Pro-War Commercial Makes Iraq-9/11 Connection
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Video, WarI’m sorry this woman lost her son, but for her to say that pulling out of Iraq could bring about another 9/11 is not doing her son’s memory justice.
Notice she use the word surrender. Well, I think many can agree that the sectarian violence will keep going on whether we’re there 2 months or 20 years. It was there even before Saddam. For us to acknowledge this is not surrender. We got rid of Saddam and now its up to Iraq to fix Iraq.
The group behind this is Freedom’s Watch. Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer is one of the people behind it.
Hmm, a guy whose job was spinning the press is now trying to convince us we should stay in Iraq.
I don’t think I need to say anymore than that.
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 23rd, 2007 and is filed under Video, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:58 pm
So let me get this straight: the collapse of the parliamentary system in Iraq and its replacement with a Taliban-like terror state, or a Hezbollah outpost, or both, coupled with the perception amongst the Islamists across the middle east that America is a loser and a paper tiger with a military that can be defeated anywhere on the globe, DOES NOT increase the likelyhood of another domestic terror strike?
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Our Constitutional Republic has been destroyed. The foundation of American Liberty has been either distorted, erased or forgotten. Our entire planet is ruled by an oligarchy of established bankers, oilmen and global corporations. We the People find ourselves enslaved and intoxicated by an economic system that by design, destroys the prosperity, development and education of the Worlds Citizenry. The Federal Reserve and its fiat monetary policy need to be abolished. The unconstitutional (and enslaving) 16th Amendment need to be repealed. Congress needs to listen to the people and convene an Article V Convention so we may work towards restoring the Constitutional Republic that our “elected” officials have stolen from us and sold to the highest bidder within the corporatocracy. Our government is allowing the corporate elite to successfully merge Canada, Mexico and the United States into a single supra-national entity, the North American Union - complete with its new currency the “Amero”, which will be ushered in just after the fabricated collapse of our economy. The fascist Torries within our government are working towards another false-flag attack similar to 9/11 to “justify” an attack on Iran and the further erosion of our civil liberties in America. A Halliburton subsidiary, KBR has already been awarded a $385 million contract to construct “detention centers” in the United States. Any puppet President of the United States now has the power to enact martial law and fully transform America into a police state. The conditioned-complacent public in this country and all the Worlds Citizenry need to act now to save what few liberties we have left. The time has come to ascend upon Washington and RESTORE THE REPUBLIC! “One if by Land and the Lantern is Lit…”
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Bravo JL Wallace, Bravo!
The time for listening to people like our president or any other neo-conservative is over. We have listened, we let them implement their sick, twisted, corrupt, immoral world viewpoint on us and the world for 6 very long, long years. ENOUGH!!! Real Americans, real patriots, that love this country to its very core, are sick! we are just sick of this blatant, outright destruction of the very moral fiver of this nation.
Bush is no patriot, he is no man of God, he is a tyrant, and without question one of the worst presidents this nation has ever been so unlucky to have. Bush, we may not be able to impeach you with the two corrupt parties that are running this nation off a cliff for the sake of profit, but your
term is up soon, and God help us that we do not ever have to suffer the indignity of enduring a piece of garbage like you EVER! again. AMEN!
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
If you got THAT much from what she said, then I think we can agree that questioning her 9/11 comment is also completely within the realm of the reasonable. You assume it would all go terribly wrong, and I don’t think that’s necessarily the case.
And ultimately what are we going to do? We can’t force people to vote for our style of democracy. Even if we secure the peace after 5-10 years, does that mean that Iraqis won’t vote in a Hezbollah style government? Of course not. It’s the Middle East Jimmy. We can’t control it.
And again, let’s be clear about who attacked us…a decentralized network of operatives funded by a decentralized network of money men. Not a country and not a country’s government. Hell, most of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, and they are supposedly our friends.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
“And again, let’s be clear about who attacked us…a decentralized network of operatives funded by a decentralized network of money men. Not a country and not a country’s government. Hell, most of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, and they are supposedly our friends.”
Justin, isn’t it interesting we hear nothing of attacking Saudi Arabia even though the vast majority of all the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, but instead we want to give Saudi Arabia a multi-billion dollar “weapons package”? LOL, man! the sheer logic of this administration is amazing.
