Bill Moyers Journal: Here, There and Everywhere

I would recomend the new president take a copy of Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" so they can be aware of the dangers of basing policies on religeous mythology. Also the new president needs to be aware of why seperation of church and state was so important to our founders, and why it should be important to our leaders today.

Posted by: Dan Baum | February 3, 2008 1:07 AM

Al Qaida... Al Schmaida “US lawmakers voted Wednesday to split Iraq into a loose federation of sectarian-based regions and urged President George W Bush to press Iraqi leaders to agree.” ADE Sept 26 2007. Thus the bombing campaign and a million plus Iraqi dead… Iraqi’s Accuse US Of Bombing al-Askari Shrine in Samarra: Both Sunnis and Shia say the bombings are a plot to incite sectarian violence at the behest of John Negroponte, US Deputy Secretary of State... Murdoch and Co will have you believe an internecine struggle between Shia and Sunni sects within the Moslem infrastructure of Iraq, supported on the Shia side by Iran attempting to establish hegemony in the area, is at the heart of the problem. That is total BS. Some of the deadliest attacks against mosques in Iraq since the US led invasion in 2003: —June 19: A car bomb strikes near the Shiite Khillani mosque in Baghdad, killing at least 78 people and wounding more than 200. —Feb. 24: A truck bomb explodes as worshippers leave a Sunni mosque in Habbaniyah, west of Baghdad, killing more than 50 people and injuring at least 60. —Jan. 30: A suicide bomber strikes a crowd entering a...

Posted by: Martin Timothy | October 19, 2007 5:42 AM

No, I don't believe that the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq justifies a continued U.S. military campaign there. My reason for this is because if you were to remove Al Qaeda from the picture right now there would still be ninety-five percent of the insurgents left. Also right know even though Al Qaeda is very dangerous the bulk of the attacks on the U.S. are coming from the Sunni and Shiite militia. The U.S. administration keeps telling us that the bulk of the attacks on us are from the Al Qaeda. In fact the bulk of the attacks on us are actually from the Sunni and Shiite militia. Also our presence in Iraq is not needed to get rid of the Al Qaeda. This is because only the Iraqis can do that, which makes the situation a political not military problem. This is why the government has to step up and kick the Al Qaeda out. Finally, our presence in Iraq because of Al Qaeda is causing the U.S. all sorts of problems. One of the problems is that the Al Qaeda is spreading the word around that the U.S. just came to Iraq take their oil. Also, some...

Posted by: Kelly McGrath | October 19, 2007 12:38 AM

When watching this video I had to ask myself, what has the United States government done? I feel that the government dug its self a hole that it will now be very hard to get out of. This hole is also known as blowback. We have interfered with every aspect of these other countries. I feel that the United States needs to find a way to get out of Iraq, there is no valid reasons for us to be there anymore. the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq is not as extreme as my Americans thought it was. Although I believe in one point of view we needed to do something to try to be in control instead of being controlled by any other country, we let this situation get way out of hand. Our government is still allowing other countries (specifically with oil) to control our economy. We are now dumb foundedly giving money to the country we are at war with. We as the citizens have been tricked and only when we can all take the time to look at all the facts, is when we can we be absolutely certain why we are in Iraq and if...

Posted by: Trisha D. | October 18, 2007 9:29 PM

The United States has a duty to remain in Iraq having stirred the pot. However, the Iraqi security forces have come up short time and time again in preparing themselves to combat the insurgency in their country. We started the war, we must finish the war. The question was specific in asking, 'Does the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq justify a continued US military campaign there?'. The question did not ask whether or not the US's fight against Iraq is justified, as many of you believed given your responses. The United States, after removing Saddam Hussein from power in 2003, has not been fighting against the Iraqis. In fact, since dethroning Hussein, Iraq has been an ally to the United States. From 2003 to the present, all American military forces in Iraq have been considered “security forces,” working alongside the Iraqi army, as well as other foreign allies, i.e. Poland, Australia, and Great Britain, to combat the terrorist insurgency comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists (and terrorists of other factions), as well as religious rebels of the Sunni and Shiite sects. It is unquestionable that yes, we must continue to fight al Qaeda in Iraq as they were, unlike the...

Posted by: Lauren B | October 18, 2007 9:16 PM

I believe the U.S. troops going to Iraq was a mistake and done for no reason. I am against this war, but I also believe that now that we are there, we must accomplish something before returning back home. Americans were mislead that we were going to Iraq for September 11th, but it ends up Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. We were told by our president that we are in Iraq to prevent terrorists from Al Qaeda but we had no proof that Al Qaeda was even in Iraq. Another reason we were told we went to Iraq was to get Osama Bin Laden, but it turns out he did not even go to Iraq till after the war started. Americans have no proof of who officially is responsible for September 11th, some people think the government either has something to do with it or knows who it is but we continue to be lied to. No one knows why we are in Iraq either; some people say it’s because of oil and others say it’s because of September 11th. I believe our government and President need to come out and tell us everything they know and...

Posted by: Annmarie Collina | October 18, 2007 9:15 PM

I believe the United States miliatary is in Iraq for no reason. The president has made up excuses such as connection to 9/11, Shadum Husain, and terriosim sponsor, but these reasons were false. If you ask a group of people why we are in Iraq they would probably all come up with different answers. the president has informed the citizens with different answers and never a direct one. the only possible reasons we are in Iraq i bieleve is because of oil and they have strategic location in the middle east. but instead of fighting and being in war i think we should gain the respect and become allies with them. so what i am saying is that i think we should leave from Iraq before we are in more depth with it and before we lose more troops.

Posted by: Tony M | October 18, 2007 9:04 PM

Al Qadea is a threat in Iraq. The U.S. being there isn't helping the problem though. I agree that only Iraq can get Al qaeda out. If Al Qaeda leaves we wouldn't. The government would come up with another reason. If the U.S. were to leave Iraq, Al Qaeda might leave as well. This is because the insurgants that call themselves Al Qaeda would stop and the government might kick out the real Al Qaeda. We have no other fake excuses to stay. Thats why we are sticking to the Al Qadea theory.

Posted by: Dan W. | October 18, 2007 8:35 PM

I think that Al Qaeda in Iraq does not justify the continued U.S. military campaign. I think that we should be out of Iraq because other than making Iraq a democracy which is not going to well. Al Qaeda is only five percent of the insurgency attacks in Iraq. Also, most people in Iraq do not want us there. I think that if we left Iraq it would be better because there would be less fighting and none of our troops will be dieing in Iraq. Al Qaeda may be doing most of the killing, but being only five percent they will not take over Iraq. If they were to take than we can just go and start all over again. I think that most of the troops rather come home now and then go back later if Al Qaeda took over. I do not even see any benefits that may come from winning the war other than the oil that we could get. The only thing that anyone could tell me to change my mind would be any benefits that are worthy of fighting for other than oil. Other than that I sticking with my thoughts.

Posted by: Tanner M. | October 18, 2007 8:06 PM

The existence of al Qaeda in Iraq is real, but our President has attempted to justify a military campaign for the wrong reasons. Lumping all of the insurgency attacks together while, as Gerges said, "They represent less than 5% of insurgency attacks," is actually counterproductive for the war. It seems now that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is no more than a reason to stay in Iraq. How can we label every insurgent as a member of al Qaeda if they are able to obtain recognition and legitimacy because of it? I believe the U.S. government's true reason for continuing a military campaign in Iraq is to take control of resources. Right now, we should be worrying more about the ideology that is spreading from al Qaeda to Iraqis. Even other countries are beginning to see us the way many supporters of attacks against the U.S. see us. They do not want us to stay in Iraq any longer. I believe we should come up with a new strategy that allows us to leave Iraq before any more attacks occur. As stated in this interview, this has become a "political" problem more than a military problem. The fact that the...

