions.
Similarly, during the noon ET hour of Fox News Live, anchor Gregg Jarrett pointed to the poll during a discussion with Fox News military analyst retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (http://www.google.com/items/200604240005#20070221) to suggest that the poll shows "that Americans have perhaps a deeper understanding of what is happening in Iraq than, you know, maybe some members of Congress and even some journalists give them credit for." McInerney agreed and stated "they asked the right questions in that poll. ... Americans want to win."
According to blogger Greg Sargent, Republican pollster David E. Johnson, CEO of the Strategic Vision (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.strategicvision.biz/index.html) polling firm, criticized (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/gop_pollster_sa.php) the poll as, in Sargent's words, "leading and designed to elicit the answers they got." Johnson also stated (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/gop_pollster_sa.php), according to Sargent, that "this poll is not the quality we've come to expect from national polling firms." Specifically, Johnson pointed to the question asking if respondents agreed with the statement "I support finishing the job in Iraq" as problematic. Johnson said the question was "designed to elicit a positive response by putting respondents in the position of saying that they don't support 'finishing a job.' ... It's not a straightforward wording at all. It's also put in the first person to personalize it. In polling when you use the first person you generally get a more positive response." Johnson also asserted that the "wording" of the poll's statement "Victory in Iraq, that is creating a young but stable democracy in Iraq and reducing the threat of terrorism at home, is no longer possible for the US" was "completely unprofessional" because"[i]t's designed to confuse the respondent. People are being asked whether two different things can be accomplished -- establishing democracy in Iraq and reducing the threat of terrorism at home -- and doesn't clarify which one people are talking about."
The Public Opinion Strategies poll (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm), conducted February 5-7, asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of politically charged statements. The weblog The Carpetbagger Report described (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9993.html) these as, "basically the White House's carefully-worded talking points" that are "designed to register certain responses." For instance:

Even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war. (56 percent agreed, 43 percent disagreed)
The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq. (53 percent agreed, 46 percent disagreed)
I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people. (57 percent agreed, 41 percent disagreed)
The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism. (57 percent agreed, 41 percent disagreed)
A stable Iraq is the best way to protect America from the nuclear threat of Iran. (47 percent agreed, 49 percent disagreed)
Victory in Iraq, that is creating a young but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home, is no longer possible for the US. (43 percent agreed, 53 percent disagreed)
Losing the war in Iraq would mean that the United States is no longer a superpower, but just another power. (31 percent agreed, 66 percent disagreed)
I don't really care about what happens in Iraq after the US leaves, I just want the troops brought home. (25 percent agreed, 74 percent disagreed) The poll also asked respondents, "Which one of the following statements regarding the US involvement in Iraq do you MOST agree with": a) "The US should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq." b) "Whether Iraq is stable or not, the US should set and hold to set a strict timetable for withdrawing troops." c) "While I don't agree that the US should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country" or d) "The Iraq War is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country." The Post characterized these statements as giving respondents "a choice of four policies" and concluded that "an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops was the least popular" policy option.
But recent nonpartisan polls yielded results that conflict with the Public Opinion Strategies results. For instance, a CBS News poll (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/iraq_feb_poll.pdf) conducted February 8-11 asked respondents: "Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?" Twenty-six percent of respondents said the U.S. should "increase" troops; 17 percent said the U.S. should "keep the same number" of troops; 23 percent responded that the U.S. should "decrease the number" of troops in Iraq and 28 percent said they favored "remov[ing] all" U.S. troops from the country. The CBS poll also asked respondents if they "agree[d] or disagree[d] with the following statement: Even when they have some objections or reservations, Congress should cooperate and support President George W. Bush's legislative proposals in order to give them a chance"; 54 percent of the respondents disagreed, while 39 percent agreed.
Additionally, a Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=304), conducted February 7-11, asked respondents to indicate whether "the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized" or "bring its troops home as soon as possible." The majority, 53 percent, responded that the "U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible." The Pew poll also asked: "Do you think the war in Iraq has helped the war on terrorism, or has it hurt the war on terrorism"; 47 percent indicated that they believed the Iraq war has "hurt the war on terrorism." Further, the Pew poll found that 55 percent were more "concern[ed]" that "the U.S. will wait too long to withdraw its troops from Iraq," rather than "leave Iraq before a stable democracy is in place." According to the Pew poll, 47 percent of respondents said that the United States will "probably" or "definitely fail in establishing a stable democratic government in Iraq," versus 44 percent who said they thought the United States would "definitely" or "probably succeed."
Further, neither the Post nor Jarrett noted that Public Opinion Strategies (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.pos.org/) is a Republican polling firm. Indeed, following the November 2006 midterm elections, the firm issued a press release (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.pos.org/inthenews/20061108.cfm) that described itself as a "Republican polling firm" and carried the headline, "Public Opinion Strategies Mourns Republican Losses, Congratulates Many Individual Winners in Tough Races."
According to a February 19 article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://timesfreepress.com/absolutenm/templates/politicalnews.aspx?articleid=10984&zoneid=67) in the Chattanooga Times Free Press, "Davis Lundy, owner of the Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm The Moriah Group (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.moriahgroup.com/), commissioned the Public Opinion Strategies survey" because Lundy did not believe the Democrats won control of Congress due to a "mandate on Iraq." Instead, the Times Free Press reported, Lundy believed there "was a clash between the extremes in both parties over Iraq that dominated the news but didn't represent the true will of the American people." Lundy founded the Moriah Group, according to the firm's website (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.moriahgroup.com/www/docs/101), when he "took on the successful political campaign for U.S. Congressman Zach Wamp [R-TN]."
From the 12 p.m. ET hour of the February 21 edition of Fox News Live:
JARRETT: You know, General, there's a new poll just out by Public Opinion Strategies. A solid majority of Americans, 57 percent, support finishing the job in Iraq. And a similar majority believe victory is still possible in Iraq. And here's the most surprising part, General, only 17 percent want an immediate withdrawal of troops. Does that poll suggest to you that Americans have perhaps a deeper understanding of what's happening in Iraq than, you know, maybe some members of Congress and even some journalists give them credit for?
McINERNEY: I think it does, Gregg. And, as a matter of fact, they asked the right questions in that poll. A lot of the time they don't ask the right questions. They asked the right questions. Americans want to win. That was the deciding factor in the election in November. The president has put in a new strategy. And, by the way, I talked to Major General Bill Caldwell in Baghdad this morning and -- along with some other news analysts. The fact is, there are a lot of very positive signs pointing out that the battle for Baghdad that we've now started on, led by the prime minister, [Nuri Kamal al-]Maliki, is bringing some very favorable results. It's not there yet. I don't want to give you a happy face, but the point is it's a very encouraging sign. [British] Prime Minister [Tony] Blair said 80 to 90 percent of the activity in Iraq is within a 30-mile radius of Baghdad. That's the center of gravity.

[Jason Tate]

“Determined to challenge President Bush, Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002 (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4574585.html),” the AP reports. A draft of the bill “would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces. … The plan is to attempt to add the measure to anti-terrorism legislation that scheduled to be on the Senate floor next week and the week following.”

[Jason Tate]

The Wall Street Journal reports (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012598.php) this morning that Ahmed Chalabi, the darling of neoconservatives in the lead-up to the Iraq war, has been given a prominent position to oversee the implementation of the escalation strategy on the Iraqi end (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117220398932317016.html): In his latest remarkable political reincarnation, onetime U.S. favorite Ahmed Chalabi has secured a position inside the Iraqi government that could help determine whether the Bush administration’s new push to secure Baghdad succeeds. …
Chalabi will serve as an intermediary between Baghdad residents and the Iraqi and U.S. security forces mounting an aggressive counterinsurgency campaign across the city. The position is meant to help Iraqis arrange reimbursement for damage to their cars and homes caused by the security sweeps in the hope of maintaining public support for the strategy.
Chalabi, who once famously said of his Iraq involvement, “we are heroes in error (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/19/wirq19.xml),” has had a sordid history with the United States. A review of Chalabi’s nefarious activities:
PENTAGON FUNDED CHALABI TO PROVIDE RATIONALE FOR WAR: The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency paid the INC $335,000 a month in the lead-up to the Iraq war to gather intelligence. In all, the Bush White House has given the INC at least $39 million over the past 5 years. [IPS, 5/23/04 (http://ipsnews.org/interna.asp?idnews=23840); New Yorker, 6/7/04 (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040607fa_fact1?040607fa_fact1)]
CHALABI’S IRAQI NATIONAL CONGRESS WAS MAJOR SOURCE OF DATA FOR PENTAGON OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS: According to a report in the New Yorker, analysts based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans “relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi.” [New Yorker, 5/12/03 (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030512fa_fact?030512fa_fact)]
CHALABI WAS SOURCE FOR FALSE JUDY MILLER STORIES: Chalabi was the source for discredited news stories about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction which were penned by New York Times reporter Judith Miller. In 2001, Miller wrote a front-page story about claims that Saddam had twenty secret WMD sites hidden in Iraq. The information turned out to be bogus. [New York Times, 2/26/04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?ex=1172379600&en=188fb6ff95dba614&ei=5070); The New Yorker, 6/7/04 (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040607fa_fact1?040607fa_fact1)]
CHALABI ACCUSED OF PASSING U.S. SECRETS TO IRAN: In June 2004, Chalabi came under investigation for allegations that he passed secret intelligence to Iran. Chalabi was accused of telling the Iranian government that the U.S. had broken the code it used for secret communications. [Washington Post, 6/3/04 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11043-2004Jun2.html); WSJ, 11/7/05 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113132700203089698.html?mod=polit ics_primary_hs)]
More here (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/08/chalabis-sordid-history/).
Commenting on Chalabi’s political resurgence, a senior American official told the WSJ: “The question is whether he is really doing this to help, or whether he’s trying to build himself a new political base in Baghdad or carry water for the Shiites. And we simply don’t know the answer to that yet.”

