invasion of iraq

The war on terror is actually fueling al Qaeda. That is the determination of a new study:

A report by the Oxford Research Group (ORG) said a "fundamental re-think is required" if the global terrorist network is to be rendered ineffective.

"If the al Qaeda movement is to be countered, then the roots of its support must be understood and systematically undercut," said Paul Rogers, the report's author and professor of global peace studies at Bradford University in northern England.

"Combined with conventional policing and security measures, al Qaeda can be contained and minimized but this will require a change in policy at every level."

He described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "disastrous mistake" which had helped establish a "most valued jihadist combat training zone" for al Qaeda supporters.

The report also suggests an immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq and opening diplomacy with Syria and Iran. The key part comes at the end of this article:

"Going to war with Iran," he said, "will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs."

We seem to have a serious problem when it comes to history in our country. Hard to believe things that happened in the 90's have been quickly forgotten. For my loyal readers, this will sound familiar, but it deserves repeating. We created Osama bin Laden!

Why does the GOP want Foley on the front page? Because they don't want news like this becoming the focus point of the 24/7 news cycle:

The number of U.S troops wounded in Iraq has surged to its highest monthly level in nearly two years as American GIs fight block-by-block in Baghdad to try to check a spiral of sectarian violence that U.S. commanders warn could lead to civil war.

Last month, 776 U.S. troops were wounded in action in Iraq, the highest number since the military assault to retake the insurgent-held city of Fallujah in November 2004, according to Defense Department data. It was the fourth-highest monthly total since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

The sharp increase in American wounded -- with nearly 300 more in the first week of October -- is a grim measure of the degree to which the U.S. military has been thrust into the lead of the effort to stave off full-scale civil war in Iraq, military officials and experts say. Beyond Baghdad, Marines battling Sunni insurgents in Iraq's western province of Anbar last month also suffered their highest number of wounded in action since late 2004.

More than 20,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat in the Iraq war, and about half have returned to duty. While much media reporting has focused on the more than 2,700 killed, military experts say the number of wounded is a more accurate gauge of the fierceness of fighting because advances in armor and medical care today allow many service members to survive who would have perished in past wars. The ratio of wounded to killed among U.S. forces in Iraq is about 8 to 1, compared with 3 to 1 in Vietnam.

The toll in Iraq is growing at a phenomenal rate. Even worse is the post traumatic effects this war is having on our returning soldiers:

A year after they returned home, members of a badly battered Marine Corps unit are still finding it hard to adjust to their civilian lives.

Some Marines of Lima Company, which lost 16 reservists in Iraq, say they dislike being in crowds, because crowds in Iraq meant trouble.

"I feel like a different person," said Cpl. Seth Judy, 25, who had surgery in July to remove the last bit of shrapnel embedded in his left knee. "I don't have a free spirit the way I used to."

The Columbus-based company, part of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, returned home Oct. 7, 2005. The unit was the subject of A&E Television Network's documentary film, "Combat Diary: The Marines of Lima Company," which used personal video shot by the Marines.

Oh this is just great:

Dennis Miller is hardly shy about expressing his conservative political views.

The 52-year-old comedian, who has voiced his support for President Bush and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, will talk politics as a contributor on Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," network spokeswoman Dana Klinghoffer told The Associated Press on Tuesday. Miller starts Sept. 13.

He will also provide commentary on the Fox News Web site, Klinghoffer said.

In 2003, Miller was a regular guest on "Hannity & Colmes," hosted by Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. He also had his own short-lived CNBC political talk show, "Dennis Miller."

That is a sure way to kill the Hannity and Colmes ratings. After all - look what he did for Monday night football.

Reuters has a nice article up about the challenge Joe Lieberman is facing this year:

After years of ardent support for the Iraq war, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman could become that conflict's first big political casualty in a Democratic primary race fueled by rising anti-war anger.

Lieberman, the party's vice presidential nominee in 2000, faces a growing challenge from a political neophyte who has rallied Democrats angered by the senator's enthusiastic backing of the war and willingness to support Republican President George W. Bush on other issues.

Challenger Ned Lamont's underdog bid to unseat Lieberman in Democratic-leaning Connecticut could offer an early gauge of the intensity of anti-war sentiment ahead of November's midterm elections, along with a measure of the influence of the Internet activists and bloggers who have flocked to his cause.

