News Kerry To Push For Bush Impeachment

[polyb]

Here's the wind up!

John Kerry announced Thursday that he intends to present Congress with The Downing Street Memo, reported by the London Times 1 May 2005. As reported by NewsMax, the memo purports to include minutes from a July 2002 meeting with Tony Blair, in which Blair ostensibly said that President Bush’s Administration “fixed” intelligence on Iraq in order to justify the Iraqi war. In an interview with the Standard Times, Kerry said: "It's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."

The Boston Globe published an article by Ralph Nader, Tuesday, in which Nader also called for President Bush’s impeachment. The story is being carried on Michael Moore’s website and the Democratic Underground. Failed presidential candidate Kerry advised that he will begin the presentation of his case for President Bush’s impeachment to Congress, on Monday.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6057

 

[russ_watters]

I would think that would make the news... but I guess we'll see on Monday.

 

[Pengwuino]

and the pitch!

 

[klusener]

All we can hope is he doesn't flip-flop on this!

Finally the guy does something brave...

 

[Pengwuino]

I hope thsi doesn't slow down our incredibly efficient Congress :D ha

 

[polyb]

I would think that would make the news... but I guess we'll see on Monday.

Why watch TV for news? I only see tabloid and sales pitching.

I guess we'll see Monday. I bet 'The Conservative Voice' is getting a lot of hits tonight.

 

[klusener]

After looking through a few sites, one thing is certain, no where in his statements has Kerry mentioned that he will "push for Bush impeachment". Just looking at the site's name, The Conservative Voice, more than explains why an exaggeration or falsification could take place.

 

[polyb]

After looking through a few sites, one thing is certain, no where in his statements has Kerry mentioned that he will "push for Bush impeachment". Just looking at the site's name, The Conservative Voice, more than explains why an exaggeration or falsification could take place.

Was wondering the same thing. The only article that I have found that would suggest this is true is the following:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-05/06-02-05/a01lo167.htm

Wait and see is all I can say. It will probably buzz around the net for the weekend and when Monday comes we'll see if Kerry or prophet Yawheh is more believable.

 

[SOS2008]

Below is a Washington Post article dated May 22nd that I read that same date, which mentions the Downing Street Memo. So when I saw the “Downing Street Memo” by kcballer21, I wasn’t that surprised, excerpts from the article as follows:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100474.html

Prewar WMD claims worried analysts
Report details early doubts over veracity of Iraq intel
By Walter Pincus

Updated: 5:03 a.m. ET May 22, 2005

…a close reading of the recent 600-page report by the president's commission on intelligence, and the previous report by the Senate panel, shows that as war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs.

As Bush speeches were being drafted in the prewar period, serious questions were also being raised within the intelligence community about purported threats from biologically armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Nonetheless, a National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002 said the attempted procurement "strongly suggested" Iraq was interested in targeting UAVs on the United States. Senior members of Congress were told in September 2002 that this was the "smoking gun" in a special briefing by Vice President Cheney and then-CIA Director George J. Tenet.

By January 2003, however, it became publicly known that the director of Air Force intelligence dissented from the view that UAVs were to be used for biological or chemical delivery, saying instead they were for reconnaissance. In addition, according to the president's commission, the CIA "increasingly believed that the attempted purchase of the mapping software . . . may have been inadvertent."

By late January 2003, the number of U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf area was approaching 150,000, and the invasion of Iraq was all but guaranteed. Neither Bush nor Powell reflected in their speeches the many doubts that had surfaced at that time about Iraq's weapons programs.

However, as stated in regard to this thread’s OP, the mainstream media isn’t reporting much about it, and certainly not about impeachment proceedings (though many feel it would be deserved, and it would be great to be rid of Dubya sooner than later).

http://www.riverwoodbooks.com/books/Big-Bush-Lies.html

Big Bush Lies - 20 Essays and a List of the 50 Most Telling Lies of President George W. Bush
Edited by Jerry "Politex" Barrett
Available May 2004

Here lies George W. Bush
George W. Bush and his administration have a well-documented difficulty with honesty. President Bush lies. He lies frequently. He distorts the truth, changes the facts, and smirks all the while.

These 20 original essays detail and document lies both outrageously obvious and subtle. Taking Bush to task for his assault on the intelligence of Americans, the distinguished list of contributors includes academics, activists, legal experts, financial leaders, and journalists.
Lies covered include

· Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
· Foreign Policy
· Environment & Energy
· Health & Science
· The Use and Abuse of Religion
· Education
· Women and Minority Policies
· National Security & 9/11
· Bush Campaign Lies
· Pre-Presidential Lies, including Bush's experiences with drunk driving and the controversies and inconsistencies of his National Guard service.