Posted by: Derek Duchesne | October 18, 2007 7:43 PM

I believe the U.S troops are in Iraq for no reason. Our President has repeatedly told the citizens of the United States of America that our troops are in Iraq to prevent anymore terrorist attacks from Al Qaeda. The problem with that is there is no proof of Al Qaeda in Iraq. There also isn’t any proof that Al Qaeda is even linked to 9/11 or Osama Bin Laden. So what is the real reason we are in Iraq? We the people don’t even know the real reason. Our president should stop making excuses and should just tell us. My opinion is that we should try to get out of this war before we lose more troops then we should. We are trying to help them fix there problems when we aren’t even wanted in there country. Why do we stay? Is it because of their oil or goods. I think the government will just leave us wondering and will never tell us the real reason why we are in this war.

Posted by: Sarah K. | October 18, 2007 7:03 PM

The US is in Iraq for no real reason. The president fabricates another reason after the other for why we are there. After all no one really wants us to be there. Al Queda is there no doubt but as Gerges stated "only five percent of the insurgency is Al Queda". So why is our military there? I feel that the US military shouldnt be there at all especially if were there to stop terrorism. There is no way the US can stop it we only publicize their want to be known globally or as Fishman stated their "Franchize". So as we remain in Iraq we just continue to feed their franchise making them stronger. We should leave Iraq and allow them to fix their own problem.

Posted by: Gregory F. | October 18, 2007 5:56 PM

I believe that our troops should have never went to Iraq in the first place. Initially us citizens were told that the troops were going there so we can help Iraq form a democratic government, which we have completed. When this was done than why didn't the troops come back? Supposedly the reason is that Al Qaeda is now in Iraq. This is what the United States citizens want to hear. They would much rather hear this than that we are there for oil and a good strategic location in the middle east. This is what the president is using as an excuse as to why our troops are in Iraq. These excuses are not going to keep the citizens is favor of the president. In my opinion, the president should stop making excuses for his actions and tell the citizens of his country what they want to hear, which is the truth. If Al Qaeda is truly in Iraq than why are we held responsible for trying to fix their problems? They do not want the us in their country so why bother. If they don't want our help than why give it to them.

Posted by: Kate O. | October 18, 2007 5:47 PM

I believe that we have no reason to be in Iraq. Clearly, our president has a unearthly obsession for al Qaeda because he wants a good reason for us to be in that country. I could understand entering Iraq in order to give them a democracy, but we have already done that, as well as taken the tyrannical ruler, Saddam Hussien, out of the picture. After all, as stated by Fawaz Gerges in the July 27th edition of the Bill Moyers Journal, al Qaeda only composes 5% of the overall anti-American militancy in Iraq. I also believe that if we are in Iraq, why don't we (the American Government) go to the other possible hideout countries for al Qaeda, such as the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Syria? Our presence in Iraq is clearly not justified, even if we do claim that they are harboring terrorists. Not to be skeptic, but I think the American militancy in Iraq is just a conspiracy. In conclusion, the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq gives us no valid reason to be there.

Posted by: Adam K. | October 18, 2007 3:57 PM

Because Al Qaeda is in Iraq our only valid reason to be there is to get rid of the terrorist group. Other reasons like oil and a good centeral location in the Middle East are not what the people want to hear because that makes them think that we are greedy and the only reason we were over there in the first place was for that. President Bush recently made a speech in Charleston, SC and mention Al Qaeda over 90 times. This is something that the Iraqis should take care of, and not us because we are still losing troops to the Sunni and Shiite civil war. They clearly do not want us there, so my question is, why? Why be in a place where you are not wanted and trying to solve a problem you can't fix. Let the Iraqi government settle the issue not someone they do not want in their country.

Posted by: Connor Hartl | October 17, 2007 8:32 PM

The presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq does not justify a continued U.S. military campaign because our president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly told the citizens of the United States of America that our troops are in Iraq because we are trying to defeat Al Qaeda from further “terrorist attacks”. Although there has been no proof that Al Qaeda has related links to 9/11 or Osama Bin Laden, we consistently continue to be stationed in Iraq. It seems that the American troops are not taking any action against Al Qaeda, so therefore people in the United States are confused to why our troops are stationed in Iraq in the first place. The U.S. military has been station in Iraq for years, but what has come of American soldier existence in Iraq? Death of mostly Iraqi civilians, friendly fire, and Iraqi/American troops. Loved ones have been missed from home and people are suffering- the troops in Iraq and the families back home. I do not see any reason why the president still has troops station in Iraq, set a government up for another country? Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. Americans would not approve of Iraq or any other country coming into...

Posted by: Natalie B. | October 17, 2007 8:02 PM

I believe that even though there is still Al Quaeda in Iraq, the US military presence there is still not entirely justified. Like Mr. Gerges stated in the interview,"Only Iraqis can defeat Al Qaeda." And if that statement is true, which i believe it is, than the reason that our president gave us, that our military is in Iraq in order to defeat Al Qaeda, is disproved. If we are in Iraq to take down the terrorist group, or "franchise", as Mr. Fishman put it, than we should not even be there because only Iraqis can defeat Al Qaeda. And that is by the Iraqi government removing them governmentally from the country. Therefore, if the US is going to fight Al Qaeda, it should be in the United States, as there are members not only in the middle east, but on our own soil. For example, a man was arrested after the September 11 attacks for being part of Al Qaeda, and he wasn't from the middle east or even a foreign country. He was from the west coast. Just because Al Qaeda is in Iraq, and it is a very dangerous presence there, we cannot defeat them, only Iraquis...

Posted by: Matt J | October 17, 2007 7:48 PM

The time has come when we stop interferring in other countries internal affairs. Yes, the invasion into Iraq was for Oil. Bush was trying to push it for anything but, because international law states you are not allowed to invade another country for their natural resouces. Most terriorist attacks have been executed by 5-20 people so continued bombings are totally unjustified. There were so few Al Queda in Iraq thry were quite able to handle them themselves. When we first invaded Iraq, Bush destroyed many residential sections and stores,+ water & electrical supply buildings (another violation of international law.)As one writer put it ,every one in Iraq is displaced or dead! Sanctions on countries have no value and harm only the very poor in a country. Our sanctions in Iraq & Afghanastan have killed approximately 300-400 thousand babes under 5 yrs of age. Bush , twice this mo., has said, " Iraq still hasn't decided on it's oil revenues yet" Bush, and ironically Pelosi, could stop the wanton killing today. without Bush's congress.

Posted by: Janice Pound | October 17, 2007 4:41 PM

The United States military cannot defeat Al Qaeda so therefore there is no place to do so. In the video Gerges states that there is no good place to defeat Al Qaeda and the only people who can are the Iraqis. So if the United States stays in Iraq they cannot defeat Al Qaeda. Basically the best place for the United States to fight Al Qaeda is in the United States. If we stay in the United States and just let Iraqis fight Al Qaeda eventually the problem will solve itself. During this civil war between sunis and shiited the United States became involved and are giving Muslims and Iraqis the wrong idea about why they are there. The U.S. says that they are there to create democracy and peace, but the Iraqis think that we are just there for their oil, which distracts them from fighting Al Qaeda and makes them want to fight us. The United States should let Iraq handle their own problems and not get involved and further.

Posted by: Jennifer Lacaillade | October 16, 2007 5:08 PM

Nothing jusifies us to interfere with the internal affairs of any country by military aggression. The world has become quite globilized and constant diplomacy to solve any problems is the way to go.