[Jason Tate]

In an effort to push back against congressional efforts to rescind the original 2002 Iraq War resolution, White House press spokesman Tony Fratto on Friday argued the United Nations had authorized the initial U.S. invasion of Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/23/congress.iraq/index.html): “The president said this isn’t the fight we entered in Iraq, but it’s the fight we’re in,” Fratto told reporters Friday. “We went in as a multinational force under U.N. authorization to take military action in Iraq. We were there as an occupying force, and now we’re there at the invitation of the sovereign, elected government of Iraq.”
Actually, the White House did not invade Iraq “under U.N. authorization.” President Bush had promised to take the issue to the U.N. Security Council “no matter what (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html) the whip count,” but never did (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/18/ln/ln11a.html). U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan described the invasion of Iraq as “not in conformity with the UN charter…from the charter point of view, it was illegal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm).”

[lftcoastenvy05]

what people dont understand is that this isnt a political war. this is a war amongst religions that the US is taking part in. we need more troops to finish this conflict. instead, everyone wants to pull out early and just leave the middle east alone. great idea, except for the fact that there's millions of radical islamists who rally together, burn US flags and chant stuff like "death to america." sorry, but it doesnt matter if you're against this war, that's a threat to you and the country you live in.

[thejetstolehome]

what people dont understand is that this isnt a political war. this is a war amongst religions that the US is taking part in. we need more troops to finish this conflict. instead, everyone wants to pull out early and just leave the middle east alone. great idea, except for the fact that there's millions of radical islamists who rally together, burn US flags and chant stuff like "death to america." sorry, but it doesnt matter if you're against this war, that's a threat to you and the country you live in.

where was the threat from Iraq before the war started? please, tell me where it was.

[lftcoastenvy05]

where was the threat from Iraq before the war started? please, tell me where it was.

the threat's been there the entire time, it's not as if the radical islamists only decided to hate america just because of the war.

[thejetstolehome]

the threat's been there the entire time, it's not as if the radical islamists only decided to hate america just because of the war.

and their aggression was acted out in 9/11 which Iraq had nothing to do with. we should never have gone.

[lftcoastenvy05]

and their aggression was acted out in 9/11 which Iraq had nothing to do with. we should never have gone.

and in all the other attacks (dont forget the first twin towers attempt) which thes radical terrorist groups have devised in the past.

seeing as how a majority of the radical islamists live in Iraq and other countries in the middle east, it would kinda make sense to send the troops there. where else would you have sent the troops?

[thejetstolehome]

seeing as how a majority of the radical islamists live in Iraq and other countries in the middle east, it would kinda make sense to send the troops there. where else would you have sent the troops?

maybe somewhere to find Bin Laden? maybe make sure that Afghanistan was secure before starting another war that was unecessary in the first place? or maybe actually have a plan for getting them out of a bad situation?

