posted on March 12, 2007 07:23:20 AM new
March 12, 2007 Don't Encourage Our Enemies
- Hugh Hewitt
As signs of stability continue to accumulate in Iraq, so to do reports of terrible carnage as the radical Islamists spread mayhem as a means of bringing Iraq's fragile democracy down.
The good news is that there is indeed good news, as the number of attacks and murders in Baghdad decline, and as Iraqis especially those in the Parliament confirm their understanding that there is no more time for maneuvering, only progress.
Given the momentum shift, it should be the job of the Congress of the United States to discourage rather than encourage our enemies. But even after the defeat of the Senate Democrats nonbinding resolution, Harry Reid and company are back with another bit of grandstanding intended to mollify their fanatical anti-war base, even as it undermines the mission in Iraq.
We urge the Republicans to again take up the challenge of defending the mission and the troops. The Democrats are fully committed to defeat. The supporters of victory look for leadership from the Senate GOP.
~ Hugh Hewitt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 12, 2007 07:48:14 AM new
Ha! That's so FEEBLE!
Can't you two do anything but REPEAT and REPEAT and REPEAT the same old sh!t ?
Here's the questions to ignore:
Why doesn't bush think it important to find bin laden? ...you know, the guy who REALLY was behind 9/11. He obviously wants THAT enemy to be free to do whatever he wants !
Why do you view Muslims as our enemy yet want us to spend BILLIONS and kill and maim our troops for a country that is 97% Muslim?
posted on March 12, 2007 09:01:33 AM new
Morning, Bear. It's so disheartening to see them doing all they can for the goal of an American DEFEAT.
====================
An exclusive interview with Gen. Franks - March 12, '07
General Tommy Franks, the former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command who led U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, tells NewsMax that he is squarely behind the controversial "surge" of troops.
"The reason that I say this is a good idea is because that's what the leaders on the ground are saying," says Franks, speaking from Hobart, Okla., the future home of the General Tommy Franks Leadership Institute and Museum.
As head of the U.S. Central Command, Franks oversaw American military operations in a 25-country region, including the Middle East. He took the position in July 2000 and served until his retirement on July 7, 2003.
Franks, 61, was the U.S. general who led the attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan following 9/11, and he led the 2003 invasion of Iraq that overthrew Saddam Hussein.
He was also Commander-in-Chief of the American occupation forces.
In a free-ranging exclusive interview, Franks set the record straight on the surge and a host of thorny subjects, and revealed the following about President Bush and his administration:
President Bush was never in a rush to invade Iraq. Bush was always a good leader – calm, studious and deliberative – and was never steam-rolled by his top advisors, but was always his own man.
From a converted barn located on the family ranch near the Wichita Mountains in Kiowa County, Okla. – the staging area for the Leadership Institute he wants to build – Franks spoke his mind on these and other critical issues of the day.
NewsMax: I was talking to a young 1st Sergeant fresh back from Iraq not long ago and I asked him his opinion on this surge of additional troops going into Iraq and I got an unexpected reaction. He said, "Sir, hell, let's send 100,000 troops and let's get this job done!"
Gen. Franks: I think you will find beyond the 99th percentile of the youngsters serving there would tell you the same thing. My son-in-law [an Army captain] is in Baghdad as we speak. He has been there about five or six months, and without putting words in his mouth, I think he would probably tell you something similar.
People ask me all of the time, do you think we ought to send more people, and I say of course I do, because the leaders that we have selected to run this operation in Iraq have said they would like to have an additional 20,000 troops.
The reason I say this is a good idea is because that's what the leaders on the ground are saying. If the leaders on the ground were to say we don't need additional troops, then I would say great, we don't need additional troops, because I have confidence in the men and women who are serving on the ground over there and leading our troops. I have confidence today, and I have had it all the way through this process.
NewsMax: A misconception about George Bush as Commander-in-Chief may be how anxious he was to go to war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I think many American have the impression that the President was "hot to trot" from the day he was elected.
Gen. Franks: I find that very interesting because we have all read that same sort of view of Bush wanting desperately to get into Iraq, and I, as a person who lived through that, just didn't find it.
The first time the President talked to me about Iraq, if my memory serves, was six or seven days after Hamid Karzai had become the Transitional President of Afghanistan, in December of 2001. So I have always been amazed at those who would suggest that right from the very beginning all he wanted to do was get after Iraq.
I believe he was very doubtful in the run-up to Iraq. We worked on the plan for about 14 months before we ever became satisfied that we had the right approach for Iraq. Our mainstream media did not get it right, and I believe this is a case-in-point.
NewsMax: How about Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld standing down from his post?
Gen. Franks: We need to be very careful as Americans not to confuse patriotism with political expediency.
What I mean is it makes sense to me that Don Rumsfeld left the post as Secretary of Defense.
When he did, I didn't question that decision at all, but I do question those who say he was a terrible Secretary of Defense, because I did not find that to be the case. I told a lot of people Don Rumsfeld is a contrarian.
When he was the Secretary of Defense, he was very tough on himself and on everyone around him. I have also described him as a crotchety guy, and he is just tough to deal with. I have also told a great many people that Don Rumsfeld is a friend of mine. I still talk to him, and on occasion when [wife] Cathy and I are in Washington, we will go out to eat with him and [wife] Joyce.
The guy is an American patriot. He was an American patriot. He is just a touchy guy to get along with.
NewsMax: As a Vietnam veteran, you said the last thing you were going to tolerate while leading the Afghanistan or Iraq campaigns would be micromanagement like Gen. William Westmoreland did in Vietnam.
Gen. Franks: In my view, I was successful in avoiding that. I found that it was distinctly possible with a tough issue to take a stand with this administration – specifically with Don Rumsfeld when he was the Secretary – and debate an issue, lay the facts out, discuss an issue.
This is what Rumsfeld used to call "iteration" before arriving at a course of action. In no case did Rumsfeld ever throw me out of his office. In no case did Rumsfeld ever tell me, General Franks, it is my way or the highway.
