Bush Condemns Bhutto Assassination
by Matt Margolis on December 27th, 2007 at 12:52pm
President George W. Bush condemned the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto on Thursday, an act of violence that shredded U.S. hopes for democratic elections in the country that is a key ally in Bush’s war on terrorism.
“The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan’s democracy. Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice,” Bush said in a statement to reporters at his Texas ranch.
The president praised Bhutto’s courage in returning to Pakistan in October to participate in elections aimed at restoring a democratic government after eight years of military rule of President Pervez Musharraf.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Interesting commentary from John Podhoretz - The End of the Primary’s Holiday From History
The past three months have seen an odd turn in the presidential primary process in both parties — a turn away from the key issues confronting the United States and toward emotional and social vapor. The success of the surge in Iraq, coupled with the bizarre “we’re safe” reading of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, drained some of the passion from the anti-war fervor in the Democratic primary electorate and from the hawkish fervor of the Republican primary electorate. In their place came the Christian identity-politics rise of Mike Huckabee on the Republican side and the “we need a nice new politics” rise of Barack Obama on the Democratic side. Republicans squabbled about sanctuary cities and sanctuary mansions. Democrats squabbled about how many uninsured there would be left if their various health-care plans were imposed on the country.
The horrifying assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan this morning comes only one week before the Iowa caucuses and 12 days before New Hampshire. It is a sobering and frightening reminder of the challenges and threats and dangers posed to the United States by radical Islam, the nature of the struggle being waged against the effort to extend democratic freedoms in the Muslim world, and the awful possibility of a nuclear Pakistan overrun by Islamofascists. This is what the next president will be compelled by circumstance to spend a plurality of his or her time on. This is what really matters, not the cross Mike Huckabee lit up behind his head in his Christmas ad.
Very true words.
Click here to create an account on Blogs For Victory and post comments!
December 27th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
That sinking feeling - nothing like a possible civil war in a nuclear armed nation (and for those who now love the CIA - the CIA was caught flat-footed by Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program).
I think it was a major mistake for Bhutto to return to Pakistan when she did - added fuel to the Islamo-fascist fire, which the Pakistani government was only barely containing in the first place. I hope the responsible elements in Pakistan are thinking hard and fast right now - it is time for everyone who is not Islamo-fascist to unite in an anti-fascist coalition, lest the country really descend into the abyss.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
This is a very scary situation. I’ve thought for some time that the situation in Pakistan was a lot worse than the media was letting on. Let’s hope that they can come together as a nation some way.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
How does this assasination threaten and endanger the United States?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
bhutto was corrupt as is evident by her previous stints as prime minister. She was asking for trouble when she went back to pakistan to share power with musharaf.
She will not be missed whatsoever, Pakistan will be an islamic state. What you people don’t realize is that people in Pakistan loathe the US and are more islamic than countries in the Middle East. They will be the first Islamic nation with nuclear weapons.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
What a tragedy but it shows how brave and heroic Benazir Bhutto was. She was the last best hope for a populist democracy in Pakistan now the wolves will come out of Quetta to slaughter the crippled lamb of the Musharraf government and by spring the butchery will be done.
The only hope to break this cycle of violence that will eventually lead to the assassination of Musharraf is to ally with Iran to rout the Taleban in Afghanistan and in North Waziristan’s tribal regions. Al Qaeda is now the de facto threat to Pakistan and that makes Pakistan the de facto threat to Terra.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I just love how Pakistan, a staunch ally of the US in the War on Terror, used our aid (for fighting these al Qaeda types) to continue its saber-rattling with India… another ally of the US… heh…
December 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
yeah - strong words from Bush huh. He condemns assassinations. What a genius…
December 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Of course, the fact that the assassination might have been carried out by the Pakistan military either with or without President Pervez Musharraf’s assent shouldn’t worry anyone. After all, no one seems to have worried about standing by while the Musharraf government provided safe haven for the Taliban in northern Pakistan. No problems there. Al Qaeda operating in a nuclear-armed country? Nothing to see here. Move along. Time to obsess over Iraq and Iran.
P.S. Sam, Pakistan is “the first Islamic nation with nuclear weapons.”
December 27th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
The USA allowed Pakistan to obtain nuclear weapons because of their “invaluable” assistance in providing a conduit for arms and aid to those that were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan.
Of course now most people realize how short sighted it was to provide billions to the muslim radicals, who now are poised to take over Pakistan, and its nuclear weapons.
Personally I wish that the Russians had stayed and all of that was still their problem and not ours.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Do I detect a note of glee over the turn of events in Pakistan from Sam, Rana, LiberalT and Diana P? If its bad for the US it must be good for the Dems right?
BTW: SteaM, you seriously don’t understand the implicationf of this event as it might relate the future?
December 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I can’t speak for the others, but if you do with me, you’re an idiot…
December 27th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
phnx,
Where do you see glee?
December 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
phnx,
SteaM doesn’t understand a lot.
Bhutto was a very courageous woman and it is a shame what happened, but hopefully this will be a wake up call to the many followers of Bhutto who ultimately want a peaceful Pakistan that is a member of the world community.
