Obama Misrepresented The Truth

While I'd agree that the subject of Obama, Wright and "The Speech" has been discussed about enough, it turns out that Obama played fast and loose with some important facts and it hasn't yet been pointed out. h/t to reader Paul and this questioning post for causing me to dig a little deeper on this.

Obama led us to believe Jeremiah Wright's anger was justified by resentment born of years of frustration and struggle. Guess what? That isn't the case at all. And stripped of that rationale, it's really nothing more than plain old anti-white racism from a junior member of a highly accomplished black family.

As Krauthammer points out, led on by Obama - Wright is being cast as a man representing a very troubled past.

Krauthammer: But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. (Wright)

Obama: (Making excuses for Wright) -- A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted.

The problem is, Wright doesn't appear to have struggled much at all. If anything, he came from something of a privileged, or at least upper-middle class background. Some background on his Mother from an extensive list of her accomplishments upon her death. Also confirmed here and here. The family is pictured on Right here - his sister and brother-in-law are Dr. William R. Miner & Mrs. LaVerne Miner. Point being, Wright is from a family that represents incredible success for people of any color, or race. Obama's offered excuse is really no excuse at all. Based on Wright's Bio and Obama's rationalizations, even today, Obama and any successful black American would have every right to be as angry as is Jeremiah Wright.

WHEREAS, The former Mary Elizabeth Henderson was born on May 26, 1916 in Surry County, Virginia, the last of seven children of the Reverend Dr. and Mrs. Hamilton M. Henderson; in June, 1938, she married her college sweetheart, the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright; and

WHEREAS, She graduated high school at fifteen years of age and graduated from Virginia Union University magna cum laude, with degrees in mathematics and English; in 1949, she earned a Master of Arts degree in mathematics from the University of
Pennsylvania; during the 1958-59 school year, Mrs. Wright was on a sabbatical study leave as a National Science Fellow in the Graduate School of Education of the University of Pennsylvania where she earned a Master of Science degree in education; she went on to earn a Doctor of Education degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1971; and

WHEREAS, Dr. Wright had a distinguished 34-year career in the Philadelphia public schools; she taught mathematics for nine years at Sulzberger Junior High School; she was later appointed to teach mathematics at William Penn High School; in
addition, she was the first African-American teacher at Roosevelt Junior High School, Germantown High School, and Philadelphia High School for Girls; Dr. Wright was appointed Vice Principal of the Philadelphia High School for Girls in 1968 and remained in that position until her retirement in 1978;

Comments

[jharp]

Big mistake by Senator Obama.

The right wingers who wouldn't think of voting for you going to be pissed.

It is OK to misrepresent the truth when you are leading the country into war. But make it less than clear when defending your PASTOR and you've crossed the line.

[Roy Mustang]

President Clinton did not lie when he lead us into war with Iraq because of WMDs. You have no basis for your slander.

[whiteandblackmixed]

Why this obsession with Senator Obama if, as this site maintains, he will be so easy to defeat by McCain in November. If this is true, seems like you would put all of your energy making sure he's the nominee. After that, it's a cakewalk for McCain, right? If it's true that white men and conservatives are voting for Obama in the primary to assure he's the nominee, then why aren't you more cooperative in helping this along. If I were one of them, I'd be really pissed at you right about now. You're blowing the game plan Dan. Why?

[forcryin'outloud]

I haven't been this disgusted with a politician since Clinton looked us in the eye, shook that finger at us and told us he did not have sex with that woman. I can't think about "hope" or "change" while I'm busy fuming about the audacity of mendacity.

[bertodelossantos]

You like old pussy, I like new blood.

[syn]

"A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened"

Bascially Obama is admitting that the Democrat Party's slave plantation for which almost 90% of blacks in America have been voting for the past five decades is the cause of so many problems in the black community.

I hope the discussion of race in America will lead those in the black community to understand that supporting the Democrat Party which advocates Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's "Negro Project' is one leading factor in the destruction of the black community.

Obama is a smart man and hopefully his discussions will help him to understand what happens when people elect Liberal Fascists decade after decade after decade till there is nobody left to control.