NewsMax: You were getting needled by Rumsfeld about the apparent lack of progress in Afghanistan and you called your wife and told her to open up a bottle of red wine – you were coming home. At home you called Rumsfeld and said in effect, if you don't have confidence in me, get somebody else. I thought that was very candid portrayal that you set forth in your book "American Soldier." Was that a crisis in leadership or in your relationship with Secretary Rumsfeld?
Gen. Franks: It probably was a crisis of leadership for me. One of the strongest suits that we bring to any activity is confidence – the confidence we have in ourselves as leaders and the confidence we believe our bosses in this country have in our ability to lead.
So we were at a juncture in Afghanistan, which you described adequately, and it was time to say there are no hard feelings here. If you, Mr. Secretary, do not have confidence in what we are doing, then I have only one of two courses of action before me.
One is to cave in and do something I don't believe in, and the other is to say, have a nice day and we can have a change of command here at your leisure. Because that is the honorable thing to do, and so that is what I did.
I think it was surprising to the Secretary because, as I said, he is a tough guy and I doubt it ever occurred to him that I was operating in the way I just described, and he very quickly said, "no, no, I do have confidence and so let's move ahead."
We did, and it turned out fine. But had I not put the proposition on the table the way I did, then I don't think that I would have been a man of principle.
NewsMax: Let's talk about President Bush's leadership traits. You have consistently complimented the Commander-in-Chief, calling him a "true leader."
Gen. Franks: I commented that way while I worked for George W. Bush and I still comment in that fashion.
I think it takes a variety of things ... when we think about whether our presidents have been great leaders or good leaders or
not very good leaders.
I think that there are a couple of interesting ingredients - one is just what you see every day. We see constant dialogue on our television sets, and in the newspapers we read every day about the views as to whether this president is a good president or bad president.
But I think historians have a much more in-depth approach.
As we go through history and people look at the present administration, the factor that will always play into it is the context within which this president had to lead the country.
You and I both know, if you think about the events of 9/11 and this attack on America, that is a heck of a context within which a president serves his country, and in my view George W. Bush has done the job with honesty and integrity.
As I have told a great many people, I am neither Democrat nor Republican. In fact, I am a registered Independent. I have been so and foresee that I will stay that way. But I do respect the work that this president has done during a very, very difficult period of American history.
NewsMax: I had the privilege of interviewing Richard Perle a couple of weeks ago and we got on the same leadership failure discussion. He said that some of Bush's advisors failed the president. He got bum advice and acted on it. Is that the case, in your opinion?
Gen. Franks: I don't think so. Knowing George W. Bush as I know him, and I would say that I know him pretty well, I never saw the President steam-rolled.
There is a lot of media speculation that the advisers all got together and pushed one agenda or another and I simply did not see that to be the case.
I found the mind of George W. Bush to be very curious, and intellectually demanding. He did not want his people to line up to say, "oh yes, we should take this course of action," but rather to have people argue for various courses of action.
I found him to be not only studious but very thoughtful as I watched him carefully factor in everything that he was told and make decisions.
NewsMax: The President appeared as careful in his deliberations when it came to the stance on stem cell research. He labored on that for a long time.
Gen. Franks: It's true.
NewsMax: I hope the recent disclosure of failures at Walter Reed Hospital hasn't discouraged you. Was this a creature of failed leadership?
Gen. Franks: Of course. As I look around and see these kids coming back in many cases very seriously injured, requiring hospitalization and a great deal of medical work, the thought that any given one of them or their families are not treated the way I would want my daughter and my son-in-law who is in the military treated – I find that hurtful.
NewsMax: Is it a misconception that there was no proper planning for post-victory in Iraq?
Gen. Franks: Right.
NewsMax: You have commented that during your time as a young junior officer in Vietnam, you were frustrated by the enemy getting sanctuary in Cambodia and you declared, "If I live long enough to get anywhere in this Army, I won't let the enemy operate from a refuge like that." Is that the type of refuge that you wouldn't tolerate in Iraq?
Gen. Franks: The type of refuge I wouldn't tolerate actually concerns a couple of different levels.
First the strategic:
If you were the President of the United States before 9/11, it is possible for you to simply live with what was going on in Iraq
... The fact of the matter is that Iraq was a sanctuary we were unable to penetrate, despite the fact that we sanctioned Iraq.
You will recall that our young men and women were enforcing those sanctions for almost 10 years, and they were getting shot at every morning and every night, but none of them had been shot down, so it was possible to ignore that sanctuary during this period of time.
When 9/11 occurred, now what is the likelihood that any administration in power in this country - no matter which side of the aisle - could have ignored Iraq? You couldn't have ignored the sanctuary in the aftermath of 9/11. My opinion is that it is not likely that given what we saw on 9/11 that any administration would permit Iraq to continue in a business-as-usual sort of way.
So at the level of the strategic, that may be a match for having Cambodia off limits during the Vietnam War. It may be a match for having had North Vietnam essentially off limits to ground power during the time of Vietnam - and so there might be a little bit of an analogy there.
Now, as we look at Syria and Iran, we are confronted with yet another decision: how much tolerance do we have for activities in Syria and Iran that are not helpful to our work in Iraq?
On the other hand, they are not literally staging tens of thousands of troops in those countries that directly threaten the work we are doing in Iraq.
I think that Syria and Iran require close watching and continuous analysis, so that we do not get ourselves in a position such as what we found in Vietnam.
A long answer to your question, but I do believe that both Iran and Syria require watching.
NewsMax: Your predecessor in CENTCOM, Marine Gen. Tony Zinni, advised you that you were going to be the cop in the world's most dangerous neighborhood, and if the U.S. was going to be involved in a war, it would be there. He also advised that the Middle East would never become stable until there is an equitable peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Do you agree with the latter?