[lftcoastenvy05]

maybe somewhere to find Bin Laden? maybe make sure that Afghanistan was secure before starting another war that was unecessary in the first place? or maybe actually have a plan for getting them out of a bad situation?

i think the war, or some kind of action, was necessary. we have a race of people who think Americans should die and will try to attack and kill us at any chance they get. these people martyr suicide bombers if they go out and kill americans, jews, etc. if we dont act upon their actions, then theyll continue thinking its okay to kill us. it sounds to me like you want us to sit on our asses and let them attack us, basically let them make us their bitches and attack us whenever they please... am i understanding your view?

[Love As Arson]

what people dont understand is that this isnt a political war.
You are correct, it is not a political, rather, it is an imperialistic war waged for profit and to maintain the hegemony of one nation.

this is a war amongst religions that the US is taking part in.
It would be more correct to say that the religious conflicts are the result of the occupation and the use of sectarian death squads by the US military to carry out their whims.

we need more troops to finish this conflict.
The surge has been tried around three times and each time it has merely exacerbated the violence. Similarly, the conflict in Iraq has created more terrorism throughout the world, so any thought that the sentimets toward America will evaporate is quite simply a fantasy.

instead, everyone wants to pull out early and just leave the middle east alone.
The most important individuals want the US out: The Iraqis. It is their country and it is presumptuous to decide that America knows what is best for them. Moreover, the modern history of the Middle East has been one in which western powers have invaded, created governments to reflect it desires and drawn up illusory lines to divide the countries. As such, one must question whether or not radicalism is born from these incursions, and perhaps a new approach, one of dialogue and economic help for all, would be a more proper manner to deal with the problem.

great idea, except for the fact that there's millions of radical islamists who rally together, burn US flags and chant stuff like "death to america."
So, the millions of racist Americans who desire to bomb Middle Easterners make the US a legitimate target? As I said above, one must look at the source of such feelings and address them thoroughly in order to truly change the way in which the US is perceived. Let us abandon the double standards and embrace a foreign policy which seems more reasonable: Treat others as you'd like to be treated.
sorry, but it doesnt matter if you're against this war, that's a threat to you and the country you live in.
The policies of the current administration have shown to be much more of a threat than an Iraqi.

[thejetstolehome]

i think the war, or some kind of action, was necessary. we have a race of people who think Americans should die and will try to attack and kill us at any chance they get. these people martyr suicide bombers if they go out and kill americans, jews, etc. if we dont act upon their actions, then theyll continue thinking its okay to kill us. it sounds to me like you want us to sit on our asses and let them attack us, basically let them make us their bitches and attack us whenever they please... am i understanding your view?

right 'cause i totally said there should've been no military action after 9/11, right? yes there should have been some response in my opinon, but Iraq was not the right place for said response to take place.

and way to lump an entire race into a category based on the actions of some. that's a great attitude.

[atticus1492]

i think the war, or some kind of action, was necessary. we have a race of people who think Americans should die and will try to attack and kill us at any chance they get. these people martyr suicide bombers if they go out and kill americans, jews, etc. if we dont act upon their actions, then theyll continue thinking its okay to kill us. it sounds to me like you want us to sit on our asses and let them attack us, basically let them make us their bitches and attack us whenever they please... am i understanding your view?

Do you really think this? Are you serious?

[nevets]

i think the war, or some kind of action, was necessary. we have a race of people who think Americans should die and will try to attack and kill us at any chance they get. these people martyr suicide bombers if they go out and kill americans, jews, etc. if we dont act upon their actions, then theyll continue thinking its okay to kill us. it sounds to me like you want us to sit on our asses and let them attack us, basically let them make us their bitches and attack us whenever they please... am i understanding your view?

I like that you totally ignored what the guy said and then told him what he really said...anyways half of what you are saying is laughable and the other half is just ignorance.

[lftcoastenvy05]

You are correct, it is not a political, rather, it is an imperialistic war waged for profit and to maintain the hegemony of one nation.
yeah ok you must be right, the biggest reason that we're in this war is Bush's desire to make money off of it.

