Roger L. Simon: Iraq: Who(m) Do We Trust?

Do we believe Retired General Ricardo Sanchez when he describes the US mission in Iraq as a "nightmare with no end in sight" or is he just a disgruntled former employee? Sanchez didn't exactly distinguish himself when he was running things back 2003-2004 - the Abu Ghraib era. From the AP coverage:

He was never charged with anything but he was not promoted in the aftermath of the prisoner abuse reports. He was criticized by some for not doing more to avoid mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

He did deny reports that he and then-Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer were not on speaking terms. He said they spoke every day.

Nevertheless, Drudge has seen fit to put this ex-gen's opinions up top. Can't accuse the website of tilting conservative on that one.

Yes, I am aware that Sanchez also spent a huge amount of his time bashing the media's Iraq coverage. I of course agree with him on that, but you can't be selective. The man is not what I would call a "trusted source," if indeed there could be such a thing.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I kind of think Deebow over at blackfive had the right idea when he said the following:

For all the naysayers out there, let me say that I do believe he gets to express his opinion, because that certainly is his right, but he was in charge of what the direction was in Iraq. He was the one that got to set the tone for the battle. He was the one to decide the direction all soldiers in Iraq would pursue.

I understand that at the higher levels of command, things begin to get very political. Turf wars ensue, people's feelings get hurt, coalitions get formed and sides get chosen. If the generals above him and the civilians and political appointees at high levels were ignoring his calls, for example, for more troops to put on the Syrian border, or to put the former Iraqi army to work on security or to move more troops into theater (like a Surge) when he was there in 2003, then they violated the tradition of not questioning the man leading the battle on the ground at the point of the spear. In my mind, I would have done either (a) do what needed to be done, or at least what could be done by my command to win the battle and answer for my decisions later (if I was relieved or replaced) or (b) request to be immediately replaced by someone who would go along with the party line at the Pentagon.

I have been relieved before, but that is the price you pay when you speak out and say your piece. I would rather say my piece and and have it out there than hold back in fear of being replaced. Didn't make a habit of losing my job, but sometimes, you gotta stand for what you believe.

Sanchez tries to tell us the press are a bunch of snakes, at the same time as he walks directly into their pit where his words and meaning are devoured.

Um, do you get the feeling the two might be connected, and this General, however well meaning, may not be the greatest tactician since Sun Tzu?

His criticism of the current course comes on a day when, according to AP, there were four (4)insurgent-related killings, in all of Iraq. (He deserves a prize for irony).

Of course if there arre 8 killed tomorrow the NYT headline will be: Number Killed In Iraq Doubles.

No amount of negative talk can change the increasingly positive metrics in Iraq. Sanchez appears to be somewhat weak at strategic thinking. If he has a book to sell he had better do it quick or he'll be overtaken by events on the ground.

His assesment of the Bush administration trying to fight the war on the cheap is absolutely correct. It is worthwhile to note that the Bush administration has STILL to this date not come close to the max percentage of GDP spent on Defense that the Clinton Administration saw. It is also correct that the Bush administation is hapeless when it comes to fighting the propaganda war...how else to explain the idiocy of President Bush inviting terrorists to the Whitehouse.

Reading all of Sanchez's remarks together instead of simply taking a few quotes out of context, I tend to agree with almost all of what he says.

The "nightmare with no end in sight," in his view, includes the behavior of the media, Congress, the American public, and the Administration when it comes to fully supporting a war effort that Sanchez sees as vital and necessary.

"His assesment of the Bush administration trying to fight the war on the cheap is absolutely correct."

The George W. Bush administration deserves much of the blame---just like those of Abraham Linclon, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the sometimes feckless military leadership of General George Washington. When everything is said and done, President Bush is the lesser of evils. No modern day Democrat would have done a better job. It is inherently impossible for them to do so.

Someone somewhere said that politics is the art of the possible, or something like that. I think people have completely over looked that whole "possible" thing. Considering the fact that the Democrats have been bitching about the costs for years what is the chance that Bush could have competed with FDR when it comes to military spending in terms of percentage of GDP?

What follows comes from someone who voted for him twice. And he is STILL better than the people he beat.

