Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Who says The Bush/Iraq War has made the U.S. less safe?

Who says The Bush/Iraq War has made us less safe? Apparently a lot of people who should know have been saying that. According to an article on MSNBC, the critics have included such experts as the NY chief of police and a former head of National Counter Terrorism and others.

For some odd reason, many of us find it easy to dismiss the testimonies of the thousands of the terrorists and counter insurgents themselves who, when asked, "Why did you become a terrorist?" would respond, "Because of George Bush's war," or "Because of the American invasion."

However, I wonder whose truthfulness, whose credentials, would be enough to convince some people. Those of us who are absolutely convinced that the war made us safer would do well to note the informed opinions offered in the recent MSNBC article as follows:

  • Adm. Scott Redd, head of the National Counter Terrorism Center admits that, in the short term at least, "U.S. destruction is radicalizing a generation of young Arab and Muslims men." He's holding out for a presumed long term effect (Which, I suppose, is something like pie in the sky.)
  • "New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly calls the war a "catalyst" that has made his job harder and has made New York, the site of the twin tower catastrophe, less safe!
  • Even Iraqis who hate al Queda say they hate the United States even more.
  • A National Security Council's former senior director for Near East and African Affairs declares, not only that the war has made things worse, and that we are "chasing the wrong bad guys," but that the war has made the United States less safe.
  • Baghdad prisoners themselves say it was the U.S, Occupation that turned them bad.

I saw the article at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21312504/

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Who is paying for the Iraq War? Nobody ... yet

By F. Ellworth Lockwood
October 13, 2007

Who is paying for the Iraq war? Nobody ... yet.

According to a piece accredited to the New York Times, White House press secretary Dana Perino has claimed that Democrats are "fiscally irresponsible" for suggesting that we should pay for the war as we go! What? No more "tax-and-spend," just "spend-and-spend?"

I saw the article at:

http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/313768.html

McClatchy's mini-reports from inside Iraq

By F. Ellsworth Lockwood
October 13, 2007

Interesting mini-readings from inside Iraq. I saw them at:

Inside Iraq - McClatchy Newspapers: http://news.yahoo.com/i/2974

Former Commander to get life for buying cigars ... and what?

By F. Ellsworth Lockwood
October 13, 2007


Am I reading this article right? Does it say that a former U.S. commander might get life, as well as a dishonorable discharge, for buying some cigars and flirting with some gal?

Oh, no, it does not say that. On closer reading, the commander also is alleged to have provided unsupervised use of a cell phone. The cell phone business, if true, sounds serious enough on its own to warrant the punishments. Good God, giving a cell phone to some of the potentially most dangerous men on earth? If true, he should consider himself lucky to have his life spared.



I saw the article at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_soldier_charged_1;_ylt=AjhjXQSFZR2T4rnj13mU7h0UewgF

Former Coalition general calls Iraq "nightmare"

A former Coalition general now calls the situation in Iraq a "nightmare," blames both politics and military "shortcomings."

I saw the article at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/sanchez_iraq

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Plight of Assyrian Christians: U.S. incompetence results in war, domestic violence and an Iraqi theocracy

By F. Ellsworth Lockwood

The following link is to an article concerning the Assyrian Christians who are caught up in the politics of the U.S. Invasion of Iraq, the so-called (so-mislabeled) "War of 2003." The article was apparently written by an Assyrian Christian minister who lived through the American assault on his country. At first he opposed the invasion, but later changed his mind. Now he is unhappy, however, with the results.


For more information, follow the link at:

http://political-views-by-fel.blogspot.com/2007/10/assyrian-christian-calls-for-secular.html

U.S. Promotes war, violence and an Iraqi theocracy

This article is missing. My apologies. I must have written something about this topic but the article is no longer available. Back in that time frame I did write some blurbs about other people's war articles which you may find interesting, and they are posted above (at http://warviews.blogspot.com/ )

I will see if I can find what happened to this article but I am afraid it has been lost or perhaps deleted intentionally if I found that my information was not accurate. Again, my apologies.

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

This makes no sense to me ...

These things make no sense to me:

  • This: We invaded Iraq to fight terrorism (read, Al Qaeda), though Iraq had no known ties to that terrorist organization. At the same time, the Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is widely reported to be operating out of Pakistan!
  • And this: Yet, we don't invade Pakistan. Instead, our President claims that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had been a helpful ally in fighting terrorism. "We have enjoyed some of our biggest successes with our allies in Pakistan," a White House Spokesman (Townsend) reportedly told reporters. Oh, really.
  • At the same time this: Our Administration is continually making overtures of war towards Iran because insurgents are allegedly aided and abetted by groups inside Iran, even though those groups, so far as I am aware, have no known ties to the Iranian government.
  • On top of this: Iraq was said to have become a nuclear threat to the U.S., yet we now know that Iraq had no nuclear capability. Our "intelligence" was that bad.
  • At the same time, Korea DID and DOES have nuclear capability, yet our administration went about "disarming" Korea through diplomacy.
  • And this: The United States apparently DOES know where Al Qaeda's leadership resides. U.S. officials suspect he is hiding in the remote mountainous border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan. So, I am confused: Why are we bogged down inside of Iraq rather than sweeping the hills of Pakistan?
  • And now this: There were no known links of Saddam Hussein's government to Al Qaeda, and it is doubtful that Al Qaeda could have operated from inside Iraq, seeing as Saddam despised the organization. Now that the United States is in control of Iraq that has changed! The White House now reports that Al Qaeda in Iraq currently is the group's most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack us here in the United States. So, the United States opened the arms of Iraq to Al Qaeda, in the name of national defense?

What am I missing here? This simply is not adding up. What are the missing pieces to this puzzle? Someone help me out. Send me some informed comments!

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Who opposed the invasion of Iraq?

By F. Ellsworth Lockwood

Based upon my interactions with friends here in eastern Washington, for a long while I felt very isolated becausae of my position opposing the attack on Iraq. In this blog I will begin to explore who opposed the war, when, and perhaps why. At the top of my list, of course, is Presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

"In October 2002, before being elected to the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama made a speech opposing the Bush Administration's plan to go to war in Iraq because he felt it was an ill-conceived venture which would "require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Source: http://obama.senate.gov/issues/iraq/index.html

I will "seed" this blog with a few insightful people who registered their opposition early on, but if you are aware of others who should be included, please add them as "comments."
-------------------------------

Top British clerics opposed the invasion of Iraq by the United States prior to the United States' 2003 attack.

I saw the article at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/14/1026185141810.html

---------------------
United States Catholic Bishops opposed the action:

On September 13, 2002, US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any "preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq" could not be justified at the time. I saw it at http://www.usccb.org/bishops/iraq.shtml
-------------------------

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold exposed the President's rationale as falacious: Feingold opposed the invasion of Iraq, and spoke of the White House's "continually shifting justifications" for the war. "In terms of the justifications ... and in terms of the mission and the plan ... Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up, " he said.

http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/speeches/02/10/2002A10531.html

------------------------
A minority of Christians, claiming to base their opposition on scriptures, have mangaged to put together a web page.

I saw it at http://believersagainstthewar.org/
---------------------------------------------------
The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church

"The most public and serious condemnations of the invasion of Iraq came from Pope John Paul II and other top officials at the Vatican."

He is credited by what one might consider the least likely of allies -- a group of atheists! I saw it at http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/iraqwar.htm