Well, there certainly seems to be a lot of Bush supporters here. The only ones who are against him seem to be from foreign countries with a few exceptions. Since I'm of voting age and live in America I think I through in my reasons for who I'm voting except I'll be backing my position up with
facts instead of rhetoric. Let's see if other people can do the same.
To start off, let me say that I'm voting
against Bush.
There are a variety of reasons for this but I think I start off with this little article from the Iconoclast, Bush's hometown paper.
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
Quote: "Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:
• Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
• Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.
• Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
• Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
• Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
• Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
• Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay."
Oh, and by the way, 4 years ago the Iconoclast supported George Bush. So you can't say that this is some sort of liberal left-wing spew.
Quote: "
The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.
Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs."
But I won't stop there.
My biggest reason for voting against him is what I consider his weakest position: The War on Terrorism.
When it comes to combating Terrorism George Bush is second to none in how
absolutly misguided his policies are.
I'll start with a little quote from the man himself:
When asked this question:
Quote: "
Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
"
He responded:
Quote: "
I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him.
"
And later repeated:
Quote: "
Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
That pretty much sums up his view on terrorism. Oh, and to all those people that say Kerry is a flip-flopper I respond with this:
From the headline:
Quote: "
President Bush Monday repeated his vow to track down Osama bin Laden,
"
Quote: "
"I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"
"
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_MAIN010917.html
First Osama is important and must be brought to justice. Then he isn't. Flip-Flop? I think so.
But before I digress too much onto Bush's flip-flops I bring the subject back to the War on Terror.
George Bush's biggest mistake in the war on terror is invading Iraq and leaving Afghanistan in the hands of warlords.
His reasons for invading have varied from WMD, War on Terror, to finally "The Iraqi People". It is my intention to demonstrate that all of these reasons are wrong.
I'll start with WMD.
Many in this thread have suggested that Bush was merely deceived by his advisors and bad intelligence and that these people are all gone now. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bush is still surrounded by Neo-con advisors who have had plans to attack Iraq since 1998. Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfield, and Deputy Secretary of Defense are all neo-conservatives.
A little bit about Wolfowitz:
Quote: "
A military analyst under Ronald Reagan, Wolfowitz was later a leading participant in the Project for the New American Century. That think tank formed in 1997 during the Clinton presidency, and expressed a new foreign policy with regard to Iraq and other "potential aggressor states", dismissing "containment" in favor of "preemption"; strike first to eliminate threats.
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz
A bit about Project for the New American Century:
Quote: "
The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC is a Washington, DC-based think tank of the United States. The group was established in spring 1997 as a non-profit organization with the goal of promoting "American global leadership." The chairman is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard. Present and former members include several prominent members of the Republican Party and Bush Administration, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Richard Armitage, Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, William J. Bennett, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Ellen Bork, the wife of Robert Bork. A large number of its ideas and its members are associated with the neoconservative movement. PNAC has seven full-time staff members, in addition to its board of directors.
"
I don't know about you, but that is one hell of a lot of top members of the Bush Administration that belong to the Neo-Conservative movement. And these guys have been after Iraq from the very beginning. Might it be possible that they manufactured evidence for the invasion of Iraq to suit their agenda? It's not only possible, but probable. It happened.
The Office of Special Plans was created by Donald Rumsfield, the neo conservative I mentioned earlier, to help make the case for the war with Iraq.
Here is what Airforce Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the Office of Special Plans had to say about it:
Quote: "
''What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline,'' Kwiatkowski wrote. ''If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of 'intelligence' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam (Hussein) occupation (in Iraq) has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defence'' (OSD).
Kwiatkowski went on to charge that the operations she witnessed during her tenure in Feith's office, and particularly those of an ad hoc group known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), constituted ''a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress''.
"
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19542
I suggest that people read the above article. It's very eye opening. I'd quote the bloody thing if I could. But take a look at this gem:
Quote: "
Kwiatkowski's comments echo the worst fears of some lawmakers, who have begun looking into the OSP's role in the administration's mistaken assumptions in Iraq. Some are even comparing it to the off-the-books operation run from the National Security Council (NSC) during Reagan administration that later resulted in the ''Iran-Contra'' scandal.
