Want to join the conversation? Share your thoughts with other Mailbag readers by clicking here.
Subject: What's Really Preventing Another 9/11?
"The surge is working because violence has gone down."
"We are successfully preventing terrorist attacks like 9/11 because another one hasn't happened."
The first claim is much repeated recently, and we are likely to hear the second claim repeated today. In both cases, of course, the fact that something hasn't happened doesn't prove that the championed cause is the reason it hasn't. The claim about the surge illustrates this perfectly. Any recent reduction in violence is as plausibly explained as the fruit of sustained ethnic cleansing as it is by a successful surge: Kill or remove the potential victims of violence and violence must go down.
The second claim is as well justified today as a similar claim would have been on Sept 10, 2001: "The fact that there has been no terrorist attack since the Trade Center bombing in 1993 proves that we are successfully preventing such attacks."
The fact that another 9/11 hasn't happened is far more plausibly explained by pointing out that no objective of Bin Laden and Co. would be met by one.
- Americans are being killed and maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan in numbers that exceed the toll of 9/11.
- The US military is being systematically weakened fighting two wars with inadequate manpower.
- The economy is unable to sustain the 2 billion dollar a week drain of two wars, and has become beholden to foreign lenders to a greater extent than at any time in American history.
- Basic American principles are being eroded and personal liberties lost, something no foreign enemy of America could ever achieve with an attack on our soil.
When not attacking us is bringing this kind of undreamed of success for our enemies, there is simply no reason for another 9/11.Albert Clark
Subject: 6 Years and Counting
WHEN are we going to wake up as Americans??? For 6 years now, we have been in a brainwashed stupor, letting an absolute MORON slowly steal away our freedoms!! We have had our jobs outsourced; our TRUE Employment situation is dire! Our children are getting LESS of an Education today, than they did 6 years ago!! As I see it, America is on the brink of disaster!!!
The TRUE Terrorists folks, are NOT in the Middle East or overseas!! The REAL terrorists, are the fear-mongers in the WH and in DC in general! They have ignored the needs of *WE THE PEOPLE* for 6 years!! Our Politicians REFUSE to speak with us, or listen to what the people are crying out for! THE AMERICAN VOTER HAS BEEN MARGINALIZED!!!!
It is also TWO YEARS after Katrina Disaster occurred. Take a GOOD look America!! People are STILL suffering from this today!! NOBODY in the WH, The Senate, or The House of Representatives has lifted one finger to help their fellow man!!
WHEN are *WE THE PEOPLE* going to wake up, and see how much damage this Administration has and is still causing to our once Great nation???
WHEN WILL WE IMPEACH?????????
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subject: Lest We Forget
With the great emphasis on a military victory in Iraq, one must wonder again why we were in there in the first place. Bush's General Petraeus has presented his programmed testimony on why we must stay to achieve victory, together with a major PR effort on TV, and Bush's stereotyped rhetoric about keeping them over there so we don't get attacked over here -- all have served him to distract us about how it all began on the crucial false premise of Iraq's role in terrorism.
Bush and cohorts must certainly have known that there was no terrorist connection and no weapons of mass destruction, on the good authority of the UN inspectors' reports. Bush, though, chose rather to orchestrate the whole mess with false reports from his CIA, and proceeded preemptively to attack and destroy Iraq.
The primary concern from the beginning of 9-ll, of course, has been national security, i.e., to prevent, eliminate and control acts of terrorism here and abroad. In many respects the Iraq invasion and occupation is responsible for just the opposite effect.
There was, in light of all the evidence forthcoming since 9-ll, no rhyme nor reason for the president to have gone into Iraq. It not only destroyed the country, created terrorism in a country where there had never been a suicide attack before, and has been so costly that, together with Bush's fiscal policies, it has put the nation on the verge of bankruptcy.
While those in the Bush administration knew that there was no connection of Iraq with terrorism, why did we go in? It now appears that the investment in building extravagant buildings and facilities is setting us up to remain there permanently. Yet the Democratic Congress has failed to raise such cogent questions as to why the Bush people took the country into such a counterproductive war and occupation; so perhaps we'll never know and Bush will go scot free.
Bush is reported to have stated: "So long as I'm president, we'll remain in Iraq." If we are serious about withdrawing from Iraq, then his presidency must cease and desist immediately.