Gen. Franks: You bet, and we agreed on that and I suspect that we still agree on that because the view of the United States of America in the Middle East is based in large measure on what the people in the Middle East see going on with the Palestinians and with Israel, and so they make hay of that 24 hours a day.
NewsMax: In 2004, you said: "A year from now, Iraq will be a different country. Our steady progress in Afghanistan is one factor that gives me confidence that Iraq will be able to rebuild their country with equal speed and ease." That hasn't happened...
Gen. Franks: Right.
NewsMax: Would this dilemma in Iraq and Afghanistan be something that your Leadership Institute would tackle?
Gen. Franks: I think absolutely. I believed in the summer of 2003 that we would be in a three-to-five-year process before we would see things stabilized and settled in Iraq.
I don't know how accurate that will turn out to be.
We're at four years now and we're sure it's not where we want it to be. So I'm not sure that my prediction was right. It certainly didn't happen in a year.
NewsMax: The $64,000 question then is does Iraq represent a failure in leadership?
Gen. Franks: My sense is that there was not a failure in leadership. These are very complex issues, and I suppose that in order to find a failure in leadership one should be able to look back and say that at any given point in time we had a selection of options and had we taken another course, then very clearly that other option would have presented a better set of circumstances than we have now.
In that sort of framework, it is possible to conclude we had bad decision-making and so maybe there was a failure in leadership.
However, I don't see that even in hindsight. One can say if we simply had not gone into Iraq in March of 2003, it is very clear that America would be better off today. Actually, I don't believe that.
NewsMax: You once said there may not have been weapons of mass destruction, but you suggested a metaphor that what Saddam had was like a disassembled pistol lying on the desk.
Gen. Franks: Exactly to the point. Did we find weapons of mass destruction? No we did not. Did we find the terrorist Abu Abbas [mastermind of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking], who shoved [Leon] Klinghoffer overboard, living in the open in Iraq when we moved in there? ... Yes, we did.
So who is to say that left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein wouldn't have created a problem that could have been much more substantial to our country than the events of 9/11? I just don't believe that the leaders of the United States were in a position post 9/11 to say that business as usual would be just fine.
Let me give you an example of that.
What did we see happen in 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon? We saw the interests of the United States of America attacked by terrorists with a bombing of our Marines.
What did we see in 1993? We saw an attempt on the World Trade Center by terrorists, and we saw the United States of America back away unilaterally from something we had committed to do in Mogadishu, Somalia.
Then in 1996 we saw Khobar Towers - the attack of American interests by terrorists in Saudi Arabia.
In 1998, we saw two attacks on American embassies in East Africa, and
In 2000 we saw the USS Cole attacked in Aden Harbor, Yemen.
So here is the question: [b]Is there any relationship between the events over the course of about two decades that I just mentioned and the events of 9/11/01?
I do believe there is a connection[/b]. I don't mean a physical connection between any of the specific events, but an indication served up to terrorists over the course of almost two decades that says it is okay to attack the interests of the United States of America without fear of serious retribution.
So as we look at American history going back a couple of decades, I believe we can be comfortable with the notion that if we hide our heads in the sand, the problem is not going to go away.
==============
Support our troops....support giving them what THEY ASK FOR.
Don't be on the democrats side....against them - WORKING so they CAN'T be successful in their missions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 12, 2007 09:16 AM ]
posted on March 12, 2007 08:13:39 AM new
I KNEW you can't answer pertinent questions...thank you for once again proving my point.
Let's talk about what a big boost for the terrorists was the revelation of the identity of a CIA agent BY THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION .....
[ edited by mingotree on Mar 12, 2007 08:15 AM ]
posted on March 12, 2007 08:37:21 AM new
A Failure to Communicate
And one last chance to win the war of ideas in Iraq
By Cliff May
Thursday, February 22, 2007
In Iraq, we have been losing not clashes of arms but clashes of perceptions.
Our enemies understood early on that they could not defeat American troops in combat. But they were clever enough to realize they didn't need to. Instead, they could win a war of ideas.
Their strategy was audacious: They would target their enemies-- 'occupiers,' 'infidels'¯ and 'collaborators' -- only opportunistically and sporadically. Their most lethal weapon, the suicide-bomber, they would deploy against ordinary Iraqis shopping in the market, waiting on line for jobs, sitting in cafes.
One might have expected the fabled 'Arab Street'¯ to erupt over the slaughter of fellow Arabs. It did not do so. Muslims around the world ought to have been furious over seeing their co-religionists killed in cold blood. They were not.
Nor were Europeans outraged at the mass murder of innocents. On the contrary, many expressed something close to admiration for what they persisted in calling the 'Resistance.'¯
The media, for their part, were not diligent in reporting on the affiliations, motives and strategies of the killers "whom they referred to as "insurgents"¯ or "militants" or something equally non-judgmental.
They talked about 'the violence,' and the 'security situation" as though the cause of the bloodshed was not specific individuals, groups and regimes but a force of nature, like a hurricane or a tornado.
The White House, the Pentagon and the State Department allowed this spin to go almost unchallenged 'and eventually to become the dominant 'narrative.'¯
What could they have done instead? They could have made the truthful case "forcefully and relentlessly -- that ruthless fanatics were intentionally killing innocent Iraqis; that civilized people do not excuse such barbarism, no matter the cause or grievance; that principled people fight and defeat it.
On a BBC radio show, an interviewer asked if I agreed that the situation in Iraq was dire: I said I thought it was: Iraqi non-combatants -- men, women and children -- are being murdered by the score. So surely, I added, the one thing we must not do is turn the country over to those dispatching the killers.
Startled, he suggested that the presence of Americans was responsible for the violence. I asked him to be more precise: Is it the sight of Americans that causes people to kill one another? Or is it perhaps our smell?
A second and also cunning aspect of the anti-American/anti-Iraqi strategy has been to stoke sectarian fires, knowing that Americans would not want to be caught in a civil war.