''That office was charged with collecting, vetting, disseminating intelligence completely outside the normal intelligence apparatus,'' Rep. David Obey, a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives, said last month.
''In fact, it appears that the information collected by this office was in some instances not even shared with the established intelligence agencies and in numerous instances was passed on to the National Security Council and the president without having been vetted with anyone other than (the secretary of defence)''.
"
The case for the war with Iraq was completely manufactured. If that doesn't convince you that the neo-cons are morally bankrupt idealouges that will do anything and use anyone to justify their agenda you need only look at the man whom the trusted to inform us of the situation in Iraq and possible take over: Ahmed Chalabi
Chalabi is the leader of the exiled "Iraqi National Congress" and has had ambitions to be president of Iraq for quite a while.
He has quite lobbying skills as he managed to get Congress to pass the Iraqi Liberation Act which authorized the funding of rebel forces in Iraq, mostly his.
Quote: "
Chalabi began studying the uses of power in American politics, and the subject developed into a lifelong interest. One episode in American history particularly fascinated him, he said. “I followed very closely how Roosevelt, who abhorred the Nazis, at a time when isolationist sentiment was paramount in the United States, managed adroitly to persuade the American people to go to war. I studied it with a great deal of respect; we learned a lot from it. The Lend-Lease program committed Roosevelt to enter on Britain’s side—so we had the Iraq Liberation Act, which committed the American people for the liberation against Saddam.” The act, which Congress passed in 1998, made “regime change” in Iraq an official priority of the U.S. government; Chalabi had lobbied tirelessly for the legislation.
"
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040607fa_fact1
Of course, political power wasn't all that he lusted after. It appears money topped his list as well.
Quote: "
A Jordanian court convicted Chalabi in absentia of embezzlement, fraud and breach of trust after a bank he ran collapsed with about $300 million in missing deposits. The court sentenced him to 22 years in prison.
"
http://www.ohio.com/mld/fortwayne/news/nation/8870347.htm?1c
Apparently, his conviction of bank fraud didn't deterr Congress from feeding him money. Their mistake.
Quote: "
But Chalabi's money-management skills didn't necessarily improve over time. According to a State Department report, nearly half of the $4.3 million in U.S. dollars doled out to the INC under the Iraq Liberation Act wasn't properly accounted for. Ultimately, State cut Chalabi off, and the INC's funding was turned over to the Pentagon, where Chalabi has more political allies. Chalabi also reportedly ran through $100 million in CIA money.
"
http://slate.msn.com/id/2081360
The neo-cons in the Pentagon just can't seem to get enough of him apparently. Even after the State Department stoped funding this guy because they couldn't figuare out where all of his money was going the Neo-cons kept him on the payroll. Maybe the thought that Chalabi was providing them usefull information?
But Chalabi has been feeding the CIA and State Department disinformation for years, and they know it.:
Quote: "
At the CIA and at the State Department, Ahmed Chalabi, the INC's leader, is viewed as the ineffectual head of a self-inflated and corrupt organization skilled at lobbying and public relations, but not much else. [See "Tinker, Banker, Neocon, Spy," tap, Nov. 18.] "The [INC's] intelligence isn't reliable at all," says Cannistraro. "Much of it is propaganda. Much of it is telling the Defense Department what they want to hear. And much of it is used to support Chalabi's own presidential ambitions. They make no distinction between intelligence and propaganda, using alleged informants and defectors who say what Chalabi wants them to say, [creating] cooked information that goes right into presidential and vice-presidential speeches."
"
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/22/dreyfuss-r.html
It appears that only the neo-cons believed Chalabi could be trusted. Their mistake.
Quote: "
Before the war, the CIA was largely skeptical of Chalabi and the INC, but information from his group (most famously from a defector codenamed "Curveball") made its way into intelligence dossiers used to help convince the public in America and Britain of the need to go to war. "Curveball" – the brother of a top lieutenant of Chalabi – fed hundreds of pages of bogus "firsthand" descriptions of mobile biological weapons factories on wheels and rails. Secretary of State Colin Powell later used this information in a UN presentation trying to garner support for the war, despite warnings from German intelligence that "Curveball" was fabricating claims. Since then, the CIA has admitted that the defector made up the story, and Colin Powell apologized for using the information in his speech.