Bush didn't have to do this on the cheap. The Repubs controlled Congress and if, after 9/11, he had demanded more money and a bigger Army he would have gotten them. It WAS possible. His failing as has been noted here many times is that he couldn't sell a naked Eskimo a fur coat, cheap; in January! He never asked the country to step up to the challenge.

All of the PR and progaganda foul ups and omissions belong to him. He never defined the enemy, he never rallied the country to the cause, he waffled and begged to the rest of the world listening to those who think being liked is the highest goal.

GWB seems to have truly bought into his "compassionate conservatism" schtick. The way he has approached the WoT is of a piece with his pandering to the Mexicans over immigration and the newly official talk about the single currency for Mex, Can and USA.

Bush seems to have a great deal of belief in concilliation and compromise and one world government when all is said and done. We can but hope that the next pres doesn't follow down this path; or the Socialist Utopian path apparently favored by Hillary.

What has Mexico got to do with the fact that the war in Iraq costs about 2 billion a week or more?

In 1940 the US was spending about 1.7% of GDP on the military, by 1945 it was more than 37%.... to think Bush could have gotten those kinds of increases by any Congress is ridiculous. Especially at the same time he was cutting taxes.

As for compassionate conservatism, it is interesting that some people on the right have no problem complaining about the fact that Bush spends too little money at the same time they complain he spends too much.

The truth is most Americans do not think the only function of government is to make war. The right might not like that but it is a fact nonetheless.

Bush has been blamed for trying to do this "on the cheap". What I was trying to point out is that he could have asked for AND GOTTEN much more than he did ask for.

This speaks to his "Islam is a religion of peace" and Americans should go shopping style of rhetoric.

If in October of 2001 he had rallied Americans with the point of growing the Armed Forces he would have gotten more from Congress cause the 'pubs were in charge. He didn't and doesn't need 37%, but, he needed more troops better equipped to be used as needed.

Where Mexico comes in is that his rhetorical approach to the WoT has been very transi sounding with peace and love for all which is the same style he has brought to the Immigration issue, and relations with the UN, etc.

Bush has been very "cheap" rhetorically, trying to rock the boat as little as possible even though he had the leverage (see oil for palaces).

As far as the money issue goes, this RWDB, is as disappointed in the USE as in the amount.

The first duty of Government is to protect the country. It is not to fund "No Child Left Behind", nor to fund "Prescription Drug Benefits", nor to pander to the Democrats or RHINO's. Spending money to build up the Military when you are attacked as no other enemy has ever attacked us is not complicated and even someone as obviously stupid as President Bush could have figured that out.

And no we could not have raised Defense Spending to 37% of GDP...but certainly Bush could have broken 6% which was the highest level during Reagan.

Bush is the worst President we have had in modern times except those who might have been there had he lost. That is not high praise.

contrary to what the left/msm/dems have been syaing: this one has gone VERY VERY well.

the iraqis have not reconciled as well as they could have and that slowed things A LOT. stillis.

QUESTION: why didn't iraq or afghanistan adopt a AMERICAN system instead of the parliamentary system?

the parliamentary system is less stable and doesn't breed compromise: look at post WW2 italy fuhcryinouttears!

contrary to what the left/msm/dems have been syaing: this one has gone VERY VERY well.

You are confusing battles with wars. The war with Islam is going badly. We are losing Europe. That is significant. We may lose Pakistan at any moment. We are losing against Iran. We are losing against Islam in general. Islam is ascendent and the West is retreating. That should worry you.

I use to enjoy your posts, but you too have become way too "left" to consider anymore. Not sure what happened, but maybe you have become a product of your environment...

Anyway, I believe that General Sanchez's comments are not only right on, but unfortunately not reported as they should be. Why am I not surprised?

His statements regarding the press will soon be broadcast across the internet and the information will get out regardless of the attempt of the MSM to withhold it. Let the Times and the Post wallow in their shallowness...

Not sure what happened, but maybe you have become a product of your environment...

Does that environment include the comment's sections of blogs, where people make snide personal remarks instead of discussing points?

Oh yeah, we lost Europe and it's Bush's fault. That will be the lefty retort one day. Glad to know some folks are ahead of their time.