Posted by: Janice Pound | August 5, 2007 1:07 PM

We hear so much about Al-Qaeda these day. So much to the point where we are becoming foolish. I remember when my siblings and I were young and our parents wanted to keep us in line, they would tell us the boogie man was going to get us. This is no difference. A vampire is in the house and it is having a field-day praying upon our fears, and drinking the blood of our future. Who is to be feared? A hand full a rag tag individuals with a few bombs, or the "fear and deceit industry". An industry which have gain currency with the Nation, falsely committing us to a trillion dollar (and growing) war. An industry which has illegaly sent thousands of our young men and women to slaughter other innocent men and women. The same industry which has seen enourmus profits from the proceeds of the "war and security machinery". .."Those who have eyes to see let them see". We are a country steeped in fear, Our great minds are not concerned with minding the store, but how they can fatten their coffers. We have lost sight of the values that has sustained us from birth. We...

Posted by: M | August 4, 2007 11:46 AM

Mr. Moyers is a true asset to PBS. Please keep him around as long as possible. Thank you Mr. Moyers for introducing me to Clive James. I am anxious to read his new book and possibly others books he has written.

Posted by: RHubbs | August 4, 2007 10:24 AM

Sorry, tyopographical error revision to 2nd last entry of my just posted e-mail should have read: "Incumbents who answer these questions in the manner that supports whatever belief the voter has should be voted on for re-election. Voters, who have the numbers to effect change they truly want should turf those who do not agree with the answers they want to hear or to maintain the course they want."

Posted by: K. Donovan | August 4, 2007 7:59 AM

Thank for program with West Point Instructor, Brian Fishman, and professor Fawaz Gerges about resistance fighters and insurgencies, knowledge of who the Enemy is, and Al Qadea, whatever it is. I also saw the Max Blumenthal Internet video you referred to in your final comments honoring LeRon Wilson sacrifice for his country. Blumenthal admittedly indicated a political agenda for infiltrating Republican College Student registration. In another web-video Cindy Sheehan was accosted in the street by a person who questioned her patriotism, his constant loud over-speaking her responses to his questions, and his response to a similar question Blumenthal posed to college students. The question was: Based on your belief that we must fight Al Qadea in Iraq (or “over there”) to prevent them from fighting us in our country, have you signed up (or intend to sign up) for military service to fight them? In other words, “Put up or shut up” or “Yes Sir. No Sir. No Excuse Sir.” Or as President Bush said, “Either you are with us or against us”. It is not a question only for well-dressed, designer- haircut, career-oriented Republican College Students who have means to attend colleges. It is a question to be asked...

Posted by: K.Donovan | August 4, 2007 7:52 AM

Thank you Mr Moyers. Thank you for helping us to see what we have become as a nation. The people of the brave living in the land of the free is now facing themselves. We have become filled with fear, pomposity and arrogance. We have held the sacred power of equity, truth and justice and thrust it to the ground. The very thing that has made this country great has left us. The riches of justice, the power of humility and the strenght of compassion has become estranged from us. Look my fellow citizens, my brothers and my friends. Open your eyes and see, before its too late. Our greatest ememy is now us. We speak how great we are, so much so we can over run innocent nation, imprison and execute soverign leaders,on nothing more than hear say, and feelings. We claim ourselves so powerful, yet we can't feed ourselves. We invent fancy words and terminology,words such as "out sourcing",and down sizing, but all this is, is a seductive way to drain the life from our people. I look around, we build huge houses and shopping complex, but increasingly we are producing less and less. We rely on others...

Posted by: Michael | August 4, 2007 12:01 AM

Some of you may have already read the document by Marilyn Mairesse for Hermes Press: http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm. In it she calls for the impeachment of George Bush based upon a relationship between both presidents (41 and 43) and the House of Saud. If even a portion of what she charges is true, then the invasion of Iraq, the inability to locate bin Laden, and continuing to leave our troops in what we all know to be a misguided war has nothing to do with the present president's inability to perform; but, rather, a carefully planned and executed strategy. Folks, Bush and Cheney's hubris aside, this goes beyond impeachment. They make Benedict Arnold look like a choir boy.

Posted by: Di | August 2, 2007 11:56 PM

I'd be proud to be his Dad. Bill Fishman

Posted by: Bill Fishman | August 2, 2007 9:12 PM

In the mid-90's a group of ultra-conservative Republican leaders met and drafted a manifesto which called for the very strategy we are seeing played out today. Among the signers were: Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Donald Rumsfeld. This plan addressed strict adherence to the use of "strong" diplomacy backed by a strong global military (is this the velvet-clad fist?) to ensure that America's global interests were met, specifically access to and stable supplies of oil; bolstering American economic interests in the Middle East through support of "friendly" regimes; and confronting nations whose political philosophies ran counter to the "spread of democracy." Guess which nation was first on the list? That's right, Iraq. There are frightening parallels between this Administration's long-range goals, and those of the dead fascist regimes of the Thirties. We may not have an insane demagogue in the White House as did Germany in Adolf Hitler, but the political ideology of the men around the President is terrifyingly close to that which was laid out in Mein Kampf. Think I'm kidding? Read it and compare to the daily pronouncements of Mr. Bush and Cheney. They have planned stragegy of perpetual war which will go on long after they...

Posted by: Doug7504 | August 2, 2007 7:58 PM

Loved all the excuses the College Republicans gave for sending anyone but themselves. Reminded me of this piece - and another wonderful excuse: • Thursday, August 11, 2005 By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, 26, a Marine recruiter in Pittsburgh, went to the home of a high school student who had expressed interest in joining the Marine Reserve to talk to the student’s parents. It was a large home in a well-to-do suburb north of the city. An American flag adorned the yard. A Bush/Cheney bumper sticker graced the Lexus. The prospect's mom greeted him wearing an American flag T-shirt. "I want you to know we support you," she gushed. Rivera soon reached the limits of her support. "Military service isn't for our son. It isn't for our kind of people," she told him.

Posted by: John | August 2, 2007 12:53 AM

Alex Magdaleno, if anyone is in denial, it is you. You are grasping at the thinnest of straws. No one with even the slightest bit of common sense could have believed that there was any chance that the Cheney/Bush administration would decide not to invade Iraq, if Congress voted to allow the invasion. The Cheney/Bush organization PNAC had been lobbying for war in Iraq, loudly and openly, for more than four years. This was not a secret. It was on their web site! It was in the Congressional Record! (See March 2 1998, for example.) Those senators and representatives knew that they were starting a war, when they voted to authorize war. When Ralph Nader said that the DLC Democrats were "not different enough," he was right. The four that I mentioned (Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman) quickly proved that Nader was right, by voting for the so-called "Patriot" Act, and by voting to start the war. I did not make a "huge mistake." DLC leadership will destroy the US, almost as quickly as Republican leadership. If your party continues to nominate these DLC right-wingers who supported the war and the so-called "Patriot" Act, then I...

Posted by: REM | August 1, 2007 12:56 PM

Good show. Mr. Gerges tells about Arab religious leaders, al qaida operatives supported by the Arab media...they all portray GIs as unholy defilers w/boots on in mosque, invaders of Islam, murders of the innocent. Young naive Arabs join the jihad as patriots. Arabs who know the truth need to dispel lies like the Truck Bomber Turns Against Jihad In Iraq story. Saudi Ahmed Al-Shayea says he was misled into driving a butane-gas delivery truck which was detonated by remote control in Iraq, leaving him disfigured. Today, he wants would-be insurgents to listen to his advice: "There is no jihad. We are just instruments of death." he continues “We didn’t think of jihad as something that would lead to our death. It was a fight against occupiers,” said al-Shayea. Al-Shayea met his new “emir,” or leader, an Iraqi who told him his first assignment was to take a fuel tanker to a Baghdad neighborhood to be collected by others. “I felt scared. I didn’t know Baghdad at all, and I also didn’t know how to drive heavy vehicles,” he said. Also, he says, he was never told that the truck would contain 26 tons of butane gas, rigged to explode outside...

