It Looks Like al-Baghdadi Is Dead - But ISIS Is Not

(Photo of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, from The Washington Post, is by Al-Furqan Media.)

Donald Trump announced on Sunday morning that U.S. soldiers had killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. If that is true (and I have no reason to believe it is not), then that is a good thing. He was a vicious leader who cared nothing about innocent lives.

United States intelligence services and soldiers deserve our thanks for a job well done.

But there is still danger for citizens around the world. While al-Baghdadi may be dead, ISIS is not. I hope Trump, who has demonstrated he is not very smart and doesn't understand foreign relations, doesn't think the danger is gone. The caliphate is gone and another ISIS leader is dead, but thousands of dedicated ISIS members remain, and they have a huge potential for terrorist activity in the future.

We learned this lesson after the death of Osama bin-Laden. His death did not eliminate the threat from al-Queda. In fact, al-Queda is growing thanks to the war in Yemen (where is is supported by Saudi money and Saudi-supplied U.S. arms).

Religious-based terrorist groups cannot be eliminated by killing one person -- not matter how high in their leadership he was. They consider their leader to be god, and another human (who claims to know what god wants) will quickly replace the fallen human leader.

Even though al-Baghdadi and bin-Laden are dead, ISIS and al-Queda are not. Only a fool would think the danger is gone.

The Longest War In American History

This week, on October 7th, the Afghan War will officially be ten years old. That is longer than any other war in United States history -- longer than the Iraq War (that will hopefully end on December 31st of this year), longer than the Vietnam War, and longer than World War II, World War I, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, the Korean War, or the Revolutionary War. And sadly, it has accomplished less than any of those other wars.

The lack of any accomplishment in the Afghan War is not the fault of the brave soldiers who fought there (and are still fighting there). It is the fault of the politicians who were more interested in looking like heros than in getting justice. We supposedly invaded Afghanistan to get the leaders of al-Queda. Americans were not told that the leaders of Afghanistan were perfectly willing to turn those people over to a neutral country for a trial. That wasn't good enough for Bush/Cheney -- whose bloodlust could only be satisfied by a war resulting in thousands of deaths (including American soldiers and innocent civilians).

And the invasion didn't even accomplish the stated purpose. Most of the al-Queda leaders were killed or captured in countries other than Afghanistan (Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, etc.). All it did was get us involved in a ten-year guerrilla war with people who posed no danger to the United States. But if they weren't enemies before, they certainly are now. In fact, through the killing of civilians (especially with indiscriminate drone attacks) we have probably created a lot more enemies than friends. Our only "friend" is the corrupt government we installed, and it probably won't last a week after we leave.

Now the government is telling us that although we are "winning" (something they have claimed for 10 years now) we won't be able to withdraw until we spend at least three more years there (the end of 2014). That's ridiculous. What we couldn't accomplish in 10 years in not going to magically happen at the end of 13 years. It's time to declare "victory" and get the hell out of there.

Past polls have shown that most Americans think it was a mistake to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq. A recent Pew Research Center survey of post-9/11 veterans shows a lot of them agree. Only about half of these veterans think the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting, and only 34% think both wars were worth fighting. Meanwhile, about 33% of these veterans think neither of these two wars were worth fighting. And although 96% are proud of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan (and they should be proud), many of them have paid a price for their service -- even after returning home.

About 37% of these veterans say they have suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress, while 44% had problems re-entering civilian life, 47% frequently felt irritable or angry, and 48% felt strains in family relations. The point is that even among soldiers not killed or physically wounded in these wars, many others suffer from psychological scars.

It has been established that nothing more can be accomplished in Afghanistan (or Iraq). The only reason to continue these wars is to salve the consciences and protect the public images of Washington politicians. Personally, I don't think it's worth it. Do You?

Raid On Osama More Productive Than Thought ?

If the raid on the mansion in Pakistan had resulted in nothing more than the death of Osama bin Laden, it would have been well worth it. The murderer had escaped justice for far too long. Al-Queda would still exist and mostly likely would try to retaliate against this country (or one of our allies), but it still had to be done.