Yet we have been fed a constant diet of misinformation, disinformation and just plain lies concerning Iraq and its prewar association with al-Qaeda and
terrorism. There is little doubt that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and an evil man, but it was also established by our own Central Intelligence Agency that the connection between al-Qaeda prewar was highly suspect at the least and unsupported at worst, despite! despite, Cheney, our vice tyrant having made “personal” visits to the CIA to help the CIA “find” a link between al-Qaeda, terrorism and Saddam Hussein. Again, no such link could be found.
So…that begs the question, if 3/4th of the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were from our supposed alley Saudi Arabia, then why aren’t we occupying Saudi Arabia? Oh yeah, that’s right! The ringleader of the very terrorists that blew up 3,000 plus innocent Americans on 9/11 of a family member of the Bin Ladin family, a family of which Bush himself has a long established friendship and business relationship, and isn’t it odd as well, that a good share of that family happened to be in America on that very fateful day and Bush ordered that very same family to be flowen out of the U.S., No questioned asked WHATSOEVER.
Hmmmm, weird, all this logic. It is all too strange that our president continues to drive and pound this very false idea that Iraq and “The Terrorists” were somehow in cahoots before the U.S. invasion of 2003. There’s a perfect explanation for all of this, just like the WMD lies so too are these allegations of al-Qaeda and Iraq being in business together lies as well.
I can assure you, Al-Qaeda IS in Iraq and they are stronger than ever. I can also assure you of another thing, we brought the fuckers there ourselves, and now Bushy boy wants to pretend it was that way all along. NO MORE LIES MR. BUSH, NO MORE LIES!
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2003 and I still support our troops that are there now, but regarding this Iraq War bullshit, I don’t think so! I know a G’damn unjust war when i see one, and it’s looking us all in the face right now, it’s called the Iraq War and NO amount of lies is going to make the reality any different. You could try to convince me that Satan and Iraq are in cahoots together, it will never make this war a “just” war, never! We were wrong for invading this country and we are wrong, it’s just that simple folks, that G’damn simple!
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Jimmy, you’re right, we should stay in Iraq and “protect” it, whatever that is supposed to mean. Here are two small clips showing how successful that enterprise of “protecting” Iraq is going, keep in mind these are old news already, just the other day over 400 Iraqis lost their lives in one day: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gangsofiraq/diaries/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_frontlinebrbaghdadvideodiaries_2007-08-23
It’s easy for people of which were not born in Iraq to occupy it for a few years, these people don’t have the luxury of going back “stateside” when the Americans leave, they stay in Iraq no matter what, it’s easy for us to play politics with someone elses country when we live in absolute luxury compared to these peoples realities.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Sorry, here’s a link to all of the footage of this program aired by PBS/Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gangsofiraq/view/
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Justin, are you talking about the Neocons, the Zionists or Both? Because according to JL Wallace, his devotee Jeremy, and half of the other Ronpaullian cult members that have made this website their home over the past few weeks, 9/11 was a obviously a “false flag” operation. You should put a link up to the “Loose Change” website; you might get even more traffic coming your way.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Jimmy, I am not a “Ronpaulite.” I will not be voting for a Republican, a Democrat, a Liberatarian or any other party, except maybe the Green party, and even that is unlikely.
I am not against any of these parties, I am against the actions of these parties. I am most certainly against Bush and the neo-conservative base that got him elected. I am against the Iraq War, not the Afghanistan campaign. I am against lies, and if I had to use only one word to describe Bush it would be
LIAR.
I sense trying to conduct a rational discussion with you might be an impossibility. From what I have gathered from your past posts you seem to advocate the same kind of policies that has got our nation where it is. I will say it one last time, not that you ever listen, but I will say it anyway. War is not the answer to all of our problems.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 pm
I’m so tired of the policitization of 9/11.
In Iraq, we are not fighting just al Qaeda, we are fighting against Sunnis tribes, former Baathists, Shiite militias (al Sadr, the Badr org, etc.) and even some Kurdish forces allied with the PKK. AQI, by all accounts makes up less than 10% of the Iraqi insurgency, and even then Iraqi sunnis have begun turning against them because their long term goal benefits from a truce with the US, in preparation for a larger war against Iran and the Shiite militias.
