'Struggle of the 21st Century'

Renewing a pledge that he made in the weeks following 9/11, the president vowed here that any nation which harbors terrorists also is "an enemy of the United States.'

And so sanctions and military action will follow shortly in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Thought not.

'The Iranian regime arms, funds, and advises Hezbollah, which has killed more Americans than any terrorist network except al Qaeda."

There was me thinking that Timothy McVeigh had scored quite highly as well. Remind me, what brand of Islam was he in favour of?

"There must be consequences for Iran's defiance, and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon."

This from a man who shouldn't have access to the White House TV remote control, let alone the nuclear launch codes. Strange how brave lil' Israel is allowed to flout the NPT and associated UN Resolutions pertaining to nuclear weapons. Similarly, Pakistan seems to have done a pretty fair job in developing a bomb or two without much by way of admonition. Maybe Iran has oil, and the latter two don't, and maybe another war is just what these idiots - Bush, Cheney and co - want.

"Some Americans didn't support my decision to remove Saddam Hussein. Many are frustrated with the level of violence. But we should all agree that the battle for Iraq is now central to the ideological struggle of the 21st century. We will not allow the terrorists to dictate the future of this century, so we will defeat them in Iraq.''

More attempts to wed two problems - the mess in and Iraq and global terrorism - because he has only one answer or plan.

HERE'S AN UPDATE ON GEORGE W. BUSH'S WAR IN IRAQ

August 31,2006

*Series of attacks across Iraq kills 51,and wounds another 126.
*Suicide bomber in Baghdad kills 2 people.
*American soldier killed in bomb blast in Al Anbar province.
*Gunmen kill 2 brothers in Baqoua
*The body of a young woman riddled with bullets is found on the main road in Kut.
*Gunmen shoot,and kill a member of the oil ministrys security service,and wounds another in Baghdad.
*An Iraqi soldier wearing civilian clothing is shot dead in Mosul.

August 31,2006
2637 AMERICAN TROOPS KILLED IN IRAQ

Yep...Cowboy Georges personal war on Iraq is going just swell..............NOT

Does he have a plan?
Does he have an answer?

I've been listening quite clearly, and I've heard neither.

2637 and counting.

OHCD, you do have problems understanding don't you?
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have assisted the U.S. in the war on terror. Pakistan has helped round up many high-ranking Al Qaeda figures and have even sent in military on occasion in those areas of the country that the Pakistan government has little or no control. Saudis too have helped, though they could do a lot more. I suggest you do a little historical search so perhaps you might learn something.
In fact, the three other posters here need to do some historical education, though I highly doubt John E. has the capability to learn anything, except staying at home living off of mommy daddy's hard-earned dollars and sucking his thumb.

By the way john f, global terrorism is in fact wedded to the war in Iraq, I'm afraid. If that wasn't true before it certainly is now.

OHCD, to answer to your questions: "no" and "of course not".

But as you yourself have noted here more than once, simply walking away from the slaughterhouse is not an option for a few reasons.

So these questions need to be posed to the '08 presidential hopefuls of both of our unfortunate political choices. I've been listening, and my heart is sinking.

Juanito - I couldn't agree more - hence the rather tragic fact that the lives lost in Iraq are such a waste. The west created this situation, and the west must stay until the bitter end. We have created our own moral responsibility here, and countless more people will die as a result.

John D - allow me to offer you a research project. You may or may not be aware of the link between Wahhabism and Al-Qaeda. Why don't you trot along and assess the likelihood of a theocratic regime espousing Wahhabism taking power in Pakistan. A good name to start with would be Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad, ex boss of the ISI. He seems to have been a good yardstick for the views of many in the Pakistani military as far as the West is concerned.

Once you've done that, have a look at Gulshair Muhammad al-Shukrijumah, and his relationship with Bandar bin Sultan, former Saudi ambassador to this place.

And then by all means feel free to tell me that you'd be entirely comfortable with a Saudi-backed Wahhabist regime taking hold in Pakistan, armed with, amongst other things, a nuclear weapon.

PS: By 'do' some historical education; do you mean that we need to teach? Sometimes your syntax leaves me somewhat bewildered.

Johnny D.,

JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE PARANOID

DON'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT AFTER YOU

I'M ON A PLAIN

AND I CAN'T COMPLAIN

I LOVE MYSELF

BETTER THAN YOU

Juanito,

al Qaeda and Iraq were wedded before 9/11. Do a few google searches and you can find the stories from sources such as the LA Times, 60 minutes, among others. All one has to do is look.

We are in Iraq now. It was a mistake to do this.
Yes..it is easy to link terrorists now to Irag.
We created them. Islamic radicals were by no means in large numbers there before because Saddam would not have allowed anyone to threaten his authority. The Iraqis are not stepping up to the plate and so we need to set a timetable for withdrawl to force them to take their own country back. But again...this war was a mistake.
If anyone of you made a mistake like this in the work place..you would lose your job..why haven't they?

The scariest presidential moment in memory.

Justifying the lack of benchmarks in Iraq by which to define success (or a definition for civil war, for that matter), and then using carte blanche to sabre rattle to the rest of the Muslim world, where he's already the most hated man on the planet -- and by association, making the US the most hated nation on the planet.

You can bet there will be even less of a "coalition" when it comes to the next round of cowboys and indians in the desert.

Great recruiting film to be shown on Al Jazeera over and over.

Terry,

OK, I have no problem believing that there was a prior connection to al Queda. Sadaam Hussein was not a nice man and I'm sure the same is true of his friends.

I submit that it the connection is far stronger now than it was under Sadaam's secular dictatorship, and that's all the more reason that we can not just walk out.