J. H. Burgess
Subject: Bush's Expanding Bubble
Dear Buzz and Friends,
It seems that far from pricking bush's bubble the democrats have crawled in with him. The government insists on saying that we're safer - but it flies in the face of simple reason. We've made more enemies in the last six years than in our entire history before. Democrats have successfully turned the war into a campaign issue without even revealing what they plan to do if elected. They have the same strategy that they've had all along - winning from Bush's unpopularity. It's outrageous that they're collecting millions and millions of dollars from the American people when it's almost a given that the situation in Iraq will not change in '08. The same powers that took us there will keep us there. GM builds Hummers in China and Exxon wants to sell them the oil that fuels them. Nothing has changed since they ripped the rails out of LA. There's an ugly truth out there that will have to be reckoned with - and it's not that complicated. We need leadership - and this sorry crop of democrats are about a penny apiece.
The policy of democrats and republicans alike is: If the Iraqis' don't object too much, then we'll just keep their country. When there's even a breath of a notion that this policy might work out after all, then the stock market goes up, democrats turn sideways and disappear like the mooninites on ATHF, and Bush's bubble expands to include over half of CNN's audience - no change amongst wide-stance fauxites.
Irony is a cruel form of humor, but it is ironic how something that started off with the intent to shock and awe our enemies has only wound up shocking and awing the entire world with an astonishing show of ineptitude, stupidity, greed and arrogance. Now we have a lot more enemies and our friends are bought but not paid for.
Are we safer now?
Stabilizing Iraq IS more important than finding bin Laden but that doesn't mean those surveyed (I was one) believe the US can be the one to stabilize Iraq. I believe it is a priority and I responded that this should be put before the UN to run.
Subject: Victory's In Sight
Troops out now, that is? Ridiculous? Why? Because of what General Petraeus the liar and troop killer says? Only it doesn't make any difference what he says, being all we need do is see to it that Congress cuts off all funding for the Iraq war, whereupon, empowered by our victory over the powers that be, we go on to change the world, that there be no wars no more, nowhere, never, not even one. What instead? Peace on earth and goodwill to all living beings, that's what.
Nine of our best and brightest were killed in Iraq today. The death certificates for each of our latest martyrs should read as follows:
Primary cause of death - The lies of President George W. Bush II
Secondary Cause of Death - The lies of General David Petraeus
Contributing causes - We let them get away with it!
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subject: Little Davy Sunshine Wrote His Own Speech
He says he wrote the speech, but he was channeling Bush. Bush flew in last week and they didn't discuss a single thing about what he might say. Not one thing, but he seemed to hit all the talking points, anyway. Even NPR's correspondent said Petraeus was very upbeat and what he said didn't sound like anything they had heard on the ground from their people in Iraq.
Everything isn't going as well as expected, but what is "going" is choice. Petraeus sounded off a whole litany of things he is positive will happen if we leave, but can't make any promises if we stay. All hell will break loose if this thing isn't completely open-ended.
Well, I suppose when all our guys are either injured or dead, they will have to let them come home, won't they? The man has to stay upbeat because he is recruiting.
McCain keeps saying if the democrats are serious about getting out they could defund the war. You could also say that if the republicans are serious about supporting the troops they should insist on bringing back the draft, since the Young and College Republicans, including Romney's 5, all support the war, but not enough to fight it. Neither side will do either because they are all running for office and not getting shot at in Iraq.
He said that assessments of the condition of the military were only to inform and shouldn't be used to drive decisions. In other words, the entire force can be going to hell in a hand basket with substandard equipment and we shouldn't even consider that. Just keep on beating that dying horse. We will keep giving out $2500 gifts to people opening stores that have nothing to sell in places like the Dora Market and call it a shopping mall when it is only open a couple of hours a day so congressmen, supported by gunships, can take pictures.
Crocker was much more dramatic with his crock. He says victory is attainable, with just a couple of assessment difficulties. "A secure, stable, Democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is, in my view, attainable. The cumulative trajectory of political, economic, and diplomatic developments in Iraq is upwards, although the slope of that line is not steep. This process will not be quick. It will be uneven and punctuated by setbacks, as well as achievements, and it will require substantial U.S. resolve and commitment."
The "cumulative trajectory of developments" is not anywhere near as steep as the load of crap trajectory and he covered all the slow, uneven, setback strewn bases. "There will be no single moment at which we can claim victory." I think this means we won't be seeing Bush land on any more carriers. "Any turning point will likely only be recognized in retrospect." Victory is attainable -- we just won't know it when we achieve it and we will have to use 20/20 hindsight to find it. Was that a turning point we just had?