That means, that much of the fighting we are doing in Iraq, is at best only marginally related to Al Qaeda, and has more to do with the continued goal of this administration to keep Iraq a unitary state. That is we are not fighting al Qaeda, as the administration likes to paint the picture, rather we are fighting many clans, tribes, etc. who have differing goals and reasons for fighting. This means, we are spending blood and treasure on so many different fights, that what we get in return with regard to our main goal (al Qaeda) is very little.
Jimmy argues as follows: “the collapse of the parliamentary system in Iraq and its replacement with a Taliban-like terror state, or a Hezbollah outpost, or both, coupled with the perception amongst the Islamists across the middle east that America is a loser and a paper tiger with a military that can be defeated anywhere on the globe, DOES NOT increase the likelyhood of another domestic terror strike?”
That however, is flawed logic. The collapse of Iraq’s parliamentary system is going to happen whether we stay in Iraq or not. So long as the politicians fail to implement the changes necessary to achieve political reconciliation there will not be peace, despite American sacrifices. One way to pressure them is to either move for a change in government (get other political players involved) or make them know that we will not be there to protect them. Al Maliki has no support in the country, and were we to withdraw he would be dead within months, but I digress.
Iraq, even if it descends into civil war, will not become a Taliban-like entity. First, the majority of Sunnis reject AQI’s brand of Islam, and use them merely to increase havoc which benefits their ultimate goal of destabilizing the majority Shiite government. As events on the ground have shown, Sunnis have begun changing their calculus and switching sides against AQI. If a civil war were to ensue (once US forces leave) Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Sunni countries will finance the Sunni insurgency and virtually populate the country with their intelligence agents. In that environment, AQI would not long survive. As for the Shiites, already we are seeing signs of fragmentation between them. Al Sadr’s militia is already battling with the Badr organization for control of not only security forces, but also political offices in Southern Iraq. Currently, the Brits provide them a common enemy they both attack. However, as the Brits have withdrawn from Basra and other regions, these have descended into wars between the militias. In addition, many clerics are being killed, including those allied with Ayatollah Ali al Sistani (mostly due to their criticism of the government in Baghdad). If we leave, the Shiites would divide into different camps, one side will likely grow closer to Iran, while another will follow history and fight against growing Iranian meddling. There will be other factions that would side with one or the other depending on which side offered them the best deal. Ultimately, Iran would get bogged down in the country, and their own Shiite Arab south would be destabilized. This means that far from a Hezbollah bastion, Iran would essentially end up in the position we currently find ourselves, mired in country without an exit strategy. This, of course can be helped with American and allied efforts to prepare the strategic background.
In short, what matters is not so much that we withdraw but how we do it. If we prepare the strategic ground for our withdrawal so that we don’t pull troops under fire, but rather in a manner that is seen as repositioning, while also ensuring the defeat of AQI, all their boasts will count for nothing. This would become apparent once our new strategy emerges. We would pull troops out of Southern Iraq and the Sunni regions, slowly not precipitously. We would move many to Kuwait, others to Northern Iraq keeping enough of a troop/intelligence presence to strike at will when and if (a big if) AQI is able to establish a safe haven in the country. We also use native forces against them, in exchange for weaponry and financing they can use against the Shiite militias (particularly allied with Iran). That would hardly make us seem like a paper tiger.
Additionally, we move in full force into Afghanistan and do it right. Having learned from the mistakes in Iraq, we move to not only provide security nationwide in Afghanistan, but also enough projects to improve the lot of the population that they would be thankful of American assistance. Once there we can also move to pressure Pakistan to do more to combat the Taliban and AQI.
Iran would be tied up fighting the Saudis and other Arab regimes in a proxy war in Iraq so we can use different levers to pressure them to abandon their nuclear program. At the same time, Iran’s population will likely turn even more against the Mullah’s whom they would hold responsible for the deaths of Iranian soldiers coming home from any violence in Iraq.
I don’t want to exhaust myself here on possible post-US withdrawal scenarios, I just wanted to point out that done right it can actually benefit us by changing the strategic landscape in the region.
