Tag: Antiwar movement

No one asked, but Bush apparently felt the need to respond to the good Doctor.

From Today’s press conference:

JOURNALIST: Mr. President, after the mistakes that have been made in this war, when you do, as you did yesterday, where you raised 2-year-old intelligence talking about the threat posed by al-Qaeda, it’s met with increasing skepticism. A majority in the public, a growing number of Republicans appear not to trust you any longer to be able to carry out this policy successfully. Can you explain why you believe you’re still a credible messenger on the war?

GEORGE W. BUSH: I’m credible because I read the intelligence data and make it abundantly clear, in plain terms, that, if we let up, we’ll be attacked. And I firmly believe that.

Look, this has been a long, difficult experience for the American people. I can assure you al-Qaeda, who would like to attack us again, have got plenty of patience and persistence. And the question is, will we?

Yes, I talked about intelligence yesterday. I wanted to make sure the intelligence I laid out was credible, so we took our time. Failure in Iraq will cause generations to suffer, in my judgment. Al-Qaeda will be emboldened. They will say, “Yes, once again, we’ve driven the great soft America out of a part of the region.” It will cause them to be able to recruit more; it will give them safe haven. They are a direct threat to the United States.

And I’m going to keep talking about it. That’s my job as the president, is to tell people the threats we face and what we’re doing about it. They’re dangerous, and I can’t put it any more plainly to the American people, and to them, we will stay on the offense. It’s better to fight them there than here.

And this concept about, well, maybe, you know, let’s just kind of just leave them alone and maybe they’ll be all right is naive. These people attacked us before we were in Iraq. They viciously attacked us before we were in Iraq, and they’ve been attacking ever since.

They are a threat to your children, David.

And whoever is in that Oval Office better understand it and take measures necessary to protect the American people.

When America was attacked in relation to our government’s bombing of Iraq wasn’t in the question at all.

This was more likely a deliberately dishonest attempt by Bush to portray Congressman Ron Paul as the one who’s soft on Osama bin Laden, as opposed to the president himself, who announced in very early 2002 that he was “truly not that concerned about” bin Laden at all.

Note to “Our Leader“: Your dad sent troops to Saudi Arabia in 1990 and started bombing Iraq from there in 1991. The Rachman-Yousef-KSM-Osama group’s first attack on the U.S. was in February 1993.

And of course, it’s nice to note the obligatory threat to poor David the reporter’s children for daring to ask the Pharaoh a question at a press conference.

Remember, this is the man whom Rudy Giuliani said, is “a great president” because of his understanding of terrorism.

A former CIA officer said Wednesday that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is “not serious” about terrorism and “ignorant” about the Middle East.

Former CIA counter-terrorism officer Philip Giraldi, in an interview with Antiwar Radio on Wednesday, said Giuliani “indicated that he was not only not serious about [al Qaeda terrorism], but seem[s] to be ignorant of both the 9/11 [Commission] report and political realities in the Middle East.”

MP3 here. (50:14)

This answer came in response to a question about the controversy caused by Congressman Ron Paul at the second Republican Presidential debate.

Dr. Paul said that the the attacks on the United States on September 11th were “blowback” from the American government’s interventionist foreign policy. Giuliani, insisting that they hate us for our “freedom,” demanded Paul retract his statement – which Paul refused to do.

When asked for a comment about the controversy, Giraldi said,

“I think anybody who knows anything about what’s been going on for the last 10 years would realize that cause and effect are operating here – that, essentially, al Qaeda has an agenda which very specifically says what its grievances are. And its grievances are basically that ‘we’re over there.’

“So all Ron Paul was basically saying was that – even as the 9/11 commission report indicated – there were consequences for our presence in the Middle East and if we seriously want to address the terrorism problem we have to be serious about that issue.

“Giuliani indicated that he was not only not serious about that issue, but seemed to be ignorant of both the 9/11 [Commission] report and political realities in the Middle East.”

(Giraldi also disdained both Giuliani and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s embrace of torture and the Guantanamo prison and explained how it only helps al Qaeda, particularly in their propaganda efforts.)