But it looks like more than just the death of Osama bin Laden was accomplished in the raid by U.S. forces. It is now being reported that a veritable treasure-trove of information was also seized in the raid by the Navy Seals. Politico says that officials have told them that "special operations forces grabbed personal computers, thumb drives and electronic equipment during the lightening raid that killed bin Laden."

This material is currently being viewed and evaluated at a secret location in Afghanistan. One U.S. official said, "Hundreds of people are going through it now. It's going to be great even if only 10 percent of it is actionable."

That is great! Osama was the top person in al-Queda, and it is very likely that he would have had information on the entire network of terrorists operating under the al-Queda label. And if so, this could be the thing that breaks the back of that terrorist organization.

We in the general public probably won't know what information is there -- perhaps for several years. The authorities will want to use this information in every possible way before releasing any of it, and that is just what they should do. I hope it is valuable and means the end of al-Queda (and I find it hard to believe it would only be computer games and downloaded movies -- after all, this is al-Queda's top dog).

But even if there is enough information there to virtually eliminate al-Queda, it will not mean the end to terrorism. Although al-Queda was the worst terrorist organization, they were far from the only one. It would still be a huge step though, and it would put all the other terrorist organizations on notice that they could be next. And that's a good thing.

What Muslims Thought Of Osama (And Al-Queda)

There was little doubt that Osama bin Laden was a terrorist and a mass murderer (and headed an organization as evil as he was). It wasn't just the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, although that would have been plenty, but he organized killings of innocents in many other countries too. But it was not enough for the right-wingers in this country to just blame the terrorists for their actions -- they wanted to make all muslims responsible for the actions of a few criminals.

It should have gone without saying that all muslims were no more responsible for the actions of Osama bin Laden than all christians were responsible for the murderous actions of Timothy McVeigh or Scott Roeder. But the right-wing needed a bogeyman to scare Americans into voting for their fringe candidates and they decided that muslims would fit the bill. For the last ten years or so they have taken every available opportunity to demonize and discriminate against decent people who believe in the muslim faith.

The truth is that most muslims are decent, nice, hardworking people who hate what bin Laden and al-Queda did as much (or more) than anyone else. Here is what some American muslim leaders had to say about the killing of Osama bin Laden by American forces:

Imam Hassan al-Qazwini, head of the Islamic Center of America (Dearborn):
"The world is definitely a better place without the patron of all terrorists -- the world's most infamous thug."

Ibrahim Aljahim, head of Arab American Outreach:
"He never represented Muslims or anyone else. It's a great thing. We're very happy. He hurt Muslims more than any other religious groups."


Imad Hamad, regional director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee:
"As gratifying as it is to see this, we should continue to be on alert. Executing the symbol of bin Laden does not execute the ideology (of extremism). It's a vital mistake to focus on the person and ignore the ideology."


Dawud Walid, head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations:
"We welcome the elimination of Osama bin Laden and the threat that his terrorist leadership posed to the people of the world."


Frankly, those statements sound as patriotic as those of any American. These people, and the millions of other American muslims, never supported Osama or his terrorist organization. They are happy and proud to be Americans (and many of them have served bravely in our Armed Forces).

And the anti-Osama (and al-Queda) feelings weren't restricted to muslims in America. A recent Pew Research Center survey taken of muslims in many other countries showed that the huge majority of muslims worldwide did not support Osama or his organization. Only one country showed much support for Osama (and al-Queda) and that was Nigeria, and even there the support was from only about half of the muslims. The survey was taken only among those who were muslims, and here are the numbers in each country that supported Osama:

Lebanon...............1%
Turkey...............3%
Jordan...............13%
Pakistan...............18%
Egypt................22%
Indonesia...............26%
Palestinian Terr...............34%
Nigeria...............48%

The fact is that Osama bin Laden has never had widespread support in the muslim world, and in recent years that support has dropped even further. There are extremist muslims, but there are extremists in all religions -- and like all other religions the extremists are in the minority and opposed by the vast majority of their religion.

Americans breathed a sigh of relief when it was announced that Osama bin Laden was dead, but so did others around the world -- including many decent muslims in many countries.