[docweasel]

I carry no brief for Wright, but that's a weak argument. FDR and Kennedy, not to mention the Bushes, came from patrician, privileged backgrounds and fought for civil rights and poverty programs for people in much different circumstances from their own.

I never really bought the argument John Edwards could not actually support help for poverty because he was a rich trial lawyers. You do not have to have AIDS nor cancer to want to help real victims.

There's plenty to bash Wright on, and Dan's research talent is without peer, but this is a poor angle from which to attack Wright, that he's too rich to be angry on behalf of those who are not.

[old trooper]

Simply put, Wright is a bigot and a racist. Obama is his advocate and supporter.
There is no civil rights issue to be found there. It is racism in practice, campaigning
from the pulpit and should be found offensive to any American with a sense of values.

[jharp]

"I haven't been this disgusted with a politician since Clinton looked us in the eye, shook that finger at us and told us he did not have sex with that woman.

Wow.

Blowing $ 4 trillion and starting a war based on lies didn't rankle you?

[old trooper]

So, the genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia did not "rankle" you, and BTW we still have US troops there.
The genocide of the Kurds and balatant violation of UN Sanctions, too numerous to mention
did not "rankle" you. The UN Oil for Food boondoggle did not "rankle" you either, I assume.

You need to take another look at "lies" and rankling. Wow!

[jharp]

old trooper,

Why would you assume these events did not rankle me.

They did. Especially the Oil for Food when it was discovered Chevron, where Condoleeza Rice sits on the board, was among the worst offenders.

I want to be clear what I meant. A president lying about oral sex did not upset me nearly as much as a president blowing $4 trillion and lying us into war.

Seriously, you need to get your priorities in order.

$4 trillion gone + lying us into war = lying about a blowjob

Our country has lost it's mind.

[syn]

Jharp

"$4 trillion gone + lying us into war"

How could Bush lie us into war when he was reading from the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and what is this 4 trillion of which you speak? You strike me as a newborn babe just out of the womb.

In any case. the blow-job Clinton received wasn't as big a deal as was when the National Organization of Women collectively got down on their knees, opened their mouths in adulation for their notorious male chauvanist pig for a President.

[jharp]

How could Bush lie us into war when he was reading from the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.

Well, for one thing it was 2003, not a good idea to rely on a five year report.

He lied when he said they had WMDs and we knew where they were.

He lied about Saddam's connection to al Qaeda.

He lied about Saddam's connection to 911.

He lied about Saddam being a threat.

"what is this 4 trillion of which you speak?"

It is the accumulation of deficits under Bush and the Republican Congress.

As in they spent $4 trillion more than we took in.

As in they borrowed $4 trillion and we paying $200 billion in interest per year. Forever.

And we have to pay it back.

[tally]

why bother with all the obama info when he's going to be so easy to beat? because it's damn amazing that one of our two major political parties would actually make such a person their nominee.

[Capitalist Infidel]

jharp, please provide proof that Bush said Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. If you can't will you promise to apologize and never post here again? Deficits are so low that their inconsequential. Less than 3% of gdp. Oh, and Saddam had many connections to al Qaeda. Did you bother to read the 9-11 report? It says "no operational" he had lots and lots of connections. Please give the report a read.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Why do America hating liberals like jharp always lie? They have to know they're lying. What does it do for them? How so very sad and pathetic it must be to be jharp!

[jharp]

Capitalist Infidel,

Are you that thick headed to not understand "operational ties".

The 911 hijackers were trained in Florida. Does this mean the state of Florida was connected with al Qaeda?

$4 trillion is inconsequential?

Put the bong away.

[Aye Chihuahua]

jharp would really benefit from doing some reading above and beyond the Moonbat talking points.

[jharp]

Aye Chi,

Ouch. You really got me with that one.

Where do come up with zingers like that?

No response to the issue at hand? $4 trillion inconsequential deficits?

Florida harboring al Qaeda?

[Draegn]

Would anyone compare Obama to Gorbachev?

[jharp]

Capitalist Infidel,

Sorry for this long cut and paste but you had asked me for proof of GWB's lies.

