Bent Corner

Rudy Giuliani should have been spending less time flying around the country giving paid speeches on the 9-11 terror attacks and spent more time actually learning more about them. Including the reasons we were attacked.

This following is a partial transcript from the recent Republican South Carolina Presidential debate.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.

We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time — (bell rings) — have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were — if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Congressmen Ron Paul is correct. Bin Laden didn’t attack the United States because of our love of apple pie and baseball. He didn’t attack us because we love Jesus.

Rudy Giuliani has made a lot of money off of 9-11. You would think he would try to learn a thing or two about it. Instead he comes off looking like an idiot.

Congressman Ron Paul was right. The so-called “America’s Mayor” was wrong.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his kooky assertions that al-Qaida was somehow linked to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq before the United States invaded:

Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June,” Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. “As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.

Granted, he said these things on The Rush Limbaugh Show. It’s not like you normally find a whole lot of truth on that particular radio program. It’s just that even Cheney has to realize that most people know he is lying when he says stuff like this. Even people that listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Fox News.

What’s especially ironic about Cheney saying this yesterday was that yesterday the Pentagon released a recently declassified report that disputes the assertion that Saddam was in cahoots with al-Qaida.

Dick Cheney is such a silly goose. If he wasn’t such a warm and lovable soul, he would certainly face criticism from people who value the truth. People that are into facts. He tends to get a free pass on not telling the truth because he is so damn likable.

Iraq didn’t have an al-Qaida problem until George W. Bush invaded.

George Bush criticized Congress as being “irresponsible” for going on spring break without first approving money for Iraq with no strings attached. They gave him all the money he asked for. The problem is that they tied the $120 billion dollars in military spending to a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

“They need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk, and if it’s got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork I’ll veto it,” the president said. “And then we can get down to the business of getting this thing done.”

I never thought I would hear George Bush criticize anyone else for taking a vacation. He’s spent so much time on vacation that he actually set a presidential record. Hearing him criticize anyone about taking a vacation is just hypocritically weird.

What’s he going to do next, criticize someone for using a family connection to get out of going to Vietnam?

Update (5 April) : Unbeknown to me at the time when I first wrote this post, Bush left Washington shortly after criticizing Congress. He himself went on vacation to his ranch in Texas. Go figure.

Well, they did it. The Democrats in the House agreed to give Bush $124 BILLION, but they put restrictions on it:

The $124 billion House legislation would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 — or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

Bush and the other neo-cons need to learn that the American people will not sit still for a never ending occupation of Iraq. The neo-cons first tried to base American troops permanently in Saudi Arabia. We all saw how that worked out. They now want to make Iraq a permanent base of occupation to facilitate control over the Middle East.

To the neo-cons, it’s not about not leaving Iraq until “the job is done”. Whatever that means. It’s about staying in Iraq forever. It’s about having a permanent presence in the Middle East.

I doubt Bush would have invaded Iraq if it meant American forces would one day have to actually leave.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit have been told that they must awake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m.

Also on an unrelated matter, they are not to speak to the media.

Instead of telling a reporter how bad their living conditions are, they are to use the chain of command.

For those of you who have not been in the military, daily room inspections are used as a form of punishment. The military may not be able to outright punish a service member for speaking to a reporter, but they certainly can and will punish you for having dust on a light bulb.

Link

Barak Obama was speaking to a large crowd in Austin, Texas and spoke about British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s decision to withdraw 1,600 troops from Iraq. Obama pointed out that Blair recognizes the fact that Iraq’s problems can’t be solved militarily. As though we are only one epic tank battle away from bringing peace to Iraq.

“Now if Tony Blair can understand that, than why can’t George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?” Obama asked thousands of supporters who gathered in the rain to hear him. “In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in.

“Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we’d be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we’re in the last throes. I’m sure he forecast sun today,” Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over the heads to keep dry. “When Dick Cheney says it’s a good thing, you know that you’ve probably got some big problems.”