It’s interesting how much credit the lefties give the Islamo-facscists. With every pivotal point in this conflict come the doom and gloom predictions from the left. Already, Diana has proclaimed Pakistan to be an Islamo-fascist country. In years past in Iraq the lefties would want to tuck tail and run everytime a car bomb went off. Their courage and determination is heart warming and I am sure our global neighbors take comfort in their support.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/who-killed-her.html
Sully has an interesting take on the possibilities of who did this horrific act. He seems to hope it is Al Qaeda and not someone in the ISI.
Also, wasn’t there an attempted attack on Bhutto earlier this year when 140 people were killed. Was here security detail increased as a result of this earlier attack? If not why not? Interesting questions to be answered.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
phnx,
I just asked a question, no need to get your panties in a wad.
Although you could actually answer my question since I was genuinely curious as to what the answer would be.
In my town crime is increasing almost daily. It’s increasing at a rate I have not seen before. I own a home and actually, for a second, considered looking up the price of a small hand gun to protect my property. Then I thought… why am I going to go that route, is it really that bad? Violence and shooting people isn’t really my thing. But I bring this up because right now I am WAY more concerned about my property, my girlfriend, my cats, myself and my family and friends because of the local violent crime. Not for one second have I ever been worried that Pakistan is a concern. Drought, ice storms, crime, having enough money to buy gas and pay the minimum on my credit card are things I am more concerned about than Pakistan.
I just don’t lose sleep thinking that a Pakistani state sponsored terrorist is going to knock on my door at 2am and be mad at me and my freedom. However a very pissed off drug dealer might show up, if he were to get the wrong address. Or my home could be collatoral damage in a gun fight between two parties who have a personal power struggle going on. Or a fight over a girl. Who knows.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
>>>The USA allowed Pakistan to obtain nuclear weapons because of their ?invaluable? assistance in providing a conduit for arms and aid to those that were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. - John Ryan<<<
Yet, 30 seconds on Google tells us the following:
In October 1990, the activities of KRL led to the United States terminating economic and military aid to Pakistan, following this, the Government of Pakistan agreed to a freeze in its nuclear weapons development program. But Khan, in a July 1996 interview with the Pakistani weekly Friday Times, said that “at no stage was the program [of producing nuclear weapons-grade enriched uranium] ever stopped”…………
I wonder if liberals are ever dishonest?
December 27th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
SteaM,
Do you think Islamo-fascists threaten western civilizations?
If the answer is yes, then you answered your own question. If your answer is no, then you’re in a state of politically driven denial.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Gene,
My bet is that it was carried out by al-Qaeda or allied groups which are contained within ISI - Pakistan made a deal with the Devil in backing Taliban/al-Qaeda groups in Afghanistan. Shot through with disloyal elements and weighed down by run-of-the-mill corruption, the Pakistani government lurches from crisis to crisis…and, in spite of the words of praise for Bhutto, she was part of the problem when she was in power. Musharref - tyrant that he is - does seem to want a better Pakistan; we’ll see now if he can ride the tiger, or if Pakistan will slip into civil war.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
neocon,
Answering my question with another question, eh?
Seriously, if you think I should fear islamic radicals, tell me why?
December 27th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Seriously, if you think I should fear islamic radicals, tell me why?
There was a man once thought he was Superman, stood on the train-track. Thought he could stop a train…He got showed real quick.
In some instances, fear can save you life.
In theis case, don’t under-estimate the fanaticism of a terrorist.
~ Jeremiah
December 27th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
SteaM,
You might want to ask the train commuters in Spain and London, the night clubbers in Indonesia, the office workers in the WTC, and the thousands of innocent Muslims that have been victim of their “tactics”.
Or do you ever leave your home?
December 27th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Ok, jeremiah and neocon.
Since you can’t tell me why I should fear Islamic radicals can you tell me why you fear them?
December 27th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Read my 3:59pm post, and if you are seriously this ignorant, there’s really no point in further dialogue.
Islamic terrorism has been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, if not much more, but since SteaM hasn’t been personally affected, he just doesn’t see the danger. He’s a sharp one alright.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
SteaM, My pants aren’t in a wad. The question was serious. Certainly your immediate surroundings should be your prime and immediate concern. However, political instability in Paksitan is a threat to the entire world. The possibility that their nukes could be transfered to terrorists who have promised to deliver them to our shores should be of concern to you. This is a much greater threat to your existence than global warming.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Casper,
I didn’t include you in that group because your post didn’t strike me that way. However the sardonic tone of the other usual suspects is hard to deny.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Steam,
If the Islamic radicals are ever able to again bring terrorism to U.S. soil, they will not spare you because you are a liberal. They would like to kill all of us.
Sorry about your town. Have you considered moving?
December 27th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
So Pakistan has the ability, using it’s nukes, to destroy my entire country?
So what do you suggest we do? Bomb them? I thought that Pakistan was our friends?
December 27th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I thought that Pakistan was our friends?
