PDA

View Full Version : Lewrockwell.com: 95% of Muslim Terrorists Have been created by Bush's invasion


Taco John
01-29-2006, 11:06 PM
Catastrophe Looms
by Paul Craig Roberts

Two recent polls, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and a New York Times/CBS News poll, indicate why Bush is getting away with impeachable offenses. Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information.

Much of the problem is the media itself, which serves as a disinformation agency for the Bush administration. Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio are the worst, but with propagandistic outlets setting the standard for truth and patriotism, all of the media is affected to some degree.

Despite the media’s failure, about half the population has managed to discern that the US invasion of Iraq has not made them safer and that the Bush administration’s assault on civil liberties is not a necessary component of the war on terror. The problem, thus, lies with the absence of due diligence on the part of the other half of the population.

Consider the New York Times/CBS poll. Sixty-four percent of the respondents have concerns about losing civil liberties as a result of anti-terrorism measures put in place by President Bush. Yet, 53 percent approve of spying without obtaining court warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."

Why does any American think that spying without a warrant has any more effect in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Bush is disobeying, requires the executive to obtain from a secret panel of federal judges a warrant for spying on Americans. The purpose of the law is to prevent a president from spying for partisan political reasons. The law permits the president to spy first (for 72 hours) and then come to the court for permission. As the court meets in secret, spying without a warrant is no more effective in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant.

Instead of explaining this basic truth, the media has played along with the Bush administration and formulated the question as a trade-off between civil liberties and protection from terrorists. This formulation is false and nonsensical. Why does the media enable the Bush administration to escape accountability for illegal behavior by putting false and misleading choices before the people?

The LA Times/Bloomberg poll has equally striking anomalies. Only 43 percent said they approved of Bush’s performance as president. But a majority believe Bush’s policies have made the US more secure.

It is extraordinary that anyone would think Americans are safer as a result of Bush invading two Muslim countries and constantly threatening two more with military attack. The invasions and threats have caused a dramatic swing in Muslim sentiment away from the US. Prior to Bush’s invasion of Iraq, a large majority of Muslims had a favorable opinion of America. Now only about 5 percent do.

A number of US commanders in Iraq and many Middle East experts have told the American public that the three year-old war in Iraq is serving both to recruit and to train terrorists for al Qaeda, which has grown many times its former size. Moreover, the US military has concluded that al Qaeda has succeeded in having its members elected to the new Iraqi government.

We have seen similar developments both in Egypt and in Pakistan. In the recent Egyptian elections, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, despite being suppressed by the Egyptian government, won a large number of seats. In Pakistan elements friendly or neutral toward al Qaeda control about half of the government. In Iraq, Bush’s invasion has replaced secular Sunnis with Islamist Shia allied with Iran.

And now with the triumph of Hamas in the Palestinian election, we see the total failure of Bush’s Middle Eastern policy. Bush has succeeded in displacing secular moderates from Middle Eastern governments and replacing them with Islamic extremists. It boggles the mind that this disastrous result makes Americans feel safer!

What does it say for democracy that half of the American population is unable to draw a rational conclusion from unambiguous facts?

Americans share this disability with the Bush administration. According to news reports, the Bush administration is stunned by the election victory of the radical Islamist Hamas Party, which swept the US-financed Fatah Party from office. Why is the Bush administration astonished?

The Bush administration is astonished because it stupidly believes that hundreds of millions of Muslims should be grateful that the US has interfered in their internal affairs for 60 years, setting up colonies and puppet rulers to suppress their aspirations and to achieve, instead, purposes of the US government.

Americans need desperately to understand that 95 percent of all Muslim terrorists in the world were created in the past three years by Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Americans need desperately to comprehend that if Bush attacks Iran and Syria, as he intends, terrorism will explode, and American civil liberties will disappear into a thirty-year war that will bankrupt the United States.

The total lack of rationality and competence in the White House and the inability of half of the US population to acquire and understand information are far larger threats to Americans than terrorism.

America has become a rogue nation, flying blind, guided only by ignorance and hubris. A terrible catastrophe awaits.

January 28, 2006

Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts144.html

Nightwish
01-29-2006, 11:53 PM
This guy was an editor for National Review, one of the most conservative journals in America? Is this yet another conservative coming out against BushCo?

Dave Lane
01-29-2006, 11:58 PM
Hit the nail right on the head...

