My Government is Full of Terrorists (by their own definitions)

My Way News - Bush Says Democrats Shouldn't Be Trusted

Our President, by his own declarations and new laws, has just declared himself, and the majority of our government, to be terrorists.

"STOCKTON, Calif. (AP) - President Bush, on a campaign swing in the West, is telling voters that the Democratic Party is weak-kneed on national security and shouldn't be trusted to hold the reins of Congress.

'If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, it sounds like - it sounds like - they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we're attacked again,' Bush said Monday at a $360,000 fundraiser in Reno, Nev., for state Secretary of State Dean Heller's congressional campaign.

And if you read the new laws along with the latest National Intelligence Commission's (leaked) National Intelligence Estimate report, you see that Mr. Bush is not "weak-kneed", he is a full-on terrorist.

From the new law.

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

So now we know who needs to go to the tribunal...anyone who helps the terrorists. Remember that bolded part. Now we look at the leaked NIE report.

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives [1]; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

- The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement [2]. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.

- Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness [3]; (2) the Iraq jihad; [4]. (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations [5]; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims.all of which jihadists exploit[6].

Six times the (excerpt of the leaked) report blames the war in Iraq (and neocon policies) for helping the terrorists.

Bush's War in Iraq is....
[1] ...Creating a new generation of terrorists. That's material support.
[2] ...Creating a new, global, generation of terrorists. That's HUGE material support.
[3] ...A demonstration of corruption, injustice and Western domination. All of which lend material support to the terrorist vision.
[4] [ibid]
[5] ...Not working. One could also throw the recent Israeli war on Lebanon in the mix...except it hadn't happened yet when the report was written. Things are worse now, particularly in Lebanon, which had been seeing some progress.
[6] ...Making all Muslims think worse of the U.S. This lends support to terrorists, because as Bush said, "if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists". Bush policy has made it impossible for moderate Muslims to be with "us", and there's only one other choice.

Now we get back to the original story, and some other hypocritical stuff Bush said.

'That's not the way it's going to be under my administration. We will stay on the offense,' the president said. 'We will defeat the enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here at home.'"

First off, where are the signs of progress? The NIE says the reverse is happening. Second off, where is this millions strong Mujaheddin army that is about to invade the U.S. with tanks and choppers? Third off, how is it in any way moral for innocent people to be butchered in Iraq so we can feel free at home?

That third off is almost nonsensical. This "fight them over there" meme is the reason they want to attack us at home. It's not an either/or situation. This fear-mongering, selfish, immoral tripe should be attacked with the utmost fervor. It is, perhaps, the most immoral popular saying in the U.S. since the KKK was sidelined.

Back to the article, and Bush's answer to some of these criticisms.

They are citing a National Intelligence Estimate, which the president has partly declassified, suggesting that the war in Iraq has helped recruit more terrorists.

Bush disputes the claim, saying that if policymakers in Washington become convinced that fighting terrorists creates terrorists, then America will return to a pre-Sept. 11 mentality of waiting to be attacked.

This is another bullshit dichotomy that people let pass. The choice isn't between invasion and isolation. There are ANY NUMBER of actions that fall short of invading another country and forcibly changing their government and culture (which doesn't work, BTW) and not doing anything. Not doing anything was the Bush administrations terror policy from January 20, 2001 until September 11, 2001`.

Then, their terror policy became "invade Iraq".

Now, back to the "who's a terrorist now" question....and the answer: Bill Frist.

QALAT, Afghanistan — U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and urged support for efforts to bring "people who call themselves Taliban" and their allies into the government.

The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.

[full story] That "too much popular support" bit is a direct reflection of the bullet points noted in the NIE. It's why Iraq is a total failure (along with a slightly less failed Afghanistan policy). Speaking of Iraq as a total failure. Has anyone else noticed that is the neocons and only the neocons that want the U.S. to stay there?

The Washington Post reports today on two more surveys of Iraqi opinion. First, State Department polling found that "In Baghdad... nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout." Second, PIPA has released the results of its latest round of polling today, which will show that "71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country." Third, the Post mentions that "The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal."

[full story] The Bush administration talking point is that pulling out of Iraq would make the terrorists stronger, leading to that "perceived" victory condition in the NIE mentioned above (very, very few people paraphrasing that bit include the "perceived" in their assessment, they miss that it is about a propaganda victory, not an actual one), however, the poll, and the NIE, say otherwise.

First, the poll.

The PIPA survey also shows that all Iraqi ethnic groups overwhelmingly oppose al-Qaeda, with 94% overall holding an unfavorable view of the jihadists. Those findings further support a point I've been making for a while now, that the prospect of al-Qaeda taking over Iraq in the wake of an American withdrawal is an unrealistic bogeyman which should not guide American decisions its Iraq policy.

Then the NIE.

Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

- The jihadists. greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution - an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the Muslim world is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists. Propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
- Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.

That last bolded bit is, BY FAR, the most important part of the document. There, the document is saying, without a doubt, that Bush and Neocon policy is destroying the most potent weapon in the "War on Terror".

They are providing material support to the terrorists by providing robust propaganda opportunities for the enemy, taking actions that align with al-Qa'ida theory, vehemently supporting an invasion that is the biggest reason we are losing the "War on Overwhelming Fear", and alienating the only force that is capable of winning said war.

They are terrorists, and should be tried as such.

Right after we kick them out.

UPDATE: More on the new bill that give Bush all sorts of rights.About the White House Warden.

BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.

Not to worry, say the bill's defenders. The president can't detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

The fact that "on purpose" is in there should be scary. That's the general equivalent of "thoughtcrime". The action is immaterial, it's what you were thinking at the time that is the crime.

Legal residents who aren't citizens are treated even more harshly. The bill entirely cuts off their access to federal habeas corpus, leaving them at the mercy of the president's suspicions.

We are not dealing with hypothetical abuses. The president has already subjected a citizen to military confinement. Consider the case of Jose Padilla. A few months after 9/11, he was seized by the Bush administration as an "enemy combatant" upon his arrival at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. He was wearing civilian clothes and had no weapons. Despite his American citizenship, he was held for more than three years in a military brig, without any chance to challenge his detention before a military or civilian tribunal. After a federal appellate court upheld the president's extraordinary action, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, handing the administration's lawyers a terrible precedent.
--
But the bill also reinforces the presidential claims, made in the Padilla case, that the commander in chief has the right to designate a U.S. citizen on American soil as an enemy combatant and subject him to military justice. Congress is poised to authorized this presidential overreaching. Under existing constitutional doctrine, this show of explicit congressional support would be a key factor that the Supreme Court would consider in assessing the limits of presidential authority.