When asked how Osama bin Laden is able to attract followers in the Islamic World, Giraldi explained,

“Well, he taps into reservoirs of resentment in the Muslim world, there’s no question about it. He’s a charismatic leader and he has been successful. He was a key figure in driving the Russians out of Afghanistan. He has certainly bloodied the nose of the United States more than once, so he has a certain appeal. This is not to say that he’s a good man or that he’s a man we would want to copy in any way, but the fact is that the slights and resentments many Muslims see in their relationship with the West are a resource for Osama bin Laden, and that we have reinforced that with things that he can exploit – like invading Iraq.

“As has been made very clear, Osama bin Laden had no connection with Saddam Hussein and to the contrary, they were kind of sworn enemies, and when the United States went into Iraq, Osama bin Laden saw this as an opportunity and he immediately created an al Qaeda organization inside Iraq. There had been no al Qaeda organization inside Iraq prior to that and this was a huge opportunity for him. And as the war has gotten worse and we’ve had incidents like Abu Ghraib, we’ve had repeated civilian casualties – that Lancet report from the British that says as many as 650,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of the war – things like that just add fuel to the fire. And basically the main beneficiary of all this is not the United States. It may not even be Israel. It’s probably al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.”

When asked specifically what had caused Osama bin Laden, who fought in the U.S.-backed jihad against the Russians in the 1980s, to become an enemy of the United States, Giraldi replied,

“In the wake of the Afghan war, the United States – actually during the first Gulf War – established a major military presence in Saudi Arabia itself. And that was, I believe, the trigger for Osama to become a front-line opponent of the United States. He has repeatedly said in his writings and speeches that the United States’ presence in the ‘holy lands’ of Saudi Arabia were a major element in his political philosophy.”

Giraldi also commented on the Bush administration refrain – literally pitched again by the President as the interview was being recorded – that “if we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them here,” saying that such an assertion is “totally ridiculous.”

“The premise that if we’re not fighting them over there, we’ll be fighting them over here is totally ridiculous. We’re fighting them over there because we’re over there, and because we’re over there, we have a problem here. And if you eliminate that nexus, if you take us out of our being in their faces, then the reality is that they are not going to be over here because they basically don’t have that agenda.”

When pressed on the question of whether bin Laden would want to send al Qaeda guys to “follow us home” from the Middle East should we withdraw, if only to try to keep us there for al Qaeda’s benefit (such as providing them with increased numbers of recruits and targets for them to train on), Giraldi replied,

“I don’t see that. I think he has a constituency and he has an agenda and he’s very focused on both. His agenda is not to pursue the United States to the United States after we leave the Middle East. … If we were to basically get out of Iraq and get out of the region – in the intrusive way that we’re there right now – that would take a lot of the fuel out of Osama bin Laden’s fire. I don’t see that there’s any agenda to follow us to the United States to destroy our way of life or whatever the explanation would be.”

When asked about the administration’s assertions that al Qaeda will take over Iraq’s al Anbar province if the U.S. military leaves, Giraldi said,

“No. I think the reality is that if the United States leaves it will be a very bad thing for al Qaeda because the Sunnis don’t particularly want them around and would get rid of them.”

He then said that the only reason al Qaeda is tolerated by Iraqi Sunnis is to help fight the American occupation and that,

“There have already been reports that the Sunnis are already kind of tired of them because when they stage a major provocation or attack, it’s the local Sunni population that has to take the grief when the U.S. Army descends. … It’s a marriage of convenience with al Qaeda insofar as it’s a marriage at all. So I think it would be fallacious to assume – In fact, let me [say it] stronger than that: I think it would be ridiculous to assume that al Qaeda could establish some kind of serious presence in Iraq similar to what it did in Afghanistan because the dynamic is completely different.”

When asked how dangerous of a threat to the U.S. al Qaeda really represents, Giraldi said they remain a serious problem and explained the lack of terrorist attacks in the U.S. since September 11th as the result, not of the valiant efforts of the FBI, but of the moderate temper of American Muslims. Regarding the list of terrorism prosecution in the United States since September 11th, Giraldi says,

“[E]very arrest of so-called “radical Islamists” in the United States have been kind of jokes in that, in many cases, these people are not capable of carrying out any acts. In a number of cases, like the most recent one in New Jersey, there was an FBI informant in the middle of the group, and it seems to me, from what I’ve read about it, that the FBI informant may well have been the motivator for these people planning what they were planning.”