A year ago this month, the Golden Mosque in Samara "the holiest Shia shrine in Iraq" was bombed. It was a stroke of tactical brilliance. Once again, international outrage at the predators was muted (nothing like the protests in response, for example, to Israeli attempts to repair a ramp near the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem).
But Iraqi Shia, until then restrained despite repeated attacks, turned to militias both to protect them and to take revenge against what they saw as their complicit Sunni neighbors.
Having lost so many clashes of perceptions, the US has now had to change its strategy for the clash of arms. Under a new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, American forces are not just training Iraqi forces to 'stand up so Americans can stand down,'¯ they are actually attempting to provide security to the residents of Baghdad, to clear out the terrorists and keep them out.
To accomplish that will require sophisticated counter-insurgency techniques - a subject on which Petraeus has literally written the book.
But beyond making progress, Petraeus will need to show progress through the media to the world: a terrorist cell eliminated, a weapons cache seized, a torture chamber located, a neighborhood stabilized, a market teeming with people no longer afraid they won't survive the afternoon.
Purple fingers once a year will not suffice.
The enemy knows what it has to do in response:
Litter the streets of Baghdad with bodies. If the dead are Americans, that's a bulls-eye. But if they are just ordinary Iraqis heading for work or taking their children to school or buying rice for dinner that can be spun as a victory, too.
The 'international community' will direct its anger not at the killers but at those brave enough to stand up to them. Is that not perverse, illogical and immoral? Is it not insane? Of course it is. But most people won't understand why until and unless the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department learn to wage a more effective war of ideas.
===============
Clifford D. May is the President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 12, 2007 09:02:53 AM newOur Very Politicians Ensure That Al Qaeda Destroys Us - [b]Unless[b]......
By Douglas MacKinnon
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
With each passing day, "I'm finding it more and more plausible to believe that Al Qaeda or its imitators, will inflict catastrophic and lasting damage upon our republic.
The evidence is everywhere, but most of us choose to ignore that which enables the evil intent on killing us all.
Who or what enables this evil? In a very real sense, a combination of our elected officials and tragically, you, me, and anyone else in this nation who votes, or worse, chooses never to vote.
Three recent stories have pushed me to the inevitable conclusion that we are all but doomed to suffer unimagined pain.
The first, was a recent story in The Washington Post headlined,
"Democrats offer up Chairmen for Donors."
This predictable report detailed how the new Democratic majority in Congress is already mirroring some of the sleaziest tactics employed by some in the former Republican majority, by blatantly selling access.
Barney Frank (D-MA), the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, had zero problem coming right out and saying, "Financial services companies are inclined to give to me because I'm chairman of the committee important to their interests."
There you have it. No window dressing. No shame.
Just partisan self interest designed solely to keep the majority at the expense of everything else, including the will and welfare of the American people.
And in anticipation of my Democratic friends accusing me of being partisan, let me remind them that I have long attacked the lack of ethics, greed, or outright corruption of such Republicans as Randy Duke¯ Cunningham, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff, Roy Blunt, John Boehner, and others.
The next story that convinced me that a 1950's style, well stocked and well armed bomb shelter is a necessity, was a report from the Sunday Telegraph in London.
That news report, based on a highly classified intelligence document, was at least honest and politically incorrect enough to state, "The number of British-based Islamic terrorists plotting suicide attacks against 'soft' targets in the country is far greater than the Security Services had previously believe - it is thought the plotters could number more than 2,000."
Further, the director general of MI5 (Scotland Yard's Terrorist Command), went on to say that there were 200 known Islamist networks in Britain involved in at least 30 terrorist plots.
Why does that report make me fear for my country?
For the simple reason that political correctness forbids us to entertain the thought that the very same viper already resides in our nest and is poised to strike.
If it is an acknowledged fact that Britain has a huge problem with such homegrown terrorists, then logic dictates that we have the same homegrown terrorists. And yet, in the face of such disturbing evidence, the vast majority of our politicians fail to speak out. Why?
Simply put, they are deathly afraid of a liberal media that will brand them as "bigots"¯ the second they wonder if a minute percentage of our own Muslim-American population may side with those who mean to exterminate all Christians, Jews, and all 'non-believers.'¯
So, rather than suffer that indignity, some of our elected officials deliberately decide that the potential death of tens of thousands of Americans is preferable to the slings and arrows of a suicidal left-leaning media.
Lastly, we have the numerous and growing news accounts of our very porous border with Mexico. A border that last November, the House Committee on Homeland Security stated had already been infiltrated by agents of Hezbollah. Again, known terrorists crossing into our country and numerous useless politicians on both sides of the aisle choose to look the other way. Why?
In this case, it seems to boil down to votes and oil. Both political parties, in a shameless grab for Hispanic-American votes, have come to the conclusion, that if they institute real border security, then they will lose a segment of that voting block come 2008 and beyond.
With regard to the oil, I have been told by a source in our government that some in the Bush administration are so fearful of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela following through on his threat to turn off the oil spigot to the United States, that they are willing to ignore the influx of illegal aliens so as not to offend Mexico and threaten that supply of oil to our country.
Whatever the reasons, there can be no denying that our borders are open to terrorists. They are this way because most of our politicians have put their self preservation ahead of the national security of the United States.
So again, who will be to blame if we do lose an American city to terrorism? You. Me. And anyone who votes or does not vote. For it is us, who are responsible for these obscenely irresponsible politicians being in power.
Traditionally, we have always loved our 'dirt bag' while wishing ill upon others. A philosophy that in the past, may have only served to rob the public coffers and enrich corrupt politicians, but now, post 9-11, represents a pattern of voting that may be signing the death warrant for our very way of life.
Over the course of the last few years, I have grown so frustrated and so fearful of the behavior of our inept elected officials, that I decided the only way I could strike out against them, was in a fictional sense. In my new novel, I have created a super-militia headed up by the former director of the FBI and the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who feel our nation is in a death spiral and it is their very duty, to try and save it from within.