Right-Wing Goes Looney Over Libya

There used to be a time in this country when the right-wing conservatives actually stood for something. This was especially true when it was led by men like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater. I seldom agreed with them, but at least they knew what they believed in and knew how to expound those beliefs -- and those beliefs didn't change, no matter who was president or who agreed or disagreed with them.

That is no longer true. Since the election of our African-American president, Barack Obama, the right-wing in America seems to have completely lost its mind (and many of its beliefs). It seems that they no longer stand for anything. Now they are too caught up in standing against things -- that is, anything that President Obama says or does.

When a person or group actually stands for something, they can be dealt with -- and compromise can be found. The compromise may not make everyone ecstatic, but they can be satisfied that a solution was found that would be good for the country. But a person or group that is only against things, like the current teabagging right-wing, cannot compromise because they don't really have a base position to act from. Whatever their opponents (especially the president) propose, they must be against -- no matter how reasonable the proposal is.

A good example of this is the current situation in Libya and our government's reaction to it. When the conflict first started, the right-wing was aghast that the president didn't jump right in to help the poor people in Libya who were fighting for their freedom. They viewed his slow and measured response as failing the wonderful "freedom fighters", and really as being anti-freedom in general. They were quick to criticize the inaction.

But now the president, through the United Nations, has acted to defend the Libyan rebels from certain annihilation by Kaddafi's forces, and it is working. The rebels have, with U.N. help turned a bad situation into an advantageous one. In short, they are once again winning -- and it looks like Kaddafi may actually be shoved from power.

Now one might think this would make those on the right very happy. After all, the president has done what they were asking him to do. And that would be the case -- if they had really had firm beliefs to begin with. But they didn't. They wanted the president to intervene only because he wasn't intervening. In other words, they were simply taking a position opposed to the president (and could care less about the Libyans).

Once the president finally acted the right-wing did a full flip-flop. All of a sudden they were against any intervention in Libya. Now this made them look a little silly, since they had taken the opposite position just the week before -- but what could they do? They had to oppose the president (since their only and fundamental belief is the president is wrong -- no matter what he does). Even worse for them, it looks like the president's action might actually be working.

This meant they needed some reason for them to justify opposing the president, so they pulled the old boogeyman out of the closet -- al-Queda. They have suddenly discovered that the rebels aren't freedom fighters at all, but al-Queda operatives who want to take over Libya and use it as a base of operations for their nefarious purposes. Listen to what some of these fringe right-wing nuts are now saying:

– On Facebook, former Speaker Newt Gingrich asked “Does President Obama acknowledge the danger of Al Qaeda allies among the anti-Qaddafi forces and pledge to work for a moderate replacement government without extremist factions?” [03/28/11]

– Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN): “I have been very reluctant to see the United States to go into Libya. For one thing, we haven’t identified yet who the opposition even is to Qaddafi. We don’t know if this is led by Hamas, Hezbollah, or possibly al Qaeda of North Africa. Are we really better off, are United States, our interests better off, if let’s say Al-Qaeda of North Africa now runs Libya?” [03/24/11]

– AFA’s Bryan Fischer: “Al Qaeda is behind the rebellion in Libya. So this no-fly zone is in fact helping the Muslims who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. But helping our sworn enemies, especially if they are Muslims, does not seem to be a bother to Obama.” [03/22/11]

– Hateblogger Pam Geller, writing at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment: “And now [President Obama] is essentially backing Al-Qaeda in Libya. Al-Qaeda has already established an Islamic emirate in eastern Libya, and is playing a leading role in the revolt against Gaddafi. The Libyan Islamist Fighting Group is also involved.” [03/21/11]

There's only one problem with these new charges from the right-wingers. They aren't true. U.S. intelligence has not been able to find any connection between the Libyan rebels and al-Queda (or "islamofascists" of any kind for that matter). They have simply pulled this ridiculous charge out of their (tinfoil?) hats, because they had to have some reason to oppose President Obama.