Comparing America to Britain, Giraldi said he suspects the main reason there haven’t been more attacks here since 9/11 is that,

“We don’t have that fifth column in the United States of people who are really actively out to betray their country. …

“American Muslims just are not wired that way, and I don’t think that many American Muslims would support the kind of radical action that you see in Great Britain, for example among its own Muslim community – or in France. I think this is a question of – this is a different kind of country, with a different kind of Muslim immigrant that came here. And the expectation and the way these people do things are somewhat different.”

And that’s just the first part of the interview.

Click here to open or download the MP3 and hear all this plus Philip Giraldi on the intelligent way to fight al Qaeda (low-key: cops, intelligence and only rarely military force), the the ongoing covert war against Iran by the CIA and the military, the possibility of overt war – including the use of nuclear weapons, the likely consequences of such folly – including the possible loss of our army in Iraq and destruction of our economy, Admiral Fallon’s reluctance to participate and America and Lebanon’s backing of the Fatah al-Islam terrorist group in Southern Lebanon and how it has already blown back in their face…

“The nuclear option is still on the table in two ways…”

A former CIA officer said Wednesday that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is “not serious” about terrorism and “ignorant” about the Middle East.

Former CIA counter-terrorism officer Philip Giraldi, in an interview with Antiwar Radio on Wednesday, said Giuliani “indicated that he was not only not serious about [al Qaeda terrorism], but seem[s] to be ignorant of both the 9/11 [Commission] report and political realities in the Middle East.”

MP3 here. (50:14)

This answer came in response to a question about the controversy caused by Congressman Ron Paul at the second Republican Presidential debate.

Dr. Paul said that the the attacks on the United States on September 11th were “blowback” from the American government’s interventionist foreign policy. Giuliani, insisting that they hate us for our “freedom,” demanded Paul retract his statement – which Paul refused to do.

When asked for a comment about the controversy, Giraldi said,

“I think anybody who knows anything about what’s been going on for the last 10 years would realize that cause and effect are operating here – that, essentially, al Qaeda has an agenda which very specifically says what its grievances are. And its grievances are basically that ‘we’re over there.’

“So all Ron Paul was basically saying was that – even as the 9/11 commission report indicated – there were consequences for our presence in the Middle East and if we seriously want to address the terrorism problem we have to be serious about that issue.

“Giuliani indicated that he was not only not serious about that issue, but seemed to be ignorant of both the 9/11 [Commission] report and political realities in the Middle East.”

(Giraldi also disdained both Giuliani and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s embrace of torture and the Guantanamo prison and explained how it only helps al Qaeda, particularly in their propaganda efforts.)

When asked how Osama bin Laden is able to attract followers in the Islamic World, Giraldi explained,

“Well, he taps into reservoirs of resentment in the Muslim world, there’s no question about it. He’s a charismatic leader and he has been successful. He was a key figure in driving the Russians out of Afghanistan. He has certainly bloodied the nose of the United States more than once, so he has a certain appeal. This is not to say that he’s a good man or that he’s a man we would want to copy in any way, but the fact is that the slights and resentments many Muslims see in their relationship with the West are a resource for Osama bin Laden, and that we have reinforced that with things that he can exploit – like invading Iraq.

“As has been made very clear, Osama bin Laden had no connection with Saddam Hussein and to the contrary, they were kind of sworn enemies, and when the United States went into Iraq, Osama bin Laden saw this as an opportunity and he immediately created an al Qaeda organization inside Iraq. There had been no al Qaeda organization inside Iraq prior to that and this was a huge opportunity for him. And as the war has gotten worse and we’ve had incidents like Abu Ghraib, we’ve had repeated civilian casualties – that Lancet report from the British that says as many as 650,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of the war – things like that just add fuel to the fire. And basically the main beneficiary of all this is not the United States. It may not even be Israel. It’s probably al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.”

When asked specifically what had caused Osama bin Laden, who fought in the U.S.-backed jihad against the Russians in the 1980s, to become an enemy of the United States, Giraldi replied,

“In the wake of the Afghan war, the United States – actually during the first Gulf War – established a major military presence in Saudi Arabia itself. And that was, I believe, the trigger for Osama to become a front-line opponent of the United States. He has repeatedly said in his writings and speeches that the United States’ presence in the ‘holy lands’ of Saudi Arabia were a major element in his political philosophy.”