As my former director of the FBI says to the president when he comes to the White House to state their terms, "Rome was lucky, Mr. President. It only had one Nero to stand by and fiddle as the city and the culture burned to the ground. We in the United States, have 535."¯
To paraphrase Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for our elected officials to do nothing."¯
That requirement is being met and evil is but the blink of an eye away from doing the unthinkable. Who among us is prepared to put country before party to save the dream that is America?
===========
Douglas MacKinnon was press secretary for former Senator Bob Dole and is the author of America's Last Days
posted on March 12, 2007 09:23:52 AM new
Haha! You two just stay hiding in your own little backwards neocon thread....now don't you dare address any other thread with something besides mindless insults and rumors that have been proven false.!!!
posted on March 12, 2007 09:39:34 AM newEnding Democrats' Free Ride on Iraq
By David Limbaugh
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
For liberals like Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, it is far worse for Vice President Dick Cheney to accuse congressional Democrats of playing into Al Qaeda's hands on Iraq than for Democrats actually to play into Al Qaeda's hands on Iraq.
It's perfectly fine for liberals to liken Bush and Cheney to Adolf Hitler or falsely accuse them of lying us into war in Iraq to steal its oil. It's perfectly fine for liberals to attribute failures in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina to alleged Republican racism.
But don't you dare question the wisdom of the Democrats' proposals on Iraq in such a way as to cause the hypersensitive to infer you were challenging their patriotism.
Apparently to Dionne and other like-minded liberals, the potential dire consequences of the Democrats' policies on Iraq are not appropriate for discussion and debate because they might make Democrats look bad, or even feel bad -- and those are far worse evils than throwing our national security in the toilet.
Precisely what did Dick Cheney -- the public servant who Democrats may, with impunity, stoop to any depths to slander -- say to make House Speaker Nancy Pelosi so indignant?
Well, he issued his assessment of the Democrats' legislative proposals to emasculate our current offensive in Iraq.
Cheney said, "Al Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will - " and cause us to "quit and go home. - That's their fundamental underlying strategy.
If we adopt the Pelosi policy - we will validate the strategy of Al Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it."
What's wrong with that statement? If Cheney believes the Democrats' cut and run policies will benefit Al-Qaeda, doesn't he have an obligation to warn us? Not according to Pelosi, who said Cheney was questioning her patriotism.
Not once did Cheney suggest the Democrats were unpatriotic. He said, "I didn't question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment."
Likewise, President Bush recently made clear that he didn't view the Democrats' proposals to withdraw from Iraq unpatriotic.
But if accusing your political opponents of playing into the enemy's hands constitutes an attack on their patriotism, the Democrats' hands are hardly clean either.
How many times have we heard Democrats say that President Bush's policies in Iraq are the best terrorist recruitment tool we could have possibly given to Osama bin Laden?
Have you ever heard President Bush whine that Democrats were questioning his patriotism? No, perhaps because Bush is quite secure about his own patriotism.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 12, 2007 10:06:45 AM new
This op-ed speaks about juan cole.....lol....the ONE our hellen just worships. EVERYTHING he says is GOSPEL to her.
====================
They know so much that isn't so
By John Noonan
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Sometimes I read liberal blogs. Not for education, of course. I suppose I read them as some sort of perverse method of reinforcing my convictions on the war.
Ronald Reagan used to say "it's not that liberals are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
It's a bit of wisdom that is most effectively illustrated by the left side of the blogosphere.
This war has become, by and large, an exercise in politics. "Warped Clausewitz" is a good way of framing it. In Clausewitzian theory, war is conducted by a trinity of the people, the military, and the government, all interconnected and functioning as a single-minded entity in pursuit of a single objective: victory.
Today the trinity is fractured.
Some would argue that it fractured when we withdrew from Vietnam. But losing South Vietnam didn't have the same horrific implications as losing Iraq to Iran, nor did we have to worry about Saigon becoming the capital of a breeding-ground vacuum state.
And, we aren't conscripting a largely disgruntled pool of unwilling draftees to fight the war in Iraq like we did in Vietnam. All are volunteers. So why has 21st-century America shattered the trinity when we need it most?
True to Clausewitzian thought, the answer lies in the political realm.
Opposition to President Bush has become downright religious for some Americans' activists whose greatest fear is that victory in Iraq would be tantamount to justifying the whole invasion and occupation.
Thus leftist pundits erect pyramids of anti-war rhetoric, built on falsehoods, misconception, and doubts - constructs that serve as pillars of justification for a hasty retreat. None of it is built on sound military judgment or expertise, which should be a requisite for respected war punditry, but like Ronnie said, "they know so much that isn't so."
And, there's nothing left-o'-center bloggers love more than to show off that knowledge.
Take Juan Cole for example. Cole is a prominent liberal blogger and a professor at the University of Michigan. Recently he reported on his blog, titled Informed Comment (without a hint of irony, no doubt), that the U.S. Air Force:
"launched a series of bombing raids on southeast Baghdad. This is absolutely shameful, that the US is bombing from the air a civilian city that it militarily occupies. You can't possibly do that without killing innocent civilians, as at Ramadi the other day. It is a war crime. US citizens should protest and write their congressional representatives. It is also the worst possible counter-insurgency tactic anyone could ever have imagined. You bomb people, they hate you[/b].
Not if you're bombing the folks who are trying to kill you, as the Air Force is doing by targeting Al Qaeda Iraq with a healthy dose of precision-guided justice. Then people like you. A lot. In fact, an Iraqi blogger e-mailed me a photo that he took of a B-1 bomber running a combat air patrol over Baghdad, curiously wanting to know what it was, and whether or not it would help with the surge. That's right - "Iraqis are so terrified of these bombing raids that they're outside taking pictures of the strike aircraft.
Prof. Cole is doing something that many anti-war bloggers do "pretending that they are someone they aren't, writing on a topic that that they know little about. Cole is a professor of Middle Eastern studies, and is no doubt expert in that discipline. But his writing implies that he has some sort of expertise on counter-insurgency that trumps that of the career military officers who ordered the aforementioned air strikes.
