Bush’s failed Mideast policy is creating more terrorism
By U.S. Senator Ernest F. Hollings
Originally published in the Charleston Post and Courier
May 6, 2004

With 760 dead in Iraq and over 3,000 maimed for life, home folks continue to argue why we are in Iraq—and how to get out.

I dunno.....I think the reason that we are in Iraq is because the President saw Iraq as an enemy, and as a supporter of terrorism.  He went to the Congress, and you gave him the necessary authority.  Did you?  I think you did.  What about those UN resolutions?  The UNSC Resolution, giving the United States the authority?  The million dead Arabs because of Hussein?  Now, I think the way to get out is to get the government working in Iraq, kill or ‘maim for life’ the terrorist scum, and let the Iraqis have their country...like the President has been saying for two friggin’ years, you stupid anti-Semite hick.

Lord, this guy pisses me the hell off.

Now everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating on September 11 (70 cells in the U.S.), the State Department did not list Iraq. Richard Clarke, in “Against All Enemies,” tells how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time of our invasion.

I give money to criminals after they commit crimes.  This is well-documented.  However, I don’t let them come into my house, and they aren’t related to me.  Am I supporting them?  Of course I am.  No-one would deny that.  It’s called ‘Aiding and Abetting’, and it is what Hussein was doing.  Also, I don’t think it is outside the realm of possibility thatr Hussein was working with terrorists....Mohammed Atta meeting with an Iraqi Attache in Prague, perhaps?  WTC 1993?  Also, it might be good to remember that CLARKE IS A DEMOCRAT, Mr. Hollings, you dishonest turd, and most of the things that he said were debunked by Dr. Rice and this little thing called THE TRUTH!

Still pissed…

On Page 231, John McLaughlin of the CIA verifies this to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In 1993, President Clinton responded to Saddam’s attempt on the life of President George H.W. Bush by putting a missile down on Saddam’s intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Not a big kill, but Saddam got the message—monkey around with the United States and a missile lands on his head. Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel’s intelligence, Mossad, knows what’s going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know.

Yeah...those famous, decisive, brave cruise missile strikes!  Hussein sure got the message, didn’t he?  He destroyed all those WMD’s, made up with the Kurds, and wrote an apology to the President, right?  If that was the case, why did Clinton make it law, in 1998 to remove Hussein from office, huh? Must not have learned the lesson, huh?  Wouldn’t be the lst time with President Clinton.  And, since Clinton, Kerry, Daschle, Gephardt, Lieberman, Bush, Cheney, the French, Germans, and Danish thought that the Iraqis had WMD’s, then I think that lent a little bit of credence to the belief that they might have had them.  I notice that you, Mr. Hollings, voted to change the regime in Iraq in 1998.  Why would you do that, if Iraq wasn’t a threat?  Hypocrite. 

Israel’s survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush’s policy to secure Israel.

The answer:  Do his Constitutional duty, and protect the United States from threats, foreign and domestic.  Everyone thought Iraq was a threat, except people taking money from the Food for Oil scam, people selling weaponry to Iraq, and leftist, anti-American asshats.  Except around the elections of 2002, then American Democrats decided, rather abruptly, that America was better off letting Hussein murder thousands of innocents, keep suspected stockpiles of WMD’s, and shelter and sponsor terrorism. 

Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel’s security is to spread democracy in the area. Wolfowitz wrote: “The United States may not be able to lead countries through the door of democracy, but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up.” And on another occasion: Iraq as “the first Arab democracy ... would cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world.” Three weeks before the invasion, President Bush stated: “A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example for freedom for other nations in the region.”

What is wrong with this?  Protecting democracies from despots and murderous autocracies?  Haven’t we done this thing before, say, FIVE FRIGGIN’ TIMES IN THE LAST CENTURY?  Or, is it now different because the people you mentioned are Jewish, and the nation is our staunch ally, Israel?  No, that isn’t anti-Israel, Mr. Hollings...not at all.  You just don’t agreewith spreading economic freedom in an attempt to remove the root cause of terrorism.  Must not be nuanced enough for Mr. Hollings…

Every president since 1947 has made a futile attempt to help Israel negotiate peace. But no leadership has surfaced amongst the Palestinians that can make a binding agreement.

There is the real problem, Mr. Hollings...the Palestinian leadership.  Good point.  That has made all attempts to make peace futile. 

President Bush realized his chances at negotiation were no better. He came to office imbued with one thought—re-election. Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats.

See, here’s the problem with Mr. Hollings....he is still pissed that Bush won, and then took the Senate away from the Democrats!  And, of course, he only passed tax cuts and launched the War on Terror because he wanted re-elected.  Maybe the left HAS forgotten 9-11, and the recession, and the Internet Bubble, and the invasion of Afghanistan.  Now, he hasn’t, of course, but he is willing to whore himself out to the fringe beliefs of the Left in order to get licks in on the President, all because the President is a Republican.  What a asstard Hollings is.  He blatantly ignores everything that the President has said for three damn years about the War on Terror(except the WMD things, because there has been uncertainty about the evidence), and makes up this anti-Semitic bilge to try and put a hysterically negative spin on the positive things that GWB is trying to accomplish.  He’s retiring too damn late, if you ask me.  He’s a liability to this country, and an insult to Democrats who love their country. 

