If Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice bumps into Iran’s top diplomat at the weekend conference for Iraq’s neighbors, there’s something new they could talk about, as if Iraq’s instability and Iran’s nuclear program weren’t enough. Iran won the State Department sweepstakes again last year for the title of the world’s “most active state sponsor” of terrorism. The report linked Iran to Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese terrorist groups and, increasingly, to Iraqi violence. Depressingly, it also noted that the world saw 25 percent more terrorist attacks in 2006 than in 2005, as well as 40 percent more deaths by terrorism. Last year Iraq alone was the site of 6,630 of 14,338 terrorist attacks and 13,340 of 20,498 terrorism deaths.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
34 Comments
If Rice told the truth her face would fall-off { well, we can always hope }.
The State Department had Israel on tier 3 { the worst } in human-trafficking, which required sactions. She bumped them up to tier 2, which gave them the status of “trying to do something” to curb the billion dollar industry and relieved them from getting sanctioned.
Nice to have friends in high places.
Mission accomplished.
So where’s the “good news” and the “progress” that the right wing always condemn the media for under reporting? We could use some right now.
The last 6 months in Iraq have been the deadliest for US troops since the war started.
AND we’ll soon have spent a full HALF A TRILLION dollars on Iraq.
“There’s a new sheriff in town, one that’s dedicated to fiscal responsibility.”
Hee hee. Ya, you betcha.
Poor dumb Democrats, Global Terrorism and they can’t see the forest because of the trees.
Think neutrality on Terrorism is a good thing? Ask Spain about that.
No, neutrality on terrorism is not a good thing. However, being stupid on terrorism is worse, and that is what we are finding out in Iraq. We attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, lost so many brave and innocent lives, as well as trillions of tax payer dollars, and what do we have to show for it? Nothing, except for the breeding ground of terrorism. By attacking and invading Iraq, and killing scores of innocent people there, we have given Al-Qaeda free and effective recruiting tools to brainwash and recruit new members.At the same time, we have isolated our friends in the Western world. Bush had a great chance unite the world against global terrorism after 9/11, but being incompetence personified, he has succeeded in doing the exact opposite.
As you recall the French and Germans didn’t help us out because they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar selling weapons and illegal equipment to Iraq when there was a U.N. Sanction going on.
Their interest was purely financial, supplying technology that shot at our fighter jets monitoring the no-fly zone. Nice friends huh?
And you are willing to say with a straight face that Bush’s motive for attacking Iraq was not financial?If it wasn’t financial, why is it that his administration showed so much prudence in not invading North Korea?Why treat these two countries- both members of the “axis of evil”- differently? There was no legitimate proof that Iraq had WMD, whereas we know that North Korea does. The only difference between these two is that North Korea does not have the oil reserves that Iraq has.
20/20 Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn’t it? From the 1990s every politician and World Leader thought Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Korea wasn’t shooting at our jets now were they?
The Oil for Food monies wasn’t being used strictly for food was it?
Are you suffering from convenient memory? :)
Republican is now defending Clinton-era foreign policy. What’s next for him? An endorsement of Hillary?
Tom I think he is acknowledging something many here won’t do. Clinton did say many times that regeim change had to take place. He didn’t take action because that is not what demos do. They think you can talk a subject to death.
“regime change” is a broad term. I would love to see regime change in a number of countries – Syria, Iran, Israel, Sudan …
That does not mean, however, that we should launch a unilateral invasion. Such an action all too often results in something even worse than that being replaced.
And for the LAST TIME, Clinton and others made those statements when Saddam would not allow the UN Inspectors into Iraq. It was reasonable at that point to feel that Hussein must have a WMD plan or program.
The UN Inspectors were allowed BACK into Iraq in 2002 and were well on their way to proving what we all know know; Iraq did not possess WMD nor had a operational plan to develop same.
The UN Inspectors left Iraq March 17, 2003 on the eve of the invasion.
If Bush had waited a month or so, we could have saved 3,330 American lives, 600,000 Iraqi lives and $677 trillion dollars.
That would have been well worth a six week wait.