So, the millions of racist Americans who desire to bomb Middle Easterners make the US a legitimate target? As I said above, one must look at the source of such feelings and address them thoroughly in order to truly change the way in which the US is perceived. Let us abandon the double standards and embrace a foreign policy which seems more reasonable: Treat others as you'd like to be treated.
first, is it racist to feel the need for some sort of retaliation for every terror attack these people have performed? the radical islam's hatred towards Americans doesnt stem just from us invading. it stems from the way we run our lives, ie the rights we give women, the religions we follow, etc. the radical islam doesnt accept anyones beliefs except their own (yeah and we must be the selfish ones? right...)
i agree with you on the treat others as you'd like to be treated... thats the whole reason were in this war. these people need to be less ignorant and more considerate of other religions and beliefs other than their own. if they didnt perform suicide bombings in israel and other terrorist attacks around the world, there would be no reason to bother them.

[lftcoastenvy05]

right 'cause i totally said there should've been no military action after 9/11, right? yes there should have been some response in my opinon, but Iraq was not the right place for said response to take place.
sorry the terrorists and radicals reside in Iraq and surrounding countries...any suggestions where else we might have tried to accomplish putting and end to this?

I like that you totally ignored what the guy said and then told him what he really said...anyways half of what you are saying is laughable and the other half is just ignorance.
yeah my views must be ignorant...i completely don't take into consideration the views of millions of people around the world that have to worry about whether the next guy hopping on the bus has a bomb strapped to his chest or whether the plane that you're flying in is going to be driven straight into a building, etc. just so he can be martyrd for killing people who don't think like him.

[thejetstolehome]

yeah ok you must be right, the biggest reason that we're in this war is Bush's desire to make money off of it.


first, is it racist to feel the need for some sort of retaliation for every terror attack these people have performed? the radical islam's hatred towards Americans doesnt stem just from us invading. it stems from the way we run our lives, ie the rights we give women, the religions we follow, etc. the radical islam doesnt accept anyones beliefs except their own (yeah and we must be the selfish ones? right...)
i agree with you on the treat others as you'd like to be treated... thats the whole reason were in this war. these people need to be less ignorant and more considerate of other religions and beliefs other than their own. if they didnt perform suicide bombings in israel and other terrorist attacks around the world, there would be no reason to bother them.

this is one of the most ignorant things i have ever read in my life. wow.

[thejetstolehome]

sorry the terrorists and radicals reside in Iraq and surrounding countries...any suggestions where else we might have tried to accomplish putting and end to this?




maybe "finish the job" in Afghanistan? maybe fight Al Queda where there's acutally a link to it? also maybe realize that a war on terrorism is something you can never win because you can't win a war on an idea.

[Love As Arson]

yeah ok you must be right, the biggest reason that we're in this war is Bush's desire to make money off of it.
Rather, the desire to control the second largest oil resevers in the region. Also, one should consider the billions of dollars in contracts awarded to corporations, many of which have yielded any substantative changes to Iraq's infrastructure, but has provided a boon to the profits of those corporations.


first, is it racist to feel the need for some sort of retaliation for every terror attack these people have performed?
I was referring to the racists who state that the entire Middle East should be nuked. By your logic, this makes any attack on our nation legitimate. It is interesting, however, that you speak of the desire for retaliation when it is arguable that the terrorist attacks on this nation and in Iraq, while horrid, are done so because of US intervention and support of those who have denied them rights.


the radical islam's hatred towards Americans doesnt stem just from us invading.
It is the result of colonialism, which entailed the stratification of society's, brutality, lack of democracy and immense poverty. Bin Laden states openly that the primary reason for the employment of terror is US foreign policy:

Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.

(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!


it stems from the way we run our lives, ie the rights we give women, the religions we follow, etc. the radical islam doesnt accept anyones beliefs except their own (yeah and we must be the selfish ones? right...)
The US is quite conservative when compared to other western nations. If they trutly hate freedom, then Sweden would be a far more logical example, for they have legalised intoxicants, prostitution, homosexual unions, etc.


i agree with you on the treat others as you'd like to be treated... thats the whole reason were in this war.
No, if there were an adherence to this rule, the events of 9-11 would likely not have happened, as the US would not be acting abroad, supressing the rights of people in various countries.


these people need to be less ignorant and more considerate of other religions and beliefs other than their own.
Again, this analysis is superficial, as it presupposes that their hatred is derived from religion, when in reality it is a product of the socioeconomic conditions wrought by colonialism.


if they didnt perform suicide bombings in israel and other terrorist attacks around the world, there would be no reason to bother them.
If Israel and the US desire to be free from terrorism, then they need to cease engaging in terror. The suicide bombings and other acts are a response to aggression.