I think that sorta depends on what your definition of “was” is.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
SteaM reveals his complete and utter ignorance of current world affairs. He is most certainly a useful idiot for his masters at DailyKos and I am sure the terrorists take comfort in his naive opinions.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Eric,
I am actually not that concerned about the crime. I am somewhat locked into a deal with my home whereas if I stay for a certian number of years my grants will benefit me financially. It’s part of an urban renewal type deal.
And, as much as I am a bit concerned about the crime, at the same time I am not really that afraid. I know that, for the most part, it is random. Most of the incidents are drug related etc. The risk involved in breaking into a home only to find out that I the occupent is just as broke as the next guy and has little of value has to have something to do with it. It’s not worth it really.
But if I were to move to another town there would still be crime since I tend to enjoy living in a city rather than the country. Although a small sustainable organic farming life in the country seems more appealing these days still I like the city and my city is pretty cool.
So why do I chose to live in a city where crime is a bit out of control? Because I am not really afraid. Fear does not rule me. At times it’s difficult but in the end I have nothing to fear except fear itself. Remember that?
There are many famous American quotes on the subject. It’s not that I think we should ignore Islamic Radicals. I just think we should keep an eye on all radicals even those who are Christians. Killing them will not solve anything. Being aggresive will not fix the problem.
Governments are the problem. Didn’t Reagon say that?
December 27th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
neocon - it is you that has the naive and uniformed position. Your view of the world is much like Mark’s. You view the world as a comic book. There are just good guys (the US) and bad guys (terrorists - specifically Islamic terrorists). According to your view the Islamic terrorists just hate freedom and America so much that they will do anything to kill as many Americans as possible for no reason other than pure hatred and insanity.
Unfortunately the world is much more complex than that. Believe it or not - even the Islamic terrorists do have motivation. They don’t just hate indiscriminately and for no reason.
Further thats the reason that we are loosing the “war on terror”. Because people like Bush refuse to accept that the terrorists aren’t mindless cartoon villains. A significant part of the problem is that there is a huge amount of support for the terrorist through out the terrorist world. Doing things like invading countries right and left, causing millions of refugees to flee the country, and mass deaths and the like just makes the problem worse. And its not just “liberals” saying that. It our own intelligence agencies telling us that. Specifically the NIE tells us that the Bush pollicies have created more terrorism than there was before, that AQ is as strong as it was pre-9/11.
And you can never win the war on terror if you keep on treating complicated real world problems as if you were fighting a comic book villains.
The horrible irony about the whole situation is that people like you and Mark - uneducated religious zealots - keep trying to claim that it is the left that is naive about the world. Somehow we just “don’t get it”. I’m sorry neocon - but it is your simplistic world view that is naive. It is your inability to understand that even the terrorists are real people . If thousands of years of history have taught us anything it is that lack of empathy and understanding of others leads to never ending war.
It is not until you stop and understand why they are doing what they are doing that you can understand the root causes of the behavior and stop it from happening again. Dropping bombs may kill some terrorists but if you kill 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands of others you are just creating more and future terrorists. Just read the reports and listen - don’t just tune out when you hear something that doesn’t fall into your utterly simplistic comic book view of the world
December 27th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Diana,
You’re late for the party.
Many moons ago, and on multiple occasions, we discussed the real threat Pakistan posed!
While your Liberal friends were claiming that Iran was “years away” from having the capability to launch nuclear missiles, I pointed out that we may need our missile defense system to stop nuclear missiles from Pakistan before we need them for Iran. If the terrorists gain control of Pakistan’s nuclear missiles, we will need our missile defense system to protect Israel, India, and other nations in hopes of preventing an all out nuclear war in the region — noting of course that the dust and fall-out from that exchange will help with global cooling!
AAR
December 27th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
SteaM,
What do you think the effect of an all out nuclear exchange between Pakistan, Israel, and India would be on the U.S. and the world — for starters?
What do you think the effect would be on the U.S. if Pakistani terrorists launched a few nuclear missiles at New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco and other U.S. cities from ships or barges located off our coasts?
What do you think the effect would be if Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda were handed a few nuclear warheads to do with as they choose?
AAR
December 27th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
libT,
First of all it’s “losing” not “loosing”.
Secondly, in your very juvenile opinion of current world affairs I need to ask you, what do you believe is the terrorists motivation?
That is the fundamental issue so please answer candidly.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
AAR, Phnx, neocon - SteaM is making a very good point about how he lives and how more people should live. The entire purpose and meaning behind terrorism is to envoke fear and when you start living in fear the terrorists win. After 9/11 it took us less than a month to start shooting from the hip - fear being a big motivation for this action. On October 7, 2001 the terrorists won this war because we failed to think logically and rationally about what we were doing. While not to the same degree both Madrid and London were attacked by terrorists - the very next day they all went about their business and did not give those terrorists that attacked them the satisfaction of interupting their lives. And their authorities took their time, gathered all of the intelligence and evidence necessary, and they caught everyone of those son of bitches. We on the other hand live in perpetual fear that some islamo-facist (still the dumbest term I have ever heard) is going to kill us. The fact of the matter is all of that fear, all of our willingness to give up our liberty for “safety” is for not. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone who has the will to do so from walking into the middle of a US shopping mall and blowing themselves up - absolutely nothing. Have you forgotten that all of the domestic terrorism this country has witnessed (mostly by American citizens) has been largely unpredicatable and unpreventable. No matter who much freedom we give up, no matter how many government agencies we create, no matter how many countries we invade, occupy, and destroy, we will not be one ounce safer.