Perhaps WSC, but then he wouldn’t have had such a good opportunity to wear that neat flight suit!
And he just looked SOOOOOOO studly in that outfit, now didn’t he?!?!?
I don’t recall congress voting on occupation, without end, or even on occupation of Iraq at all. When they voted it was all about one thing, those damn wmd’s, that were going to make a mushroom cloud over manhattan.What they are against is what the attack has morphed into, failure without a time table.
Could you imagine Harry Truman pulling the Mission Accomplished! aircraft landing/speech at the end of WW II?
Republican,Although everyone suspected Saddam of having WMD, nobody that was reasonable attacked him, becuase these suspicions were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. When you can not prove suspicion beyond reasonable doubt, you keep investigating until you prove your doubt for sure, because otherwise you kill thousands of innocent people.You are right: hindsight is 20/20, but even that has failed the right wing because you and your president still refuse to learn from the mistakes in Iraq. There still is no solid plan for the country, and Dubya still doesn’t know how he plans to finish this conflict.America has always been viewed by the outside world as reasonable, prudent, and fair. It will take us quite a while to get that trust back from the rest of the world.
ss,
So your position is to wait until a country develops WMD’s and utilizes them before we do anything?
Fair when it comes to WMD…
Now exactly what would that be?
Bwaak bwak bwwak bwAAK buk buk BWAKK
That’s Republican for “shoot first, ask questions later.”
The motto of cowards . . .
Many times I have made the comment that we can’t run a war from congress. It can’t become a political battle. The demos are running from their positions before the war as fast as their little yellow feet will take them. Below are their comments prior to us invading Iraq. I wish we weren’t there but I think we went in for the right reasons. Bush is the one man in the world who has not been allowed to change his position and now the demos are using money to undermine the war they sanctioned. See if you recognize the speakers here.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
The following were said during the Clinton administration.”One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD’S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!
A little bitty 50 dollar bet, and Republican won’t take me up on it.
Bwak buk buk BWAKK BWAKK buk BWAK.
That’s Republican for “all blow and no show.”
You won’t take my $5000.00 bet Capn, you’re a lightweight and another Lib empty pallet fluff bunny.
KSgrm–
Which one of those democratic leaders drove our country to war with Iraq? To invade and occupy it?
Believing that Saddam had WMD’s is not the same as believing that America should a hegemonic occupier of another country.
Colin Powell and Condi Rice said in February of 2001 that “Saddam posed no threat to his neighbors” and that he was “in a box.”
Containment is not doing “nothing.” It worked against Soviet Russia for decades. It was working just fine in Iraq too.
The UN Inspectors were in country and were well on the way to proving what we all know now – no WMD.
Why jump the gun? The inspectors had to leave on the eve of the invasion. Why not allow them to finish their work?
Posting outdated quotes from a time period when there were no inspections only makes you look foolish.
Republican–
You POS. Gutless coward. POS.
Excellent point, Clark.
Bushistas invaded when they did because they were afraid that the inspectors WOULDN’T find any WMD’s.
That’s perfectly obvious. WMD was the pretext, and its reality could not be questioned–otherwise, the Bush war-mongers couldn’t have their splendid little war.
China has weapons of mass destruction. Should we invade them next? How about India? Pakistan? Israel?
All of these are unstable countries. Israel has even been caught spying on the US.
Where should we draw the line?
Had we not invaded Iraq, where would we be? What would be different?
The immigration questions would probably be answered. The border questions, both Mexican and Canadian, would be answered, Saddaam would still be in power, and still a tinpot dictator, oil prices would be around $2 a gallon, and we wouldn’t have a national debt topping out in the multi-billions.
And last, but not least, thousands of Americans finest would still be walking the earth.
Sucks to be the worst president ever.
The question is, what could you do with $677 billion?
“The question is, what could you do with $677 billion?”
Exactly:
End poverty in America; protect our borders; start work on either universal health care, or catastrophic health coverage.
….. fund a viable alternative energy policy ….
….Address global warming by investing in renewable energy..oh, that’s right, global warming doesn’t exist.