I hope this helps.

2002

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." - President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) - BushOnIraq.gov

"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates." - Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

2003

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids ... terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

"Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"He has trained and financed... al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." - President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003) -BushOnIraq.com

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

[Aye Chihuahua]

jharp,

You posted lots of quotes claiming that they were lies but then posted not one shred of proof to support your contention.

This is not an echo chamber where everyone will just clamber aboard the train you're driving.

[jharp]

Below is from www.whitehouse.gov

Do you not consider this to be a reliable source?

There are two lies right in front of your eyes.

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids ... terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

[Aye Chihuahua]

Simply saying it is a lie doesn't work.

You have to show proof of your contention.

Of course, you are unable to do that.

[jharp]

Aye,

Please take the time to think of what an idiotic contention you've made to my post.

What would you consider my proof should consist of?

You ever take a logic course?

Do you understand you cannot prove a negative? As in, you cannot prove Saddam did not have WMDs?

You, friend, are a fool. And an obviously uneducated one.

[Aye Chihuahua]

jharp,

You make the contention that the President is a liar.

You post his words then make no effort to show what makes his words untrue.

Where are the facts and the evidence you are using to make these claims?

Show me.

In reality, you are the fool but you're just to dimwitted to realize it.

[jharp]

Aye,

"This is not an echo chamber where everyone will just clamber aboard"

Kind of ironic as exactly what this place is is an echo chamber for dittheads, Hannity followers, Malkinites, Fox News fans, etc.

You all should be thanking me for enlightening the board.

[jharp]

OK Aye,

You tell me if this is a lie or not.

April 2004. Bush on wiretapping. From www.whitehouse.gov

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Please, for the sake of our country, quit be a right wing apologist.

They are destroying our country.

[Wplf]

Obama and his problems aren't mine. Does he have any money for me? If it all goes to his problems, forget it.

[Adriane]

jharp -

It is impossible to prove a negative, but it is fairly easy to prove a lie. You take the quote you wish to demonstrate is a lie and show how a consistent pattern of facts contradicts it.

For example: Obama first said that he had not been present when Rev. Wright made specific controversial sermons; then he said that he had been present. Since these 2 claims are direct opposites of each other, and the subject under discussion is a Boolean one, only 1 of them can be true. The claim contradicting the true claim, must therefore be a lie.

{It is possible to make make non-Boolean claims; in which case, all claims might be false or true. For example: I claim to be a doctor, a waiter, and a teacher, but I am actually a plumber. All claims are false. I claim to be a waiter and a chef. I own a 1 man hot dog stand and both claims are true. The subject under discussion is a non-Boolean one.}

Now, with regards to President Bush, you have listed a series of quotes, but show no analysis that any specific claim should be considered false as it is contradicted by a consistent pattern of facts, with known sources, and relevant to the time the quote was made.

Your belief that "Bush lied" remains in the realm of your personal religion until further analysis is provided.

[Yourtypicalwhiteperson]

Your comment is excellent, Adriane. Unfortunately Harpo is no one on whom to waste your energy. Nothing anyone writes or cites will make any difference. Logic and sources will make no difference. His heart is made up. His mind is on auto pilot.

For the rest of you, here is yet another logical analysis of Obama's [in]famous speech:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjExNzMwYzMyMjk0MDY4YzlhOTIwM2YzYWYzNGIyNjU=

It starts:
"‘I’m sure,” said Barack Obama in that sonorous baritone that makes his drive-thru order for a Big Mac, fries, and strawberry shake sound profound, “many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”

Well, yes. But not many of us have heard remarks from our pastors, priests, or rabbis that are stark, staring, out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts."

[jharp]

Adriane,

You guys want me to write a book or what?

I've posted a dozen statements, from www.whitehouse.gov, no less, that are as obvious as a lie can get. And you Bush bootlickers spout off some nonsense that I haven't "proved it".

It is no wonder we get stuck with leaders who lie and deceive.

It is because of folks like you.

Try this one, again. And remember it is the day of the resurrection. I say you're all a bunch of fake Christians if you don't have the morals and guts to admit George Bush lied.

"Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."

[Fred Beloit]

But Harpo, what about these? Can you DISPROVE them?

American Leftists want the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq before it is secure. This retreat will result in the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis who have allied themselves with a democratic Iraq made possible by the U.S. It will also resut in the demoralizing of most of our volunteer military forces.

Leftists in Congress continue to support and authorize spending on the war at the same time they are saying it is unjust and should be stopped because we lost.

The Iraq War is perfectly legal having been proposed by the President, approved and funded by the Congress, and approved by the Supreme Court. Will you admit right now, as the informed person you claim to be, that the war is perfectly legal?

[jharp]

Fred,

"American Leftists want the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq before it is secure."

I'd say you are correct. And add a fair number of rightists. I think the number is 70% of Americans in total.

"This retreat will result in the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis who have allied themselves with a democratic Iraq made possible by the U.S."

I agree there are no good solutions. 900 U.S. troops have been killed since "the surge". And thousands of Iraqis. Either way a lot of folks are getting killed or going to get killed.

"It will also result in the demoralizing of most of our volunteer military forces."

Most want to come home. You tell me what is more demoralizing. Getting your legs blown off and watching your comrades getting killed in a godforsaken hopeless occupation or coming home to your family.

"The Iraq War is perfectly legal having been proposed by the President, approved and funded by the Congress, and approved by the Supreme Court."

I'm not sure and there are many differing opinions. I guess I'd lean toward it was a violation of international law.

[jharp]

Fred,

Sunday.

"42 die in series of attacks across Iraq"

Happy Easter.

Did ya ever think that maybe our occupation is making things worse?

You know, kind of like the group who has right all along says.

You and your group continue to listen to the wrong about everything pundits. And it's getting our soldiers killed and maimed and bankrupting our treasury.

[Fred Beloit]

"I'd say you are correct. And add a fair number of rightists. I think the number is 70% of Americans in total." That's a pre-surge number, harpo, as you undoubtedly know.

"Either way a lot of folks are getting killed or going to get killed." Either way? Hahaha. Well that is an assertion, not a proof.

"Did ya ever think that maybe our occupation is making things worse?" Worse than Saddam's rule? No. You could ask some Kuwaitis. And that's a change of subject, not a disproof.

Sure Harpo, a lot of our warriors confide in you. Sure, sure. Another mere assertion.

"I'm not sure and there are many differing opinions. I guess I'd lean toward it was a violation of international law."

An evasion. What country do you live in? I live in the U.S. and it is perfectly legal here. Let me hear you say: It is legal in the U.S.

Happy Easter to you.

[jharp]

"I'd say you are correct. And add a fair number of rightists. I think the number is 70% of Americans in total." That's a pre-surge number, harpo, as you undoubtedly know.

I didn't but will take your word for it. That's why I said "I think".

"Either way a lot of folks are getting killed or going to get killed." Either way? Hahaha. Well that is an assertion, not a proof.

No shit, Fred. Now you're asking me to prove something that hasn't happened.

"Did ya ever think that maybe our occupation is making things worse?" Worse than Saddam's rule? No. You could ask some Kuwaitis. And that's a change of subject, not a disproof.

How about worse for us, nimrod. You certainly are the crusader, Fred. What country we gonna rescue next? Darfur? Kenya? Tibet?

"I'm not sure and there are many differing opinions. I guess I'd lean toward it was a violation of international law."

An evasion. What country do you live in? I live in the U.S. and it is perfectly legal here. Let me hear you say: It is legal in the U.S.

Yes, it is an evasion. BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE.

[Bubba]

"....BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE"

But we ARE....about YOU.

[jharp]

Bubba,

"But we ARE....about YOU."

That's good. You can see I am a man who cares deeply about his country and the well being of all.

More success in Iraq.

"Rockets and mortars pounded Baghdad’s U.S.-protected Green Zone Sunday and a suicide car bomber struck an Iraqi army post in the northern city of Mosul in a surge of attacks that killed at least 57 people nationwide."

A serious question.

How long are we willing to spend 12 billion per month on our goodwill mission?

