Pantagraph.com | Letters | We must show the will to keep fighting al-Qaida

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Wind Energy wrote on Aug 13, 2007 12:56 AM:

" "The Mission" HAS been accomplished. What Bush didn't mention were its true objectives. 1. The price of crude oil has tripled since Bush took office, thanks in part to the invasion and our ability to keep Iraq's vast reserves of oil off the international market. 2. Over one trillion dollars has been transferred from the pockets of the American taxpayer into the pockets of Haliburton, Blackwater, TRW, Bechtel, Brown and Root and other transnational corporations allied with Bush and Cheney financial interests. 3. Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of the the American citizen have been gutted to an extent never imagined since the country was founded. "The Mission" has been accomplished. "

This Liberal - wrote on Aug 12, 2007 11:38 PM:

" NEVER voted for Bush, nor his war. I would indeed shout AYE for his Impeachment. I am also all for seeing him punished for his attacks on Civil Liberties here in America. I would also vote in the affirmative to see him and his flunkies brought to trial for war crimes under International Law. "

To: Listen up Libs wrote on Aug 12, 2007 11:32 PM:

" Why don't YOU comment on the Bin Laden, Reagan, Bush I saga? Or go even further back and focus on nearly 100 years of Western (American, British and French) Imperialism and oil-motivated interventions in the Middle East? All that background that fuels the fear and loathing which powers Radical Islam's hatred of us? Maybe it is because you are a Conservative and like doing things over and over again in the same old foolish ways - even if it is wrong? Tradition to the Death, THAT is the Neo-Con mantra. "

to Thosnocents, from ThosSpence wrote on Aug 12, 2007 11:14 PM:

" Such a typical response, based on wishful-thinking and delusion, utterly divorced from reality. Your pitiful attempt at response doesn't address a single point I made. You cite the forthcoming Petraus report as if it will have any credibility whatsoever. Of course he will insist that the "surge" is going swell, otherwise he'll be fired! Who in their right mind doesn't understand that? Show resolve, right, because of what your son claims he heard on a loudspeaker!!! You are more than a fool if you believe that al-Maliki is "standing up" to Iran! He is an Iranian creature, pure and simple. As I noted in my post, the best that Bush can hope for out of this utterly confounding disaster, is a fundamentalist Iraqi regime that is closely tied to Iran. If you doubt that obvious fact you impeach yourself. Finally, you again insist that this is a military issue when the real problem is political. Moreevoer, Americans have not done well in a ground war since the Battle of the Bulge. Just keep pretending pops. "

To Thosnocents wrote on Aug 12, 2007 9:52 PM:

" So you can't wait until the report comes out next month? Could it be that good news is coming and you, Harry and Nancy want to lose? Could you explain why the sheiks in Ramadi wanted us to stay and fight Al Queda with them, which they have done successfully. There is recently a calling out in Baghdad for more of the same. Can you explain that not long ago, anti-American sentiment was playing on loud speakers throughout the week in Ramadi, and now the broadcast is positive toward America? You seem to think that it was a bed of roses for the Iraqi's with Saddamn. Have you not kept up on current events where Maliki is now voicing opposition to Iran? Do you know that when my son goes on mission trips that children actually cheer for the soldiers? Is there a long way to go, yes indeed. Didn't your side also agree to wait until the report comes out next month? Liberals voted for it and when the tide might be turning, you want to declare failure. This is typical and consistent. "

reader wrote on Aug 12, 2007 9:03 PM:

" I am so tired of hearing the terrorists called al-quiada.Lets call it by what it is and always will be, radical islam.I will never bend to the will of these crazy's like most of the civilized world will by allowing them to set up their radical schools here in the USA and teach there doctrine of hate .They want to be ruled and judged by there own islamic law.I will fight this with my last breath. "

to listen up libs, from ThosSpence wrote on Aug 12, 2007 8:15 PM:

" Is that all that you are capable of delivering, tired, discredited insult, completely devoid of any remote understanding of the issues? El Queda in Mespotamia didn't exist until Bush's illegal invasion and occupation. It has been U.S. actions in Iraq, with all of its violence and devastation, that triggered off the hell that now engulfs that country. Why does that simple fact elude you? The violent and corrupt nature of the occupation has also enraged a large part of the Muslim world, fuelling support for radical Islamic militancy. Why don't you address that? Is the solution, as you assume, to keep pretending that the U.S. military will prevail? What does that even mean? And what will U.S. "victory" mean for Iraqis, who are paying the real price for this debacle? Do you even realize that the best possible case now is that the U.S. will help to secure a Shia-dominated regime that is a close ally of Iran? Please, cease your flag waving and start doing some serious reading. "

Listen up Libs wrote on Aug 12, 2007 6:12 PM:

" I'm just glad that we have brave courageous troops who are fighting for our interest. I'd be real concerned if all you liberals were fighting for us. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you would ever fight for a cause. You'd rather complain and whine. Our country wouldn't even exist if George, Benjamin, John and the rest, were a bunch of whiners. Okay Bush messed up several times (yes you heard it from a conservative). If he lied, then so did Hillary, Kerry, and on an on. You're a broken record and only your fellow Michael Moore followers believe it. You act as if Islamic Fascism will just go away if we leave Iraq. Wake up. And you'll be the ones to blame Bush if we have another attack before he leaves office. Why don't you comment on the Bin Laden, Clinton and Berger saga. They wimped out. They're the same mold as Pelosi and Reid - Gutless. "

Where did you come from? wrote on Aug 12, 2007 2:27 PM:

" The comments posted about the war and the other article on GBLT's makes me feel like I'm living in San Francisco. Where did are all of you people come from, and why are you living here in conservative McLean county. Did you all come to school here and get indoctrinated by left-wing professors and decide to stay here. But I'm sure you all support the troops, right? You libs are a very angry people. You have Pelosi and Reid in control of Congress. What more could you want? "

to Plus wrote on Aug 12, 2007 11:29 AM:

" The Corporate Owned Media doesn't like to report on Iraqi casualities. It might make Bush's War even less favorable and might even give the most spineless politician cause to oppose it. Since the Corporate Owned Media is owned by the same crew who owns companies which supply hardware to the military, we can't have that! No war means a lot less military orders! "

Fatso wrote on Aug 12, 2007 8:42 AM:

" I agree, Robert. And, in that light, I'd suggest you get busy and give your grandkids in a little close order drill instruction. We're going to need their help. "

to: Tony S. wrote on Aug 12, 2007 8:33 AM:

" The statement Bush Jr. as he played warrior in his Evel Knievel suit was "major hostilities have ended". That statement in itself was already a joke at the time. The banner "Mission Accomplished" which displayed boldly in the background, just underscored the delusion of the ideologists who sold the dreams of Iraqi conquest to an amateurish and ill prepared President. "

reader wrote on Aug 12, 2007 8:29 AM:

" We will never win because we were afraid to publish some cartoons that upset some radicals. "

ES wrote on Aug 12, 2007 8:10 AM:

" Slow down Robert and breathe. We attacked a country that did nothing, we were lied to about WMD's so the President could be reelected, the French did fight, and compairing the armies of Iraq with that of Napoleon is just plain silly. Get off your Fox-spewed rhetoric and face the facts. Your boy George lied to you and the American public. "

OGS It Is Simply Amazing... wrote on Aug 12, 2007 3:25 AM:

" ...that this uninformed writer has gotten this many well thought out comments yet recent letters about the 9/11 attacks has gotten less. I glad that you all have tried to inform this man of his uninformed thoughts, however and saddedned by the lack of (intelligent...for discussion) comments on the 9/11 issue. Surely you all know by now that 9/11 was false flag attack used as a pre-text to war with Iraq. "