Posted by: Al Foster | August 1, 2007 12:15 PM

Thank you, Mr. Moyers, for the excellent interview. The disconnect between the President's words about Al Qaeda and the Iraq occupation shows a dishonesty on the part of the Executive branch. Though clearly marked by the interviewees, all viewers should pause to acquaint themselves with terrorist groups both within the Muslim umbrella and external to it. The world has many terrorists groups. See, for example, http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32223.pdf which contains many of the names of key groups that could pose a threat to the USA. In addition, the Wiki article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_organisations provides the names and links to the descriptions of many other groups. Mixing the guerrillas who oppose our occupation of Iraq with the terrorists that might have a relationship to Al Qaeda confuses the busy American public and does a disservice to the Iraqis who simply want their country back. Calling all terrorists and suspected terrorists "Al Qaeda" shows muddled thinking of the highest order, and does not allow anyone to grasp and tackle the terrorist problem.

Posted by: Derf | August 1, 2007 1:50 AM

To REM, No, it was only one person who started the war, and that was Shrub, and you put him in office. Hillary and others were fooled by his lies. They also did not vote directly for the war, they voted to give him the power to go to war as the last resort. Which was one more of his lies, when he said it would be the last resort. Your are in denial of the fact that you are responsible for letting Bush get elected. The idiotic spouting by Nader that there was no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats has been proven tragically wrong. Gore would never have gotten us into this mess and you know it. Rather than face that fact you run and hide. Be a man, like Tom Hartman, and admit you made a huge mistake.

Posted by: Alex Magdaleno | July 31, 2007 2:35 PM

I agree with Fawaz A. Gerges proposed strategy for dealing with al Queda in Iraq and the Iraq war. That is -- essentially leaving Iraq and removing the reason for al Queda's presence, and getting out of a sectarian civil war. I wonder about the impact of news shows like this when most americans probably get their TV news from the major commercial networks. I wish that PBS could reach more. Also, is a show like Bill Moyer's Journal just "preaching to the choir"? Would any supporters of the current Iraq policy or even people on the fence watch a left-leaning show like this?

Posted by: Keith | July 31, 2007 2:14 PM

I agree with Fawaz A. Gerges proposed strategy for dealing with al Queda in Iraq and the Iraq war. That is -- essentially leaving Iraq and removing the reason for al Queda's presence, and getting out of a sectarian civil war. I wonder about the impact of news shows like this when most americans probably get their TV news from the major commercial networks. I wish that PBS could reach more. Also, is a show like Bill Moyer's Journal just "preaching to the choir"? Would any supporters of the current Iraq policy or even people on the fence watch a left-leaning show like this?

Posted by: Keith | July 31, 2007 11:33 AM

Why can't you cover the entire congressional debate, in prime time. Haven't you heard of a webcast?

Posted by: kevin lowe | July 31, 2007 12:15 AM

Bill, Between your earmark piece, the Al Quaeda "presence" in Iraq, impeachment as a necessary tool envisioned by the founders of our republic....... each week I become more frustrated. Now I read that the Administration is going to provide $20 billion in military equipment to Saudi Arabia (and other Middle East allies) and $30 billion to Israel (I suppose to balance things out). Continually, a passage from the Tao Te Ching echoes in my head, "Weapons are instruments of fear". My nightmares are the seeds sown by this imbecilic "pragmatism". I also can't help but think that we desperately need another Thomas Paine to pen a modern-day, "Common Sense" or a plain-speaking Publius (who admittedly, was scarcely a master of common-man prose) to spark populist revolution against the "Military, Industrial, Congressional Complex". Eisenhower warned us; and it has all come tragically true. How do we fight back when the traditional avenues and institutions are all but gone? Finally, a note of thanks for your marvelous program. I get great pleasure each week in watching.

Posted by: Jim Dorst | July 30, 2007 4:32 PM

Bribe-Addicted Legislatures "If a baseball player slides into home plate and, right before the umpire rules if he is safe or out, the player says to the umpire - 'Here is $1,000.' What would we call that? We would call that a bribe. If a lawyer was arguing a case before a judge and said, 'Your honor before you decide on the guilt or innocence of my client, here is $1,000.' What would we call that? We would call that a bribe. "But if an industry lobbyist walks into the office of a key legislator and hands her or him a check for $1,000, we call that a campaign contribution. We should call it a bribe." : Janice Fine - Dollars and Sense magazine

Posted by: Dr. Murray M. Morgan | July 30, 2007 4:29 AM

In answer to your questions, Bill: * Does the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq justify a continued US military campaign there? Absolutely not. Based on the information shared by your guests, a U.S. military presence in Iraq only fuels the anger, resentment and hate among muslims who see the United States as an occupier of their country intent on destroying Islam. * Does it similarly justify our presence in Pakistan, Algeria, the Philippines, Malaysia or other regions where the terror organization allegedly has a foothold? Absolutely not. You don't fight terrorist groups such as Al Queda with the use of the military. This is a fight for the "hearts and minds" of muslims the world over and everytime the United States uses its military power in another part of the world it is seen as a direct threat by those nations who view the U.S. solely as a destroyer of their way of life. George Bush, in his colossal ignorance and arrogance has made the world a far more dangerous place having fanned the flames of anti-American resentment in the Muslim world. George W. Bush must be stopped. Any continuation of his policies once he is gone from office...

Posted by: Byron Gordon | July 30, 2007 1:09 AM

Once again another great program. I would like to ask Mr. Moyers to consider this scenario. What if according to this administration everything is going according to plan? What if they are not incompetent? What if they want a "perpetual war?" With this scenario a perpetual war then everything has been handled perfectly. They have made sure that not only Iraq is "unstable", Afghanistan is "unstable", Israel/Palestine/Palestine is "unstable", Jordan will shortly become "unstable" with the refugee explosion, Turkey is unstable, PAKISTAN with NUCLEAR weapons is "unstable" plus the recent announcement of a "unprecedented" amount of money and escalation of weapons sale to Saudi Arabia (what is Israel going to demand for their approval?) the familiar drum beat of war continues about the "immediate" threat of Iran. This seems to me too many "WRONG" decisions not even a uneducated, slightly retarded third world leader, that had never held a leadership role in his life, could be this INCOMPETENT! When you consider this scenario it raises many "different" questions. However, it does answer some important questions that Mr. Moyers ask his many guests and the same answers always leads to "incompetence." When I try to answer his very insightful questions I...

Posted by: Eileen | July 29, 2007 11:42 PM

Having worked as a lobbyist in Nebraska for almost 20 years, I thought I understood that the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) required our federal government to make copies of everything to the public (with minor exceptions for security reasons). Your story with the Taxpayers for Common Sence makes me question that assumption. Please explain why they can't use FOIA to get copies of the documents in Congress about the hideous Ear Marks that are attached to their bills.