Assessments need to be reevaluated as additional data accrues. That is historical perspective. We all make pronouncements based on information available at the moment and often we realize later our mistaken conclusions when more information comes to light. Unfortunately we sometimes become wedded to our opinions and woodenheadedness is the result. This describes the entire left as well as the hard right.

At this point it would appear that our "flawed" strategies and execution of the Iraq war may have allowed AQ to gain a foothold in Iraq and thus exposed the Iraqis to the reality of life with these monsters, and at the same time showed them the truth about the decency and bravery of the American forces. No amount of propaganda could have the effect on the Muslim world that Muslim Iraqis rejecting AQ and embracing the American "occupiers" will have. The Michael Savage approach of more rubble-less trouble looks particularly foolish in light of recent developments.

This may well be the tipping point that drains AQ and their ilk of the support needed to continue to wage war against the West. If Iraq calms down and begins to move down the road towards order and prosperity the Islamists will be hard pressed to stem the tide of modernist reform in the ME.

Unfortunately those who have it long enough tend to take it for granted and become cavalier about it. At this point I believe the greatest danger we face in America is no longer Islamic terrorism but rather the slow drift towards nanny-statism and eventual totalitarianism via Gramscian subversion.

"You are confusing battles with wars. The war with Islam is going badly. We are losing Europe. That is significant. We may lose Pakistan at any moment. We are losing against Iran. We are losing against Islam in general. Islam is ascendent and the West is retreating. That should worry you."
______________________________

What's this "we" when it comes to Europe? The Europeans are utterly beyond the control of the U.S. If they decide to surrender to Islam, there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. Same as with Pakistan. Unless you're suggesting we invade or launch a unilateral strategic bombing campaign.

As for losing against Iran... Ha! We're mopping the earth with their "elite" Qods Force goons. Petraeus has sent the SOF of several nations after them, and we're cleaning their clocks, as evidenced by the dramatic drop in Coalition and Iraqi casualties. So much for their vaunted EFPs.

The Iranian air-defense systems are Russian junk that can't even defend against non-stealth fighters, and the regular Iranian army is confined to its barracks because its loyalty is in question.

And tell al Qaeda that Petraeus is a "sideshow." Al Qaeda has declared Iraq the central front in its war on the west.

The impending, lasting victory in Iraq will do more to discredit Islamofascism than anything else we could've done. Both Sunnis and Shia in Iraq are turning away from Islam in general, not just radical Islam, and that can only be good.

Left? I support the war, I always have. I just do not think that treating the war in Iraq like it was WW2 or something was never going to work, most Americans were not going to want to relive something like that. It just never had any public support. You say Sanchez's remarks are right on, I say he is a bitter man who blew it when he was actually running things in Iraq.

As for compassionate conservatism, I am not being "left" when I say that most people do believe that government exists for more than just fighting a war. That is not my "leftist" inclinations talking, that is just what the American people think. And that is why the Democrats won in 2006. Like it or not.

As for Mexico, like I said, what has that got to do with this discussion? When Newt Gingrich, {real conservative} was Speaker he did not make an issue of Mexico. When we went through the last campaign embryonic stem cells got more attention than immigration. So this is not just about Bush and compassionate conservatism and whether or not we should have gone to Iraq with a half million men or something.

The following is an excerpt from a post by Dafydd over at Big Lizards. Dafydd is not by any stretch of the imagination a "leftist":

But let's just focus on the part of the speech where Gen. Sanchez attacks all the government people and policies, the only part that AP or any other drive-by news source I've read bothered to report.

Third: Good heavens... what is this obsession that some people seem to have for the idea that we shouldn't have "disbanded" the Iraqi army?

Contrariwise, every general I've heard speak on the subject has said that we didn't disband them: They disbanded themselves, fading back into the civilian population. One presumes this was because the former military personnel thought that -- like Arab conquerers -- we would put them all to the sword.

And are we not talking about the very same army and the same Republican Guard which brutalized, tortured, oppressed, and tormented the Iraqi Shia and Kurds (and even many Sunni) for literally decades? What makes either Gen. Sanchez or AP think that putting those same thugs in charge of enforcing the commands of foreign princes would be a good way to stand Iraq up on its own two feet?