This silly notion that we are somehow safer than we were pre 9/11 is rediculous - and its worth mentioning that we had all of the intelligence available to prevent 9/11 from occuring but lacked the ability to diseminate it. LiberalT is right, you and far to many “Americans” live in this streamlined, narrow scoped comic book world where the enemy is 2-dimensional and lacks any real reasoning for being the villian. You non-challantly express the view that somehow killing people will put a stop to the big bad terrorists that you fear. You can’t be ignorant enough to think that way, that you can beat an idea (terrorism, islamic fundamentalism) into submission. If you killed my wife I would kill you; if your brother killed me, my friend would kill your brother - and so on and so forth and this is even without involving some radical ideology. The entire Middle East is falling apart and it has largely to do with our presence there - you can’t be stupid enough to think that we have no negative effect in the region.
The only way that that region will ever recover is by the lack of our presence. We can’t solve the problems there, even the problems we created. The Middle East will never again look the way it did before we started this military campaign there - humpty dumpty fell off the wall and he could not be put back together again - it’s a nursery rhyme but it was a metaphore before that. We have to accept the fact that we cannot spread democracy with the barrell of a gun and we have to accept that while freedom is universal not everyone can have nor wants our brand of it.
December 27th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
The only way that that region will ever recover is by the lack of our presence.
The reason we are there is because of their presence here, and the real possibility they will show there presence here yet again in the future!!!
What begins in the Mid-East doesn’t remain in the Mid-East!
Liberals… Idiots All!!!
AAR
December 27th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Uncommon,
I have posted this before and obviously must do it again. Terrorism did not begin with 9/11, just FYI. The following is a SHORT list of the chaos orchestrated by Islamists and which all predate Bush:
November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter’s masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.
1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.
April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.
October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.
December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.
September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.
December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.
June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.
October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.
December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.
April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.
December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.
February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.
Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters.
November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian “Party of God”) explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.
June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.
August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.
October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.
Now, do we try and stop this or do we ignore it and continue to let innocent people die?
December 27th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
LiberalT & Uncommon: Bravo.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Juvenile? I find that particularly amusing. Its juvenile for me to assume that people have motivations for their actions which go beyond comic book motivations. Very nice indeed. Who is the one who is juvenile? Some one who assumes that there is a complex and interwoven pattern of action and reaction based on ideology, past events, current conditions in the middle east, and historic events is apparently juvenile. While someone who thinks “they hate our freedom and want to kill us” is apparently well seasoned and reasoned.
At any rate is a complicated issue neocon. I don’t think anybody can really write down exactly what every single terrorists motivation is. Any attempt will be flawed by the simple fact that it is impossible to do that completely. Nonetheless I think summarize some of the main views. Now there are two kinds of terrorists - the majority of which I will describe bellow. Typically the leaders do NOT fall into this category - OBL or AQ’s #2 for instance which by all means seam rather psychopathic. However they are only a very small percentage - the majority are not born into riches like these two were.
(1) First of all I should say that regardless of the various motivational factors there are a few overriding factors which morph mere opinions into unjustifiable actions.
(A) religious fanaticism - of any kind (islamic, christian, jewish) - blinds people to the consequences of their actions. In his mind - it is ok for an islamic fundamentalist to blow people up because he will go to heaven with any other true believers who happen to die and the rest were going to hell anyway. The same can be said of course to fundamentalist Christians who believe in the raputre - what does it matter what we do in this finite lifetime when compared to an eternity spent in heaven or hell?
(B) economic and political disenfranchisement beyond despair. Most often the people who comment terrorist acts are in horrible situations themselves in poverty traps or feel utterly powerless in situations where they are oppressed. They feel rightly or wrongly that “there is no other option”.
(C) deep seated and institutional racism. Most often in the islamic world is is the demonization of jews. Much like certain people in the south of the USA - many islamisits are born into institutional racism being taught that jewish people are the cause of all the ills.
Now on top of these three factors (religious fanaticism, economic and political disenfranchisement, and often institutional racism) are many key factors.
(1) corrupt states - unfortunately it is the model and not the exception that many middle eastern states are run by an elite and corrupt few who horribly oppress the majority of the population. Saudi Arabia is a key example where a very few form an ultra elite wealthy and corrupt beyond any imagination. Unfortunately - many of these states are supported by the US and other western powers because they are seen as “stabilizing” (ie. brutal oligarchies) which will bow in favor of US and western influences and desires.
(2) historic institutional failures- most of the modern middle east was carved up by western imperial powers without much regards as to what the implications were for the people living there (they had much greater interest in how to maintain hegemonic power over them then they did in setting up fair and just local states). Most notably the tragic plight of the Palestinians - most of whom have not engaged in terrorism but been in horrible deplorable conditions for over 60 years.