They do not want any expectations that might help assess the success, other than their own words, of course. "This is a sober assessment, but it should not be a disheartening one." This guy is addled beyond any hope of de-addling. Please don't be disheartened if we can't define victory and we won't know a turning point until after we have turned it, spun it and redefined it.
"I have found it helpful during my time in Iraq to reflect on our own history." Yes, I remember that part where there were 3 religious factions of Americans who had been butchering each other for centuries and then it all came together one day in Philly. Maliki is no Thomas Jefferson and Petraeus is no George Washington.
"Our efforts to build the institutions of government were not always successful in the first instance, and tough issues such as slavery, universal suffrage, civil rights and states' rights were resolved only after acrimonious debate and sometimes violence." I never thought about that, so we have how many decades for these 3 radical religious groups to come around? After July 4, 1776 we had slavery for another 90 years or so and we didn't achieve universal suffrage until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and good lord states rights is still debated today. You can marry in Massachusetts, but if you move to another state you lose it. You can vote in Oklahoma after serving your time, but if you move to Florida you can't.
They both added in their "mushroom cloud" a la the prelude to the invasion of Iraq for the prelude to the bombing the crap out of Iran. If we don't stay in Iraq, Iran will take over. Same song, second verse, it could get better, but a whole lot more people are going to die instead.
Bush's reality RISK game is not completed until we have all the oil and as far as he is concerned the soldiers are just little cubes painted different colors. You really can't win at RISK without owning the entire Middle East, even Dubya knows that.
Subject: Republicans Not Interested In Bin Laden?
Six years after 9/11 Republicans seen disinterested in the person who actually caused the attack on America. Presidential candidate Fred Thompson declared Osama bin Laden to be "more symbolism than anything else." At the same time Republicans are obsessed with Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. Six years later we're in the wrong country fighting the wrong war while Osama bin Laden goes free. What's up with that?
I'm Marc Perkel - And I approved this message!
San Bruno, CA
Subject: MoveOn Ad About Gen. Betrayus
The NYTimes printed MoveOn's excellent ad today just before the top military man in Iraq read a "report" that was written by the White House. So why is anyone shocked that this general's nickname across the country is BetrayUs? This is not new, but apparently Republicans in Congress decided that it was outrageous to challenge the messenger of the White House spin. MoveOn did not make up the nickname. They printed it. And I am grateful they did because Americans need to know that Bush's attempt to run the clock on his failed War is wrong and will not be tolerated. By the way, there's an extensive BetrayUs family in DC. There's George BetrayUs, Dick BetrayUs, Mitch BetrayUs, Condi BetrayUs, and they have many little members of the BetrayUs clan in the US Congress.
Subject: Whose patriotism is in question?
The Bushites now admit that the Liberals were correct all along. The Iraq war is a disaster. It has destroyed Iraq. It has created a vacuum for Iran to fill. Sunni war lords are now being armed in a policy called "bottom up," with the Bushites conveniently forgetting that it was Sunnis responsible for 9-11, not Iran or Shiites.
So do they apologize for calling Liberals traitors, as Jon Stewart asked McCain? No! They attack Liberals as traitors again for the "Betray Us" Move-On ad. And the Democrats turn into wimps again, condemning the ads.
Did the Bushites ever apologize for Swift-Boating John Kerry or Dan Rather? Can't the Democrats learn you don't let Rove set the agenda?
It's the patriotism of the Bushites that the Democrats should attack, not the heroes who were correct all along. It's time the Democrats finally challenged the Patriotism of those who led us into this war with too few troops, lost billions of our dollars to corrupt contractors, and left Iraq after four years without even the most minimal infrastructure.
Attack don't whimper!
Proud To Be a Soft-on-Torture Liberal Patriot
Subject: Mailbag 9/10/07
In answer to some of the very astute writers in this Mailbag ... First ... the Buzzer who spoke of the article OLD David Broder had regarding the Clintons ... the main reason Hillary is in the lead always ... is that most of the Democrats who crossed over the last time ... realize now that they made a horrendous mistake ... and want Bill Clinton back in the White house, any way they can get him. Not that Hillary is not a smart woman ... she is ... just that as a president, they realize he was given the short end of the stick, because of the planned attack on that man from the time Lee Atwater started it ... you see, it was a plan to make the American people so sick of the name ,"Clinton" ... that they would vote for even Osama ... (and they came close, voting for the lazy Bush) ... to get him out!! Truth!