Do journalists, Democrats, and certain old generals suggest we should have squashed Iraq flat, like a steamroller over a banana slug? That we should have utterly annihilated the cities, killed millions of Iraqis, firebombed the rubble, then dispersed the population to die of starvation and disease... and therefore leave them so helpless and shellshocked that they would meekly follow our orders -- as we did to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?

Forward to the past, men! Let's relive the most horrific war in all of human history. It's a disturbing position for a modern-day general to take -- and an incomprehensible one for liberals and the elite media.

But if we were not going to fight a "total war" against Iraq, that meant we would have to show, after conquest, that we were not crusaders or conquerers. And that means we could not assume ownership of Saddam Hussein's engines of oppression... no matter how convenient they might be. If our goal was to create a strong and independent Iraq without us killing five million innocent civilians, then we necessarily had to disperse the Iraqi military (though they saved us the trouble by dispersing themselves).

Finally, I have another problem with the speech itself, apart from the reporting about it: Sanchez is simply not a credible, unbiased witness:

* He had a bitter and angry relationship with Paul Bremer, the top civilian administrator at the time;

* His career was later torpedoed over the abuses at Abu Ghraib; Sanchez himself says that it was responsible for destroying his career;

* He appears to have been a follower of Colin Powell, who is hardly a model of fair-mindedness about the Iraq war;

And he seems to have a strangely unrealistic conception of how civilian government works... viz:
"America's political leadership must come together and develop a bipartisan Grand Strategy to achieve victory in this conflict. The simultaneous application of our political, economic, information, and military elements of power is the only coarse of action that will provide a chance of success."

Which sounds disturbingly like "Why can't Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the entire banking community, the intelligence agencies, and the blogosphere all just get along?"

Oh yeah, we lost Europe and it's Bush's fault. That will be the lefty retort one day. Glad to know some folks are ahead of their time.

We are fighting a world war against a totalitarian religion. We are not ONLY fighting Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a branch not a tree.

When you have 38% of the largest Islamic country (Indonesia) in the world saying that they have good or great confidence in Bin Laden you might want to be careful about declaring victory too soon.

We used to be called the Leader of the Free World. I guess that sort of title is passe'. But if it is not passe' then Bush's catering to Islam is not helping those in Europe trying to fight back. Islam is NOT the Religion of Peace. Bush inviting terrorists into the Whitehouse is not helping the Europeans fight back against a tolitarian ideology.

We are fighting the war with out military and not much else. We have underfunded the military and crippled its moral with our lawyers running around.

Turning away from Islam? Wow if you are right then that is indeed a major victory.

Sometimes I feel like voting straight Republican ticket {which I do} is not enough, I am supposed to stalk the Frosts or demand land mines be laid at the southern border before some people will really believe I am one of them.

Great responses to Pierre Legrand's uninformed rant. The impact upon al Qaeda of their insane tactics of deliberately killing innocent civilians in their unsuccessful attempt to ignite a civil war and drive America out of Iraq is the great untold story of this war.

You go to war with the nation you have not just the military. In the case of Iraq, America went to war with a Democratic opposition, and a media, an academia and an entertainment industry that opposed and undermined the war throughout.

From the standpoint of the nation's interest, whatever mistakes may have been made by the Bush Administration pale in comparison to the mistakes of these other entities.

And you also go to war with Democrat appointed Generals and CIA employees. Given the internal battles which Bush has had to fight, the war in Iraq has gone surprisingly well.

Just because the war has not gone according to plan doesn't mean its ends are not worth pursuing or are no longer valid.

War is a brute instrument; a general we should not be surprise when things go wrong. Anybody can be a Monday morning quarterback.

Its obvious Sanchez was put there to baby sit an uneventful transition and then a pull out; a logistics operation. Why do you think everybody rode around in Humvees?

The job evolved into something way over his head. If he wasn't sufficiently competent to ask for help then, why should I trust him now at finger pointing?

The consensus (even for the left, e.g. WaPo) is that Iraq today is better than it was under Sanchez's watch, no?

Maybe it has nothing to do with Sanchez personally, (maybe he's under strict policy/engagement rules), we don't know.

But it did say a lot about our military and strategists. We learned and changed tactics.