"The Machinery of Mendacity"
COMMENTARY: Given a public policy debate, conservatives have decided to forgo real debate entirely -- to adopt instead a radical course: denying reality itself.
By Russ Rymer
May/June 2005 Issue

In the Bush administration "the negation of truth is so systematic. Dishonest accounting, willful scientific illiteracy, bowdlerized federal fact sheets, payola paid to putative journalists, 'news' networks run by right-wing apparatchiks, think tanks devoted to propaganda rather than thought, the purging of intelligence gatherers and experts throughout the bureaucracy whose findings might refute the party line -- this is the machinery of mendacity...The point here is not the hypocrisy involved, though that is egregious. The point is the downgrading of truth and honesty from principles with universal meaning to partisan weapons to be sheathed or drawn as necessary. No wonder the Bush administration feels no compunction to honor the truth or seek it; it conceives truth as a tactic, valuable only insofar as it is useful against one's enemies."

Unfortunately, it seems impeachment is only rumor at this time.

 

[polyb]

The rumor mill is going global, from al-jazeera:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=8681

Plus there is a direct copy and paste from the first posting, about midway down the article:

...
The Boston Globe published an article by Ralph Nader, Tuesday, in which Nader also called for President Bush's impeachment. The story is being carried on Michael Moore's website and the Democratic Underground.

Failed presidential candidate Kerry advised that he will begin the presentation of his case for President Bush's impeachment to Congress, on Monday.
...

Thoughts, speculations, premonitions?

 

[BobG]

Incompetence is an impeachable offense? Doesn't that violate some kind of modern day labor law or something? I thought you could only fire people for offenses totally unrelated to the performance of their job.

I don't put that much stock in the Downing Street Memo, but you certainly could make a case that Bush has damaged the national security.

And there'd be a long string of retired generals testifying against him if Bush were impeached over Iraq. Right from the beginning, there have been conflicts between the military and the Pentagon over Iraq - from Army Gen Shinseki's 'outrageous estimate' that it would take several hundred thousand troops in Iraq to maintain peace after the invasion and his forced retirement for sticking by his estimate; to dissenting military intel assessments of Iraq's WMD which were ignored (in fact, the Bush administration chose to use the only intel report to conclude Iraq had WMD); to criticism of the policies at Gitmo and Abu Graib encouraged by the Pentagon (Gen McCaffrey, Army general from the first Gulf War and former anti-drug czar).

I'd say he had managed something I never thought he could do - be more unpopular with the military than Clinton - except Clinton only alienated the rank and file in the military, not the leadership while Bush is popular with the rank and file, but despised by military leaders.

 

[Huckleberry]

I'd say he had managed something I never thought he could do - be more unpopular with the military than Clinton - except Clinton only alienated the rank and file in the military, not the leadership while Bush is popular with the rank and file, but despised by military leaders.

I was in the military enlisted during Clinton's presidency. I don't remember any ill will towards him among the crew. Could be an isolated example. I'm skeptical how much the rank and file is enjoying Bush's reign. They have more work and are in more danger than they were with Clinton. Many have had to leave their families and their jobs and set their lives on hold in order to wage a war they disagree with. I don't believe that Bush will find much support from the military if he goes up for impeachment.

 

[Art]

The Boston Globe published an article by Ralph Nader, Tuesday, in which Nader also called for President Bush’s impeachment. The story is being carried on Michael Moore’s website and the Democratic Underground. Failed presidential candidate Kerry advised that he will begin the presentation of his case for President Bush’s impeachment to Congress, on Monday.

Slightly off topic - I'd like to check out Michael Moore's website but would be afraid that I would then be added to an FBI list of potential terrorists which in turn could lead to them finding out about my overdue library book. Per the thread citing the guy who did 35 years for stealing a tv I'd be in big trouble . Seriously though it makes you wonder where things are going that you really do have to be careful what information you acccess even on the anonymous web.

 

[klusener]

It doesn't mention anything about Kerry pushing for an impeachment, it just talks about John Conyers Jr.

 

[countryboy]

Now let me get this straight.

Blair is saying--in 2002--that Bush "fixed" intelligence information about Iraq, when Blair himself was citing the same information right up until the start of the war in --2003?

You guys are capable of better that this!

 

[klusener]

Blair didn't say that Bush "fixed" the intelligence. Matthew Rycroft, the person who wrote the memo, is describing the minutes of their meeting.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

full text: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html

 

[countryboy]

Blair didn't say that Bush "fixed" the intelligence. Matthew Rycroft, the person who wrote the memo, is describing the minutes of their meeting.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

full text: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html

Oh, he didn't? What does this mean then?

John Kerry announced Thursday that he intends to present Congress with The Downing Street Memo, reported by the London Times 1 May 2005. As reported by NewsMax, the memo purports to include minutes from a July 2002 meeting with Tony Blair, in which Blair ostensibly said that President Bush’s Administration “fixed” intelligence on Iraq in order to justify the Iraqi war.

It sure looks to me like the author is saying that Blair said that Bush was "fixing" the intelligence.

 

[franznietzsche]

Incompetence is an impeachable offense? Doesn't that violate some kind of modern day labor law or something? I thought you could only fire people for offenses totally unrelated to the performance of their job.

Sounds about right.

Until they can prove he has committed a crime in office he cannot be impeached.

You know, like when Clinton committed perjury. That kind of crime.