Giraldi also commented on the Bush administration refrain – literally pitched again by the President as the interview was being recorded – that “if we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them here,” saying that such an assertion is “totally ridiculous.”

“The premise that if we’re not fighting them over there, we’ll be fighting them over here is totally ridiculous. We’re fighting them over there because we’re over there, and because we’re over there, we have a problem here. And if you eliminate that nexus, if you take us out of our being in their faces, then the reality is that they are not going to be over here because they basically don’t have that agenda.”

When pressed on the question of whether bin Laden would want to send al Qaeda guys to “follow us home” from the Middle East should we withdraw, if only to try to keep us there for al Qaeda’s benefit (such as providing them with increased numbers of recruits and targets for them to train on), Giraldi replied,

“I don’t see that. I think he has a constituency and he has an agenda and he’s very focused on both. His agenda is not to pursue the United States to the United States after we leave the Middle East. … If we were to basically get out of Iraq and get out of the region – in the intrusive way that we’re there right now – that would take a lot of the fuel out of Osama bin Laden’s fire. I don’t see that there’s any agenda to follow us to the United States to destroy our way of life or whatever the explanation would be.”

When asked about the administration’s assertions that al Qaeda will take over Iraq’s al Anbar province if the U.S. military leaves, Giraldi said,

“No. I think the reality is that if the United States leaves it will be a very bad thing for al Qaeda because the Sunnis don’t particularly want them around and would get rid of them.”

He then said that the only reason al Qaeda is tolerated by Iraqi Sunnis is to help fight the American occupation and that,

“There have already been reports that the Sunnis are already kind of tired of them because when they stage a major provocation or attack, it’s the local Sunni population that has to take the grief when the U.S. Army descends. … It’s a marriage of convenience with al Qaeda insofar as it’s a marriage at all. So I think it would be fallacious to assume – In fact, let me [say it] stronger than that: I think it would be ridiculous to assume that al Qaeda could establish some kind of serious presence in Iraq similar to what it did in Afghanistan because the dynamic is completely different.”

When asked how dangerous of a threat to the U.S. al Qaeda really represents, Giraldi said they remain a serious problem and explained the lack of terrorist attacks in the U.S. since September 11th as the result, not of the valiant efforts of the FBI, but of the moderate temper of American Muslims. Regarding the list of terrorism prosecution in the United States since September 11th, Giraldi says,

“[E]very arrest of so-called “radical Islamists” in the United States have been kind of jokes in that, in many cases, these people are not capable of carrying out any acts. In a number of cases, like the most recent one in New Jersey, there was an FBI informant in the middle of the group, and it seems to me, from what I’ve read about it, that the FBI informant may well have been the motivator for these people planning what they were planning.”

Comparing America to Britain, Giraldi said he suspects the main reason there haven’t been more attacks here since 9/11 is that,

“We don’t have that fifth column in the United States of people who are really actively out to betray their country. …

“American Muslims just are not wired that way, and I don’t think that many American Muslims would support the kind of radical action that you see in Great Britain, for example among its own Muslim community – or in France. I think this is a question of – this is a different kind of country, with a different kind of Muslim immigrant that came here. And the expectation and the way these people do things are somewhat different.”

And that’s just the first part of the interview.

Click here to open or download the MP3 and hear all this plus Philip Giraldi on the intelligent way to fight al Qaeda (low-key: cops, intelligence and only rarely military force), the the ongoing covert war against Iran by the CIA and the military, the possibility of overt war – including the use of nuclear weapons, the likely consequences of such folly – including the possible loss of our army in Iraq and destruction of our economy, Admiral Fallon’s reluctance to participate and America and Lebanon’s backing of the Fatah al-Islam terrorist group in Southern Lebanon and how it has already blown back in their face…

“The nuclear option is still on the table in two ways…”

From Carolyn Eisenberg of United for Peace and Justice:

If everything goes according to plan the House and Senate will vote today or tomorrow to give President Bush the funding that he has requested for Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill contains no time-tables for withdrawal and no binding conditions. Though obscured by empty rhetoric over “bench-marks,” the Democratic leadership is caving into the White House. However, across this country antiwar advocates are raising their voices and telling their Representatives and Senators this is unacceptable and the only principled vote is a “NO” vote.