If only people back home (esp. those in Congress) were able to learn and change their minds.

If you read the whole thing, it sounds a bit different than the AP caharacterized it.

He had a vision, got thrown from his horse by a light that nearly blinded him. Now he goes by another name.

He will no longer persecute Iraqis; he will now devote himself to saving them ;)

As with most projects there are periods where progress is fast and very visible and then there are periods where progress is hardly visible at all but much necessary work is being done.

The current situation in Iraq is based on everything that came before. The so called Anbar awakening was not possible 3 years ago. Things have changed AND the US is not the only change agent in play.

All the actors in this drama have their own lines and marks to hit AND there is no master script to let everyone else know what's going on.

The reason the US is so successful is that we can improvise and change direction much faster with more competence than anyone else.

The road to hell might be paved with good intentions... and it sounds to me that's what Sanchez is saying... not that we were evil or bad or failing from a military perspective. But rather, that this entire thing has become a nightmare.

I have to agree. Let us leave aside, for the moment debates about the cost of the war, or the way it was first implemented. Let us not debate WMD's or exporting democracy, let us assume that Democracy in Iraq would be generally a good thing for us and that an investment in Iraq (money, blood, time) may conceivably result in a stable ally.

Not a nightmare of war, the war in Iraq is nothing compared to previous wars... the biggest change is in how the enemy attacks (and our rather low casualty rate). The nightmare is in what has happened to this nation. Idiots on both sides of the aisle have become nothing more than jabbering monkeys, parrots repeating talking points and so completely out of touch with sanity that their complete world view is colored red or blue.

That is a nightmare scenario for any democracy. If the people can no longer work together despite their differences, than 'rule by the people' will be a halting, haphazard, and hate filled rush from one extreme to the other, resulting in the crippling of our nation worldwide.

Bush, Cheney, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, etc etc etc seem more likely to be remembered for harming our nation, far more than for saving anyone or anything. Our news providers are pundits, our pundits are screeching buffoons and our screeching buffoons are on Donnie Deutch trying to sell their latest books by dissing the Jews. At least they still know what they're job is.

Partisan politics have always existed, sometimes they turn ugly... currently they appear as ugly, if not moreso than in recent history.

At the end of the day, the names of politicans will be remembered in history. Their faults will be laid bare (or hidden away depending on the writer) but the history books will likely fail to mention the people most responsible for the fucked up state of our union...

All Americans should be upset by Blackwater and Whitewater... all Americans should be upset by cash in the freezer of a Congressman, or yachts purchased from shady special interests. All of us should be outraged when politicans are caught being corrupt or when decisions are made that end up reflecting badly on the US as a nation (merc's without accountability?!). Instead, people seem upset, but only if the crime happens on the other side of the aisle... or touches on a subject that they don't agree with (the war etc).

The one thing I will say is that I honestly believe that GWBs "compassionate conservative" principle was an attempt to break through the partisanship. Pre-9/11 he attempted to work with Kennedy et. al. on a number of compromises.

No matter your position on the issues he deserved an A for effort compared to everyone else. Trying to be a uniter not a divider ain't so easy though when you're trying to blend oil and water.

I thought that 9/11 might shake us up enough to create a lasting emulsion but I was wrong. I certainly don't know where to go from here.

While it's easy to say kick 'em all out and start again, I doubt that there's really any majority to break the "Yeah he's a crook, but he's our crook!" mentality.

Yea he worked with Kennedy to vastly expand the Education department because that department has done such a bang up job so far. He worked with Kennedy three times to subvert the immigration policies of the United States. He actually lied to the American people regarding amnesty...great guy. A real patriot...now he is doing his level best to stop the execution of a Mexican murderer. Thanks Bush.

The nightmare is in what has happened to this nation. Idiots on both sides of the aisle have become nothing more than jabbering monkeys, parrots repeating talking points and so completely out of touch with sanity that their complete world view is colored red or blue.

Ah yes it is much better to sit like a docile monkey and accept what the politicians give us.

The job evolved into something way over his head. If he wasn't sufficiently competent to ask for help then, why should I trust him now at finger pointing?

After all he is the ONLY US Officer who is questioning the way this war is being fought...or maybe he isn't. Oh well the rest of those louts must be Democrats.