I went to a Class reunion this weekend ... fun ... but, the funny thing was ... that at the one in 2000 and 2004 ... everyone was so in agreement with Bushie ... that they thought Saddam had to be out, because ... just because ... no reason! Now, they will all ... but one ... tell you that the entire thing is for Oil!! Strange ... even they changed!
To Ken Duerksen...on the Biden of Meet the Press, I never would have given him a look, even though he is running ... but, you see, I remember him after Clinton was on the floor begging for mercy ... someone asked Biden what he thought of the Marc Rich pardon ... and he said, "He must have been brain dead!" He ain't my idea of even a democrat ... much less a president ... I am gonna tell him, too. And, his idea of not funding the war? Give me a break ..."We just cannot leave those young soldiers there without the proper equipment ..." What is that?
Soon Bush will be gone, and every dem. will be at fault!
And to the Buzzer regarding all the casualties of the Bush Administration ... they flew out like someone was chasing them ... even in 2004, Ashcroft went fast ... I think he feared for his life ... after the episode in Intensive care ... and his wife ... sticking her tongue out at Gonzo and whomever the other fool was with him. After Mueller had told Comey to not let Gonzo near Mr. Ashcroft ... he went back to Springfield, Mo. as fast as his little right-wing legs would take him, and if you have not been to Springfield, Mo. you don't know what RIGHT WING means!!
And, to Marc Perkel ... if they pull that again, the funding ... I will give up completely. That is all they have to do ... speak their minds about funding this war ... giving the money to the pols ... who want it to go on ... if they turn it down ... it will mean that they are against it ...We out here who voted for them will at least know that they are trying ... if not ... they will be blamed for the entire mess ... because that is Bush and Cheney's plan. Wait until the Dems. take over and they can figure it out! It is all his mess ... but, I knew they would leave them in there long enough to have to have another administration take care of the plan to pull out ... that will be the hardest part. Bush has never felt one bit of pain for all the young people killed in that country for his oil ... not at all ... so, he can walk away from it ... and he and his oilionaires ... will reap all the benefits of the richest oil reserve in the world. This was his plan ... all the time!!!
Shirley ... St. Louis
Subject: Petraeus, Or Hunter, Or Both Lied
In his opening, Duncan Hunter claimed not to have seen the Petraeus statement. Petraeus claimed to have penned his statement himself and shown it to no one prior to it being passed to the joint committee. Curious, then, that both Hunter and Petraeus used the same politically-spun phrase in referring to the soldiers and marines in Iraq..."the next greatest generation..." More curious still, Hunter used the phrase first...before Petraeus recited it from his prepared text. Hmmm...
Subject: How Can Two General Officers Lower Themselves To The Lowest Level Possible?
First Colin Powell, and now General Petraeus.
As the entire world found out, in time, General Colin Powell was used, and abused, by the administration. The world has seen how they deceived Powell into telling, for all intents and purposes, LIES, at the United Nations for the purpose of proving the justification for an attack on Iraq.
Now, we, and the world, know it was all LIES, all LIES.
Now we have another General, Petraeus, on the verge of repeating the mistakes that Colin Powell made, being used, and abused, by this administration and Lying, and deceiving the people of our great nation and the congress of our nation.
Two men who swore to an oath, an oath of honor, to defend and preserve the CONSTITUTION of the United States, now, with the hands of the administration guiding the strings, both of these men have lied ... and in so doing, American soldiers, and marines, have been killed or maimed for life, and more are yet to see the same fate.
How can two men, supposedly of honor, lie and deceive while the men they were sworn to protect, to command and to always tell them the truth, how can these two men live with themselves, for the rest of their lives, knowing that they are as responsible, and will be as responsible, as the President of the United States, with blood drenched hands, for more death, destruction and agony that certainly is yet to come. More-so because of General Petraeus' false testimony, given, as usual, WHILE NOT UNDER OATH.
If you have nothing to hide, and you know that you will speak the truth, what fear is there of testifying under oath, something, apparently, this administration refuses to do, or to allow any of their shills to do.
General Petraeus, you should have learned what would happen once you saw, and heard, General Powell's ill fated talk at the United Nations, and how he was used and how he has dishonored his uniform, and his name.