(3) exploitation of resources - many of the corrupt regimes continue to give special deals to powerful western allies which are not in the best interest of the people of those countries. For example Saudi Arabia routinely sells oil contracts to the US and Western Europe for LESS money then are offered by other Asian countries (China and India most notably). In general - many places (such as Dubai) have become play grounds and tax shelters for powerful western companies with little regard to the consequences for the average citizens
(4) foreign troops in the holy lands - according to islamic law (recall the point about religious extremism above) having US troops in the lands of meca and medina is quite literally having infidels in the holy land. The presence of these troops in Saudi Arabia which help prop up the elite and corrupt royal family cannot be understated. Imagine how you would feel if 10s of thousands of Iranian troops were based permanently in the US supporting a regime that you considered corrupt?
(5) US unilateral support for Israel (again recall the points above about institutional racism and religious fanaticism). The Israeli/Palestinian issue is far from being simple - yet the US has strongly supported the Israeli’s even in the light of obvious human rights abuses that the UN and other human rights organizations have noted. This is not of course to say that the Palestinians are without blame - obviously the terrorist organizations of Hamas and the PLO have done deplorable acts of violence themselves against innocent lives. However, the US has continued to give unilateral support to Israel - and indeed money and arms - in spite of the horrible treatment they have given the Palestinians
(6) Brutal treatment of people - in general the corrupt governments (see point 1) supported by foreign western powers who seek to control resources (point 3) have done so with such malice that it has lead to institutional oppression of many minority factions and in general extreme poverty for a large part of the population.
Of course it is never this simple - there are many things which you could discuss at length about but that is a rough sketch. These conditions put together with religious fanaticism, racism, institutional poverty and disparity are a bloody mix. Capped of with lunatic murders OBL giving them a cause leads to horrible consequences.
Now I am all for catching and brining terrorists to justice, as well as having strong responses to terrorist acts. But without understanding the conditions which lead to this sort of behavior we are doomed to continue the cycle of violence.
I know I know neocon - how juvenile and naive - I should just accept that they hate our freedoms and want to kill us. It would be much easier that way - unfortunately it is also patently false…
December 27th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
neocon | December 27th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
As you were listing all those attacks, did it ever cross your mind that the reason for the terrorist attacks that occurred on American soil or involved American citizens is because of our continuing presence in the Middle East? Sorry, but I don’t buy into that whole ‘they hate us for our freedoms’ BS. There’s more to their actions besides murdering Americans.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Ya think Jonathan? God you’re an idiot.
Did you and libT see that they not only kill Americans, but every other nationality. Do ya think they do that because of American presence? Did you notice that they kill mostly other Muslims?
libT,
The only reasons you gave that have any validity are #’s 4 and 5. The rest are academia diarhea.
They want to impose their interpretation of Islam on the world. And ANYONE that stands in their way are deemed infidels and will be killed. Period. They are not complicated people.
Islam or death. Your choice.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Oh and they don’t hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because we are infidels, every single one of us.
The broader Muslim world IS complicated and rife with corruption, poverty and despair, which also needs to be addressed concurrently with our battle against extremists.
However, the jihadists vision is not complicated at all. He doesn’t care about poverty, racism, or lack of opportunity. He wants to impose strict Islamic law and bring death to infidels.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Darn, you beat me to it Jonathan. The answer is DUH!! but neocon and AAR will never admit it. Those attacks occured because we were/are over there. Those things would have not been possible if we had no presence there - idiot! We have to do away with this assumption that since we stand for liberty and justice for all that we should be allowed to occupy any country we choose without fear of retribution. And yes any country/region in which the majority of the people do not want us there is considered an occupation irregardless of what the U.N. has said. And how dare you (neocon) throw out such a pitiful and utterly retarded response to what LiberalT said. First you insult the spelling of one word and then say such a view is just juvenile- and before you dismiss what his response says note that his motivations for terrorism are what I was taught and what anyone else who has taken political psychology has been taught. He is dead on with what he has listed. The solution to the issues he addressed can not be solved at end of the barrel of a gun so you may have to actually think about your response. Oh, and AAR save me your BS “But they’ll follow us here” rant. There is less stopping them from coming here now then there ever was before 9/11. We have no national defense in this country and our borders are WIDE open - so please save your rhetoric for someone who is as fearful and ignorant as yourself, perhaps they will feed into your hysteria.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Neocon, great post. Liberals simply reject to actual occurence of historical events that are inconsistent with the fantasy world they inhabit.
Jonathan, of course the Islamic terrorists don’t just kill Americans, they are willing to kill everyone who interferes with their “dark vision” of the new world order. Evil people, whose agenda is simply and logically inconsistent and mutually exclusive with ours, really exist in the world and you need to accept that reality or you will ultimately kill Western culture.
liberalT, can you site more brutal or more corrupt governments than the Taliban in Afghanistan, the mullahs in Iran, and, of course, those loveable kooks that ran Saddam’s Iraq? However bad are our friends in the Middle East they are still the forces of civilization in that very brutal region. The Shan vs. the mullahs have abundantly made that point.