Presidential candidate George W. Bush and his political adviser Karl Rove meet with Muslim activist Abdurahman Alamoudi. The meeting is said to have been brokered by Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist. Little is known about the meeting, which will not be reported until 2007. At the time, Alamoudi is head of the American Muslim Council (AMC), which is seen as a mainstream activist and lobbying group. But Alamoudi and the AMC had been previously criticized for their ties to Hamas and other militant groups and figures (see March 13, 1996). Bush and/or Rove will meet with Alamoudi on other occasions (see (see July 2000, June 22, 2001, September 14-26, 2001). US intelligence learned of ties between Alamoudi and bin Laden in 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994); he will be sentenced to a long prison term in 2004 (see October 15, 2004).

March 12, 2000: Presidential Candidate George Bush Meets with Suspected Supporter of US-Designated Terrorist Groups
Laura and George W. Bush on the left, Sami al-Arian on the right. [Source: Al-Arian family via Associated Press]Sami al-Arian poses for a picture with George W. Bush and his wife, Laura Bush, while Bush is campaigning for president in Florida. Bush chit-chats with al-Arians family and gives his son Abdullah the nickname Big Dude. Al-Arian is a former Florida professor and Muslim political activist who has been under investigation for suspected ties to US-designated terrorist groups. [Washington Post, 2/22/2003] Al-Arian will later tell friends that he used the occasion to press Bush about overturning the Justice Departments use of secret evidence to deport accused terrorists, which is an issue for many Muslim Americans during the presidential campaign. Newsweek will later comment, �In those pre-9-11 days, Bush was eagerly courting the growing Muslim vote and more than willing to listen to seemingly sincere activists like al-Arian. [Newsweek, 3/3/2003] At the time, al-Arian is vigorously campaigning for Bush at mosques and Islamic cultural centers in the pivotal state of Florida. In a reference to Bushs tight margin for victory in Florida which wins Bush the presidential election, al-Arian will later say, We certainly delivered him many more than 537 votes. [Newsweek, 7/16/2001] Author Craig Unger will later comment, Astonishingly enough, the fact that dangerous militant Islamists like al-Arian were campaigning for Bush went almost entirely unnoticed. Bushs speechwriter David Frum will later write, Not only were the al-Arians not avoided by the Bush White House they were actively courted. The al-Arian case was not a solitary lapse That outreach campaign opened relationships between the Bush campaign and some very disturbing persons in the Muslim-American community. [We] Republicans are very luckywe face political opponents too crippled by political correctness to make an issue of these kinds of security lapses.� [Salon, 3/15/2004]

David Frum must be a sneaky Democratic operative...or maybe he is a far right loon. Cause President Bush is a stand up guy....you Bush bots are amusing.

And lets not forget all those marvelous visits to various Mosques and all those assurances from President Bush that Islam is the Religion of Peace.

But this one tops all the others...while the buildings are still smoldering and we are still binding our wounds that "compassionate" fool does this with our enemies:

September 14-26, 2001: Bush Makes Public Appearances with Suspected Terrorism Supporters
President Bush in front of the Islamic Center on September 17, 2001. Alamoudi is on the far right. [Source: Martin H. Simon/ Corbis]In the weeks after 9/11, President Bush makes a number of public appearances with Muslim leaders in an attempt to reach out to what is perceived as the moderate Muslim community. However, some leaders invited to appear with Bush are actually radical Islamists with suspected terrorism ties. For instance, on September 14, 2001, Bush appears at a prayer service dedicated to the victims of the 9/11 attacks with Abdurahaman Alamoudi, the president of the American Muslim Council. US intelligence had suspected Alamoudi of ties with bin Laden and other terrorist leaders since 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994), and in late 2000 the Bush campaign returned a campaign contribution from Alamoudi because of his controversial ties (see July 2000). Alamoudi also proclaimed his support for Hamas and Hezbollah, both officially designated terrorist groups by the US, at a 2000 public rally in Washington. Another invited attendee at the prayer service is Muzzammil Siddiqi, the spiritual leader of the Islamic Society of Orange County. Siddiqi said of the US government a year earlier, “If you remain on the side of injustice the wrath of God will come.” [Fox News, 10/1/2001] In the early 1990s, the “Blind Sheikh,” Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, lectured about violent jihad at Siddiqi’s mosque while Siddiqi sat beside him to translate. Several members of an al-Qaeda sleeper cell, including Khalil Deek and Adam Gadahn, were regular attendees at his mosque. [New Yorker, 1/22/2007] “Former Secret Service officer Ron Williams says, “The intelligence community has known for sometime the association of Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi and Mr. Alamoudi and their association with terrorist organizations.” [Fox News, 10/1/2001] Agha Jafri, a Shia Muslim leader, calls Siddiqi part of a Saudi-backed “mafia” intent on crushing moderate Sufi and Shiite Muslims in the US and says, “They hate us.” [St. Petersburg Times, 3/11/2003] On September 17, 2001, Bush speaks before the Islamic Center, a Washington mosque. Alamoudi is again pictured with Bush. On September 26, Bush meets with 15 prominent Muslim leaders at the White House. Siddiqi sits next to Bush. Other Muslim leaders at these meetings have expressed support for Hamas and other officially designated terrorist groups. Influential Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist has been working to build a political alliance between the Republican Party and Muslim Americans since at least 1998 (see 1998-September 2001), and he is allegedly responsible for arranging these meetings and vouching for the attendees. [New Republic, 11/1/2001] Bush apparently does not make any more public appearances with Alamoudi or Siddiqi after a Fox News report in early October 2001 regarding their appearances with him. [Fox News, 10/1/2001] It will later come out that Alamoudi met with two of the 9/11 hijackers’ suspected associates in 2000 (see October-November 2000), and in 2004, Alamoudi will be sentenced to a long prison term for illegal dealings with Libya (see October 15, 2004). Siddiqi remains an imam in Orange County and denies any terrorism links. An FBI official will say in 2007, “We have a very strong relationship with Dr. Siddiqi.” [New Yorker

It might shock you to hear this but most Americans are not that damn partisan. Most Americans want Republican presidents to work with Democratic Senators. They expect it. They think that the welfare of the country as a whole is more important than petty partisan warfare.

As far as Bush meeting with people, Rice has to meet with Abbas. All sorts of leaders have to meet with people they don't like, it comes with the territory.

As far as Bush meeting with people, Rice has to meet with Abbas. All sorts of leaders have to meet with people they don't like, it comes with the territory.

Oh so you think he was meeting with them to negoitiate? Hilarious. He wasn't meeting with them to negoitiate anything except their support of his run for the Presidency.

Grover Norquist is his handler at all these events and if you don't know who he is regarding pandering to muslims then its time to pull your head out of the dark areas so that you can be better informed.

Well the ones who want to overwhelm our society and are working diligently at doing just that are our enemy whether you want it or not.

Its in the koran don't you know. Christians are not allowed by the example of the founder of our religion to take a sword to unbelievers. Muslims are specifically charged with doing so. Wow...sounds like the ones who take that crap to heart are our enemies.

Supporting the war does not in itself make you right or left in political non-speak (of course, except in the wild left wing side).

You do seem to favor the more idealogical intervention of government in private lives (health, birth, and death), which I do not. I still believe that the government should be an insignificant factor in our daily lives.

I suppose since you have been involved in the health care field that you may have tendencies to want more government help in this area - understand, but do not agree in any way. That is the type of response that I disagree with.

If national government actually adhered to the constitution, there would be few complaints. Unfortunately, once any program is initiated within the federal government, it will never be eliminated - only expanded.

Way off base... I understand your point, but did make relevant comments. I actually follow Terrye's comments regularly here and JOM. I do agree with her most of the time but reserve the right to criticize her at times... After all, wer are not all robots in the center or on the right - the left, I'm not so sure.

The actions of the media in reporting Sanchez's speech is all you need to know when you consider accuracy and the current parrot media. At the rate the parrot is currently wheezing, it may not last until the end of Bush's term.

When did things change in Iraq? When bloggers went over around the first of the year and began to report the facts, just the facts. About the same time the parrot pulled out and Dingy announced all was lost in Iraq.

October 13, 2007: Iraq: Who(m) Do We Trust?

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post