Save the thoughtless "as long as it takes" republican talking point.

It's going on the sixth year and all we have accomplished is handing Iraq over to the Iranian mullahs.

Mission accomplished, my ass.

[missy]

Question, who paid for that Florida flight training?

For someone who likes to accuse the President of lying, you sure ended this thread with a big one. The only way the Iranian Mullahs are going to get Iraq is if we pull out. "Mission accomplished" harpo style.

As for Saddam and al Qaeda links, Saddam supported Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Zawahiri's group. Connect the dots.

Remember the recently reported exhaustive Pentagon study of over 600,000 documents that found no "smoking gun?" no Saddam/al Qaeda link? Unfortunately, the MSM reporters didn't read the report but reported on it anyway, funny how that happens. Fortunately, it's getting read and there are links:

EIJ at one time provided the lion’s share of AQ’s leadership, including Ayman al-Zawahiri, and certainly that was true in the period between 1991 and 2003. Saddam’s support for EIJ shows a more direct connection to AQ leadership than anyone had predicted before the capture of the documents on which this report is based.

Update: The FBI’s Deputy Director for counterterrorism testified before Congress about the connection between AQ and EIJ on December 18, 2001:

Although Al-Qaeda functions independently of other terrorist organizations, it also functions through some of the terrorist organizations that operate under its umbrella or with its support, including: the Al-Jihad, the Al-Gamma Al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group - led by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and later by Ahmed Refai Taha, a/k/a “Abu Yasser al Masri,”), Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and a number of jihad groups in other countries, including the Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Albania, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, the Kashmiri region of India, and the Chechen region of Russia. Al-Qaeda also maintained cells and personnel in a number of countries to facilitate its activities, including in Kenya, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. By banding together, Al-Qaeda proposed to work together against the perceived common enemies in the West - particularly the United States which Al-Qaeda regards as an “infidel” state which provides essential support for other “infidel” governments.

Saddam Hussein provided funding for EIJ for the same reasons. And when one starts to consider the differences between Afghanistan’s Taliban after 9/11 and Saddam, the gaps narrows considerably. The Taliban gave AQ shelter while probably not realizing the extent to which it made them a target; Saddam funded their main leadership source and at least one of their subsidiaries in order to help them succeed in their mission against the US. That’s at least arguably an act of war, attempting to use terrorists as a proxy to fight it — and it very clearly fell within the post-9/11 Bush doctrine.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/14/saddam-supported-at-least-two-al-qaeda-groups-pentagon/

[jharp]

hotair.com

a very appropriate name

Saddam and al Qaeda were enemies. Saddam was a secular Sunni.

How many al Qaeda attacks occurred in Iraq prior to our invasion?

I'd appreciate an answer to my previous question.

How long are we willing to continue our $12 billion per month and $1-$2 trillion goodwill mission?

[jharp]

missy,

"The only way the Iranian Mullahs are going to get Iraq is if we pull out."

Really?

So please explain to me how the Iranian president announces he is going to visit Iraq and travels via the road from the airport to meet with Iraqi leaders.

Whilst our man, Cheney sneaks in unannounced. And leaves before anyone knows he's in town.

You tell me who rules Iraq. Hint. It's the Shiite. You know mullahs and stuff.

[templar knight]

"You tell me who rules Iraq. Hint. It's the Shiite. You know mullahs and stuff."

Uh, last time I checked, the Shiites were in the majority in Iraq. Are you suggesting that we prevent majority rule in Iraq? Very democratic of you, jharp. Yes, very democratic!

[jharp]

templar,

No, I am not suggesting we prevent majority rule.

I like our system. Majority rule with basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all.

Stuff like equal rights for women, stuff like religious freedom, and such.

My point was we have handed Iraq over to Iran. You know, one of the axis of evil.

[jharp]

More progress. And to think it has only cost 1 or 2 trillion dollars. And sent the price of oil over $100 a barrel.

(for those of you who can't connect the dots that's why gas is $3.25 per gallon)

"Four U.S. soldiers were killed by a bomb blast in southern Baghdad late Sunday, raising the death toll for American forces since start of the war to 4,000, according to the Pentagon."