Posted by: Mark Welsch | July 29, 2007 8:22 PM

Because of OUR ignorant, arrogant, paranoid, and misguided foreign policy actions, al Qaeda now has a foothold in Iraq, and elsewhere. And, because of OUR military presence, al Qaeda now has the effective recruiting tool it lacked prior to 9/11. How is it that there continues to be people in our government who want to continue down this road? The thinking that we can somehow wipe out every terrorist cell in the world with our military might, boggles the mind. So far, for the past six years, not only has this thinking NOT worked, it has fanned the fires of muslim extremism and made the world a far more dangerous place than it had been. The only conclusion I can come to is that it's about the money. There is just too much money changing hands around this administration's GWOT, with next to no accountability or transparency, for a thoughtful, intelligent, results-oriented plan to get started. Gratefully, a critical mass of the American people have awakened to this truth, but whether our will can overcome the monied interests that are hooked in to this incredibly wasteful stream of public money that's being spent, mostly ineffectively, is yet to be seen...

Posted by: Linda | July 29, 2007 1:39 PM

So, the US military is in Iraq because al Qaeda is there? I thought it was WMDs? Or was it the "Evil Empire?" The spreading of democracy? 9/11? Why are we there? The solution to Iraq will only be found when the truth of that question is answered. Only when the truth is known, will the solution be found, and the truth will set us free! Thanks again Mr. Moyers, MJA

Posted by: Michael J Ahles | July 29, 2007 1:18 PM

at one point mr gerges mentioned mossad in iraq,either as a reality or as a myth. i would like to see this expanded upon if possible.

Posted by: larry | July 29, 2007 12:04 PM

How much more analysis do we need? This war was justified on the basis of lies-weapons of mass destruction, Al Queda there-, military rushed in with inadequate training, i.e. how to win hearts and minds, to say nothing of equipment failures and the incipient prejudice common to much of US, a leader and administration so inept and corrupt that it bogggles the mind, thousands injured and dead, billions of dollars wasted, public opinion wanting out. How long, oh Lord, must this go on?

Posted by: Harry Shaich | July 29, 2007 11:37 AM

I can recall discussing the invasion of Iraq with friends four years ago. I served in the Army, 1st Division back in the 60's and although I was only a non-commissioned officer, even I know you can't subdue a country that size, population, and heavily armed, without an overbearing presence of personnel. I said at the time, we don't have enough people over there. What I really would like to know is, when will we find out the real reason Cheny, Rumsfeld, et al were so determined to go there? Thanks.

Posted by: Bob Kirschenmann | July 29, 2007 8:52 AM

No, Alex Magdaleno, Ralph Nader does not have blood on his hands. Why don't you blame the people who actually started the war? It was started by a large number of irresponsible politicians-- including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman. These people really do have blood on their hands. (And they all also voted for the so-called "Patriot" Act.) If anything here is "sickening," it is your attempt to protect the people who actually started the war, by attacking (and falsely blaming) anyone who tries to offer a progressive alternative.

Posted by: REM | July 29, 2007 6:01 AM

Mr. Moyers and Co., another fine show. It is such a pleasure to see discussion and conversation, as opposed to the propaganda and jingoism we generally see on TV. The current President and his administration are propagandists, and the American public does not come close to understanding the complexity of Iraq, much less the whole Middle East situation. When 40% still believe Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the crimes of 9/11, sure, that's down from 70%, but jeez, folks, study some facts. Also, thanks for showing a segment of the Max Blumenthal piece, and my condolences to Pvt. Wilson's friends and family.

Posted by: Mark | July 29, 2007 3:05 AM

The idea that al Qaeda is now in Iraq and therefore we can't leave is absurd. That's the kind of "thinking" you get from people incapable of abstract or analytical thought. The nature of al Qaeda is such that we can't throw an army at it and make everything ok again. It won't happen. Only on-the-ground Intelligence and a shift to humanitarian efforts will help, and that would include things like hiring Arab translators whether they're gay or not. Instead, we're firing them. Al Qaeda is in Iraq because we're there. We've killed nearly a million people for absolutely no reason except to control the Iraqi oil supply and line the pockets of Halliburton, et al. People all over the world know this - it's blatantly obvious - and Bush's good vs. evil rap isn't fooling anyone with a bit of education. We've become a tragic and dangerous joke. No, al Qaeda won't leave if we do, but that's no reason to continue an illegal occupation of a foreign country, or to proceed with the multiple war crimes being conducted in our name. We must stop. We must leave. The only thing worse than the hell we'll leave behind us...

Posted by: Morgaine Swann | July 29, 2007 2:45 AM

To Roy Eidelson, Your comments of praise for Nader are sickening. If it weren't for Nader and the idiots who voted for him in 2000 we would not be in this mess today. The blood of all those lost in Iraq and the trillion or so dollars it will cost are on your head.

Posted by: Alex Magdaleno | July 29, 2007 1:43 AM

To L.G. Pickels. There was not a thing wrong with humiliating the college Republicans. It has long been my thought that the Republican party was the "I've got mine and F_ck You" party. Those college Republicans just proved it. They are all for the war as long as their cowardly asses don't need to be inconvenienced by either fighting in it or paying for it with taxes.

Posted by: Alex Magdaleno | July 29, 2007 1:36 AM

I get so frustrated with all of this. It seems as if everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room - the fact that war is profitable. The American people demanded an end to the war in Vietnam. But the military-industrial complex had a difficult time making huge profits in peacetime. Now that corporations control the government we have a new war and one that has no end in sight. There never will be an end in sight. Take this quote: "...a political economy which creates colossally increasing wealth surrounded by disastrously increasing poverty, needs, in order to survive, a continual war with some invented foreign enemy to maintain its own internal order and security. IT REQUIRES CEASELESS WAR. (John Berger, Britain's Guardian newspaper, 8/24/04) We the people haven't demanded an end to this war. Perhaps because our leaders have learned some new strategies: "Of course the people don't want war. But the people can be brought to the bidding of their leader. All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for somehow a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" Hermann Goering (quoted...

Posted by: Crystal | July 28, 2007 11:24 PM

Mr. Moyers, thanks again – another home run...I only wish more Americans watched your show. Here's what we have to do if we are serious about reducing the threat of Islamic terrorism (we will probably never eliminate it): 1) Stop being the terrorist's straight man. Terrorists cannot terrorize without a willing audience. We cannot ignore a massive attack like 9-11, but we must stop pervading fear and regain some perspective. Yes, 3,000 innocent citizens were murdered on 9-11, but how many innocents have been lost to drunk drivers since? In 2005, some 17,000 Americans died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes. President Bush has personal experience with this terrorism. UBL does not have a million-man army on the Canadian border waiting to attack...you're much more likely to be killed by a teenage driver talking on her cell phone than by one of UBL's henchmen. Every time our leaders pontificate about what a great threat UBL and his kind pose to our nation they serve only to glorify these bastards and help them recruit and raise more funds. When Bush utters AQ 90 plus times, as you reported, he elevates these criminals to almost statehood status and perpetuates the brand name they...

Posted by: Dan, Yongsan Garrison, Korea | July 28, 2007 10:32 PM

Klabos' response makes my point exactly: calls us names and cannot answer any of the reasonable challenges and for the record ours is a generational military family that will put its lives at risk to defend his freedom. As for anon post, I have realized a few of the leftists on the lunatic fringe are dangerous!

Posted by: anon | July 28, 2007 10:12 PM

A number of times on the show I heard claims that we are fighting in Iraq to keep the terrorists from attacking us here, e.g. “it is better to fight them there then to fight them here” (shades of Vietnam). Aside from the general claim that having our troops in Iraq is somehow keeping us safe the more specific suggestions I’ve heard are that we are tying down the terrorists in Iraq so thoroughly they cannot hit us here; they prefer to hit us in Iraq than hit us here and our troops are drawing the terrorists to Iraq and therefore keeping them from coming here. I have no doubt that if the terrorists could hit us here they would do so. Remember it only took 19 terrorists to hit us on 9/11. A dare say they would gladly spare another 19 terrorists from the fighting in Iraq. This says nothing of getting the hand full of terrorists needed to hit us here from somewhere outside of Iraq. Hitting us here would also terrorize this country far more than killing a few American troops at a time in Iraq ever would. The only thing I can think of that our...