Finally, libT, what policy to you propose other than unilateral support of Israel. Its the only thing that keeps the hate filled Islamofacists (like the guys who spin the centrifuges in Tehran) from Holocaust Part Deux.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I don’t see how Bhotto’s death changes anything. And she was brave the same way that Huey Long was brave.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I would contest neocon that you are the IDIOT. Academic diarhea?!! What you responded with is not only ignorant it is also intellectually uninspired. Read some books on the subject then come back here and perhaps post something legitimate that requires some sort of intelligence.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
neocon, in the middle of your rant, did you bother to think about what I, or LiberalT, said? Our presence in the Middle East - from our relationship with the House of Saud, to our foreign policy agendas in Middle Eastern countries (ie: the instillation of the Sha government in Iran in 1953 to our ‘brilliant’ military adventure in Iraq today) - is a factor into why these attacks on American soil have taken place.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Ucommon,
Everything you write is idiotic BS!
AAR
December 27th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Jonathan dear,
Read a little more about the Pahlavi family dynasty before speaking. You remind me of the quote: Keep ones mouth shut and appear the fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.
Secondly, explain the attacks in Madrid, London & Jakarta for starters. Did those events happen because of Americas presence?
And you said, quote”is a factor into why these attacks on American soil have taken place”.
What attacks (plural) on American soil?
December 27th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
>>>his response says note that his motivations for terrorism are what I was taught and what anyone else who has taken political psychology has been taught. - Uncommon<<<<<
OK I just read this (I usually just skim over the verbal diarrhea that emanates from Uncommon).
Quote - “What I was taught”
That’s f*%^ckin priceless!!!!!!
Outside of what their master liberal professors force fed them, they know nothing!
Thanks for admitting that uncommon.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
AAR - I do understand that it is a lot easier to say something like “idiotic BS” then to actually say something constructive. I believe that is why you are so easily influenced by what people want you to think. Trust me, Limbaugh, Bush, and your other idols aren’t nearly as intelligent as you think they are and it would do you good to stop repeating what they say. As Mr. T would say - “I pitty the fool”.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Uncommon,
You haven’t said anything that warrants any other comment.
AAR
December 27th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
So what you are really saying neocon is that your lack of education gives you a greater perspective than someone who has bothered to actually learn something. That is absolutely classic. You and AAR are full of insults and knee-jerk (that term you all love to use) rebutals tonight. Other than repeating your tired talking points and cutting and pasting from undocumented sources you guys really haven’t said anything constructive tonight. But you have done well to make asses out of yourselves.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
i guess i shouldn’t have expected much else from neocon and AAR. I specifically enjoyed the bit about how juvenile I am and then when I explain my position in great detail the only response is that it is “diarrhea” or “idiotic” with absolutely no counterpoints. Its good to see how mature you are.
Beyond that you only offer that:
(1) the horrible governments we support are better then the mullahs
(2) they want to convert the whole world to islam
Well - here is my response to the only two small points you bring up.
(1) it is really unclear to me that this is even true. I mean - look at Saudi Arabia. Its the least democratic government in the middle east. If not for international pressure they would have given a woman who was raped 180 lashes for being alone with a man who she was gang raped by and they have done such things many times in the past.
More importantly - it is simply not our business to install governments in other countries for them. Would you accept it if Iran installed a government in Washington because they believed they were doing the best for our people?
Finally - even if it were true - something which I am not convinced of and you could convince yourself that we should be making this decision for them - something that you will never get me to accept - what you are saying is that we should support the lesser of two evils. So you would support Stalin because he is not as bad as Hitler? Give Stalin weapons, money, etc as he continues to purge millions and starve his people? Because it could be worse?
I simply cannot comprehend how you can convince yourself that it is a moral position to take. The correct response is to reject both Stalin and Hitler. Just as we should have rejected both the mullahs and the Shaw.
(2) contrary to what Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, and Bill O tell you this is simply not true for the vast majoirty of islamisists. The majority of them want an islamic republic in Islamic countries - most of them could care less about what government Iceland has.
Secondly - and more importantly - the simple fact of the matter is that even if *some* of them want this they are in absolutely no position to establish this. I mean just think about it - do you honestly think that the 9/11 hijackers thought that after the attacks the US would have an islamic revolution? Could that possibly there motivation? That doesn’t make any sense. Have you ever seen any islamic terrorists trying to overthrow the government of iceland, swizerland, or new zeeland and establish an islamic government there? It is just coincidence that they attack the countries that have troops in their countries, support corrupt regimes, and try to control their regional resources?
In terms of what I think in terms of Israel? I believe we need to put international pressure through the UN and the world court towards Israel to accept an equitable solution for a two state solution. The solutions that have been proposed are so ridiculous that the Palestinians can’t possibly accept them. Would you accept your country to be divided into two separate non contiguous states? One in which you need an identity card and need to apply for permission to be escorted under army escort to go from one part of the country to the other? To go live in the dessert while the other half gets to live in the lush fields?
At the same time we also need to pressure both sides to end hostility. No more bombings and no more Israeli incursions and bulldozers into the Palestinian territories.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Logic only a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer could concoct: Because we are there is justification for them to kill us here, there, and anywhere else they choose.
AAR
December 27th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
God help the United States of America if a Democrat should gain the White House…Is all I have to say.