You don’t come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration.

This is true......he was working on plans to invader Iraq...as I said before, that was NATIONAL POLICY!  YOU VOTED FOR IT! 

And, without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined.

Yes...determined to follow the policies of the former two Administrations.  Was he wrong for doing that?  Was he wrong to give more than lip service to foreign policy?  Did he launch one missile at Iraq during that time, even though he needed to ‘secure Israel’?  Why not launch cruise missiles at the damn Palestinians, who were blowing up innocent children in Tel Aviv?  That sounds like a big friggin’ tactical blunder to me, Mr. Hollings.  And, he would have had MORE support from Israel, and from Americans!  The Palestinians were murdering women, children, and civilians.  I think that if we were striving for protecting Israel, we would have done something a little sooner, don’t you think? 

President Bush thought taking Iraq would be easy. Wolfowitz said it would take only seven days. Vice President Cheney believed we would be greeted as liberators. But Cheney’s man, Chalabi, made a mess of the de-Baathification of Iraq by dismissing Republican Guard leadership and Sunni leaders who soon joined with the insurgents. Worst of all, we tried to secure Iraq with too few troops.

When was Chalabi in charge of the CPA?  Just a question.  And, why not get rid of the murderous thugs?  It made Iraqis grateful.  Insurgents were, unfortunately, inevitable, as they were fortified with terrorists from Syria and Iran.  And, sorry, but we were greeted as liberators, and are to this day, by many Iraqis.  We just don’t get to see it from the media very much. 

In 1966 in South Vietnam, with a population of 16,543,000, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, with 535,000 U.S. troops was still asking for more. In Iraq with a population of 24,683,000, Gen. John Abizaid with only 135,000 troops can barely secure the troops much less the country. If the troops are there to fight, they are too few. If there to die, they are too many. To secure Iraq we need more troops—at least 100,000 more. The only way to get the United Nations back in Iraq is to make the country secure. Once back, the French, Germans and others will join with the U.N. to take over.

The Iraqis know that the Germans, the French, and the UN sold them down the river, Mr. Hollings.  They like us a bit more, because though we were a little slow, we kept our word.  We are repairing their country, like we said we would, and helping them build a representative government, like we said we would.  And, we’re not running and abandoning them, like we said we wouldn’t.  Where is the UN?  Are they even in Iraq?  We’ll make Iraq secure, with Iraqi help, and the Iraqis can then decide if the UN is allowed back in.  I’ll wait for the flower petals and the ‘Welcome Back’ parade, OK?  And, please, Vietnam is OVER, Mr. Hollings.  OVER.  It is a different Army, a different technology, and a different America.  Shut up about Vietnam...it’s Over.  Has been for 31 years or so.  We had problems there because of people like YOU, fretting over people’s feelings and paying no attention to goals. 

With President Bush’s domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he keeps shouting, “Terrorism War.” Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don’t call the Crimean War with the Charge of the Light Brigade the Cavalry War. Or World War II the Blitzkrieg War.

“Terrorism war”.  I’ve heard “War on Terror” and “War against Terror”, like “war on Germany” and “War against Japan”, but I have not heard the President say we are fighting a “Terrorism War”.  And, with Iran teetering, Syria having civil disturbances, Jordan foiling terrorist plots, and Libya giving up all their WMD’s and trade with North Korea, I think the domino policy is working....give it time.  This isn’t an episode of “Al Franken’s Air America”..they’ll be a substantive content, and a plan, and a positive ending. 

There is terrorism in Northern Ireland against the Brits. There is terrorism in India and in Pakistan. In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily. Here, might does not make right—right makes might. Acting militarily, we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated.

Bush Lied, People Died!  Listen, you idiot, terrorism is a tool borne from desperation.  The people in the Middle East have no economic freedom, no social liberties, and little in the way of hope.  We want to build those things in Iraq, so that terrorism will lose a home.  We are doing it in Afghanistan, where terrorism is dying.  We are ruining the futures of every Islamofascist in the world today, and destroying the hopes of OBL and his minions that we are suffering from “Somalia Syndrome”.  Senator, YOU are suffering from a case of political hatred and cowardice.  You prefer to side with defeatists and socialists, Islamofascists and anti-American people everywhere on the planet.  Diplomacy failed Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan where this situation is concerned.  You told us why already; Palestinian leadership is worthless.  Maybe the way to win this is to show strength, determination, and a long-term plan.  Your plan has failed already...in North Korea, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, and Rwanda.  You know this, and you know that the failures of the previous Administration put us into this mess.  Remember the USS Cole, and WTC ‘93?  Oh...one last thing...when was the last terrorist attack in the United States?  Just wondering. 

Senator, you have gravely disappointed me.  You have shown that you are nothing more than a shrill, idiotarian, trapped in the womb of the Senate, blind to reality, and defined by your irrational hatred of Bush....so much hatred, in fact, that you forget your station and sink into racial bigotry and prejudice.  I hope that you can look at yourself in the mirror, and sleep at night, after these untrue and hateful comments you wrote.