Posted by: Tim Gruber | July 28, 2007 8:03 PM

Thanks again to Bill Moyers guests for speaking to truth about the mess in Iraq. They have clarified the next step in our Iraq policy--withdrawal immediately which our political leaders are afraid to verbalize.

Posted by: chat | July 28, 2007 7:45 PM

Mr Moyers: Thank you for your interview last night with Messers Gerges and Fishman. It was timely and to the point. I would like to add the following points: The president has constantly asserted that the war in Iraq is necessary so that'we can fight them over there in order to not have to fight them here.' The problem with this kind of thinking is that it is precisely what Bin-Laden wants us to believe. He is perfectly happy for us to direct all our attention to Iraq and leave Al Queda to build up their real forces in Afghanistqan and Pakistan, where their real energies are. With us bogged down in Iraq (with almost our entire military forces there) they are basically free to direct the kind of operations that really threaten us here in the U.S. If they were to attack us again, it would be from those areas (their base, so to speak) not Iraq that they would do so. George Bush would have us believe that his war in Iraq is necessary in order to 'defeat terrorism', but it is doing precisely the opposite. By putting our troops in harm's way every day, he has...

Posted by: Robert Kelly | July 28, 2007 7:12 PM

I hate to be a buzz-wrecker, but something didn't smell right about that interview with Gerges and Fishman. Just two weeks ago the Los Angeles Times reported, based on Pentagon sources, that a majority of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis. This story has actually been developing for a long time (as you can see here: www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com). Yet neither one of these guys even mentioned the central role the Saudis are playing among the foreign insurgents. At one point, Gerges even rattled off the names of countries from which the Sunni insurgents are coming from. He named practically every country in the Middle East - except Saudi Arabia. Something smells fishy here (no pun intended).

Posted by: Bill in Chicago | July 28, 2007 4:31 PM

Great program! In so very many ways I want to compliment West Point and Fishman. Indeed, the reflection of many great minds at work in the West. Our freedoms combined with the multi-decade rise of militant Islam has produced quite a bit to contend with, as Gerges' polished, persuasive and timely use of pressure points in play demonstrates. -D

Posted by: Delta | July 28, 2007 4:10 PM

First comment by mind numb right wing war lover is typical of the types you showed in your closing interviews. All mouth but no action. Won't even post his name... no guts. Good show. Too bad the current bunch of fools in power are not smart enough to listen to this kind of honest appraisal.

Posted by: dave klaboe | July 28, 2007 2:27 PM

My mind is numbed by the closed loop reasoning of the left,liberals. mainstream media , democrats and moderate republicans concerning the war that is centered on "We don't like war" riff (Duh!) , because war is bad and hurts people, therefore all war, all the time, anywhere is always bad. There is NEVER a case for war or defense, therefore any action we take is always wrong. Mind-numbing! The past has proven that sometimes war is the answer: it was the only way to stop the military attacks of the Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan. For all of its problems, the Vietnam War did confine the expansion of communist dictatorships to the Southeast Asian water's edge. War stopped the complete communist expansion over Central and South America. Another thing that puzzles me is why everyone is consulted about the war and who the enemy is except the guys actually dodging bullets and returning fire in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ones sweating in triple figure heat. They are the first-hand experts on everything war-related. The ones paying the only price being paid are re-upping in record numbers, volunteering for three and four tours, and have ZERO doubts based on the actual...

Posted by: anon | July 28, 2007 1:48 PM

This was a great show, but I wonder why they didn't follow up on Prof. Gerges' findings that many in Iraq think Mossad is the antagonist in the region. I also wonder if what Mr. Fishman says is being taught as Middle Eastern history is "real" or the military's perception of it. Finally, I wonder why nobody ever points out that, although Al-Qaeda is translated as "The Base", it's more commonly used as a slang in Arabic as "the toilet". Are they teaching that at West Point? And why would you name your group after a slang term for toilet? Perhaps it's because of this? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fakealqaeda.html

Posted by: Firebird | July 28, 2007 1:12 PM

Mr. Moyers (and PBS), Thank you for airing the most accurate analysis of the US tradgey in Iraq that I have seen in the last five years. "Only Iraqis can effectively stop Al Queda in Iraq" (which both guests either said or agreed to) sums up the absurdity of our current 'escalatory' strategy. Daniel

Posted by: disdaniel | July 28, 2007 1:11 PM

I am responding to Tony Willazz' RESISTING THE DRUMS OF WAR. You made some very good points, but until the 'Information Highway' can be opened to all citizens who wish to discuss and share our opinions with one another the "concent of those governed" is mere window dressing. Last week I pinpointed two articles dealing with public demonstations. One took place in China by people desiring greater democratic reforms. The second was near Kennabunkport(sp)while Bush and Putin were meeting. This group of demonstaters came from military families requesting and end to this agression. That evening I saw that the mainstream media presented the story of China's demonstration, but made no mention of the concerns presented by military families. Way to support the troops, Mr. Murdock! Afterall, the best way to counter an objection is to ignor it.

Posted by: Lin | July 28, 2007 12:24 PM

As I watched the flimsy "case for war" being presented to the world and the U.S. citizens, I was amazed by how easily more than 50% of our population was so easily duped. Even before our agression into a sovereign nation, President Bush backed away from earlier WMD claims. Looking into his crystal ball W announced that Saddam wanted nukes and could possibly produce them within about ten years. TEN YEARS! Obviously, no time to disscuss; brash action is required. Those who still support this secretive administration are kidding themselves. They have to know on some level that the "ideals" behind this action are Oil, Money and Power.

Posted by: Lin | July 28, 2007 11:37 AM

Almost four and one-half years after MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - support the troops-bring them home now!

Posted by: Norman Atz | July 28, 2007 11:21 AM

I want to respond to Pamela Watkins. First let me commend your grandsons for having the courage to risk their lives in the military at this time. I understand your desire to support them. What you failed to understand about this program is that both Mr. Gerges and Mr. Fishman were not denigrating our troops. They were articulating the widely held positions that there are no good options left in Iraq, that there is no American military solution left in Iraq, and that staying in Iraq only adds fuel to the fire in Iraq and its neighboring countries. While there are some respected conservative thinkers who believe we need to continue our military presence in Iraq, none whom I've heard or read literally believe the simplistic slogans that constantly come from our President. However, it seems to me that the majority of experts from the left, center and right are now saying what Fishman and Gerges said: The best of the many poor options for Iraq, the region, and the world is to begin withdrawing our troops.

Posted by: Rick Stanton | July 28, 2007 9:44 AM

Bill Moyers, Thank you for the excellent program last night, July 27. The discussion and perspectives offered by your guests reiterate again that our national policy of aggressive militarism is failing. The doublespeak perpetuated by the administration regarding the war, the Justice Department, global warming, and the nation's health continues to shore up the administration's attempts to seize and control the administration's perversion of our Constitution. Your program which enables us to listen to knowledgeable people is a necessary component to maintain a rapidly eroding democracy. Thank you! Tony Wilusz

Posted by: Tony Wilusz | July 28, 2007 9:23 AM

From a psychological perspective, the Bush/Cheney administration and its neocon allies succeeded in promoting the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting our core concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, they will likely try to sell us a continuing occupation of Iraq—or an attack on Iran—in much the same way. I examine these warmongering appeals and how to counter them in a 10-minute YouTube video entitled "Resisting the Drums of War." It's available for viewing HERE.