What's even crazier is that their new position puts them in the uncomfortable position of supporting the Kaddafi government -- the same government they were applauding Ronald Reagan for bombing (since Kaddafi was the force behind the Lockerbie airliner bombing). How's that for fickle?

While I seldom agreed with them, I miss the old-style conservatives. At least they had some real beliefs.

Iran - It Could Be A Lot Worse

Iran and the United States are not friends.   In fact, it would not be a stretch to say they are enemies.   Because of that, a lot of Americans misunderstand Iran.   They assume that because the Iranians are muslims and are not friendly to the United States, they must be allies and supporters of al-Queda and the Taliban.   That is simply not true.

Even though they have a muslim theocracy, the Iranians understand the danger posed by muslim extremists like al-Queda and the Taliban.   Yesterday, the Iranian government announced the arrest of seven members of al-Queda near their border with Iraq.   And this is not the first time for them to take this kind of action.   They have arrested hundreds of al-Queda members.

After the United States invaded Afghanistan and knocked the Taliban out of power, hundreds of al-Queda members and their Taliban supporters fled the country.   Several hundred of them crossed into Iran.   They did not find a safe haven there.   The Iranians arrested them and expelled them from their country.   They also made copies of their passports and turned them over to the United Nations.   And they allowed the United States to interrogate some of the suspected al-Queda members.

I'm sure that surprises many Americans, who would like to lump all U.S. enemies (especially muslims) into the same group.   But muslims are not a homogenous group any more than christians are.   The Iranians are trying to become a modern developed nation, and they know the Taliban-type extremists would destroy any hope of that.

Years ago, when the USSR was struggling to support the communist-friendly government of Afghanistan, the United States supported the insurgents in Afghanistan.   The U.S. gave them money and weapons, which they used to expel the Russians and then take over Afghanistan.   Those insurgents became what is now known as the Taliban, and they supported al-Queda with their terrorist goals.

We now have the chance to make that same mistake again.   There are groups that would like to overthrow the Iranian government.   A couple of these groups are the Jundallah and the People's Mujahedeen.   These are groups who are the equivalent of the Taliban.   It would be a serious mistake for the United States to think these groups are friendly because they oppose the current Iranian government.   It would just be a repeat of the mistake the U.S. made in Afghanistan -- to turn an enemy into a terrorist state that would support attacks on the United States.

Iran is bad enough as it is, but it could be a whole lot worse.   We must be careful to not repeat past mistakes.   The truth is that the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend -- that was proven in Afghanistan.

Afghan War Is Not Looking Good

The war in Afghanistan is not going well. Since President Obama announced his decision to prolong the war and send another 40,000 troops to the country, the Taliban has stepped up it's attacks against both American troops, Afghan troops and innocent civilians. Last week, they even struck very violently at what should be the safest area in Afghanistan -- Kabul.

It causes me to wonder just how effective the new troops are going to be in trying to stabilize the country. Those troops were meant to be stationed outside of Kabul where loyalty to the Afghani government is questionable at best. It was already doubtful whether the troops could do much to stabilize the countryside, and now it looks like the capital city itself needs stabilizing.

Frankly, 40,000 troops are probably not enough to stabilize that country, especially in light of the fact that when things get hot for the Taliban and al-Queda they just move to another area or hide in Pakistan. And when they get to Pakistan, the U.S. can do nothing but use attack drones (which kill more innocent civilians than enemy fighters).

We now learn that Pakistan is not going to help fight the rebels in their country. Yesterday Major General Abbas, PR spokesman for the Pakistani army, told BBC News, "We are not going to conduct any major new operations against the militants over the next 12 months. The Pakistan army is overstretched and is not in a position to open any new fronts." In other words, al-Queda and the Taliban will get a free ride in Pakistan for the next year.

This means that at least for the next 12 months, the best the U.S. and its allies can do is to fight a holding action. Victory cannot be achieved without fighting the militants in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. With no pressure being put on them in Pakistan, there is truly no path to victory -- just the continuing deaths of allied soldiers and innocent civilians.

In the current situation, there is no point in even sending 40,000 more troops. We need to just withdraw our troops. It is, and has been, a mistake to support the unpopular, corrupt and misogynistic government of President Karzai anyway.