Besides, he would never actually get impeached, even if he was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt (not likely to begin with) to have intentionally and knowningly lied, the vote in the House would go down party lines, and he would not be impeached. the 2 party system is broken, that's all there is to it.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm skeptical how much the rank and file is enjoying Bush's reign. They have more work and are in more danger than they were with Clinton. Many have had to leave their families and their jobs and set their lives on hold in order to wage a war they disagree with. I don't believe that Bush will find much support from the military if he goes up for impeachment.

Most of the people i know who know people in Iraq say they love Bush. My nephew is going to Iraq and although he's not into politics, he likes the guy and he agrees with the war (same with the friends' friends). Although your opinion makes sense (expect the big assumption that they disagree iwth the war), my father says over and over (in regards to the military) "boy they sure love Bush... I don't know why, but they sure do"

 

[SOS2008]

Tonight on MSNBC's Meet The Press, Ken Mehlman, RNC Chairman was asked about the Newsweek story about Quran abuse, the Downing Street memo, Pat Tilman, etc. Not surprisingly, Mehlman continued justification of these matters and to refer to the war in Iraq as a war on terror, and a war that makes America safer. The propaganda and insult to the intelligence of Americans continues...

 

[Pengwuino]

Well with the left-wing pushing mroe and more lies... America surely will become less intelligent over time.

wait wait wait, let's streamline the ideological process

blah blah blah, democrats suck

now you go, be quick, 1 line, must attain super efficiency.

 

[Huckleberry]

Most of the people i know who know people in Iraq say they love Bush. My nephew is going to Iraq and although he's not into politics, he likes the guy and he agrees with the war (same with the friends' friends). Although your opinion makes sense (expect the big assumption that they disagree iwth the war), my father says over and over (in regards to the military) "boy they sure love Bush... I don't know why, but they sure do"

Interesting. Maybe this is the case. I have been out of the military since late 98. Things have changed under Bush and I haven't had first hand access to the opinions of active duty military personnel.

In my defense I will say that my assumption was not such a big one. It may appear to be, but I remember a time when I was in the military and watching the news and seeing the propaganda they told. A soldier doesn't tell his true feelings to a news reporter. One of the first things you learn in the military is respect for chain of command, and the president is at the top of that chain of command. Military personnel are cautious expressing any negative opinions of the president, especially to their superiors or reporters.

Did you know that the US was in Albania as early as January 98?

 

[2CentsWorth]

blah blah blah...

Do you believe the invasion of Iraq was to combat terrorism, and to make America safe? (Just doing a little assessment of intelligence.)

 

[Pengwuino]

The latter... i don't like industrialized nations with the ability to construct nuclear weapons if they decided to with such hatred for the US. And of course, both of which were rather secondary in their importance for invading Iraq.

 

[SOS2008]

The latter... i don't like industrialized nations with the ability to construct nuclear weapons if they decided to with such hatred for the US. And of course, both of which were rather secondary in their importance for invading Iraq.

Was the economy in Iraq based on industrialization or oil exports? Is ability to construct nuclear weapons sufficient reason for invasion? We know there was no connection with 9-11 or terrorists in Iraq before the invasion, but now there are terrorists in Iraq and increasingly throughout the world. How does this make America safer?

 

[BobG]

Was the economy in Iraq based on industrialization or oil exports? Is ability to construct nuclear weapons sufficient reason for invasion? We know there was no connection with 9-11 or terrorists in Iraq before the invasion, but now there are terrorists in Iraq and increasingly throughout the world. How does this make America safer?

Unfortunately, it's a moot point now. We've created an inherently unsafe condition that we have to resolve successfully or accept living in a world we made unsafer by our own actions.

I felt it was a major issue in deciding whether Bush should be re-elected - rather than picking a candidate based on whose policies I agreed with or who I felt would make the world a better place, it came down to which candidate was least likely to make another disastorous mistake. Impeaching Bush in order for Cheney to take his place isn't going to correct the mistakes already made. Now we're kind of stuck in Iraq until the job is done, but we would have been stuck finishing the job even if Kerry were elected.

But, on the bright side, turning Iraq and Afghanistan into democracies is a time consuming enough task that Bush might not have the flexibility to make more mistakes. The sign that more trouble lies ahead would be if the US bails on a job half done. Considering the backlash the US would receive for bailing out, it's almost certain the only reason we would bail is because Bush needs those troops for a new operation.

 

[russ_watters]

I was in the military enlisted during Clinton's presidency. I don't remember any ill will towards him among the crew. Could be an isolated example. I'm skeptical how much the rank and file is enjoying Bush's reign. They have more work and are in more danger than they were with Clinton. Many have had to leave their families and their jobs and set their lives on hold in order to wage a war they disagree with. I don't believe that Bush will find much support from the military if he goes up for impeachment.

I was at the Naval Academy under Clinton and in the Navy under Bush, though I left before the Iraq war. People at the Academy were very much against Clinton. Motivation was high after 9/11, but I don't remember specific feelings toward Bush.

 

[mattmns]

Besides, he would never actually get impeached, even if he was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt (not likely to begin with) to have intentionally and knowningly lied, the vote in the House would go down party lines, and he would not be impeached. the 2 party system is broken, that's all there is to it.

Exactly!