Tired Untruths Again wrote on Aug 11, 2007 10:49 PM:

" We DID NOT go into IRAQ to fight the terrorists. No, we invaded a sovereign nation on the basis of lies and deceit, hoping to force a regime change that we in our "wisdom" wanted. We were, at that time, already fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan, but that war was not "sexy" enough by half, especially since we flubbed up several chances to get Osama there. Bush and Co. dropped Osama like a hot rock and went after Saddam, as a target far easier to take. And the terrorists came to the party, even uninvited. So now we have to battle them on two fronts and we still accomplish nothing. We MUST set proper priorities, get out of Iraq and refocus our resources on their leadership, still hiding further to the East. If we get serious on our first mission, the Islamo-wackos will follow the action again. Bet on it! "

To to Tony S. wrote on Aug 11, 2007 3:29 PM:

" Would you like to tattoo numbers on my arm? "

jimmy wrote on Aug 11, 2007 1:23 PM:

" letters like this that minimize the truly important aspects of bush, inc.'s war, while trumpeting the same jingoistic rhetoric that got us into that unbelievable quagmire is just... sickening. there are some foreign (and domestic) people that will hate us. i sincerely doubt starting a phony "war on terrorism" and rampaging, killing and pillaging their foreign lands will help quell that hate any time soon. "

al Quaida wrote on Aug 11, 2007 12:49 PM:

" If al Quaida is such a danger, why did Wolfowitz rebuff Richard Clark and tell him not to worry about that little terrorist in Afghanistan, that the real terorist is in Iraq? Why did we disengage from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq? Why did we give al Quaida the biggest gift imaginable, the preemtive invasion of an oil rich Moslem nation? Now that almost 2% of the anti U.S. fighters in Iraq are al Quaida, we go back to the boogie man to cover a disasterous foreign policy. "

to to Tony S, from ThosSpence wrote on Aug 11, 2007 12:41 PM:

" It is a hard task indeed to explain away the malign and incompetent record of your hero, George W. Bush. But only rarely does one come across verbiage such as yours, completely lacking in substance, even divourced from reality. Not even your hero claims that the U.S. "has found many weapons of mass destruction."Hans Blix's weapons inspectors never found any hint of WMD. Why? Because they didn't exist. Any reasonable reading of the evidence leads to the conclusion that Hussein destroyed the weapons in the 2 or 3 years after the first Gulf War, as several well placed defectors, including a son-in-law of Hussein, maintained. He likely refused to go public with the information because he feared Iran. Your accusation that Bush critics are the cause of the debacle in Iraq is truly frightening. Such charges about the enemy within are chillingly reminiscent of the rhetoric of Nazis. "

to: Plus wrote on Aug 11, 2007 12:37 PM:

" I don't know what news reports you listen to or how much you know about Iraq, but FLASH, Sunni and Shia fight daily. Colin Powell, and most of the experts call it a civil war. I'll take their word for it. We fight both the Shia and the Sunni. When one is partially checked, the other pops up. Been that way from the beginning. Neither wants us there. This is not about Libs and Right Wingers, this is about the majority American people not wanting our troops in the middle of an insanity into which we pour $12 billion per month of borrowed money. "

ThosSpence wrote on Aug 11, 2007 12:27 PM:

" Christensen's letter is utterly clueless. Only one who is willing to embrace crude and malign state propaganda and forsaken any remote attempt at understanding of the debacle in Iraq could describe accusations that Bush lied to the country about Iraq as "ridiculous statements." The evidence that Bush lied, distorted, misled etc. is massive and voluminous. To have to rehearse such well established facts at this late date is really hard to fathom. Equally disturbing is the insinuation attached to the assertion that the U.S. is fighting Al Queada in Iraq. Like the despicably dishonest attempts to link bin Laden to Hussein's regime, this canard ignores that fact that Al Queada in Mesopotamia didn't exist until Bush's criminal invasion or that that group is an independent entity only loosely connected to bin Laden's circle. Finally, why is it that pro-war zealots can never explain what it even means to "win" the war in Iraq. Even Bush understands that the real problem in Iraq is political, and that until Iraqi factions can come to terms, there will be no peace. The prospect of that happening is all but nil. Al-Maliki's government is an impotent farce that scarcely functions. "