With the recent Pakistani decision not to fight, our position in Afghanistan has become untenable. I urge President Obama to stop this mad folly and bring all of our troops home.

Al-Queda Offers Its "Condolences"

Considering their penchant for violent crimes and the outright murder of innocent people, al-Queda's latest communique is rather shocking. In their latest audio message, from Adam Gadahn (pictured), al-Queda offers its condolences to the families of innocent victims killed by their attacks. This is the first time the group has ever said anything like this.

Speaking of the people killed by Western powers, Gadahn said, "We express our condolences to the families of the Muslim men, women and children killed in these criminal acts and we ask Allah to have mercy on those killed and accept them as shohadaa (martyrs)."

He then went on, referring to victims of al-Queda and its allies, "We also express the same in regard to the unintended Muslim victims of the mujahedeen's operations against the crusaders and their allies and puppets, and to the countless faceless and nameless Muslim victims of the murderous crusade (in Afghanistan and Pakistan)."

But don't get carried away thinking al-Queda has suddenly changed its stripes. These condolences were directed only to the Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They're still thrilled to have killed the innocent victims in America and Europe, and have no intention of apologizing for that.

They are still the same murderous criminals that they always were, and hopefully they will be brought to justice sooner rather than later. In fact, that's why they issued the condolences to the Muslims of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They're cowards and they're afraid some of these victims' families might turn on them and sell them out to the Americans, Europeans or Pakistanis.

The mountainous region on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is al-Queda's last safe hiding place. If the people living there turn on them, they are doomed. They know that -- hence the "condolences".

Pakistan - Do Your Part Or Step Aside !

It was always obvious that George Bush was much more interested in attacking Saddam Hussein and Iraq than in bringing al-Queda and the Taliban to justice, even though the former had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack and the latter were completely responsible for it. That's why he left the job half-done in Afghanistan to concentrate on invading Iraq.

That gave the Taliban and al-Queda time to regroup and re-arm, and during the last few years of his presidency they began to re-establish themselves and begin their march back to power. Fortunately, President Obama knows who the real enemy is and he's prepared to do something about it.

President Obama has already told us he will send more troops to Afghanistan, but he knows that is not enough. He is also sending thousands of civilian employees as teachers and trainers and to help the Afghanis to rebuild their country's infrastructure. All of this is needed, but it is not all that's needed.

One reason the Taliban and al-Queda have been able to make a comeback, is they are receiving protection and aid from people in Pakistan. In fact, members of Pakistan's intelligence service are still passing information and arms to them. This has to stop, and the Pakistani government must root them out and expell them.

I hope the Pakistani government knows that President Obama is serious about his commitment to crush the Taliban and bring al-Queda to justice. I have a feeling if the Pakistanis don't do what is necessary, President Obama will. He has already struck across the border into Pakistan, and I don't think he'll hesitate to do it again and again.

I support President Obama in his war against al-Queda and the Taliban. As an old hippie who still believes as he did in the sixties and seventies, I generally oppose war. It is seldom the best solution to a problem. But these are the people who killed over 3,000 Americans. These are the people who believe women have no rights and would treat them as property. These are the people willing to kill numerous innocents to prove a religious point. These are the people willing to throw acid in the faces of young girls for going to school.

If there ever was a group that justified a war, it is al-Queda and the Taliban. President Obama has said these groups pose the greatest threat to America and the world. Pakistan either needs to do their part or get the hell out of the way, because the job will be done.

Iran And al-Queda Hate Each Other

Bush, Cheney and McCain like to lump all the Middle Eastern groups that don't like us into one big group called terrorists. McCain has shown several times that he has trouble telling the players apart in that part of the world. But the real situation is a lot more complicated than that.

The fact is that many of the players in the Middle East hate each other as much as they hate us. That was made clear again yesterday, when one of al-Queda's biggest leaders launched a verbal assault on Iran.