The president recently used the specter of Vietnam as a lesson for why withdrawal from Iraq would be bad, and why staying the course was necessary. However, he failed to learn the most important lesson of the Vietnam war. The US withdrew from Vietnam, and lost that war, however, it ultimately won the Cold War. The Vietnam war and out withdrawal, for all the havoc it unleashed in Southeast Asia, had very little impact on the larger struggle. Yes, a lot of people suffered, and died, but that is what happens when you lose a war. The US however, did not just say, ok we lost, let’s give up. No, Nixon instead sought to engage China (whom we also fought in Vietnam) and widened its rivalry with the USSR. We also financed and secured our allies in the region, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan being prime examples. These eventually emerged as pillars of globalization and allowed for the not only the opening of China to capitalism, but also Vietnam. Hence, the main lesson of that war was, sometimes if you make mistakes you have to swallow a bitter pill, but recognizing when the venture is a sunk cost is far more important because it allows you to withdraw from the regions where you are weak/weakened and to focus/stregthen those were you are stronger. The US sought to construct a system that would further our economic model while constraining the communist expansion. Although loosing Vietnam, we never took our eye off the larger goal and because of that, though we lost that engagement, we won the larger war.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
For more rational perspective, also look at Tom Barnett’s blog where he addressed the President’s Iraq is like Vietnam speech. The title, “No way to run a war on terror”
August 24th, 2007 at 7:04 am
nykrinDC
If we do end up staying, you want to bet on it?
I don’t really care what a terrorist organization calls itself, whether its Al-Qaeda, Aswar al-Islam, Jamat al-Islamia, The “Swords of Righteousness” Brigades, or whatever…any and all Islamic terrorist organizations in Iraq that have trans-national aspirations must be engaged. This obsession with card-carrying members of AQ only, as if the “war on terror” is merely an act of retribution for 9/11 specifically, is dangerously myopic.
And because Al-Qaeda has massacred entire villages, imposed harsh Islamic laws which they don’t like, and because many Iraqi sunni Arabs do not share the globalist visions of Al-Qaeda, as many were duped by propaganda that American troops were trying to colonize Iraq. I seriously doubt its because these tribal elders want to fight another war with Iran.
The viet-cong wanted to establish a socialist utopia in South Vietnam. Do you really think that Islamic terrorist groups will be satisfied once they control mesopotamia? Can we prevent Islamic terrorist attacks simply by “strengthening our ties” with non-Islamic countries? Can we play the game of mutually assured destruction with barbarians who glorify martyrdom?
August 24th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Does that include the lie that 19 arab terrorists hijacked airplanes and flew them into the Pentagon and the WTC on 9/11?
Teach your grandchildren how to properly adorn a zunar, or how to pay the jizya with humility, that is, if they don’t decide to convert to Islam. This is the goal of terrorists who have declared war on us.
I know that it is hard for you to contemplate the possibility that brown-skinned people are not merely passive reactors to stimuli handed out by white people or jews; That arabs, pashtoons, persians ect , actually have the free will to choose acts of evil, and that not just “neocons” or “zionists” have the intellectual capability for aspirations to global power and dominance.
August 24th, 2007 at 9:40 am
If we do end up staying, you want to bet on it?
Yes. Maliki has virtually no support, even al Sadr, his main backer is leaving him. The only thing keeping him there is that he is weak and ineffectual enough that he does not pose a threat to the main powers in the country. The longer the political impasse continues, the more likely it is that the country will end up splitting into three. Hence, Gen. Petraus assertion that this cannot be solved militarily by the US, only politically by Iraqis. Absent that, the government will eventually fall regardless of the sacrifices our troops make.
I don’t really care what a terrorist organization calls itself, whether its Al-Qaeda, Aswar al-Islam, Jamat al-Islamia, The “Swords of Righteousness” Brigades, or whatever…any and all Islamic terrorist organizations in Iraq that have trans-national aspirations must be engaged. This obsession with card-carrying members of AQ only, as if the “war on terror” is merely an act of retribution for 9/11 specifically, is dangerously myopic.