~ Jeremiah
December 27th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
…it is simply not our business to install governments in other countries for them.
But, it is their business to assassinate those who would run in a democrat election!
AAR
December 27th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
AAR
(Ah - back to the old standard “if you don’t agree with me you must be a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer”. Now there is the BS of the night. Accuse people of being terrorists when they don’t agree with you on how to handle them.. nice..
The same holds for your nonsense about the assassins. Obviously their actions are deplorable and unjustified. Shame on you for trying to assert that if I have the courage to stand up and disagree with you that means i support or sympathize with the terrorists. Shame on you .
December 27th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Well, neocon, no. Not only did I not remotely say anything like what Pakistan was, if you paid attention to things I’ve posted before you’d know that I view the term Islamo-fascist as a completely mindless comic book-level neologism.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
liberalT,
It’s apparent you believe terrorists have the “right” and are justified in their efforts to kill Americans because we support Israel, and because we are in the Mid-East.
It’s clear you are on the side of our enemy and condone and justify the actions of those who want to attack and kill Americans!
AAR
December 27th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
OBL and his Al Qaeda cronies have been hanging out in western Pakistan for six years. During that time Bush hasn’t done a damn thing about it and has almost never even MENTIONED Osama. Something like this was bound to happen. I’ve mentioned this to supporters of President Bush in political discussions and invariably the response is a blank stare followed by a “Libs hate America” tirade like I never said a word. It never even registered.
Now there’s rioting going on in Kharachi, Pakistan while Kurdish warplanes bomb Northern Iraq and oil heads back to a hundred bucks a barrel. Don’t tell me I don’t get it. The ones who don’t get are the yellow-sticker-on-the-SUV crowd.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
AAR,
It is quite clear to someone who was reading what was written that liberalT does not “believe terrorists have the ‘right’ and are justified in their efforts to kill Americans because we support Israel, and because we are in the Mid-East.” Only a small and fearful mind would believe that. What is clear is that you are so sadly disinterested in one of the most important things that actually makes America what it is, the freedom to disagree, that you are willing to accuse people of de facto treason. Very sad. May I suggest you go read Henrik Ibsen’s play An Enemy of the People?
December 27th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
no AAR. I never said that and would never say that. Of course terrorism of any kind is never justified. Do I agree that we shouldn’t be in the middle east - sure - but there is a VAST difference between that and believing in terrorism. You are a shameful fool
December 27th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Diana,
For someone who doesn’t believe terrorists have the right and are justified in their efforts to kill Americans, LiberalT, Uncommon, and Jonathan sure wasted a lot of space taking up for and defending them.
LiberalT rationalizes and tries to lay the blame for the terrorist’s actions and killing on Americans, because “we just don’t understand them”…
They don’t just hate indiscriminately and for no reason. …It is your inability to understand that even the terrorists are real people . …lack of empathy and understanding of others leads to never ending war. …It is not until you stop and understand why they are doing what they are doing that you can understand the root causes of the behavior and stop it from happening again.
Then there’s “Uncommon” with statements like…
The entire Middle East is falling apart and it has largely to do with our presence there … The only way that that region will ever recover is by the lack of our presence.
Then Jonathan chimes in with “bravos” for LiberalT and Uncommon, adding…
…did it ever cross your mind that the reason for the terrorist attacks that occurred on American soil or involved American citizens is because of our continuing presence in the Middle East?
As for suggesting reading material, you may suggest anything you like, but I have no desire to read your selection!
AAR
December 27th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
liberalT,
Try standing up for and defending America!!!
AAR
December 27th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Jay,
There’s no point telling you yet again that you don’t get it. You haven’t, you won’t, and you never will! It’s just not in ya!!!
AAR
December 27th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
AAR - i have said repeatedly that terrorism is never justified. Our lack of understanding them doesn’t mean that they are justified. Do not get me wrong - they are horrible murders. However, to ignore what causes terrorism or to come up with laughably simplistic explanations f of their actions dooms us to continue to suffer from terrorism. If you want - continue to ignore the multiple intelligence reports which indicate that Bush’s policies are increasing the treat of terrorism. If you want - continue to ignore the fact that we create more terrorists with our actions as the NIE tells us we are doing. But that is not saving America it is dooming it. I do stand up for America - but not blindly and without thought. You are a shameful individual to try to warp my words into justifying terrorism when I could not be more clear about the matter. Shame on you.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
ARR,
I’m pretty sure that looking for solutions other than using soldiers as bait for terrorists so we can kill them is standing up and defending America(ns). I’m pretty sure wanting our troops here at jome to protect us God forbid something happens is standing up and defending America. I’m pretty sure having the understanding that you do not fight idea’s with guns and bombs is defending America. You have no idea what we are dealing with over there. You will not find a country in that region with more than a 20% minority that wants us there. When you are not wanted in a sovereign country - you leave. And you keep defending Israel and don’t even realize that this administration could give a crap less about Israel. We are currently in the process of arming almost every member of the Arab Leauge in a $20 billion arms deal. In case you didn’t know the purpose of the Arab League is the REMOVAL OF ISRAEL. And yes we have created many of the problems that are currently in the region - if you can’t see how or why then you are truly blind.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
And before we play grammar police - yes I know there are a dozen errors in my last post -I’m in a hurry. Get over it.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:05 am
liberalT,
Perhaps you should change your words.