Ayman al-Zawahiri (pictured above), al-Queda's leading voice since the virtual disappearance of Osama bin Laden, has put out a tape attacking Iran. He accused Iran of trying to marginalize al-Queda by blaming Israel for 9/11. He angrily claimed all responsibility for 9/11 for his group. He also accused Iran of helping the United States in their attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The charges being traded back and forth by both groups are ridiculous. Israel had nothing to do with 9/11, and Iran did not help the United States in Afghanistan. But the arguments do show how much the groups hate each other.

Iran is composed mainly of Shiites, while al-Queda is a Sunni group. Zawahiri and his group are afraid they are being marginalized in Iraq. It's becoming pretty clear that the Shiites will probably take over once the United States withdraws from Iraq. If they do, it would mean the end of al-Queda in Iraq.

In a strange twist of fate, al-Queda is being protected in Iraq by its sworn enemy -- the United States. While Bush claims to be fighting al-Queda in Iraq, the truth is that the only reason al-Queda can remain in Iraq is because we are holding back the Shiites. As long as we stay there, al-Queda can stay there also.

The easiest way to get al-Queda out of Iraq would be to withdraw our troops. Once the Shiites are freed to act, they will quickly get rid of al-Queda. So we are not in Iraq to fight al-Queda.

The only reasons we are still occupying Iraq and getting more of our troops killed, is for the Iraqi oil and for Bush's pride. Neither is worth the life of a single American soldier.

We need to withdraw our troops and let the Iraqis take care of al-Queda.

Myth Of al-Queda In Iraq

George Bush and his clone, John McCain, are still trying to convince Americans that the biggest threat in Iraq is al-Queda. They'd like for us to believe that if we leave Iraq, al-Queda would either take over there or at least be able to use Iraq as a base for their nefarious activities. The truth is there is absolutely no chance of either happening.

Let's look at just who the groups are that are vying for power in Iraq. First we have the Kurds, who inhabitat the northern part of the country. They are not interested in any part of Iraq except their northern homeland, and they are probably strong enough to control that whether we stay or leave Iraq. They don't like al-Queda, and al-Queda is unable to operate in that area of Iraq.

That leaves four groups vying for control of the rest of Iraq -- the Shiites, the Sunnis, the puppet government we installed and al-Queda. The strongest group is the Shiite militias, the largest of which is controlled by Sadr. This is the group most likely to take over in Iraq when we leave. If they do, they will install an Iranian-style theocracy.

The Shiites hate al-Queda (who are Sunni) and there is no way they would allow them to operate in Iraq. If the Shiites take over, al-Queda will be exterminated or run out of the country in short order.

The Sunnis are the second most powerful group in Iraq. The Sunni militias, called the "Awakening Movement", do not like al-Queda either. They consider them foreigners and trouble-makers. If the Sunnis came to power, they would not treat al-Queda any better than the Shiites. In fact, they are already fighting al-Queda with arms supplied by us. They certainly wouldn't provide a haven for them.

The third group is the puppet government installed by the Bush administration. There is no way they will survive once we leave. Their troops are not capable of fighting any of the other groups without our help. I expect these troops will desert and join either the Shiite or Sunni militias after the U.S. troops withdraw, and the government will quickly fall.

That leaves al-Queda, who is actually the weakest of the four groups. They do not have the numbers to engage in real military actions anymore. The only way they can fight is through terrorist actions -- suicide bombers and roadside bombs. The only reason they still exist in Iraq is because we are still occupying the country.

Once we leave, they will be unable to recruit new members there. Our presence is the only reason they can recruit anyone there at all. They will be left with a few foreign fighters, who will quickly be killed or kicked out by the Sunnis and Shiites who hate them.

Would there be a bloodbath if we leave? It's possible, but it would not be al-Queda doing it. The Sunnis and the Shiites will vy for power, and it might be a bloody civil war. But it might not. A majority of the Arab world believes these groups could come to an understanding, if we would just get out of the way.

So, staying in Iraq is not the way to get rid of al-Queda there. It's only our presence that allows them to even exist there. If we were really serious about fighting al-Queda, we would leave Iraq and go where they really have some power -- Afghanistan and Pakistan. All our occupation of Iraq is doing is allowing the real al-Queda forces to grow stronger in these two countries.