"Senator Lieberman has cheered on the president every step of the way when it comes to the invasion of Iraq, and he is too quick to compromise on core Democratic principles," Lamont, a businessman and former Greenwich town selectman, told Reuters....read on

First he said he never believed the presentation he gave to the U.N. in 2003. Now he says he wanted more troops for the initial invasion of Iraq:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday defended the Bush administration's Iraq war planning after her predecessor, Colin Powell, said he had made a case to send more troops to deal with the war's aftermath.

Rice also said she did not "remember specifically" what instance Powell was referring to on his recommending to President George W. Bush that more troops be sent.

In an interview with a private British television station on Sunday, Powell said there had been debates about the size of the force and how to deal with the aftermath.

This story has become one of the two buzzes of the blogosphere today (the other being the Colbert appearance last night). While everyone is focusing on what Powell is saying, I am focused on what he is not saying. That would be his reason for waiting three years before saying any of this.

I can not remember another administration in history that has had this many ex-officials come out and tell us what we thought all along - the administration is broken. The list is a mile long, and one I plan on compiling here in the near future so any help will be appreciated.

The point is, someone needs to ask Powell why he has waited so long to say anything. If he says what we all suspect, that he was afraid of what it could do to his career, then Congress absolutely must call Powell and other former members of the administration in, put them under oath and ask the questions. We have numerous departments and agencies so people can focus on their areas of expertise. Bush is no where near a "know it all", no matter how much he acts like one.

Well it looks like the White House is trying everything to get out of the slump including this little gem:

BLACKBURN, England (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accepted on Friday the United States had probably made thousands of errors in Iraq but defended the overall strategy of removing Saddam Hussein.

Local Muslims and anti-war activists told Rice to "Go Home" when British counterpart Jack Straw earlier led her on a tour of his home town of Blackburn in the industrial northwest, an area which rarely plays host to overseas politicians.

"Yes, I know we have made tactical errors, thousands of them," she said in answer to a question over whether lessons had been learned since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Sure there are mistakes. Of course what does it really do to the fatcats in Washington. The people who pay for those mistakes are the soldiers, their families and the citizens of Iraq. That is something that the White House has a problem recognizing.

It has taken them three years to even admit mistakes, will it be another three to repair them? I would have to say so since that is when we will have someone new in the White House - someone who is hopefully competent.

Harry Reid is still on top of the effort by Republicans to prevent the next
phase of the pre-war intelligence report to be completed. Today he
released a statement
about the situation:

Washington, DC – On the eve of the two-year anniversary of the start of
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s investigation into prewar
intelligence, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following
statement:

“It was reported today that our government’s former top intelligence
officer for Middle East issues has described the troubling misuse of
intelligence on Iraq by the Bush Administration to take the country to war.
On the same day, we learn that Scooter Libby was directed by the Vice
President and others to leak sensitive national security secrets to publicly
sell the Administration’s case. Evidence that the Bush White House
manipulated and selectively declassified intelligence to wage a public
relations campaign before, during, and after the invasion of Iraq grows
every day.

“Now more than ever, it is critical that Congress completes a full and
thorough investigation into whether this Administration did mislead the
American people into a long and costly war in Iraq. This Sunday marks the
two-year anniversary of the launch of the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee’s investigation into prewar intelligence. That investigation is
still not complete. Our troops and the American people expect and deserve
that this investigation be thorough and be completed so that the lessons can
finally be learned and these mistakes can never happen again.”

A poll that researchers would not run because they thought it was not a hot
topic has proven to become an actual hot topic. By a margin of 50% to 44%, the
American people want President Bush impeached if it is proven he lied about the
issues leading to our invasion of Iraq.

The poll, sponsored by
Afterdowningstreet.org, and conducted by IPSOS was ran from October 8-9,
where 1,001 adults were surveyed.

In June of this year, the last time this question was polled, only 42% of
respondents supported impeachment. This has changed by a yield of 8%, and can be
considered directly influenced by the diminishing support for the Iraq war.

During the Monica Lewinsky affair, only 36% of those polled favored an
investigation into Bill Clinton, while only 26% actually supported impeachment.

For more on this story please visit this

link.