Terry,

Your own Liar-In-Chief admitted this week (AGAIN) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. There was no Al Qaeda/Iraq link worthy of an illegal occupation...PERIOD!

OHCD, maybe this will help jar some of those brain cells, which I know you have they just need help in overcoming the hate:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/04/pakistan.arrest/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/02/pakistan.arrests/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-04-pakistan-arrest_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193904,00.html

http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369946

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=13301590&src=rss/worldNews

Now, don't get me wrong. Wahhabism, which is taught in Saudi Arabia and much of the Arab world, is BS. And I never said the Saudis do all they can do. In fact, I said they could do -- a lot more, and that includes preventing the teaching of extreme Islamism.

But both countries, Pakistan more than Saudis, have been helpful in rounding up Al Qaeda leaders and militants.

This new emphasis by the administration of comparing the war in Iraq with twentieth century struggles against the Nazis and communism is mystifying to me. Is this just spin or do these people really believe that there are similarities here? There are no correleations to be made here folks. The struggle against Nazi Germany was a tangible fight against an easily identified enemy and the ideological struggle with communism was largely one of economics and bombastic rhetoric. Ok well maybe the bombastic rhetoric part is the same. Seriously the war in Iraq's closest parallel is to the Viet Nam war but you would never hear the Administration say that would you? Of course not because today historians almost universally agree that Viet Nam was virtually unwinnable right from teh start and we wouldn't want to send that message would we?
The other major problem with this new wave of rhetoric is the continued link between a Iraq and terrorism. The only terrorists in Iraq are the ones our policies allowed to exist there. Sure there were rumored links between Saddam and terrorist activities, but if you know anything about his regime you would know that these were business arrangements only. Saddam's regime never allowed any possible threats to his power to take root.
This admistration believes that it has somehow found the answer to a problem that has existed for centuries which, of course, is completely arrogent. The clash between Islamic fundamentalism and western culture cannot be reconciled. In some form this conflict will always exist. The best course is to not aggravate it any further. We need to protect our country and not worry about "spreading democracy" where it will never exist.

John D.

If it is your contention that both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have nothing to fear from a theocratic revolution of the sort witnessed in Tehran in 1979, then I am happy for you.

I would, however, urge you to read "The Two Faces of Islam" by Stephen Schwartz. It might give you a new and rather more unsettling view of the world, and, if so, may I apologise in advance for upsetting your state of apparent complacency.

John D.
I have a picture of Donald Rumsfeld with a big grin on his face shaking hands with...Saddam Hussein. I can e-mail it to you and you can post in in your bedroom.

OHCD, I am not compacent regarding Islam. In my view, Islam is THE greatest threat to the world today. Both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan very easily could turn into the next Iran. I never said otherwise. All I said was that both countries have been helpful in arresting Al Qaeda leaders and fighters.

There already have been attempts to assassinate Musharaff by the Islamic terrorists. If either country was to fall into the hands of even more extreme Islamicists, then yes, the world is in even greater danger.

Splendid - so we agree.

Going back to the original point, it is my contention that it is rather dangerous to support either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia with military assistance - be it training or hardware.

As such, allowing Pakistan - and Israel - to develop nuclear weapons whilst rattling a sabre at Tehran seems to be a rtaher short-sighted set of double standards.

But, by your analysis, Pakistan / Saudi Arabia are good because they have helped us - the west - in the past. Iran is bad because it hasn't.

Remember Pavlavi? he and SAVAK were rather pro-US - of course, they supported Hezbollah pre the '79 revolution but let's not split hairs. After Pavlavi came - Khomeni. There is no reason why the dynmaic shouldn't shift again.

And when we have a militant theocracy in Pakistan, and an even more militant theocracy in Saudi Arabia, both espousing the aim of a trans-national caliphate based on the teaching of extremist Sunni ideologies, then we are truly screwed.

Remember what happened to all of those weapons that Charlie Wilson got to the mujahadeen via Pakistan pre the withdrawl of the Soviets from Afghanistan? Quite correct - they got fired back at the coalition forces in Afghanistan a few years later.

We are arming two regimes that will turn around and bite us very hard. A war against terror is a figment of Bush's imagination; a war against two countries with nuclear bombs will be rather less abstract. Factor in the idiot Olmert and his need to stand tall, and we have a mess of domesday proportions on the horizon.

Iran is playing to a regional audience; there is too much western investment in Tehran for it to risk anything like a pre-emptive military strike. Bush's pronouncements on Iran are a simple means of deflecting attention away from the real issues:

1) His creation of a terrorist haven in Iraq.
2) His lies about the same.
3) His complete absence of a solution to a mess of his creation.
4) His unwillingness to tell the US public that their kids have died in a war that is illegal, should never have happened, and has created a situation beyond management for generations to come.
5) His realisation that it is possible for the GOP to be turned over come November.

The Rapture Gang must be loving this.

So, Doug, are you saying that this country supporting Iraq against Iran (which started under Carter administration, I might add) was wrong when it was Iran that held Americans hostage for 444 days? Iran supporting terrorism in the Middle East?

It was this country's goal that Hussein would be a better person to deal with in the Middle East in late 1970s and early 1980s. By mid 1980s it was clear that would not be the case and the U.S. began distancing itself from him.

Sorry to bring historical fact and perspective to the left's world of distortion and hate.

Juanito,
The public understands what the terrorist threat from Iraq was before the U.S led invasion, and what it is now. In this sense the two are seperate issues.
Yes, Iraq is rife with terrorism, but it escalated
and is out of control, post invasion.

"In my view, Islam is THE greatest threat to the world today"
John D

Islam is not the enemy or a threat, it is a religion. It is the warped interpretation of it that's a threat -- as could be said of any religion or ideology.