You ask a career military officer and they'll tell you that using precision guided munitions is one of the best ways possible to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage, while still effectively negating a target.
Ask Juan Cole and he'll make it seem like the U.S. Air Force is indiscriminately carpet bombing Iraqi neighborhoods for a giggle. "They know so much that isn't so."
On Monday, USA today front paged news that the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division and the 4th Stryker Brigade would be bypassing the usual pre-deployment counter-insurgency training at the National Training Center (NTC) so that they could more rapidly support the recent troop surge.
Blogger John Aravosis hyperventilated over this news on AMERICAblog, another popular blog opposed to the war in Iraq, suggesting that Iraq war supporters "hate the troops but love the war."
An informed commentator, well-versed in military knowledge and thought would rationally tell you that these two particular units are already seasoned veterans of the war, and come from home bases (Forts Campbell and Stewart) that boast two of the world's finest MOUT (military operations on urban terrain) facilities.
That is the reason that the Pentagon feels comfortable in accelerating their training.
John Aravosis, not well-versed in military knowledge or thought, would have you believe that inexperienced kids are being heartlessly shipped into a meat grinder without proper training or equipment. "They know so much that isn't so."
These are two relatively benign examples from the liberal blogosphere, a place whose terrain cracks and oozes with emotionally driven hatred masquerading as political discourse. A place where the mere thought of victory in Iraq is downright blasphemous.
But they do effectively demonstrate how anti-war bloggers and pundits will try to second-guess and sabotage the Pentagon's every move by pretending to be military experts.
Surely Clausewitz never anticipated that an active percentage of his trinity would be working towards achieving the enemy's vision of victory, but perhaps that's the most compelling evidence that the trinity has fractured once and for all.
===============
John Noonan has been published in The Washington Post, Richmond Times-Dispatch, and National Review, and was a contributor to the Encylopedia of World War I and World War II. He blogs at www.op-for.com
posted on March 12, 2007 11:50:56 AM new
Bear and Linda think that if they just keep saying Valerie Plame was not under cover, it will make it true. This is just an excerpt from a 60 Minutes Investigation.
(CBS)
Valerie Plame was also exposed as a “NOC,” an agent working under non-official cover. That means she wasn’t attached to a U.S. Embassy or any other government agency when she worked overseas, which would have provided her protection if she was caught spying. In other words, she had no diplomatic immunity.
Working overseas as an NOC, without official cover, was a dangerous assignment, says Marcinkowski(A CLASSMATE AT "THE FARM". “With diplomatic immunity, the worst that can happen is you get kicked out of the country. You don't have that kind of a protection when you're a NOC. You're out there, what they would call naked.”
“Out there” like Hugh Redmond, a NOC who was caught spying in Shanghai in 1951 and died after 19 years in a Chinese prison. To this day, the CIA denies he was an agent.
“We give our most sensitive cases to those officers serving under non-official cover,” explains Melissa Mahle, who spent 14 years in the Middle East as a covert CIA operative maintaining a series of fictitious “legends,” or cover stories, created by her superiors.
“I conducted espionage. I went overseas, I recruited agents,” says Mahle.
She left the agency three years ago, and recently struck up a friendship with a woman whose career ran parallel to her own: Valerie Plame Wilson.
“People have said, ‘Oh, well, Valerie wasn't serving in a sensitive position. So it's not really that serious.’ Well, I would say that's a very fallacious way of looking at this because a cover is for a clandestine officer can be different things at different times. We change cover. We modify cover based on how we need it,” says Mahle. “If you start to unravel one part of that, you can unravel the whole thing.”
Mahle says Valerie was working on important national security issues, like keeping tabs on nuclear material and the world’s top nuclear scientists. “She is an expert on weapons of mass destruction. These are the kind of people that don't grow on trees.”
What do agents in that division do? “They're trying to figure out, really, the hard questions of who has the capability obtaining and deploying a biological weapon. Or a chemical weapon. Who's doing it? What are those networks? What are the financial trails?” says Mahle.
The CIA has yet to conduct a formal damage assessment. The agency wanted to wait until the investigation by the special prosecutor was over.
But agency representatives have come to Capitol Hill to brief the intelligence committees about steps they’ve taken to “mitigate the effects of the leak.”
None of Plame's family or friends knew of her covert job. Her "official occupation" was a company in Boston which the CIA provides as cover for their agents.
posted on March 12, 2007 12:01:24 PM new
Yes, coincoach, it has been proven that Plame was an active undercover agent...but the neocons fully believe if they keep repeating something it will be true....can't change that
I personally think that that job gave her TOO MUCH insight into the weapons of Iran and Iraq and THAT's why she was outed....the bushits judt didn't want any TRUTH screwing up their plans.
posted on March 12, 2007 01:49:01 PM new
Yes, coincoach, it has been proven that Plame was an active undercover agent.
That was OUTED BY HER HUSBAND
No Hint Seen in Memo that Plame's Role Was Secret
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 17, 2006
Contrary to published reports, a State Department memorandum at the center of the investigation into the leak of the name of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, appears to offer no particular indication that Ms. Plame's role at the agency was classified or covert.
The memo, drafted by the then head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and addressed to the then secretary of state, Colin Powell, was carried aboard Air Force One as President Bush departed for Africa in July 2003. A declassified version of the document was obtained by The New York Sun on Saturday
But with his investigation all but over, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has found no criminal conspiracy and no violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime in some circumstances to disclose the names of undercover CIA operatives. Among other problems, Plame doesn't seem to fit the act's definition of a "covert agent" — someone who "has within the last five years served outside the United States." By 2003, Plame had apparently been working in Langley, Va., for at least six years which means that, mystery of mysteries, the vice president's chief of staff was indicted for covering up something that wasn't a crime.