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi
If this still doesn't convince you that Chalabi is bad news read this:
Quote: "
According to US officials, Mr Chalabi told Iran's chief spy in Baghdad in April that the US was reading the Iranian intelligence service's communications traffic.
US intelligence is said to have discovered the alleged betrayal when it read a cable which the station chief sent to his superiors in Iran detailing the conversation with Mr Chalabi.
"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/3770685.stm
Of course, Iran denies he was spying for them. But do you really think they are telling the truth?
I can't say that I'm surprised that he betrayed us. It was very clear from the beginning that this guy was a lying scumbag. Our State Department and CIA knew it. But the neo-cons refused to believe. Hell, they still don't get that Chalabi suckered them.
Our own Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz(remember him?) finds Chalabi's behavior "puzzling".
Quote: "
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted Tuesday that the Ahmed Chalabi's organization provided information that helped U.S. forces in Iraq, but conceded that some of the Iraqi politician's recent behavior was "puzzling."
"
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/8987061.htm?1c
Psst. Wolfy. This guy has been lying and manipulating people from the get-go. Do you really think that a wanted criminal whom our own State Department thought was "useless" could be trusted?
I swear Idealouges are the easiest people in the world to manipulate. All you have to do is tell them what they want to hear and they are puddy in your hands.
Having pretty much demolished the assertion that the WMD claim was legitimate and warrented given the intell back then, I think I'll move on to the second reason for this war. The War on Terror.
I would like to dispel one major myth right up front:
SADDAM WAS IN NO WAY CONNECTED TO 9/11!
From the 9/11 commission report
Quote: "
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
Osama Bin Laden
hated Saddam. He considered him a secular infidel. In fact, in 1990 he offered to lend his mujahideen warriors to Kuwait to help them repel Saddam.
From the 9/11 Commission report, page 75
Quote: "
In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Ladin, whose efforts in
Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the Saudi
monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait. He was
rebuffed, and the Saudis joined the U.S.-led coalition.
"
That's hardly the actions of a man in league with Saddam.
But apparently Bush seemed to harbor the delusion that he was:
Quote: "
Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding
"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
Later on Osama seemed to over-come his disgust for Saddam to offer a strategic alliance, but Saddam said no, mostly because Osama had been funding Anti-Saddam elements.
From the 9/11 commission report, page 79
Quote: "
Bin Laden was also willing to explore possiblities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda--save as his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Laden had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.
"
The 9/11 commission report can be found here:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
The page numbers I refer to are the PDF page numbers not the reports page numbers.
Also from the 9/11 commission report, page 79
Quote: "
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met
with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995.
Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as
assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded
to this request.
"
Also from the 9/11 commission report, page 84
Quote: "
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s
efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle
Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.
"
The most that could be said about the link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq is this:
From the 9/11 commission report, page 84
Quote: "
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.
In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.
In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian
deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of
the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier
contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing
or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
"
Iraq and Al-Qaeda had some meetings. That's it. They never worked together.
Our own government didn't believe they worked together either. Take a look at this:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm
Notice how Iraq is curiously missing from the Countries Where Al Qaeda Has Operated list?
Finally, we get to the last reason: The Iraqi People. Apparently, we shouldn't leave because the Iraqi people need us. True, it is quite likely that Iraqi will spin into turmoil much like it is now. But that doesn't mean the Iraqis even want us there:
Quote: "
14. Do you think now of Coalition forces mostly as occupiers or mostly as liberators?
Total Baghdad Shi’ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas
Occupiers 71% 82 80 80 1
Liberators 19% 4 7 10 97
Both 8% 13 11 7 2
"
Quote: "
B. US President George W. Bush
Total Baghdad Shi’ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas
Favorable 25 9 14 12 95
Unfavorable 55 61 63 66 1
Neither 17 25 17 17 3
No opinion 4 5 5 5 -
"
Quote: "
12. How hard are US forces trying to accomplish the following:
A. Restoring basic services like electricity and clean drinking water to Iraqis
Total Baghdad Shi’ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas
Trying a lot 11 8 14 10 11
Only a little 41% 34 40 32 54
Not trying at all 44% 55 44 52 30
B. Trying to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed or wounded during exchanges of gunfire
Total Baghdad Shi’ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas
Trying a lot 11% 4 3 2 66
Only a little 18% 12 20 16 25
Not trying at all 67% 81 73 78 7
C. Working to repair Iraqi schools and classrooms
Total Baghdad Shi’ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas
Trying a lot 17% 12 15 23 18
Only a little 50% 54 47 45 53
Not trying at all 26 26 33 23 22
D. Improving local health centers
Total Baghdad Shi’ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas
Trying a lot 13% 9 10 17 23
Only a little 40% 35 31 35 54
Not trying at all 40 47 52 40 17
"
Quote: "