[LOL]

it's little use trying to argue with the wingers. They seem to have an addiction to being wrong 5. Remember 5.5 to 6 years ago when people in the Pentagon were laughing away estimates for the Iraq war of ~120 billion as absurdly high? Remember years ago when Dear Leader's 2nd told us the insurgency was in its "last throes"? Remember how you pointed at all the antiwar hippies and laughed, declaring that Iraq would be an easy war, the WMD's would be found, and Bush would be the greatest president since Harry Truman...?

Ah, you wingers have such imaginations. You have supported the most mendacious administration since Richard Nixon. You are a disgrace to this country.

[missy]

I chose HotAir because I thought it would be the easiest for you to understand, you appear to be a bit behind in all things Iraq including realizing that there is a major difference between Arab Shia and Persian Shia. Also, HotAir provided a link that would allow you to get the report and read it for yourself.

Saddam and Zawahiri were not enemies, they had an ongoing relationship for years prior to OIF, Zawahiri, founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad that merged with al Qaeda, is al Qaeda number two. Now explain why the secular Saddam added the religious expression to the Iraqi flag.

Ahmadinejad does Baghdad, that went well:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03082008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/ajads_endless_iraq_debacle_100962.htm?page=1

Although there has been some back and forth by some tribes in Iraq and Iran, Iraqi ARAB Shia have been traditional enemies of Persian Shia for centuries. Some of Saddam's generals and cabinet members were shia during the Iran/Iraq war. al Sistani is Persian Shia but rejects Iranian influence and religious influence in government.

http://countrystudies.us/iraq/38.htm

I'm sure you will love this one, go ahead and scroll past the first couple of paragraphs, the history provided is necessary to clear up your "Shia" confusion:

http://www.brookesnews.com/072611wheeler.html

[missy]

BTW, Harpo, as far as our war costs, the $1.2 to $1.7 trillion CBO forcast includes costs in all theaters of the WOT from 2001 through 2017. Yep, that's 2017.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ur2MlToP_VwJ:www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm%3Findex%3D8690%26type%3D1+war+costs+include+afghanistand+projections+2017&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

It is worth it to get AQ Khan, Qadafi's nukes, free two terrorist ridden countries, beat down al Qaeda, screw up bin Laden's plans to gain Iraq as a base, sit on the crazy mullah's border and plant the seeds of democracy in the ME.

[Steve]

Great site you have!

Would you like a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 70 of America's top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio...

http://netradionetwork.com

[templar knight]

"I admit when I am wrong, cause that's the kind of person I am."

Well, jharp, you're wrong about the $1-2 trillion spent in Iraq, and you're wrong to blame the $4 dollar deficit entirely on Bush, as Congress has been busy spending money left and right through this period. Not that I give Bush and the Republicans in Congress a pass on deficit spending. Not by a long shot. As a matter of fact, the greatest failure of the past 14 years has been the lack of fiscal discipline by Republicans who should have known better. Who promised to do better, promised to reduce the rapid growth of spending in Washington, promised to balance budgets, yet allowed themselves to pass programs such as the drug benefit program that was a huge budget buster. No, as a conservative, I'm not happy with these people.

As for the occupation of Iraq, you can't rationally blame the price of crude on the war and the subsequent occupation, given the other factors inherent in the oil markets, especially the rise of China, and its demands on the world market. Oil was bound to go up, regardless of what happened in Iraq. At last check, oil exports from Iraq were ahead of the period just prior to the war.

[jharp]

Well, jharp, you're wrong about the $1-2 trillion spent in Iraq"

I should have more clear. It is forecasted to cost $1-$2 trillion. You know, taking care of those with their legs blown off, burned, and otherwise maimed. The actual to date costs, out of pocket, are a mere $550 billion.

"you're wrong to blame the $4 dollar deficit entirely on Bush"

I didn't. I blamed it on Bush and the republican congress.

"At last check, oil exports from Iraq were ahead of the period just prior to the war."

Link? I don't believe this is accurate.

How about it, how much longer for our $12 billion per month, $1-$2 trillion goodwill mission?