Posted by: Roy Eidelson | July 28, 2007 8:59 AM

How can America best mitigate the disaster in Iraq? Ralph Nader answered this question, three years ago. He said that we need to set a firm timetable for the withdrawal of both of our illegal occupations in Iraq: the military occupation, and the corporate occupation. Right now, ordinary Iraqis (even the ones who aren't particularly religious or ideological) support the killing of Americans, because they know that we only came there to colonize them and steal their oil. When ordinary Iraqis know that we have given up on our plan to colonize them and steal their oil, many of them will lose interest in the so-called "insurgency." Unfortunately, withdrawal of our illegal corporate occupation is not on American leaders' agenda. See these articles about the "Oil Theft Law" which the so-called "government" of Iraq is currently being pressured, by the Cheney/Bush regime, to enact: Iraq Occupation Coming to a Head Over Oil by Kevin Zeese War on Iraq: Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil by Joshua Holland It's All About Oil by Dennis Kucinich P.S. Ralph Nader also has been calling for impeachment, since July 2003.

Posted by: REM | July 28, 2007 8:46 AM

The Fishman - Gerges discussion provided the most informative, clearest and easiest to understand explanation of why the "Global War On Terrorism" is going so poory for the United States. Thank you for this thoughtful and provocative television. David B Stanton Rock Falls, Wisconsin

Posted by: David B Stanton | July 28, 2007 8:12 AM

I'd be interested to know what Mr.Gerges unedited point was in the final segment. It seemed relevant at the time.

Posted by: Jesse Burke | July 28, 2007 7:09 AM

I was very opposed to our country invading Iraq, but once we started it, I became quietly confused about what to do next. On the one hand, I didn't believe that our military troops could bring democracy to Iraq, but we had created such a mess it didn't seem right to leave until they had peace and stability. Now I am convinced that we must leave right away in order to both protect ourselves against terrorism and allow the Iraqi people to salvage what they can of their country and their lives. As Fawaz Gerges said, the longer our troops stay in Iraq, the more people believe the al Qaeda ideology. To keep troops in Iraq is to help al Qaeda and lose American lives and delay Iraqi rebuilding and spend money we don't have on war. WE MUST BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!

Posted by: Rose Tunks Moroz | July 28, 2007 3:44 AM

As a Canadian,I get a greater variety of opinion than Americans seem to. I feel obliged to say to those posters who are disappointed that tonight's program didn't have "the other side"--as if there were only two sides to any argument-- that Bill Moyers--and PBS--give AN other side that you otherwise don't get in a media that is owned by one or two individuals. I found myself changing my mind about one thing--Brian Fishman made me think differently about West Point! If West Point can hire someone as sensible and knowledgeable as Fishman, unafraid to state where he disagrees with White House statements, then I have to take another look at my own biases about West Point. But then, that's one of the objectives of such informative tv, as Bill Moyers presents, isn't it? If I just looked for media that confirmed my opinion, what would be the point in watching?

Posted by: brendab | July 28, 2007 3:30 AM

The discussion tonight was excellent, thank you for another fine installment of the Journal. It was good to hear from Mr. Gerges, a middle eastern scholar on this subject. Its all to rare that we hear the viewpoint of the Muslim and/or middle eastern community on these subjects. There is such a disconnect between the reality and ideological consensus of Muslims and the perception that Americans have of Muslims and the Middle East in general. Our politicians and media seem to ignore or do not care what the people of the middle east believe in, as if their opinion of the conflict does not matter. The fact is Mr. Gerges drove home an extremely important point, that the Bush administration's policy has made Al Qaeda what they are today. How many people had heard of Al Qaeda before 9/11? What was Al Qaeda described to us as after 9/11. Essentially a rag-tag, albeit well-financed, terrorist organization with some training camps in the mountains of Afganistan and a limited network. Their ideology was not wide spread throughout the Muslim world. Bush has become the poster-child for Al Qaida recruitment. Consequently there are now thousands and thousands of people around the Middle...

Posted by: Andy Hudson | July 28, 2007 3:23 AM

Having watched the interviews with Fishman and Gerges, I wonder why their clear-sightedness on the issue of our presence in Iraq isn't more widespread in Washington, D.C., then I remember that the first casuality of war is truth. The fog of war sits heavily on this country, especially when it's Commander in Chief intentionally confuses the issue to maintain his own personal power. Please note that Mr. Fishman asserted that there are no good options left now, and let's all also note that neither Fishman nor Gerges insulted the troops. They accurately reported on the unfortunate images with which the Middle East is saturated. The point being that those images are believed, not that they are true. To report the fact that a large part of the global Muslim population finds such images credible is to report a fact, not to take a side. When you add 2+2 and get 4 there is no point, really, in hearing from the not 4 crowd. As former Sectrary of Defense McNamara tells us in the FOG OF WAR, you must understand your enemy as they actually are. Balance is found in accuracy, not ideological attitude. Bringing attention to the generation of anti-Americanism...

Posted by: tnthorpe | July 28, 2007 3:20 AM

What nobody has discussed is what was shown live on C-SPAN in early 2002. When Karl Rove, before the Texas Republicans, announced his strategy for Republican the Party's take over our country for quote: "the next 100 years" By fighting the hewly coined term "waw on terra" AGAINST NATION STATES. A few days later Mr. Bush ROLLED OUT THEIR "Axis of Evil"...and eventually went after the first (and easiest) one on the list. WITH NORTH KOREA AND IRAN BEING THE OTHER 2. This was shocking. Because after 9/11 Tens of thousands of Iranians were allowed to light candles for the US in squares all over Iran, unhampered by the Mulahs. And Iran contrubuted $600 Million towards our war in Afghganistan and even insisted that the word "Democracy" be included in the Afghani constitution. But what would you do, in the mean time, if someone put you on such a list and then went after the first one..This administration is responsible for instigating the escalation by North Korean and Iran's nuclear programs. AND ONLY COWARDS TO NOT TALK TO THEIR ENEMIES. As for Democrats who voted to authorize Mr. Bush...Let the RECORD BE MADE STRAIGHT..no thanks to the Talking Heads. People...

Posted by: Dani | July 28, 2007 3:18 AM

Sadly, these two gentlemen made more sense of the "real issues in Iraq" than all the mumbo gumbo coming out of the White House. I cannot believe that the few "diehard Bush supporters" are so gullible as to believe the rhetoric coming out of Washington. Let me guess...do you suppose the report from General Petreus in September will show that progress is being made over there ...Duh!

Posted by: Anonymous #2 | July 28, 2007 2:19 AM

It was sickening and gut wrenching to see the funeral of that brave and innocent young man, with a true and demonstrable love for his adopted country, when compared with the smug, jingoist College Republicans, parroting this week's party line from the White House. They dishonor him, and all the brave young men and women we have sent so prematurely to their deaths.

Posted by: John Larkin | July 28, 2007 2:05 AM

To the republican young men who had their feelings hurt. I get sick every time I think of all the needless death and mutilation in this illegal 'war' in Iraq. I have experienced the energy of some of these young republican men. I've seen them try to intimidate democratic pollwatchers and derail a democratic voting district on election day, storming in, yelling and accusing, after their party neglected to send pollwaters to the site as they were supposed to do. I've seen them screaming to try to obstruct the speech of a democratic candidate on a college campus. Boys, you deserve the same amount of respect that you give other people. I hope that you grow up and learn respect, though judging from most of the republicans in congress, I'm not that hopeful. (I'm also not hopeful about a bunch of the democrats.) There are a number of smart people doing horrible things to our country and to people around the world in our name. It's your heart that determines your success as a human being.