 

[russ_watters]

Is ability to construct nuclear weapons sufficient reason for invasion? We know there was no connection with 9-11 or terrorists in Iraq before the invasion, but now there are terrorists in Iraq and increasingly throughout the world. How does this make America safer?

No, its the ability combined with the desire, intent, and actual act. However, to just focus on that one issue is an oversimplification of why we took down Saddam.

Not surprisingly, Mehlman continued justification of these matters and to refer to the war in Iraq as a war on terror, and a war that makes America safer.

Whether the war was started to fight terror or not, SOS, today virtually all of the fighting is against terrorists, so the characterization is appropriate.

 

[Art]

'The word 'Terrorist' is very overused these days to the point it is, in keeping with it's historical roots, a label for anybody who holds a contrary point of view. One of the first to popularize the term was Hitler during WW2 when he described the British commandos as terrorists.
So before labelling people willy nilly as a terrorist perhaps it would be a good idea as a starting point to look at the definition of a terrorist.

As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements:

(1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)

Now to most fair minded people that would mean the American forces fighting an illegal (as defined by the laws of the country they invaded and by the UN secretary general) war in Iraq are terrorists led by an arch-terrorist Bush. As they satisfy every condition listed above.

Understandably many US contributors to this forum would object to their armed forces being called terrorists but please can we have less of this emotive term when speaking of the forces opposing America?

 

[SOS2008]

I'm very tired of the propaganda. The invasion of Iraq was not a war on terror, and the war in Iraq has not made America safer.

 

[russ_watters]

'The word 'Terrorist' is very overused these days to the point it is, in keeping with it's historical roots, a label for anybody who holds a contrary point of view. One of the first to popularize the term was Hitler during WW2 when he described the British commandos as terrorists.
So before labelling people willy nilly as a terrorist perhaps it would be a good idea as a starting point to look at the definition of a terrorist.

As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements:

(1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)

So far so good...

Now to most fair minded people that would mean the American forces fighting an illegal (as defined by the laws of the country they invaded and by the UN secretary general) war in Iraq are terrorists led by an arch-terrorist Bush. As they satisfy every condition listed above.

Come again? Illegal by Iraq's law? War falls under international law and Iraq was in constant violation of the treaty ending the 1991 war - that alone means the war never ended. Next, UN resolution 1441 (unanamously approved) threatens the use of force for non-compliance. The UN didn't follow through - the US did.

But let's get more basic: if the war was a violation of international law, why hasn't the UN acted on that? The general assembly isn't real fond of the US - getting charges through would be a piece of cake. No, the reason is that it wasn't a violation of international law.

Now, let's also look at the definition and compare it to the US's actions: "to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof..." The point of the war was to remove the dictator Saddam Hussein from power. The only coercion involved was prior to the war and it was to get him to start obeying international law. The US is now trying to keep order in Iraq. To ensure security for the population. We are not trying to coerce the population or the government to do anything - we aren't fighting either.

Most of our opposition's actions these days are directed against the Iraqi people and government for the purpose of coercing them into an Islamic government, or at the very least, simply to oppose the one being formed. That's why they are bombing civilians, police, polling places (during the election), and assassinating democratically elected leaders. Its textbook terrorism.

So Art - its you who is overusing the word.

Understandably many US contributors to this forum would object to their armed forces being called terrorists but please can we have less of this emotive term when speaking of the forces opposing America?

Yes, please - apply the definition evenly, Mr. Pot.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm very tired of the propaganda. The invasion of Iraq was not a war on terror, and the war in Iraq has not made America safer.

Oddly enough, the complaint is inconsistant with the final statement as what you say is simply left-wing propaganda.

 

[Informal Logic]

Oddly enough, the complaint is inconsistant with the final statement as what you say is simply left-wing propaganda.

Yeah, it's just left wing propaganda -- Iraq was invaded because of links to Al 'Qeada/9-11, and if it was not for the war in Iraq, America would be in danger of attack by Saddam. In the meantime, the rest of the world has more respect and support for the US and the war, which along with Abu Graib, Guantamano Bay, etc. has caused the threat of terrorism to decrease.

So core Bush supporters continue to believe the trash talk, but it is not likely to help with swing voters. As stated in the "What's Wrong With The Republican Party" thread:

Iraq/Foreign Affairs – Aside from the ongoing death tolls, Americans did not appreciate being deceived about the war.

...I hope they [Republicans] continue to be delusional idiots and continue to ignore the polls.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yeah, it's just left wing propaganda -- Iraq was invaded because of links to Al 'Qeada/9-11, and if it was not for the war in Iraq, America would be in danger of attack by Saddam. In the meantime, the rest of the world has more respect and support for the US and the war, which along with Abu Graib, Guantamano Bay, etc. has caused the threat of terrorism to decrease.

