George W. Bush has is back from Yerp (don't everyone clap at once), and
we honor his return from the `Wow, I Could've Had a V8' summit with a
classic Letterman Top 10 from July 25...2001:
Top Ten George W. Bush Observations About Europe:
10. Europeans speak worse English than I do
9. That Eiffel Tower would make one mother of an oil well
8. Austria looks nothing like it looked on "Survivor"
7. The time difference screws up your nap schedule
6. British beef not only tasty, it gave me a buzz I haven't felt since college
5.The Polish people tell some great "Bush is dumb" jokes
4. In France, you don't have to say, "French fries," you can just say "fries"
3. Due to the metric system, my ten-gallon hat is a whopping 37.84 liters
2. The Irish drive on the left side of the road, like I used to
1. One of these countries is where my dad urped on the king
To begin with the "War on Terror" is a ridiculous phrase. Terrorism is a tactic not an enemy.
The American Conservative has an interview with Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago who has written the book Dying to Win on suicide terrorism. The interview points out how little we know about terrorism and terrorists.
Who originated modern suicide bombing? The Islamic terrorists, right. No, that would be wrong.
This
wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating
suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated
with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in
suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the
Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. This is a Marxist group, a completely
secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions
of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide
assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the
idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.
So what motivates them? Fundamentalist religion. Wrong again.
The
central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not
driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective:
to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the
territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to
Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major
suicide-terrorist campaign--over 95 percent of all the incidents--has
had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
I imagine we can figure out what motivates al-Qaeda.
Since
suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not
Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform
Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase
the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.
Since 1990, the
United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the
Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama
bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good
thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide
terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few
hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious
fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by
the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists
view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.
So do you still think the Iraq war has resulted in more security at home?
Osama
bin Laden's speeches and sermons run 40 and 50 pages long. They begin
by calling tremendous attention to the presence of tens of thousands of
American combat forces on the Arabian Peninsula.
In 1996, he
went on to say that there was a grand plan by the United States--that
the Americans were going to use combat forces to conquer Iraq, break it
into three pieces, give a piece of it to Israel so that Israel could
enlarge its country, and then do the same thing to Saudi Arabia. As you
can see, we are fulfilling his prediction, which is of tremendous help
in his mobilization appeals.
There is much more and I suggest you go read the entire interview.
As many of us have suspected 911 is a direct result of the first Gulf
War and the Bush's invasion of Iraq has only fueled the fire.
It's not
what we are the Islamic terrorists hate, it's where we are.
PLAMEGATE: White House Gets Tangled In Web of Deceit
An e-mail sent by Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper on July 11, 2003, and recently uncovered by Newsweek
magazine reveals that White House deputy chief of staff and senior
political adviser to the president, Karl Rove, was a disseminator of
classified information. The e-mail states, "it was, KR [Karl Rove]
said, wilson’s wife, who
apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip.”
The new revelation also contradicts Rove’s previous denial that he “had any knowledge”
of who in the White House leaked the classified, covert identity of a
CIA agent. It also disputes earlier assertions by the White House that
Rove was not involved in the outing of the agent and forces President
Bush to come to terms with his previous pledge to take this action
“very seriously” and “hold someone to account.”
ROVE IS DECEIVING THE PUBLIC WITH WORD GAMES:When asked in September 2003 if he "had any knowledge" or leaked "the name of the CIA agent"
to the press, Rove simply answered, "no." On July 4th, 2005, Rove
appeared on CNN and slightly amended his carefully parsed talking
point: "I'll repeat what I said to ABC News when this whole thing broke
some number of months ago. I didn't know her name and didn't leak her
name." But the question from ABC also asked whether he "had any
knowledge" of the leak. Now we know exactly what Rove told at least one
reporter -- Time magazine's Matt Cooper. Newsweek is reporting that an e-mail from Cooper to his editors at Time
stated, "it was, KR [Karl Rove] said, wilson’s wife, who apparently
works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." In the
context of the new revelation, Rove's duplicitous strategy has revealed
itself. In essence, by suggesting that he did not reveal Plame's actual
"name" (but instead mentioned her to be wife of Joseph Wilson), Rove is attempting to escape accountability for a national security violation.
ROVE'S REVISIONIST HISTORY CANNOT HIDE HIS TRUE INTENT: The most recent argument from Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, for Rove's behavior is that he was merely "discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true." That's a convenient explanation coming from an attorney who has already discredited himself by previously stating Rove "did nothing wrong,
did not disclose Plame's identity, and did not reveal any confidential
information." Luskin's newest assertions that Rove was merely trying to
correct the public record are completely at odds with what an
administration official quoted in the Washington Post candidly admitted
in 2003. That official said the leaking "was meant purely and simply for revenge." Columnist Bob Novak, the conduit for the leak, confirmed the leaker's intent in July 2003: "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me.... They
thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." Rove
appears to be acting in revenge against a man who was undermining
Bush's case for attacking Iraq, and in doing so, acted in a manner
unbecoming of an adviser to the president.
WHITE HOUSE STANDARD SHOULD MEAN TROUBLE FOR ROVE:In the 9/29/03 WH press briefing,
Scott McClellan laid out the White House standard for dealing with the
leak. McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it,
they would no longer be in this administration." In the gaggle that
morning, McClellan was asked whether the leaker should be "fired" and
he answered, "If a source leaked information of this nature, yes."
Similarly, Ed Gillespie told Chris Matthews on 9/30/03 that if someone
in the White House leaked the information, "I do not believe it would
be hard for President Bush to ask that person to walk the plank." But
it has been and will likely continue to be hard for President Bush to
enforce some measure of accountability. The White House has stood
firmly behind Rove as more and more information has come forward to
suggest his growing involvement. McClellan, in the 9/29/03 briefing,
said that he had "spoken with Karl"
about the leak, but then added, "I didn't even need to go ask Karl,
because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is
committed to the highest standards of conduct." When Joe Wilson floated
the idea that Rove was behind the leak, McClellan responded
vigorously: "It is a ridiculous suggestion, and it is simply not true."
An e-mail sent by Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper on July 11, 2003, and recently 
