home

We Have Nothing to Fear But the President Himself

by TChris

In translation, "we're fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here" means "we're creating terrorists over there, then supplying them with easy targets." Does this make the country more safe? Not according to the consensus of opinion reported in the National Intelligence Estimate.

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Thanks, Mr. President, for taking a serious problem and making it worse. Much worse.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document. ...

Titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,'' it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

The president wants you to be afraid, because it serves the political ends of Republicans to stoke fear. The reality is, you should be afraid -- of the president, and of those who advise his disastrous choices.

< David Broder, Independently Stupid | Politically Motivated Enforcement at the IRS? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: We Have Nothing to Fear But the President Hims (none / 0) (#2)
    by Andreas on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 09:53:41 AM EST
    The criminal "American invasion and occupation of Iraq" was and is supported by the Democratic Party.

    Re: We Have Nothing to Fear But the President Hims (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 10:06:34 AM EST
    "It does not matter whether a war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist." Orwell 1984

    All that is needed is that a state of war should exist
    "Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly Of Intervention ---edger

    The grand debate of this age is whether this admin is more evil or incompetent.

    Bush's Dangerous Ignorance
    a meeting that took place on January 31, 2003. The article includes this jaw-dropper:

    There was also a discussion of what might happen in Iraq after Saddam had been overthrown. President Bush said that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". [Emphasis added]
    There's ignorant, and there's so ignorant you don't know you're ignorant. Or maybe he just doesn't care: he's President, so he thinks he can just follow his gut:
    "I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do." Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: "This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them....
    ---edger

    Legal question: any chance the members of the House could be held responsible at law for collaborating with war criminals by writing legislation that attempts to legalise the misdeeds retro-actively?

    actually, we do have other things to fear-those guys clinton was focused like a laser on, remember? what's their name, Al something?

    Re: We Have Nothing to Fear But the President Hims (none / 0) (#9)
    by john horse on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 04:59:23 PM EST
    I think the headlines say it all. "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight" Washington Post "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat" New York Times Bush and his GOP supporters must be defeated this November because as the NIE report demonstrates Bush's policies in Iraq provide harbor and support to the terrorists. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

    Lionel: Legal question: any chance the members of the House could be held responsible at law for collaborating with war criminals by writing legislation that attempts to legalise the misdeeds retro-actively? On August 29, 2006 Paul Craig Roberts, former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration published an article titled "Bush Seeks Retroactive Laws To Protect Himself From War Crimes Prosecution" stating:
    Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, recently said that President Bush should be tried as a war criminal... Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush is definitely a war criminal. The US Supreme Court also exposed Bush to war crime charges under both the US War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Geneva Conventions when the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld against the Bush administration's military tribunals and inhumane treatment of detainees. President Bush and his Attorney General agree that under existing laws and treaties Bush is a war criminal together with many members of his government. To make his war crimes legal after the fact, Bush has instructed the Justice (sic) Department to draft changes to the War Crimes Act and to US treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions. ... Under the US Constitution and US legal tradition, retroactive law is impermissible. What do Americans think of their President's attempts to immunize himself, his government, CIA operatives, military personnel and civilian contractors from war crimes? Apparently, the self-righteous morally superior American "Christian" public could care less. The Republican controlled House and Senate, which long ago traded integrity for power, are working to pass Bush's changes prior to the mid-term elections in the event the Republicans fail to steal three elections in a row and Democrats win control of the House or Senate.
    I am not a lawyer, but it seems that:
    Any simple retroactive change to the War Crimes Act would be constitutionally null and void. No real or de jure' protection for GWBush would exist. A clear opportunity to re-establish constitutional authority is now present. The Administration activities in drawing up "immunizing" legislation with certain Congressmen are prima facie evidence of a criminal conspiracy with the intent to violate civil rights, obstruct justice, commit offense against the US and commit insurrection against the US. Conspiracy of War Criminals {GWBush And Congress}
    Perhaps some of the lawyers here can comment on this? ---edger

    Edger: You'd think that with all the cribbing that Rove has been doing from Goebbels' playbook, he'd be smart enough to realize how THAT book ultimately ended. The problems with trying ANY American with war crimes is the fact that the U.S. is a superpower. America is not a dying ember of its former self, like Nazi Germany was. America is king. And, as king, the law is whatever the hell America says it is at any point in time. Le loi c'est moi. However, what needs to be done is to denazify the Republican Party. And good luck with that.

    Re: We Have Nothing to Fear But the President Hims (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 09:17:25 PM EST
    Lav, in other words, yep, they're war criminals, but they have all the guns?

    Re: We Have Nothing to Fear But the President Hims (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 04:51:43 AM EST
    Hmmmm... Bush war criminal....Rove war criminal.... terrorist really good people.....Bush war criminal.... America Germany....Rove Nazi... Yawn.

    the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
    Bush Explains Why We Need More Terrorists ---edger

    worse than what-the wonderful relations we had on 9/11 with jihadists? the glory years of the Cole bombing? when did this garden of eden of relations with islamic fundamentalism exist?

    Re: We Have Nothing to Fear But the President Hims (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:57:26 AM EST
    terrorist really good people.
    no one here has ever said that. this commenter just can't himself from lying..

    who are these anonymous wonders who leaked this information? did the NYT reporter actually see a report or just what they told him about a report? did they have political axes to grind(play squash with Joe Wilson)? do they contribute to democrats or republicans? all things that would have been answered in a news piece which, of course, the NYT's article is not. you would think any good leftist would be happy to have such questions answered.

    Jimaka: So ... fascism makes you yawn? Very interesting. Edger: He with the most weapons and power makes the rules (unilaterally), applies the rules (arbitrarily), disregards the rules (capriciously), changes the rules (opportunistically), ... ad nauseum. Who'd'a thunk that the bully in Kindergarten was on to something? Like world-wide domination. But, like bullies everywhere ultimately learn, and usually the hard way, multilateralism among the bullied changes things radically.

    I am getting a little tired of hearing statements about fighting "them" over there so we do not have to fight them here. First of all I would like to hear a definition of who "they" are. In World War II we foght against Germany and Japan. In Korea we fought against the North Koreans and Chinese. I want someone to define just who we are fighting now. Is it the Hezbollah? the Shiite Moslems? The Sunni Moslems? the Taliban? the Shiites who are being trained in the Iraqi militias? Is it the Sunni Moslems that we are now training in Iraq? Is it Middle Eastern Moslems in general? Is it Moslems living in America? Is it Moslems born in America? Is it the Moslems in Iran? Is it the Moslems in Saudi Arabia who are supposed to be our allies? Is it the Moslems in Pakistan who are supposed to be our allies? Is it a world wide war on all Moslems? It seems to me if we are going to fight a war we should at least be able to identify the enemy. I do not think terrorists will do. The so-called terrorists come in all kinds of places, flavors, styles and varieties of Islam. I'm not sure all of the terrorists are Moslems. Then I hear people say that we should fight them over there rather than here. Just how do these idiots think the the terrorists are going to get over here? We still have the best Navy and the best Air Force in the world. I think it unlikely, almost impossible, that we will fight them on the streets of Peoria, St. Louis or Salem, Oregon. Such statements just do not make sense. I wish some of the blowhards would be a little more specific. Ralph Ekwall ralphomaha@yahoo.com