Although Saddam didnt pose a threat to the US directly, violating many many UN sanctions and murdering his own people was a good thing? I've yet to hear an explnation as to why we should have allowed such activity to continue. And as I have heard exactly what you said abouta thousand times in aalmost the exact same words, ill respond in the exact same words. The world listens to falsified left-wing propaganda that attempts to undermine the US. But then again maybe that's laughable. Maybe newsweek did follow up and verified the supposed toilet incident and it turned out to true. Or maybe amnesty international is right when they compared Gitmo to the Russian gulag as I am sure millions of innocent people were murdered at Gitmo. But then again maybe the Red Cross was right when they demanded they shut down a few prisons because a few people were caught with their pants down (literally) although not a word when saddam did the same except 'a few people caught with their pants down' was 'a few hundred thousand people were shot'. But then again maybe the US is evil when it "mistreats" (as in, carefully carries every holy book with surgical gloves) holy books yet allow the Bible to be burnt and defecated on elsewhere (even in the states itself).

But I guess your completely right. We look like fools and are a horrible nation! How dare we get rid of a murderous corupt dictator giving millions of dollars in bribes to UN officials. How dare we...

 

[Burnsys]

Although Saddam didnt pose a threat to the US directly, violating many many UN sanctions and murdering his own people was a good thing? I've yet to hear an explnation as to why we should have allowed such activity to continue. And as I have heard exactly what you said abouta thousand times in aalmost the exact same words, ill respond in the exact same words. The world listens to falsified left-wing propaganda that attempts to undermine the US. But then again maybe that's laughable. Maybe newsweek did follow up and verified the supposed toilet incident and it turned out to true. Or maybe amnesty international is right when they compared Gitmo to the Russian gulag as I am sure millions of innocent people were murdered at Gitmo. But then again maybe the Red Cross was right when they demanded they shut down a few prisons because a few people were caught with their pants down (literally) although not a word when saddam did the same except 'a few people caught with their pants down' was 'a few hundred thousand people were shot'. But then again maybe the US is evil when it "mistreats" (as in, carefully carries every holy book with surgical gloves) holy books yet allow the Bible to be burnt and defecated on elsewhere (even in the states itself).

But I guess your completely right. We look like fools and are a horrible nation! How dare we get rid of a murderous corupt dictator giving millions of dollars in bribes to UN officials. How dare we...

How dare you to give millons in aid, military training, intelligence data and hellicopters to saddam when he was using chemical weapons on his own people and on the iranians??

When asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have "any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations," the department's spokesperson said "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq52.pdf

Absolutly the use of chemical weapons was not the cause of the invasion of irak becouse rumsfeld himself keep aiding saddam in the 80 when he knew he used chemical weapons. and don't even try to bring the "he was a cruel dictator" becouse US supports right now a lot of other cruel dictators... even givin them weapons and money...

 

[SOS2008]

I'm very tired of the propaganda. The invasion of Iraq was not a war on terror, and the war in Iraq has not made America safer.

On CNN Tonight:

DOBBS: My next guest says the United States must immediately secure our nation's borders in order to prevent another terrorist attack in this country. Robert Pape says completing a partial border fence along our 2,000-mile border with Mexico would cost, by his estimate, about $6 billion. That, he says, is the same as paying for U.S. military operations in Iraq for just about a month.

Robert Pape is the author of "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism." For the book, he compiled the first data base of every suicide attack in the world since 1980. Robert Pape is associate professor of political science at the University of Chicago and joins us here in New York tonight. Good to have you with us.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

DOBBS: And that idea is also attached to the religious drive of these radical Islamists, particularly obviously in Iraq, where we're now focused. You also put forth some startling numbers. In terms of the suicide attacks that have occurred over the course of the first attacks against Saddam Hussein, do we have those statistics up? And if not, I'll just -- we'll just -- do we have those? Let's take a look at those. The nationality of --

PAPE: These are actually al Qaeda.

DOBBS: -- of al Qaeda suicide attackers, their origins. I think many people would not be surprised, given what has transpired in this country on September 11th, to find that most are from Saudi Arabia, followed by Morocco. These are -- this is extraordinary. Why that breakdown in your judgment?

PAPE: What the vast majority of suicide terrorist attacks have in common is not religion, but a clear secular strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. Al Qaeda fits this pattern, not perfectly, but quite strongly. You see, what that table shows is that overwhelmingly, al Qaeda suicide terrorists, the 71 who actually died to fulfill Osama bin Laden's attacks since 1995, come overwhelmingly from Sunni countries where we've stationed tens of thousands of American combat forces, and actually, quite few from the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran. If you look at that chart, you'll see that Iran -- an Islamic fundamentalist country with 70 million people, three times the population of Saudi Arabia, three times the population of Iraq, has never produced a single al Qaeda suicide terrorist.

DOBBS: And the reason for that you posit is that there is no occupation of Iranian...

PAPE: There's no occupation and no threat of occupation. Iran is not just simply a big state. It's a big state with a fairly large army, and an army that hasn't been defeated by a previous war, as Iraq was, or under American heavy-duty economic sanctions for a long period of time.

DOBBS: Implications for your studies U.S. policy in the Iraq, in the Middle East going forward?

PAPE: So long as tens of thousands of American combat troops remain in the Persian Gulf, we should expect anti-American suicide terrorism to continue. In Iraq, before America's invasion in March 2003, there was not a single suicide terrorist attack in Iraq's history. Since then, it's been growing, and will likely continue to grow as long as our forces are there.