Valerie Plame appeared in Vanity Fair magazine with her husband Joseph Wilson in January 2004
A retired Army general says the man at the center of the CIA leak controversy, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, revealed his wife Valerie Plame's employment with the agency in a casual conversation more than a year before she allegedly was "outed" by the White House through a columnist.
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.
Vallely and Wilson both were contracted by Fox News to discuss the war on terror as the U.S. faced off with Iraq in the run-up to the spring 2003 invasion.
Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002 – more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Paul Vallely
"He was rather open about his wife working at the CIA," said Vallely, who retired in 1991 as the Army's deputy commanding general in the Pacific.
Vallely made his claim in an interview Thursday night on the ABC radio network's John Batchelor show.
Vallely told WND that, in his opinion, it became clear over the course of several conversations that Wilson had his own agenda, as the ambassador's analysis of the war and its surrounding politics strayed from reality.
"He was a total self promoter," Vallely said. "I don't know if it was out of insecurity, to make him feel important, but he's created so much turmoil, he needs to be investigated and put under oath."
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
[ edited by Bear1949 on Mar 12, 2007 01:52 PM ]
posted on March 12, 2007 01:55:15 PM new
Yes, coincoach, it has been proven that Plame was an active undercover agent...but the neocons fully believe if they keep repeating something it will be true....can't change that
Blubber all you want craw, If she was undercover why did her HUSBAND tell everyone that would listen, she was a CIA employee.
Even Fitzgerald was unable to provide documentation that Plame was undercover.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
[ edited by Bear1949 on Mar 12, 2007 01:58 PM ]
posted on March 12, 2007 01:03:39 PM new
Also, the fact that NO ONE was charged with leaking Plames name, also proves there was no crime. Had she been truely been undercover and her name leaked SOMEONE would have been charged.
Hence, no crime, no treason, no loss.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on March 12, 2007 02:15:09 PM new
LIAR_K, Cheney is saying similar to what you just posted but wouldn't he though.
Cheney Says Congress Undermines Troops
Vice President Challenges 'Anti-War' Lawmakers
By MATTHEW LEE
AP
WASHINGTON (March 12) - Anti-war lawmakers in Congress are "undermining" U.S. troops in Iraq by trying to limit President Bush 's spending requests for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan , Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday.
See below an example what the American people think of Cheney's words
Do you agree with Vice President Dick Cheney's comments?
No 58%
Yes 42%
Total Votes: 140,922
What overall rating would you give to Cheney as vice president?
Poor 58%
Excellent 20%
Good 16%
Fair 6%
Total Votes: 142,202
posted on March 12, 2007 04:01:07 PM new
coincoach - What you fail to realize is this isn't JUST bear and I repeated that she WASN'T covert....but when all this first broke....we posted article after article PROVING why.
Some of the reasons were....interviews of their WA friends who all knew she worked for them. She had married and had two babies during this time frame.
But one of the more important was that she had been 'out of the loop' for the LEGALLY required amount of time....so LEGALLY she couldn't have been.
I know all this sounds too simplistic...but only because I'm too tired of searching out all the proof for the millionth time.
Some here just keep repeating their FALSE claims.....and please remember that CBS [SEE - BS] was the station that has/had HUGE credibility issues both with dan rather and without his help. There were several times when what they told the public was PROVED to be lies...incorrect....just like those false papers dan rather blabbered on and on about. THEY caused his loss of his job, albeit a few months after he was proven a FARCE.
But that IS why no one was indicted for 'outing' her.
Her husband WAS the first to out her himself. And he lied several times about several things. ALL that can be researched by the non-believers.
But usually the non-believers here don't even believe it when the proof IS provided.
posted on March 12, 2007 04:30:12 PM new
coincoach,
Now LIAR_K knows the inter-workings of the C.I.A. !!!
I am here to say the old wind bag LIAR is a riot. She gets slapped in the face with a wet dish cloth and still comes back for more crying out beat me,please someone beat me.
posted on March 12, 2007 04:38:00 PM new
Someone has to inform the ignorant like you....or those that just weren't following the story closely.
You...we expect this ignorance from....nothings going to change in your mind.
But there is hope that others will seek out the TRUTH...and not believe everything the liberal press states.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 12, 2007 04:39:14 PM new
Linda--I can post as many C & P's saying Plame was undercover. They carry as much weight as yours do, so please don't give me bull about yours proving anything. Here's an op-ed piece from the your fav Washington Post:
A Failed Cover-Up
What the Libby Trial Is Revealing
By David Ignatius
Friday, February 2, 2007; A15
Why was the White House so nervous in the summer of 2003 about the CIA's reporting on alleged Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Niger to build a nuclear bomb? That's the big question that runs through the many little details that have emerged in the perjury trial of Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
The trial record suggests a simple answer: The White House was worried that the CIA would reveal that it had been pressured in 2002 and early 2003 to support administration claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and that in the Niger case, the CIA had tried hard to resist this pressure. The machinations of Cheney, Libby and others were an attempt to weave an alternative narrative that blamed the CIA.
The truth began to emerge on July 11, 2003, when CIA Director George Tenet issued a public statement disclosing that the agency had tried to warn the White House off the Niger allegations. In that sense, the Libby trial is about a cover-up that failed.
What helped start the whole brouhaha was a 2003 op-ed article by former ambassador Joseph Wilson, disclosing that his fact-finding trip to Niger the previous year had yielded no evidence of Iraqi uranium purchases. His piece opened with a devastating question: "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?" A frantic White House tried to rebut Wilson's criticism by leaking the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA and had suggested sending him to Niger -- as if the CIA connection somehow contaminated Wilson's allegations and made the White House less culpable.
To understand the Libby case, it's important to look at the documentary evidence, which has been usefully compiled by washingtonpost.com.