8. Should US/British forces leave immediately (next few months) or stay longer?
Total Baghdad Shi’ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas
Immediately 57 75 61 65 3
Stay longer 36 21 30 27 96
"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm
With 57 percent saying we should leave immediatly and 71 percent that view us as occupiers we aren't doing to well. This poll was conducted last April.
A more recent poll in May show figuares that are even more distrubing:
http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/012902.html
Quote: "
Confidence in Coalition Forces grew by nearly 50% from April to May… but that was from a pitiful 7% to a woeful 10%
63% thought the Interim Government would make things better, 15% thought worse.
51% felt ‘very safe’ in their neighbourhoods, but only 1% attributed that to the Coalition’s activities, and 45% to neighbours-and-friends.
Concern about inter-sectarian violence has nearly halved, but concern about Improvised Explosive Devices has nearly doubled.
"
It gets worse:
Quote: "
“Have recent events and Falluja and the acts of Moqtada al Sadr made Iraq more unified or more divided?” 64 percent say more unified.
“The coalition forces are…” 92 percent say “Occupiers.” (2 percent say “Liberators,” and 3 percent say “Peacekeepers.”
“How long should coalition forces stay in Iraq?” 41 percent say “Leave immediately.” 45 percent “Leave after a permanent government is elected.”
“If coalition forces left immediately would you feel…” 55 percent said “More safe.” 32 percent said “Less safe.”
The most telling, to my mind, is slide 46: “Do you believe the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib represents fewer than 100 people or that all Americans behave this way?” 54 percent said they believe “All Americans are like this.”
“Do you believe anyone will be punished for what happened at Abu Ghraib?” 64 percent said “No.”
"
Now 92 percent view us as Occupiers amoung other equally depressing figuares.
It becomes more and more clear that not even the Iraqis like us. One has to question, "Are we really fighting for them anymore"? They certainly don't seem to think so.
I can't say I'm not too surprised though. Extremely little of the money set aside for reconstruction is actually going to reconstruction.
Quote: "
Nearly a year after Congress set aside $18.4 billion for the rebuilding, costs related to the insurgency in Iraq - such as security services, insurance and property losses - are consuming an increasing share of the money, analysts said. Another large chunk of the aid - contractors' profits and American and other foreign workers' salaries - winds up outside Iraq and doesn't help the Iraqi economy, they said.
U.S. officials, pointing to "unusually difficult" conditions in Iraq, acknowledged last week that security and other overhead in Iraq were a large expense. Some government analysts said those costs might eat up half or more of the rebuilding aid. However, private analysts estimated that the "Iraq premium" meant that up to 75% of U.S. spending in the country provided no direct benefit for Iraqis.
"
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/contract/2004/0926usaid.htm
To make matters worse, only 5% of the allocated money has actually been spent.
Quote: "
The issue of the special costs is drawing attention at a time when the administration is facing congressional criticism for spending only about $1 billion of the $18.4-billion package. Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, complained last week that the slow pace of spending reflected "the incompetence of the administration."
"
Of that 5% less than 30% actually reach the Iraqis:
Quote: "
The costs also highlight questions that have been raised about the Bush administration's approach to the reconstruction, which emphasizes big infrastructure projects. Barton and his organization estimate that less than 30% of the money spent reaches Iraqis. Another 30% appears to be going to security, about 10% to U.S. government overhead, 6% to contractor profits, and 12% on insurance and foreign workers' salaries. The rest, perhaps 15%, may be lost to corruption and mismanagement, they estimate.
"
Even Republican's in this country are calling the adminstration incompetent. You don't have to be a liberal to despise Bush and his horrible mismanagment and incompetence.