I am in favor of fighting al-Queda, and I have been since they attacked us on 9/11. The group should be crushed and it's leaders brought to justice. But staying in Iraq will never accomplish that.

Has Bush Gone Completely Insane ?

The only thing I can figure is that Bush has gone completely insane. Why else would he be arming the Sunni insurgents?

It seems that recently the Sunni insurgents have had a falling out with al-Queda. So Bush has begun to give them arms to help them to fight al-Queda. Evidently he believes the old saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. He still hasn't realized that we have NO friends in Iraq.

These are the same Sunni insurgents that have been primarily responsible for the IEDs that have killed and maimed thousands of American troops. Just because they are arguing with and fighting al-Queda, doesn't mean they will stop trying to kill American soldiers!

It doesn't matter how much the Sunnis, Shiites and al-Queda hate each other. The fact remains that all three groups hate our troops as much as they hate each other. There is absolutely no doubt that these same weapons that we give them will be turned on our troops.

It was bad enough that the weapons we gave the Iraqi police and army were turned on our troops far too often. But to give arms directly to the insurgents boggles the mind. After all, there is a good reason they are called "insurgents".

This latest ridiculous action by Bush shows that he has no idea what he is doing in Iraq. We must cut off the war funding and force him to bring our soldiers home now, before he does something even crazier.

Bush has repeatedly proven he cannot be trusted with the power to wage war.

Did Bush Make The World A Safer Place ?

After 9/11, many who weren't already paying attention suddenly realized that we live in a dangerous world. President Bush used the opportunity to promise Americans (and the world) that he would declare a war on terror, and make the world a safer place for everyone.

His first move, the invasion of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, was almost universally supported. Anyone who has read this blog knows I am not a Bush supporter, but even I thought the Afghanistan invasion was neccessary and appropriate. The Taliban didn't just support and protect Al-queda, their beliefs are virtually interchangeable.

But Bush wasn't happy with attacking the real criminals who had attacked us. Before we had even finished the job in Afghanistan, he turned his attention elsewhere. After lying to America and the world, he invaded Iraq, once again using the excuse of "making the world a safer place".

Of course, now we know that he was not telling us the truth. Saddam was not a danger to America (or any other country for that matter), he did not have nuclear weapons or even a nuclear weapons program, and he was not in league with Al-queda. In fact, as most Muslims already knew, Saddam and Osama hated each other.

Now we are stuck in a real mess in Iraq, and the Taliban is coming back in Afghanistan. Why did Bush have to invade Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan? I don't know. But most of the world thinks it was to control Iraq's vast oil supply.

The Pew Global Attitudes Project gives us the following percentages of people in different countries who think we invaded Iraq because of the oil:

Great Britain..........33%

Russia.....................51%

France.....................58%

Germany.................60%

Pakistan..................54%

Turkey....................64%

Morrocco................63%

Jordan....................71%

But has the invasion of Iraq made the world a safer place? No! Once again referring to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, we find that most people, including half of Americans, think Bush has made the world a more dangerous place. Here are the numbers:

COUNTRY............LESS SAFE

France..................76%

Spain....................68%

Germany..............66%

Great Britain.......60%

Russia..................44%

Japan...................61%

China...................44%

India....................34%

Nigeria................32%

Jordan.................74%

Egypt...................70%

Turkey.................70%

Indonesia............54%

Pakistan..............52%

As you can see, a majority of people in countries that we consider to be our allies, think that Bush's blunder in invading Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place.

The war in Iraq is bleeding away the effectiveness of our military, is needlessly costing the lives of our soldiers, is using resources that could be put to better use in Afghanistan, and has made the world a more dangerous place!

It is time to bring our troops home. Just yesterday Muqtada al-Sadr, who was once a supporter of the government Bush installed in Iraq, called on Iraqi soldiers and police to join his militiamen in attacking American soldiers. Over the weekend, 10 more American soldiers were killed in Iraq. Our soldiers have no friends in Iraq. They are hated by both the Shiites and the Sunnis.

Stop the madness and bring our soldiers home!