It’s not President Bush who is “increasing the treat of terrorism” and “increasing the number of terrorists”. It is the words, actions, and deeds of Democrats — as I have said many times before!!!
But that’s another topic; it’s late; and you wouldn’t understand it anyway!
Uncommon,
I’m “pretty sure” I don’t agree with you!!!
But, as I said, it’s gettin’ late and time to quit.
AAR
December 28th, 2007 at 12:10 am
um - no AAR. The NIE was very specific on the matter - it is the Iraq war and the failure to capture Bin Laden and defocussing off AQ to focus on Iraq that has caused this. Just continue to deny, ignore points you cannot respond to, and try to accuse others of being traitors when every thing else fails. Apparently it is the best you have to offer
December 28th, 2007 at 7:27 am
71. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Well said, but the wingnuts will just tell you we had to divert our attention away from Afghanistan because all 2003 NIE reports (albeit cherry picked) indicated Iraq threatened the very existence of the United States and Bin Laden was already dead. 1/20/09
December 28th, 2007 at 8:19 am
liberalT,
Believe whatever you choose.
As I said, you would not understand. It’s beyond your comprehension, and you wouldn’t admit it if you could figure it out. Subjects like that are best discussed without Liberal participation and interruption.
The three primary authors of NIE report are critics of President Bush with their own agenda, and they slanted the report accordingly, undermining our diplomatic efforts to deal with Iran and avoid military action or a nuclear exchange. They should have been fired. Time will show their analysis and conclusions in the NIE report were just as erroneous and invalid as their previous “intelligence” assessments.
It’s interesting how you Libs defend the NIE report, but conveniently forget their other failures — Iraq’s WMD for example. They can’t even keep classified information secure from the press. Our intelligence agencies are in need of a good house cleaning!
Speaking of ineffectiveness and incompetence, one would think that, after all this time, the CIA could at least find Osama bin Laden. I mean, how difficult is it to locate a six foot tall terrorist who walks with a limp, especially given the money and resources of the CIA?!!!
plainjane,
Would you like to expand and add to the list of the CIA’s failures?
As you point out, the CIA failed in the past, and they failed in the NIE report. That fact will become clear with time.
Perhaps the CIA could be a little more effective in interrogating terrorists if they weren’t so busy making videos, which they can’t keep a secret anyway!!!
AAR
December 28th, 2007 at 8:40 am
AAR: The three primary authors of NIE report are critics of President Bush with their own agenda, and they slanted the report accordingly, undermining our diplomatic efforts to deal with Iran and avoid military action or a nuclear exchange. They should have been fired. Time will show their analysis and conclusions in the NIE report were just as erroneous and invalid as their previous “intelligence” assessments.
Explain to me why the “primary authors” could not be undermined by their superiors. More importantly, explain to me why both Bush and Cheney expressed satisfaction with their conclusions. Also, it is important to keep in mind that what we peons see, and what is reported about in the press, is the unclassified, summary version.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
the powers of light and the powers of dark are drawing closer to an inevitable conflict
there is not enough voices of reason being sounded in pakistan to impact the populations to pursuade them to cleave to good sense instead of islam, so we will see the fall of the military regime, and the rise of chaos
we should never have allowed pakistan to be created in the end, and india would be that much stronger
December 28th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
As you point out, the CIA failed in the past, and they failed in the NIE report. That fact will become clear with time.AAR | December 28th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Swift-boating is a way of life for you. I never said any such thing. My point is Bush and Cheney cherry picked 2003 NIE to make the masses huddle in fear of a two bit dictator we defeated in about 2 weeks during the first gulf war. There were three primary reasons; oil was primo, war profiteering for Cheney’s Haliburton and third he did not want to suffer his father’s fate. History says we don’t throw out Presidents during war time.
Sooner or later the minutes of the meetings between the oil executives and Cheney will come out. I am almost certain Iraq will be mentioned.
December 28th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
interesting words from bush considering he’s one of the reasons bhutto was assassinated. he and condi put all their pakistan eggs in bhutto’s basket. al-quaeda claims they assissinated her. bush and condi have no plan b for pakistani democracy. bush hasn’t defeated al-quaeda and a real nuclear power (with real wmds) is now in chaos. how many weeks/months until another bush war that will add to his failures and leave a bigger mess for the next us president?
December 29th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I guess it’s just a cliche… but “cowardly” is strictly speaking not exactly an accurate description of the acts of whoever it was who murdered Benazir Bhutto. It took a lot of courage to infiltrate a rival’s campaign rally and blow yourself up… especially in this case where you had to take advantage of a blunder by that rival. (She was traveling in a bombproof limo, but she opened up the sunroof to wave to the crowd at just the wrong time. There was no guarantee that she would in fact make that mistake)
It’s even less cowardly if the killer was in fact with al-Qaeda, a group which is (ostensibly, at least) fighting not just the Pakistani government but also the most powerful nation on the planet (that would be the USA.)