DOBBS: The economics that you are recommending in terms of putting absolute border security for our southern border, our northern border, for our ports, the economics are overwhelmingly in favor of your recommendation?

PAPE: Absolutely. We should recognize that even if we reverse policy and begin to withdraw forces from the Persian Gulf, that's going to take years to turn that supertanker around. As a result, we need to expect that anti-American suicide terrorism is going to grow, and toughening border securities, especially with a fence, much like the fence that the Israelis have built on the West Bank, would be an excellent investment.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/06/ldt.01.html

 

[BobG]

Although Saddam didnt pose a threat to the US directly, violating many many UN sanctions and murdering his own people was a good thing? I've yet to hear an explnation as to why we should have allowed such activity to continue.

Why do you label SOS's comment as left-wing propaganda, but then make no effort to refute what she said? Instead you shift the topic to Iraqi liberty, as if that should take priority over the safety of American lives.

Our priority should have been protecting Americans - eliminating Bin Laden and real terrorist threats - not liberating Iraqis.

From our point of view, our main concern regarding Iraq should have been whether or not Iraq was a threat to Middle East peace. As long as sanctions were working, we had time to concentrate on organizations that presented a more immediate threat. In fact, considering the prime motivation for WMD in both Iraq and Iran was fear of each other, there was even a possibility a long term solution could have been worked by mutual inspections in both countries.

More importantly, Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda roam free around the Afghanistan-Pakistan border four years after we invaded Afghanistan to kill them. Pakistan's support for our war against Bin Laden could almost be considered a success story. Prior to the Afghanistan invasion, Pakistan could have expected to be number two on the list of countries that the US would invade in pursuit of Al-Qaeda. Instead, the leader of Pakistan supports our efforts to track down Al-Qaeda along the border in spite of his own citizens' threats to end his life for doing so. A pre-emptive invasion of Iraq just makes support for the US that much more unpopular in Pakistan - and considering that support was at least partially given because Pakistan didn't want to be country #2, a huge commitment in Iraq actually reduces the urgency of Pakistan's commitment.

 

[Art]

So far so good...

Glad that meets with your approval. So if an international court rules the war illegal you will then agree that America's actions constitute terrorism? Right?

But let's get more basic: if the war was a violation of international law, why hasn't the UN acted on that? The general assembly isn't real fond of the US - getting charges through would be a piece of cake. No, the reason is that it wasn't a violation of international law.

The UN have acted on it in so much as the secretary general has said it was illegal which is a pretty damning indictment. As to why they haven't imposed penalties such as sanctions etc is fairly obvious - because America is too powerful. Because both Britain and America have permanent seats on the security council with vetos etc.. etc... Plus the American government refused to sign up to the UN treaty allowing the UN to preside over allegations of war crimes against member countries. (Very farsighted of them as it turns out).There are moves however to have Blair charged in europe over this illegal war which could be interesting.

Now, let's also look at the definition and compare it to the US's actions: "to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof..." The point of the war was to remove the dictator Saddam Hussein from power.

Dictatator or not he was the head of the government. I don't see where this definition says it only applies to democratic governments (or despots allied to the USA)

The only coercion involved was prior to the war and it was to get him to start obeying international law.

Some people would think cruise missiles and bombs raining down would constitute coercian.

The US is now trying to keep order in Iraq. To ensure security for the population.

And where did the disorder originate? Oh yes - Americas illegal invasion.

We are not trying to coerce the population or the government to do anything - we aren't fighting either.

I don't know what to say

Most of our opposition's actions these days are directed against the Iraqi people and government for the purpose of coercing them into an Islamic government, or at the very least, simply to oppose the one being formed. That's why they are bombing civilians, police, polling places (during the election), and assassinating democratically elected leaders. Its textbook terrorism.

There are several factions fighting in Iraq. Some as you say (mainly foreigners) are trying to take advantage of the current instability to further their aims. Many however are Iraqis fighting to liberate their country in the same way the French resistance in WW2 attacked members of the Vichy government, colloborators, infrastructure and the invasion forces. Was this terrorism too in your book? If not please explain the difference.

So Art - its you who is overusing the word. Yes, please - apply the definition evenly, Mr. Pot.

Yes Mr Kettle I absolutely agree the definition should be applied evenly. That was the whole point of my mail. I am not defending people in Iraq who attack civilians; in fact my personal definition of terrorism is anybody who attacks soft civilian targets or is somewhat blase about collateral civilian damage when attacking military targets. Attacking military, both regulars and irregulars, I call war. So from my viewpoint I see acts of war and acts of terrorism on both sides. Going back to the central thrust of my argument I do not believe it is right for you to label everybody who disagrees with your administration's views, with the emotive label of Terrorist.

 

[russ_watters]

On CNN Tonight:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/06/ldt.01.html

Interesting, but what does he make of the fact that terrorism existed before the 1991 Gulf war and was perpetrated largely by Iran?

 

[russ_watters]

So if an international court rules the war illegal you will then agree that America's actions constitute terrorism? Right?

No. Please reread the definition you posted - not every illegal act is an act of terrorism. Terrorism has specific characteristics.

The UN have acted on it in so much as the secretary general has said it was illegal which is a pretty damning indictment.