General, you still have the chance to preserve your honor, and integrity. However, I doubt that you have the cajones to stand up and be honest.
Subject: General shifts toward protecting Iraqis - The New York Times - MSNBC.com
Oh yeah. Forget reason #237, we don't know what we were thinking there. Reason #238 for "Why we went to Iraq " is:
John L. Johnson
Subject: ABC Poll Reporting
ABC's polling in Iraq was totally consistent with the Iraqi view that the American presence in Iraq is unwanted and counterproductive. ABC went to great lengths in its broadcast to find one area where this overwhelming sentiment was not true, and reported in a part of Baghdad, the majority did not want the US to leave immediately. All of the significant findings in the poll were not reported. Someone needs to call them out on this.
A BuzzFlash Reader
[BuzzFlash Note: Here's ABC's video: http://abcnews.go.com/...]
Subject: The General Pees on America
Yesterday being "P" for Petraeus Day we can feel well and truly "Peed" upon. (Old Army saying is, "Don't pee on my boots and tell me it's raining. The General told us it was raining.")
There was the General all dressed up like something out of Gilbert and Sullivan and we, the lowly civilian population are supposed to listen respectfully because he is an honorable man. A man that cares more for his legacy and his career than he does for honesty and integrity is not honorable. But then I'm not sure the word honorable or the word integrity, or the word honesty means anything at all in this country anymore.
My first problem with the General is that he did not testify under oath. Now why would an "honorable and honest" man have a problem with that?
My second problem with the General is that he is waaay too political for me. In general I believe Generals should general and leave the Talk Show circuit to the politicians. We already know that we don't believe much that comes out of their mouths and now the General has placed himself in the same category.
My third problem with the General is that slightly supercilious smirk that plays around his mouth when he is oh so patiently trying to explain something to people he quite obviously considers beneath him. It is apparent that he finds them arrogant in daring to question him. Generals tend to get that way after years and years of being an officer and having people saluting and ass kissing.
However since the General is reputed to be amazingly intelligent he knows that the elected representatives of the people of the United States of America have a perfect right and indeed a duty to question him.
Everyone knows that thanks to the General's disingenuous presentation, like some character marketing a timeshare, that the war will continue and continue and continue. And Americans and Iraqis will continue to be maimed, mutilated and killed.
So we can all thank the General and his cocky, arrogant, incompetent commander-in-chief. They've won. They scored their petty little political victory. And the country loses. Again.
Subject: Terror Alert Credibility a Concern
Our government doesn't think we trust them anymore:
"As part of an exercise involving a simulated terrorism attack, the Homeland Security Department wants to gauge the extent to which the public would trust information DHS releases electronically. Like its predecessors, the fourth Top Officials (TOPOFF 4) exercise is intended to test the nation's readiness to deal with a large-scale terrorist attack. This time, the exercise will test the department's public communications strategy.
"DHS will provide that information in two formats: a live video feed and a Web site. The live feed will resemble a newscast, according to DHS, featuring interviews with public officials and other experts, while the Web site will function more like a newspaper."
A Buzzflash Reader
Subject: 'Spreading democracy' and 'pacifying Iraq,' Bush style
Even while Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were testifying in Congress yesterday and today -- and telling us how dangerous the threat of terrorism is and how we must stay in Iraq to fight the terrorists -- Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the attacks on 9/11, continues to ROAM FREE.
Yes, six years after Bush bragged that he would get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" and told us the terrorists "can run but they can't hide," Osama bin Laden roams free to plot and plan, while we kill Iraqis in Iraq who had nothing -- make that ZERO -- to do with the 9/11 attacks. We should be moving troops to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to search for the MAIN BODY of terrorists.
Make NO mistake, the al Qaeda In Iraq group was NON-existent prior to our invasion of Iraq; they are a group that is only loosely tied to the MAIN al Qaeda group, which hangs out in Pakistan.
Some neighborhoods in Iraq are now "quiet" because all the Sunnis have either fled or are dead, killed by the Shiite militias.
Well, that's one way to "pacify" a region.
It's sort of how the Nazis "pacified" the Warsaw ghetto.
But I would hardly call it "spreading democracy," which is what Bush claims it is.
A BuzzFlash ReaderThe opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. You can write to Mailbag at http://www.BuzzFlash.com/contact/mail.html. Guidelines for submissions are at BuzzFlash FAQ.