The record begins with a Feb. 13, 2002, memo from a CIA briefer who had been "tasked" by Cheney on the uranium issue: "The VP was shown an assessment (he thought from DIA) that Iraq is purchasing uranium from Africa. He would like our assessment of that transaction and its implications for Iraq's nuclear program." The CIA briefer responded the next day with a comment that should have aroused skepticism on whether Iraq needed to buy any more uranium: Iraq already had 550 tons of "yellowcake" ore -- 200 tons of it from Niger. But the CIA, eager to please, asked Wilson a few days later to go to Niger to investigate the claim.
A glimpse of the pressure coming from the vice president's office emerges from a memo from CIA briefer Craig R. Schmall, after he was interviewed in January 2004 by FBI agents investigating the leak of Plame's COVERT identity: "I mentioned also to the agents that Libby was in charge within the administration (or at least the White House side) for producing papers arguing the case for Iraqi WMD and ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, which explains Libby's and the Vice President's interest in the Iraq/Niger/Uranium case."
CIA and State Department documents show that analysts at both agencies became increasingly skeptical about the Niger allegation and tried to warn the White House. A memo from Schmall to Eric Edelman, then Cheney's national security adviser, recalled: "CIA on several occasions has cautioned . . . that available information on this issue was fragmentary and unconfirmed." A memo from Carl W. Ford Jr., then head of the State Department's intelligence bureau, noted that his analysts had found the Niger claims "highly dubious."
The Niger issue wasn't included in Secretary of State Colin Powell's famous U.N. speech on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, according to Ford, "due to CIA concerns raised during the coordination regarding the veracity of the information on the alleged Iraq-Niger agreement." But despite CIA warnings, Bush referred to uranium purchases from Africa in his January 2003 State of the Union address, attributing it to British sources.
So we begin to understand why the White House was worried about the CIA in the summer of 2003: It feared the agency would breach the wall of silence about the claims regarding weapons of mass destruction. Robert Grenier, a CIA official who was the agency's Iraq mission manager, told colleagues that he remembered "a series of insistent phone calls" that month from Libby, who wanted the CIA to tell reporters that "other community elements such as State and DOD" had encouraged Wilson's Niger trip, not just Cheney.
The bottom line? Grenier was asked in court last week to explain the White House's 2003 machinations. Here's what he said: "I think they were trying to avoid blame for not providing [the truth] about whether or not Iraq had attempted to buy uranium." Let me say it again: This trial is about a cover-up that failed.
posted on March 12, 2007 04:51:07 PM new
No, coincoach....what I read was from the mouth of a CIA agent, being interviewed, who explained THEIR requirements/standards in order for an agent to be covert.
She wasnt'.
Believe what you want....I have no dog in this race. I just prefer TRUTH to more liberal anti-administration garbage.
=========
I know, bear, they ALL appear to believe they know all sorts of private things about me.
That should tell everyone how they come up with some of the things they post here. NOT based in any reality....none...zip...nada...etc.
===========
For anyone interested in reading about dan rather and his many, many lies to the public....who trusted in what he told them....
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 12, 2007 04:59:50 PM new
Another issue I want to point out is what SOME choose to 'read between the lines'
For example:
in coincoaches WA Post article it says:
"[i]had yielded no evidence of Iraqi uranium [/b]purchases[/b]."
So, to some who haven't read a lot on that subject, it would appear that wilson told the truth...and others lied - or were worried about that info getting out.
Not true.
BUT while it was true that there was no EVIDENCE OF PURCHASES.....there was PROOF of an ATTEMPT to purchase.
See the difference? All in the twist of a half a sentence...it has MUCH different meaning.
==================
Besides that joe wilson was proven a liar ....by many posting what he said at one time...then what he said in his book. His statements have proven him a liar.
==============
Are you coincoach, one who is also committed to America's defeat in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars???
posted on March 12, 2007 05:02:03 PM new
Well, Linda,I heard straight from an agent's mouth, one who trained with Plame and knows her for 20 years,that she was deeply undercover and without even a diplomatic (black) passport at the time she was outed. I am only interested in the truth as well. What makes your information any more valid than mine (other than the fact that you are a Republican?)
posted on March 12, 2007 05:04:53 PM new
Linda said "Are you coincoach, one who is also committed to America's defeat in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars???" You mean disagreeing with you makes me a traitor?
posted on March 12, 2007 05:16:14 PM new
This is a huge part of the problem we have.....
many here think I post what I do because I just support Bush and this administration 100%. I don't.
I have voted for dems and republicans and was a registered American Independent for most of my adult life.
What I AM, as I see myself, is an AMERICAN....who supports her country....supports the elected administration and when all three past administrations have said the SAME THING....I support our Nation taking action.
I do NOT support the 'new dem party'. They don't have the guts nor the will to defend this Nation. And they have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR this Nation ....they've spent the last 6 years bashing this administration....throwing crap at them that they could not support....ie this 'outing'. You think fitzgerald wasn't LOOKING t hang this administration? lol He sure was. But the best he could come up with was a conviction for LYING.
Which the dems have never had a problem accepting when one of their own is doing the lying.
NO conviction....NO indictment for 'outing' the wanna be hollywood couple, the wilson's. lol
And those liars like joe wilson and his wife who only did this so they could make $$ off their book and the movie they had planned on making....BEFORE his statements were DISCREDITED....make a difference on who I believe and who I don't.
I would be the first to want to see anyone tried for treason for outing a covert agent.
But then I believed kerry should have been tried for treason also....from his actions after he spent his four MONTHS trying to get out of service to our Nation.
The NYT, imo, has committed TREASON many times by printing classified information - over and over that, imo and the opinion of millions of Americans HAS put our National security at grave risk...besides informing our enemies of our inner workings.
===========
Now, I've answered YOUR questions. Going to run off again without answering MINE? It's been your MO up until now.
"Are you coincoach, one who is also committed to America's defeat in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars???
posted on March 12, 2007 05:44:46 PM new
I am not committed to any "defeat." I am committed to extricating America from a huge mistake which has cost thousands of American lives. Defeat, to me, would be continuing this disastrous mistake, not changing anything for the better and losing many more American lives in the process.