A speech made by the secretary general is as meaningless as a speech made by any other politician: its all rhetoric. What matters (again) is the actions. The UN has a general assembly, a world court, and (if necessary) war crimes tribunals. None have made so much as a peep because there is nothing to peep about. Futhermore, Anan is under some pretty heavy fire himself right now - I wonder how he'd have reacted if he didn't need to be defending himself against corruption charges.

Dictatator or not he was the head of the government. I don't see where this definition says it only applies to democratic governments (or despots allied to the USA)

The word "dictator" was not the key to that sentence. Taking down a foreign government is generally not an act of terrorism, its an act of war. Wars, even illegal ones, are not usually acts of terrorism: ie, very little of what Germany or Japan did in WWII was considered terrorism.

Some people would think cruise missiles and bombs raining down would constitute coercian.

Some people clearly confuse "terrorism" and "war".

And where did the disorder originate?

You're changing the subject.

There are several factions fighting in Iraq. Some as you say (mainly foreigners) are trying to take advantage of the current instability to further their aims. Many however are Iraqis fighting to liberate their country in the same way the French resistance in WW2 attacked members of the Vichy government, colloborators, infrastructure and the invasion forces. Was this terrorism too in your book? If not please explain the difference.

Some is terrorism and some is not. As the definition says quite clearly, terrorism is a type of tactic.

... in fact my personal definition of terrorism is...

Why even bother to post the real definition if you're just going to make your own up anyway? Jeez, you're not even being subtle about it: you just came right out and said that you refuse to use the objective definition you just posted. But hey, just for kicks, let's have a look at your personal definition:

...anybody who attacks soft civilian targets or is somewhat blase about collateral civilian damage when attacking military targets.

Well, in that case you just referred to just about every military act by anyone, ever, except the West's actions in Iraq in 1991 and today and Afghanistan in 2002. The US and her allies went to absolutely unprecidented extremes to protect civilians in both wars. To the point of putting our own soldiers at severe risk. Many Americans died rather than risk killing civilians.

Going back to the central thrust of my argument I do not believe it is right for you to label everybody who disagrees with your administration's views, with the emotive label of Terrorist.

Only one of us is doing that. Look in the mirror. Drop your "personal definition" and start following the real definition.

 

[vanesch]

I don't think it is fair to call American soldiers "terrorists". Guys in deep sh*t is closer to reality. I'm sure that Dubya Bush wanted to do something "good" by invading Iraq (for the correct definition of "good": good for his buddies, good for his popularity, good for the US, good for the Iraqi people, good for Israel, in general, good for the world according to his views). I think most people in the world would agree that removing an evil dictator and replace it by a blossoming democracy was a positive evolution, if there would not be any price to pay. So a bit of lying in order to mobilise to do "good" was allowed for, wasn't it ?

He screwed up dearly and that was obvious from the start to about everybody in the world except him and his followers, that things wouldn't go as he promised (and maybe, probably, even believed himself). "Screwed up" in the sense of: not reaching his goal with his plan. Now, instead of admitting so, he (and his followers) STILL claim that it was "the right thing to do", and that's where things become miserable. It was NOT the right thing to do because IT DIDN'T WORK ! It doesn't really matter whether in the end it was "legal" or not. It's a mess! It was a very predictable mess.

Nevertheless, that doesn't make Bush a terrorist like Ossama, who wants to do only "good" according to HIS, EVIL definition of "good", which is to stink out all those heathen whiteskins out of holy Arab land. If I have to choose, according to MY definition of "good" I prefer Dubya's definition over Ossama's definition. Only, Dubya screws up, Ossama doesn't.

 

[Art]

No. Please reread the definition you posted - not every illegal act is an act of terrorism. Terrorism has specific characteristics.

Etc, etc,etc... This part of your post simply exemplifies your inablity to look at things with an open mind.

Why even bother to post the real definition if you're just going to make your own up anyway? Jeez, you're not even being subtle about it: you just came right out and said that you refuse to use the objective definition you just posted. But hey, just for kicks, let's have a look at your personal definition: Well, in that case you just referred to just about every military act by anyone, ever, except the West's actions in Iraq in 1991 and today and Afghanistan in 2002. The US and her allies went to absolutely unprecidented extremes to protect civilians in both wars. To the point of putting our own soldiers at severe risk. Many Americans died rather than risk killing civilians. Only one of us is doing that. Look in the mirror. Drop your "personal definition" and start following the real definition.

And this part exemplifies why. You take every edict, press release, opinion and posture that the Bush administration hands out without question and propogate their terminalogicalinexactitudes. Whereas some of us actually think for ourselves. We look at the facts and make our own minds up rather than starting with someones elses conclusion and working backwards to justify it.

 

[SOS2008]

Our priority should have been protecting Americans - eliminating Bin Laden and real terrorist threats - not liberating Iraqis.

Agreed. And America is not safer, because now we are in a poor position to address other situations in the world.

Interesting, but what does he make of the fact that terrorism existed before the 1991 Gulf war and was perpetrated largely by Iran?

The study/data is based on anti-American suicide terrorism, which has only occurred in countries where there has been occupation/intervention. The point is that occupation/intervention INCREASES terrorism of this kind.