What makes this whole Iraq fiasco evem worst is that it draws are attention away from the real terrorists in Afghanistan.
The Taliban still controls part of the country and Karzai controls little outside of Kabul, the capital.
Quote: "
Menendez said fear of violence was keeping candidates from campaigning, that President Hamid Karzai, the election front-runner, was largely confined to the capital, Kabul, and that Afghans continued to be intimidated by Taliban guerrillas.
"
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002049906_terrordig30.html
Even the NATO represenative for Afghanistan fears that the war in Iraq is distracting us from the war on terror:
Quote: "He further remarked that if the international public continues to focus its attention on Iraq, the Afghanistan issue will come to a deadlock. "Iraq must not cause us to forget Afghanistan.""
http://www.zaman.org/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20040928&hn=12611
Warlords are more popular than our man Karzai:
Quote: "
Thousands rally in Afghanistan for warlord presidential candidate
Thousands of people have turned out in the hometown of Afghan warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostam for the biggest rally of Afghanistan's presidential campaign.
"
And yet more evidence that Karzai is little more than mayor of Kabul:
Quote: "
President Karzai has been a virtual prisoner in the presidential palace because of security concerns.
He was forced to abort his first campaign trip outside the capital after a rocket was fired over his helicopter.
The Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attack and says it plans to disrupt polls.
"
A warlord being very popular with the people is also very troubling:
Quote: "
A report by Human Rights Watch has warned that warlords such as General Dostam pose a greater threat to the polls than the Taliban because of their links to security forces that will monitor polling sites.
"
http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_1209224.htm
According to Human Rights Watch, there is an atmosphere of repression and fear in many parts of the country.
Quote: "
The 52-page report, “The Rule of the Gun: Human Rights Abuses and Political Repression in the Run-Up to Afghanistan’s Presidential Election,” documents how human rights abuses are fueling a pervasive atmosphere of repression and fear in many parts of the country.
"
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/09/28/afghan9402.htm
Of course, I doubt the adminstration even cares. Hell, Bush still thinks that the Taliban is non-exsistant!
Quote: "
Yesterday, while campaigning, Bush remarked,
"That's why I said to the Taliban in Afghanistan: Get rid of al Qaeda; see, you're harboring al Qaeda. Remember this is a place where they trained--al Qaeda trained thousands of people in Afghanistan. And the Taliban, I guess, just didn't believe me. And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence."
"
http://www.davidcorn.com/
THE WORLD THAT THE REST OF US LIVE IN:
Quote: "
Taliban is Resurgent: "Nearly two years after their defeat the Taliban has re-emerged as a growing security threat" (United States Institute for Peace, 3/04)
House Republicans Confirm Taliban Remains Threat to Security: "The greatest threat in the country remains Al Qaida, Taliban and other indigenous military groups. These groups operate mostly on the Pakistan border and in the south. U.S., coalition and Afghan combat forces are positioned and employed to defeat these threats." (Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), Remarks to House Committee on International Relations, 9/23/04)
REP. ROHRABACHER (R-CA) "A couple of serious questions here. First, before I get into the more contentious one, let me ask Mr. Rodman about perhaps -- the general stated that there are still operations going on against the Taliban and described them as the biggest threat still remaining, the remnants of the Taliban. Would you agree with that?"
PETER RODMAN (Assistant Secretary of Defense, Int'l Security Affairs): "As General Sharp said, that's the main mission of most of our troops, these operations in the Afghan-Pakistan border area."
ROHRABACHER: "Right and so the Taliban are still a force to be reckoned with."
RODMAN: "Al Qaeda and Taliban and some extremist allies of theirs."
And up to 90 percent of Country is Under Taliban Control: "A picture of Afghanistan's been painted I think overly optimistic. You read the newspapers, what you're talking about doesn't even exist from the reports that I read about what's really going on. And when you hear about Doctors Without Borders leaving after having been there through the Russian occupation, the U.N. wants to leave. Protection of the president is very precarious; we don't know what'll come of that. The airport's getting bombed. There's estimates that 90 percent of the country -- at least a very large percent of the country, is under the occupation of the Taliban and the warlords." (Rep. Paul (R-TX)., Remarks to House Committee on International Relations, 9/23/04)
"
With the Taliban still largely in control of the country I don't think you can seriously say that the Taliban is "no longer in existance" like Mr. Bush seems to believe.