A spokeswoman for Cheney, traveling with him in Australia, said they had no comment on Obama’s remarks.

Obama points out something very important about Cheney. The man is always wrong. He is never right. Some people like to concentrate on the fact that he is an extreme asshole. That’s true, but that wouldn’t matter if he was ever right about something.

Take Donald Rumsfeld’s “farewell ceremony”. Cheney spoke about Rumsfeld in a way that seemed down right kooky. Even for Cheney:

“In his regard for our people in uniform, in his unwavering strength through unprecedented challenges, in his example of leadership and patriotic service, I believe the record speaks for itself: Don Rumsfeld is the finest Secretary of Defense this nation has ever had.”

Don Rumsfeld was an awful Secretary of Defense. That’s precisely why he was fired. Most of the problems now in Iraq are the direct result of Rumsfeld’s incompetence and mismanagement. Only Cheney would praise a man being forced out of a job because he was bad at it. If he is (was) the finest Secretary of Defense this nation has ever had, why isn’t he still Secretary of Defense? We are involved in two wars. It seems to me that now is not the time to fire your finest Secretary of Defense.

Cheney is always wrong.

Larry Johnson of No Quarter links to an article in the Washington Post that details conditions troops being treated at Walter Reed Army Center as out-patients. It’s pretty disgusting.

Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan’s room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.

Call me a liberal, but I don’t think our troops injured in Iraq should ever have to live someplace where phrases such as “mouse droppings” or “black mold” are used to describe the living conditions.

At a bare minimum, American service members injured in Iraq receiving out-patient medical treatment should be treated no worse then the Bush twins. If Jenna and Barbara were receiving medical treatment on an out-patient basis. Not that they would ever be caught serving their country. They might be caught using fake ID’s so they can illegally drink, but you won’t ever see these two doing anything even remotely associated with patriotism. Even the fake kind that is popular with so many Republicans.

This is one of the results of waging war on the cheap.

U.S. Rep. John Murtha has come up with a creative way of putting a stop to Bush’s war in Iraq. It involves placing conditions on how Bush can spend the $93.4 billion in new combat funds.

1. The Pentagon would have to certify that troops being sent to Iraq are “fully combat ready” with training and equipment.
2. Troops must have at least one year at home between combat deployments.
3. Combat assignments could not be extended beyond one year.
4. A “stop-loss” program (back door draft) forcing soldiers to extend their enlistment periods would be prohibited.

It’s a good idea. Instead of cutting off the funds, it places common sense conditions on how those funds are to be spent. The conditions are things that really cannot be argued against.

Unless of course Republicans want to argue that troops should be sent to Iraq that are not combat ready. That troops should be sent to Iraq that have not been home for at least one year. That troops should be forced to continue serving in the military even after their enlistments are over. That combat tours should last longer then a year.

How are the chickenhawks going to argue for any of that?

So far, they don’t seem to be arguing against the actual details of the plan. No, they are instead criticizing the end results of such a plan. It will be impossible to continue Bush’s war in Iraq with such conditions placed on the war’s financing. This plan may actually work. It may actually do some good. Where a non-binding resolution does nothing, this can actually bring an end to Bush’s perpetual war in Iraq.

The final non-binding vote was a non-binding 246 to a non-binding 182. Seventeen Republicans actually voted for the non-binding resolution.

What a waste of time. What’s the point? To let Bush know that they don’t approve of his war? Couldn’t they just do what I do and write a blog post? This non-binding resolution doesn’t do anything. A non-binding resolution has as much teeth to it as a blog post.

It seems a shame though that they didn’t allow the non-voting members of the House to vote. Since it was non-binding, what’s the difference? The representatives from Puerto Rico, Washington DC, the Virgin Islands, and Guam are allowed to pretend to be actual congressmen. They are not allowed to actually vote. This non-binding Iraq war resolution sounds like it would have been right up their non-voting alley.

If they were allowed to vote.

Non-Binding Link