If I have to choose, according to MY definition of "good" I prefer Dubya's definition over Ossama's definition. Only, Dubya screws up, Ossama doesn't.

Agreed about comparison to a terrorist (Osama) but not in regard to the unnecessary and illegal invasion of Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq is not a war on terror, and the war in Iraq does not make America safer. Saying otherwise is propaganda.

 

[Pengwuino]

The invasion of Iraq is not a war on terror, and the war in Iraq does not make America safer. Saying otherwise is propaganda.

Ironically, your entire statement is simple left-wing propaganda. The fact that none of us are omnipotent or at the least, are directors of any major national defense agency, makes us rather ill informed to make such broad statements. Of course, however, some peopel seem to feel they know definitive facts about the entire world based on a CNN article or something Newsweek inked up on a piece of paper.

 

[Pengwuino]

And this part exemplifies why. You take every edict, press release, opinion and posture that the Bush administration hands out without question and propogate their terminalogicalinexactitudes. Whereas some of us actually think for ourselves. We look at the facts and make our own minds up rather than starting with someones elses conclusion and working backwards to justify it.

Really? The last time i saw a democrat try to source something or use logic in regards to a conversation or didnt act hypocritical... well.. hmm.. who was president at that time...

I mean come on, your the ideology that almost stumbled over your own two feet when Dan Rather gave some falsified BS and you guys took it as the holy grail. Then of course, throw in a newsweek article and your pretty much in lala land believing anything anti-Bush that happens to come out of any hole in the ground.

 

[russ_watters]

The study/data is based on anti-American suicide terrorism, which has only occurred in countries where there has been occupation/intervention.

And only after 1991? I consider that to be a vast oversimplification of the problem. Sure, its easy for him to make the case that our presence is the important factor if he limits the scope of his investigation to terrorism related to our presence.

We have a significant number of troops in dozens of countries and the only terrorism we see is perpetrated by people who call themselves Muslims. Ie, when was the last time a German, South Korean, or Japanese strapped a bomb to his chest and blew up a restaraunt in one of those countries?

The point is that occupation/intervention INCREASES terrorism of this kind.

That's it? Isn't that a self-evident and therefore useless point? Of course terrorism increases when we go near terrorists. Bee stings increase near bees nests too. But then comes logical leap from the corellation (bee stings happen near bees nests) to causation: going near bees nests creates bees. Then, of course, the fallacious course of action that leads to: stay away from bees nests and there won't be any bees. Have people forgotten the 1980s, when Iran was on its terrorism binge? I went on a trip to Europe in ~'84 and in most countries they had armed military guards with machine guns outside the American Express office for fear of Iranian terrorism.

He uses the Tamil Tigers as an example of a Marxist terrorist group - well fine, they are terrorists because of Marxism. That doesn't mean that Islamic terrorists aren't terrorists because of the way they view Islam - especially when the politics and religion are so inter-mixed in a religious theocracy.

If you don't believe that Bin Laden is motivated first and foremost by religion, ask him. He'll tell you (he has on many, many occasions).

The guy discounts Iran, but again, Iran was for quite a while the biggest state sponsor of terrorism. The fact that they have calmed down probably directly goes against his thesis: our presence near Iran has them afraid enough to not want to piss us off (see: Libya, Syria).

 

[Burnsys]

Ironically, your entire statement is simple left-wing propaganda. The fact that none of us are omnipotent or at the least, are directors of any major national defense agency, makes us rather ill informed to make such broad statements. Of course, however, some peopel seem to feel they know definitive facts about the entire world based on a CNN article or something Newsweek inked up on a piece of paper.

But Pengwuino! We can read some department of defence document declasified by the FOIA act...

Let me read some for you:

National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

 

[Pengwuino]

And exactly how does that make the US unsafe right now? I mean come on... that's from over 2 decades ago... and hey wait a second... i thought Iraq never used chemical weapons :-/.

Thanks for the article, it pretty much shows the entire left-wing's views as a bunch of lies and propoganda.

 

[Art]

Really? The last time i saw a democrat try to source something or use logic in regards to a conversation or didnt act hypocritical... well.. hmm.. who was president at that time...

I mean come on, your the ideology that almost stumbled over your own two feet when Dan Rather gave some falsified BS and you guys took it as the holy grail. Then of course, throw in a newsweek article and your pretty much in lala land believing anything anti-Bush that happens to come out of any hole in the ground.

Err Pengwuino as I've mentioned in several of my postings I am from europe. The US Democratic party doesn't campaign here. However I have had the pleasure of many visits to the USA both business and pleasure and found the vast majority of Americans to be very decent folk. One notable exception was during my first visit to California. I was out for dinner with a business colleague and his wife when the subject came up of the differences between capitalism with a safety net as practiced in much of europe and capitalism without as practiced in California. My colleagues wife informed me that the reason there were destitute people on so many street corners holding up cardboard placards saying "Will work for food" was "a vindication of American freedom. We allow people to choose to live like that" she said proudly. And incredibly she wasn't joking. She actually believed these poor people had made a career choice to be broke and destitute.