That’s the point I tried to make above. Most of the Iraqi insurgency, and militias fighting us in Iraq have very limited aims. Most just want their piece of the pie inside the country and nothing more. The majority of Sunni insurgents fight us only to the extent that we stay in Iraq, once we leave they will turn their sights on the Shiites. Most Shiites look to controlling the whole of Iraq, and fight us only to the extent we get in their way. If the US were to leave, they would just turn on each other and on the Sunnis. The Shiites who have wider regional aspirations are few and before they can even pull that off would have to defeat not only the Sunnis, but also most Shiites who just want to control the Iraqi state. Jimmy, the insurgency in Iraq is an insurgency against occupation for the most part, not an insurgency against the current world order. AQI and its allies are small and do not have staying power in the country. Gen. Petraus, thankfully understands this and has implemented part of a strategy that takes advantage of the division between the majority of Sunni insurgents and AQI. Still, military force will not be enough, and likely for naught, unless the central government can come up with a political solution. On that front, I’m less than hopeful.
And because Al-Qaeda has massacred entire villages, imposed harsh Islamic laws which they don’t like, and because many Iraqi sunni Arabs do not share the globalist visions of Al-Qaeda, as many were duped by propaganda that American troops were trying to colonize Iraq. I seriously doubt its because these tribal elders want to fight another war with Iran.
They don’t want to fight a war against Iran, they want to prevent Iran from spreading more of its influence throughout Iraq and they will fight it to do so. It’s been reported time and again that many Iraqi Sunnis now view Iran’s rising influence in Iraq as the bigger threat, and hence their willingness to negotiate with the US.
The viet-cong wanted to establish a socialist utopia in South Vietnam. Do you really think that Islamic terrorist groups will be satisfied once they control mesopotamia?
It’s not going to happen, Jimmy. You are ascribing far more power to Islamic extremists than they have in Iraq. In fact, most of the fighting in Iraq boils down to sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis for control of the country’s resources and power and not the type of expansionist religious extremism championed by al Qaeda. Islamists, al Qaeda or not, do not have the power to take over the country. As I pointed out, they are likely to be the first casualties of an all out civil war, particularly on the Sunni side. We can ensure this by making deals with the Sunnis that give them a time table for our withdrawal, contingent on their elimination of AQI and its sanctuaries. In short, we don’t leave unless AQI is destroyed. After that, there’s no real point for us staying in Anbar, or becoming embroiled in the larger civil war that will ensue. More likely, Iraq will just become a proxy war between regional powers Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc. We can help one side or the other depending on our interests just like we did during the Iraq-Iran war. Ultimately, by disengaging from Iraq we can refocus more strongly on the war on terror. Iraq is but one battlefield, and like Vietnam, our withdrawal will not affect the ultimate outcome of the war. We can lose Iraq and still win the GWOT. Iraq is not the end all seeing it that way is extremely myopic.
Can we prevent Islamic terrorist attacks simply by “strengthening our ties” with non-Islamic countries? Can we play the game of mutually assured destruction with barbarians who glorify martyrdom?
No, of course not and no one is arguing that. But fighting a war is not simply about jumping head first into a conflict or battle just to try to save face. Rather, war is about picking your battles, protecting your weaknesses while using your strengths to defeat an opponent. Iraq is a weakness because we are expending a lot of effort for too little gain as the myriad of conflicts we are engaging in there has for the most part, little to nothing to do with AQ or Islamism.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
“No, of course not and no one is arguing that. But fighting a war is not simply about jumping head first into a conflict or battle just to try to save face. Rather, war is about picking your battles, protecting your weaknesses while using your strengths to defeat an opponent. Iraq is a weakness because we are expending a lot of effort for too little gain as the myriad of conflicts we are engaging in there has for the most part, little to nothing to do with AQ or Islamism.”
nykrindc,
Precisely! Anyone that has ever played game of chess knows this. Beginner chess players tend to jump right into battle without considering the long term consequences of their actions. They go to war and push their
Queen front-and-center immediately. Big mistake! you will surely lose time and the advantage by doing this.
In response to 9/11 Bush did just that. He took out the big guns and ignored the rest of the world, historical precedence and shoved us into a situation that was predicted far in advance. Like a true novice he demanded to continue on a course of ignorance out of spite. It’s now the end game, we are down material and our position is looking untenable.
This is fine for Bush, he’s one of the most hated presidents in historical record and he’s going to continue to deepen then United States in quagmire
until we have a new president. How funny it is that during the first years of the war Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush scoffed at the comparison of Vietnam and the Iraq War, now he’s trying to drum-up support for this failed war by comparing the two.