This invaluable web-site is filled with tragic news every morning. Before imbibing today’s potion of sorrow, hopefully all readers will call the Congressional switchboard 202-224-3121 and express their outrage over the contents of the 2007 Supplemental. And then call five friends and ask them to do the same.

There are only two ways, this war will end. The President will change his mind or the Congress will use its “power of the purse” to compel the withdrawal of troops. If Congress fails to act, there is little reason to hope that a Democratic President will exhibit any greater boldness in 2009. And of course many more Americans and Iraqis will have died in the interim.

To resurrect the wisdom of our former Secretary of Defense: we must end the war with “the Congress we’ve got.” But these officials will never act if the millions of Americans who deplore this catastrophic war don’t send a strong message. This morning. 202-224-3121.

Carolyn Eisenberg is a professor of U.S. foreign policy at Hofstra University and Co-Chair, Legislative Working Group, United for Peace and Justice.

…will win the war in Iraq, according to National Review blogger and Reason contributing editor John Hood. Which prompts Matthew Yglesias to ask a question I’ve entertained many times over the years when reading Hood’s Iraq-related comments on Reason‘s blog: Is John Hood a robot?

The following is a letter from Michael F. Scheuer, former Chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden Unit, to the editor of Antiwar.com, regarding Congressman Ron Paul’s exchange with Rudy Giuliani about why the al Qaeda network has targeted the United States.

Sir,

In the dozen-plus years I have been active in matters relating to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, I have watched them go from a small Islamist organization to a worldwide insurgent movement, while bin Laden has established himself as the primary source of inspiration and leadership for tens of millions of Muslim Islamists. This process has been made possible by two things: (a) the skill, courage, patience, and ruthlessness of bin Laden and his ilk, and (b) the refusal of the U.S. government to understand the motivation of bin Laden and his allies.

Last week, Representative Paul did all Americans an immense service by simply pointing out the obvious: Our Islamist enemies do not give a damn about the way we vote, think, or live. Though any country they ruled would surely not look like ours, they are motivated by the belief that U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam, its lands, and its believers. This, of course, is not to say that America is to blame for the war it is now engaged in, but it is to say that it is foolish – and perhaps fatal – for Americans to believe that are we are being attacked for such ephemera as primary elections, R-rated movies, and gender equality. If our Islamist enemies were motivated by such things their numbers would be minuscule and they would be a sporadic lethal nuisance, not, as they are, the most serious national security threat we face today.

Of the eighteen presidential candidates now in the field from both parties, only Dr. Paul has had the courage to square with the average American voter. We are indeed hated and being warred against because we are “over there,” and not for what we are and how we live. Our failure to recognize the truth spoken by Dr. Paul – and spelled out for us in hundreds of pages of statements by Osama bin Laden since 1996 – is leading America toward military and economic disaster.

At day’s end, Dr. Paul has at least temporarily shaken the pillars of the bipartisan consensus on U.S. foreign policy. Neither party, and none of the candidates, want to discuss the Islamists’ motivation because they would have to deal with energy policy, support for Israel, and the 50-year record of U.S. support and protection for Arab tyrannies. These holy cows of U.S. politics have long been off limits to debate, but Dr. Paul has now accurately identified them as the source of motivation for our Islamist enemies, and implicitly has said that the obsessive interventionism of both parties has inspired al-Qaeda and its allies to kill 7,000-plus U.S. civilians and military personnel since 11 September 2001. The war we are engaged in with the Islamists is a long way from over, but it need end in America’s defeat only if Dr. Paul’s frank statements are ignored.

And no matter how you view Dr. Paul’s words, you can safely take one thing to the bank. The person most shaken by Dr. Paul’s frankness was Osama bin Laden, who knows that the current status quo in U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world is al-Qaeda’s one indispensable ally, and the only glue that provides cohesion between and among the diverse and often fractious Islamist groups that follow its banner.

Respectfully,
Michael F. Scheuer
Falls Church, VA