Dave

jjjayb
01-30-2006, 12:15 AM
Yes, because we all know Muslim terrorists didn't exist until Bush. :rolleyes:

banyon
01-30-2006, 12:18 AM
The point is that the situation is worse.

Donger
01-30-2006, 12:21 AM
The point is that the situation is worse.

Based on what?

I don't doubt that invading Iraq and Afghanistan has created some jihadists, but at the very least, they are fighting our soldiers away from our home soil.

Surely that's better than them flying into skyscrapers in NYC, no?

Should we have continued the Clintonian policy?

Taco John
01-30-2006, 12:22 AM
Yes, because we all know Muslim terrorists didn't exist until Bush. :rolleyes:



They existed, but they were part of a minority. Once our dope of a president started using the diplomatic grace of a drunken gorilla in a Pier One, and started flinging around absurdities like "Axis of Evil," he turned populations against us and made anti-American folks look like defenders of their culture.

This is what happens when we don't elect smart people to the most powerful position in the world. We end up weakening the country, and make the world an unstable place.

banyon
01-30-2006, 12:27 AM
Based on what?

I don't doubt that invading Iraq and Afghanistan has created some jihadists, but at the very least, they are fighting our soldiers away from our home soil.

Surely that's better than them flying into skyscrapers in NYC, no?

Should we have continued the Clintonian policy?

Everyone was for invading Afghanistan, they attacked us. Don't include it in the issue to try to confuse people.

As for Iraq, it is an unjust war, more than half of the U.S population doesn't support it, and if you look at the rest of the world that doesn't get Fox News, it's more like 80%. With an unjust war, it's easier to recruit members to Al-Qaeda, because you can point to American actions as being imperialistic and unjustifiable. That gets people angry, especially if it's their country we invaded with little reason. W gave Al-Qaeda their campaign material.

recxjake
01-30-2006, 12:30 AM
oh yea i forgot they werent around before 9/11, the USS Cole, etc, etc... this is just stupid

Taco John
01-30-2006, 12:32 AM
this is just stupid:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/customavatars/avatar6570_5.gif

banyon
01-30-2006, 12:39 AM
Recxjake, NO ONE said there weren't terrorists pre Cole or 9-11. Try to keep up. The problem is just worse than it was pre-Iraq.

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2648
President George W. Bush and others have suggested that it is better for the United States to fight the terrorists in Baghdad than in Boston. It is a comforting notion, but it is wrong on two counts. First, it posits a finite number of terrorists who can be lured to one place and killed. But the Iraq war has expanded the terrorists' ranks: the year 2003 saw the highest incidence of significant terrorist attacks in two decades, and then, in 2004, astonishingly, that number tripled. (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously complained in October 2003 that "we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror." An exponentially rising number of terrorist attacks is one metric that seems relevant.) Second, the Bush administration has not addressed the question of what the foreign fighters will do when the war in Iraq ends. It would be naive to expect them to return to civilian life in their home countries. More likely, they will become the new shock troops of the international jihadist movement.

Taco John
01-30-2006, 02:19 AM
I think I would have an easier time getting behind the "war on terror" if I didn't feel like we had such an inferior president.

Nightwish
01-30-2006, 02:24 AM
I think I would have an easier time getting behind the "war on terror" if I didn't feel like we had such an inferior president.
I'd have an easier time getting behind it if I thought that it was more than just a talking point, if I thought that their rationale behind the WoT was truly idealistic, rather than simply recycling the fear and threat of terrorism as a selling point for their latest political agenda.

memyselfI
01-30-2006, 12:08 PM
Wow, this was really hard to predict....

NOT.

I'm glad to see people are finally holding him accountable for the increase in recruitment.

patteeu
01-30-2006, 12:18 PM
This guy was an editor for National Review, one of the most conservative journals in America? Is this yet another conservative coming out against BushCo?

Paul Craig Roberts has been a critic of the Bush administration for years. This isn't something new.

RaiderH8r
01-30-2006, 01:49 PM
This is a joke right? You've got Bin Laden offering up a half assed "Uncle" in the ME so he can get his shit together. Jihadists AREN'T spouting their triumphant jihad, domestic attacks since 9-11? Goose egg. Muslims turning against the jihadists, Al Zawahiri writing Al Zarqawi questioning the out come of their efforts. The US is in serious need of medical R&D to cure the rapidly spreading case of pussifaction through vaginitis.