They walked into that country and instead of pursueing terrorists left it a mess. Human Rights abuses have actually
increased since we invaded:
Quote: "
KABUL, 16 Sep 2003 (IRIN) - The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) has confirmed that human rights violations are on the rise throughout the country. "Unfortunately forsix months the graph of human rights violation is increasing day by day," Nadir Nadiri, a spokesperson for AIHRC, told IRIN in the capital Kabul on Monday.
Although more instances of human rights abuses are currently reported due to more effective monitoring, Nadiri said continued extra-judicial killings, arbitrary detention and the presence of unofficial prisons run by warlords were the major concerns of AIHRC. "There is no rule of law, the police that are responsible for the rule of law, they themselves are violators and are acting against the law," the spokesperson claimed.
He said AIHRC had registered 634 violations since June 2003,including extra judicial killings, rape, the trafficking of women and children, the widespread destruction of public and private property and arbitrary detention. According to an AIHRC report issued this week, the majority of cases reported related to the destruction of private houses, evictions and forced occupations.
"
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=36623&SelectRegion=Central_Asia&SelectCountry=AFGHANISTAN
I could go on, but frankly I'm sick to my stomach having to report all of this.
George W. Bush is a failure.
He has failed us in his misguided war with Iraq.
He has failed us in Afghanistan which is now worse off than when we arrived(!).
He has failed us on the War on Terror by not pursueing the Taliban, the "The greatest threat in the country" sufficiantly. Over 10 times the number of troops were deployed to Iraq, a non-threat, than to Afghanistan.
Number of Troops in Iraq:
Quote: "
Beginning in late December 2003, the United States began implementing the OIF 2 troop rotation that would begin to bring roughly 130,000 Army personnel out of Iraq and deploy roughly 110,000 troops into Iraq as replacements. The rotation was expected to last until late April 2004 but increasing security concerns in April caused the redeployment of forces to be put on hold for roughly 90 days.
"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm
Number of Troops in Afghanistan:
Quote: "
By August 2002 there were about 8,000 US troops in Afghanistan.
"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom_orbat-01.htm
One has to wonder why someone dedicated to the War on Terror would send less than a 10th of the troops to an Al-Qaeda stronghold than was sent to Iraq, a country in no-way involved with Al-Qaeda operations.
I could rant on and on about his disasterous fiscal policies, but in truth his broken foreign policy is more than enough for me to be convinced that he is wrong for this nation.
The above and whole lot more is why I'm voting
against George Bush in November.
@Konrad
"Again, Bush never made any connections between Iraq and terrorism."
You don't pay attention to Bush much do you?
Bush:
Quote: "
He and other terrorists know that Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror. And we must understand that, as well. The return of tyranny to Iraq would be an unprecedented terrorist victory, and a cause for killers to rejoice. It would also embolden the terrorists, leading to more bombings, more beheadings, and more murders of the innocent around the world.
"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html
@Mouse
"Fact: We haven't taken a drop of oil from Iraq."
On the contrary, we've been taking oil from Iraq for a long time:
Quote: "
An authoritative Iraqi source says that as much as 90 percent of the actual amount of Iraq's estimated 1.8 million barrels per day (bpd) are going to U.S. Gulf coast refineries.
"
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq010720_cooley.html
"Further fact: Bush has been investing millions in hydrogen fuel research since 2001, before 9/11."
True. But they'll be using Hydrogen made from fossil fuels which would still leave us as every bit as dependent on them.
Quote: "
What Bush didn't reveal in his nationwide address, however, is that his administration has been working quietly to ensure that the system used to produce hydrogen will be as fossil fuel-dependent -- and potentially as dirty -- as the one that fuels today's SUVs. According to the administration's National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, drafted last year in concert with the energy industry, up to 90 percent of all hydrogen will be refined from oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels -- in a process using energy generated by burning oil, coal, and natural gas. The remaining 10 percent will be cracked from water using nuclear energy.
"
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/05/ma_375_01.html
"Further fact: Iraq has taken so much damn money at this point that any gain in oil ties would take frickin' decades to pay off."
On this point I agree with you totally. The adminstration has seriously underestimated the costs of this war.