Al Qaeda in Iraq wrote on Aug 11, 2007 12:27 PM:

" Who cares WHY they're there. That's the battlefield they've chosen. It's idiotic to pretent they'll disappear if we leave Iraq. They'll just move to other safe havens or try and infiltrate the west. Our choice is to kill them in Iraq or let them go and cause trouble somewhere else. Sounds like an easy decision to me. "

I Agree wrote on Aug 11, 2007 10:44 AM:

" However, invading Iraq had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Al-Qaida. The only reason Al-Qaida is in Iraq is because of the biggest blunder in Foreign Policy the US has ever committed. Way to go Bushy! "

Sorry wrote on Aug 11, 2007 10:33 AM:

" Huh? We pulled out of Afghanistan in the fight with al Quaida so we could bring them into Iraq? Anyone who thinks that the problems we have in Iraq are due to Al Quaida points out deficiencies in our educational sytem and our quality of news. The disaster in Iraq is because GWB opened a pandoras box and destabilized the country, trying to force them into a democracy they don't want. Our troops are caught in midst of chaos and civil war between Shia and Sunni, and perhaps soon to be, battles between Turkey and the Kurds in the north. al Quaida would be quickly dealt with by the local population once we got out. However, the longer we stay, the more difficult it will be to straighten this mess out. "

Typical Pantagraph Blog wrote on Aug 11, 2007 10:01 AM:

" I agree with Tony on one thing. Just about everything posted up to this point has been a lie or distortion. One guy doesn't know the dif between Iraq/Iran. Another quotes an unnamed British pol. Is this the same one that's now been arrested for complicity with Sadam? A third bases his/her geopolitical philosophy on a PBS hit piece he watched last night. And Tony himself misrepresents what's happening with the surge, and goes on to rant about the indisputable fact that France could easily have defeated Germany in the mid '30s if they'd had the will. Denying that Al Qaeda exists and is a danger to us makes about as much sense as denying the existence of gravity. It's still there whether you admit it or not. "

Tony S. wrote on Aug 11, 2007 9:41 AM:

" Sorry, I misspelled emperor. "

Plus wrote on Aug 11, 2007 9:17 AM:

" I believe the civil war is just liberal talking points. When have you ever seen a headline that Sunnis killed so many Shiites or that Shiites killed so many Sunnis? In a civil war shouldn't you hear that every day? Instead you hear that the clear and hold strategy is working. But liberal friends don't want to hear that do they? That it is working? That it is a war on terror as Bush said to begin with and we are slowly winning? But that doesn't fit into the Bush bashing agenda does it. A civil war fits better. But where is the evidence? And what do we do fight first the Sunnis and the Shiites? Are we on one side? It sounds like that would be easy to do since we know where the other lives and works. You guys are not even aware that what you say doesn't even make sense. What George says does. Imagine that. "

to Tony S. wrote on Aug 11, 2007 8:59 AM:

" First Bush did not make that statement. He allowed someone to post a sign for it. Now at that point the insurgency problem had not started. The Bush haters did not like him landing an airplane on that ship dressed in military garb and that is why they put up a ruckus. At that time the mission was accomplished. It changed later and instead of support we got hate from the likes of you who either misunderstands or just plain refuses to face reality. The problem is in the definition not in the truthfulness. We have found many many many weapons of mass destruction (Saddam himself for instance) but since it wasn't clearly defined and we have so many Bush, freedom haters that is what has got us where we are. Don't you think with every anti-Bush statement that gives the terrorists a little more hope for an American surrender? Doesn't it? "

kjk wrote on Aug 11, 2007 8:56 AM:

" The people who disagree with you Bob would rather the U.S. lose this war than give Bush an ounce of credit. "

This funny wrote on Aug 11, 2007 8:54 AM:

" Some comedian was on tv and pointed out that Hillary thinks we are fighting one group of terrorists, Obama another, Edwards another, and another Democrat another. He suggested why not include them all in the term Islamic radical terrorists and say they are one enemy? Duh. That would be siding with Bush and naturally they don't want to do that. But think about will you. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. If they all train together and have the same goal don't you think they belong to the same group ultimately. Especially if you have a war and they are congregate there. Seems simple to me. But then I support George W. and that would be too much for the liberal Bush haters which they would rather do than promote our safety. I think more people than we realize think this way too based on recent polls. Why don't you join that list? "

Tony S. wrote on Aug 11, 2007 7:58 AM:

" There are so many erroneous statements in here I don't know where to begin. First about GW not being a liar about the war. Remember MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! How many American lives ago was that? He lied then and is continuing his lies to this day. The White House and Pentagon talk about model Iraqi cities where the "surge" has helped things get back to normal. Then our soldiers leave for another city and the killing returns to the city we leave. This is not al-Qaida but civil war between Kurds, Sunnis, etc. And your final rant about France. In WWI France suffered a 75% casualty rate to its mobilized Army of (7.5 mil.). 1,385,000 dead, 4,266,000 wounded. About half of its male population 18-30. These figures do not include civilian casualties. They were not anxious for another war just 20+ years later. By the way where was the US and British outrage when Germany invaded Poland? Finally we will not beat al-Qaida militarilly and all GW's answers are military and it is Iraq's job to rebuild Iraq not ours. It is time to realize that the emporer has no brains! "

According wrote on Aug 11, 2007 7:25 AM:

" According to one British senior politician, al-Qaida was just the CIA's name for a database about certain people in the middle-East. In other words, it's not a real group of people. Where do the AQ's live? Where do they get their funding? If they are really fighting us, why are they fighting us? The answers to these questions will be difficult to get for an imaginary group. BUT... The US is attacking Afghanistan and Iraq and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. We are clearly the largest terrorists in the world today. We should be ashamed and must stop our butchering IMMEDIATELY! "

No More Lies wrote on Aug 11, 2007 6:45 AM:

" How can you believe anything coming out of The Bush White House. It has been a continuous stream of turning the corner and last throes since Bush started the war. The Iraqis would be better off without our military and contractors beating and killing them. If you saw the PBS program last night(08-10) about how the media was managed and manipulated, then you know there is no credibility left in This White House. It is time for real Republicans to quit supporting these professional liars, and their parrots. "

Bruce Perring wrote on Aug 11, 2007 5:55 AM:

" Indeed. I wholeheartedly agree with Robert. It is gratifying to see support for this absolutely justified and critical effort. Beware of those among us who would see us lose this war. They should be aware that if they succeed in forcing our surrender, their voices will be silenced eventually by those they support..our enemies. "

Everyday News wrote on Aug 11, 2007 5:21 AM:

" Be a thoughtful reader rather than a passive observer and reader of the popular media which is managed news for the masses. The "War on Terror" (currently being staged in Iran) is illegal and is to be an ongoing unlimited war whether overseas or on our own soil if a terriorist attack should happen here. By suspending heabeas corpus, legal warrantless wiretaps of our e-mails, phone calls, opening our regular mail, suspension of posse comitatus, Presidental executive orders or signing statements which amend laws passed by Congress; ALL these actions are an attack on the rule of law and our liberties. This administration seeks to invade Iran. Under this administration our standing among nations has plummeted. Let the other nations stay in Iran under the direction of the United Nations if they choose but the United States must get out of Iran Now! "

Ads by Yahoo!

Online Degrees