Posted by: Sharon Abreu | July 28, 2007 1:47 AM

The discussion regarding our occupation of Iraq was realistic and sobering. Unfortunately, there are people who can't handle truth or reality when it comes to this situation. If only the President were not in that group. The (Chickenhawk) College Republicans are indefensible. Thank you Mr.Moyers for this programming.You are great!

Posted by: JS | July 28, 2007 1:46 AM

This war is about oil. Mr. Gerges said twice that American forces are trying to subjugate the Iraquis in order to take over Iraqi resources. One of the Democratic candidates on the CNN UTube debate referenced the privatizing of oil resources in Iraq. Earlier this year the Iraqi parliament passed a bill opening the way for foreign companies and foreign countries to drill for oil in Iraq. Our tax dollars and loans and our servicemen's lives are funding this horrible mess.

Posted by: L. G. Pickels | July 28, 2007 1:16 AM

Using the death of that soldier to humiliate some college republicans was despicable but typical of what one expects from PBS.

Posted by: Gomer McFlarp | July 28, 2007 1:04 AM

I am not a democrat or a republican, but I find that biased journalism is repugnant. It is distasteful when the host of a program gets excited and leans across the table when he hears something that he likes and agrees with, and repeats everything that he can use to discredit the other side. I think journalist should be unbiased, and report both sides of the story or they are just propagandists like every other narrow simple minded bigot in the world.

Posted by: Neil | July 28, 2007 12:50 AM

FIRST LET ME SAY THAT I HAVE TWO GRANDSONS WHO HAVE ALREADY SERVED IN IRAQ, ONE OF WHICH CAME HOME WITH TWO PURPLE HEARTS. I HAVE ANOTHER WHO JUST COMPLETED BASIC TRAINING. I HAVE NOT WATCHED MR. MOYERS PROGRAM FOR YEARS BUT THOUGHT I SHOULD WATCH THIS ONE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. I FORCED MYSELF FOR THE WHOLE SHOW TO NOT CHANGE THE CHANNEL WAITING FOR THE OTHER SIDE. I'M STILL WAITING! I WAITED WHEN I HEARD THAT THE MUSLIM WORLD BELIEVED THAT OUR BOYS WERE RAPING AND PILLAGING IRAQI WOMEN AND CHILDREN. NO COMMENT. I WAITED WHEN I HEARD OUR BOYS WERE THERE NOT TO BRING DEMOCRACY TO IRAQ BUT TO DOMINATE THEM. NO COMMENT. I CAN HARDLY DESCRIBE MY ASTONISHMENT WHEN I DISCOVERED THAT MY OPINION OF WHAT MAKES A HERO " A PERSON WHO SACRIFICES HIS OWN WELL BEING FOR THE GOOD OF ANOTHER" IS JUST A DILUSION. APPARENTLY A HERO IS A DEAD PERSON. THEN AGAIN WHAT DOES MY OPPINION DOES NOT MATTER I AM NOT IN THE MILITARY NOR AM I LIKLY TO JOIN UP SOON. MR MOYERS ARE YOU IN THE MILITARY?

Posted by: PAMELA WATKINS | July 28, 2007 12:40 AM

Thank you for a most timely and substantive piece of reporting. I believe this is one of the most difficult periods the American citizenry has had to face in the area of dishonest and dangerous administrative, leglislative and judicial branches of our government. Apparently the administration is ignorant of patience and diplomacy but is still willing to deceive the people. The legislature cannot do the bidding of the people and continue to rob the treasury. The judiciary only considers something constitutional if it rewards bad behavior. AND, there is no reason left - be it common logic or just rational sense! Can we please have a dialog on not waiting until January 2009 to definitely get our country back? If my memory serves, the founders of this country stated in both the Declaration and the Consitution that if the people do not like what its government is doing it can change it. So, can we discuss just that in open and unrestricted forum? There are other people in this country besides the parties and their suckling pork. What started out as a grand experiment has become an oligarchy funded by the taxpayers. We have the legal means, the constitutional method...

Posted by: Di | July 27, 2007 11:49 PM

Mr Gerges' statements during the interview made me feel like I was in the midst of a "hard sell". I just didn't get the impression that he's an honest broker.

Posted by: BadIdeaGuy | July 27, 2007 11:15 PM

Fantastic interview! Brian Fishman and Fawaz A. Gerges were incredible. Moyers is one of the best in the business. It seems so shameful that our mainstream corporate-controlled commercial news media have such a difficult time providing quality journalism. Thank goodness for the information made available to us by the Bill Moyers Journal. Jerry Jones Boise, Idaho, USA

Posted by: Jerry Jones | July 27, 2007 10:52 PM

I would like to thank Bill Moyers for bringing to light the reality of what America does both right and wrong. In this country the reporting of opinion and fact are part of being a "democratic society".

Posted by: Carla | July 27, 2007 10:38 PM

Thank you PBS and the producers of Bill Moyers Journal for an excellent interview with Prof. Gerges and Mr. Fishman.

Posted by: Iris Wagner | July 27, 2007 10:33 PM

A great summation of the mess we are involved in in Iraq. These viewpoints are honest and well thought out, but the adminstration will never accept them -- will be in total denial -- I fear the final outcome -- in 2008 we'll have over 4,000 military dead, 45,000 wounded and another 20%-25% added in 2009.

Posted by: Hank Hudson | July 27, 2007 10:14 PM

Every Republican Senator, plus Senator Liebermann, should be sent a video CD of this program. The Fishman - Gerges dialogue was, in its closing minutes, the most lucid explication of our dilemma in Iraq I have seen. Brian Fishman stated it perfectly - if we are not now to occupy the country with the "hundreds of thousands" of troops General Shinseki recommended five long years ago before Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz sacked him as Army Chief of Staff, we must withdraw, completely, starting tomorrow - it is the only way to salvage our position, and our interests. To say nothing of beginning to make amends for a horrific and avoidable pursuit of the most outrageous folly, the true motive of which still today remains obscure.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 27, 2007 10:07 PM

This is one of the most outragious uses of PBS I have ever seen, please have Moyers balance his agenda. Fishman appears to have little or no knowledge of the real politics in the middle East and that is to wear down our resove to defend Isreal. If the US was bent on Mr. Fishman's premise that we are using Iraq for some interest other than defending our own, well why did we not annex Kuwait in 91'. Perhaps there is an explanaition as to why we defenf Afghanistan. i will not comment on his other panelist, as it speaks for itself.

Posted by: matthew brady | July 27, 2007 10:03 PM

I'm so very impressed with Mr. Fishman, who seems to have a far better grasp of reality than our President. I was pleased to see that very often when Mr. Gerges would explain a situation, Mr. Fishman would nod in agreement. Oh, if only our ignorant President would just sit down and keep his al-quaida nonsense to himself. Wouldn't it be a wonderful dream to see Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries sit at a table with our military and make some sense of each point of view, then work out a reasonable cease-fire? A dream. Only a dream. So sad.

Posted by: Sally | July 27, 2007 9:47 PM

Sounds to me like you're still missing the most significant aspect of this story. The real common thread connecting the Al Qaeda which attacked us on 9/11 and the foreign jihadists working to sabotage our efforts to bring peace and stability to Iraq is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Just today the New York Times confirmed previous reporting that a majority of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudi nationals. Likewise, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. Believe me, this is not a coincidence. For more help connecting the dots, check out: www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

Posted by: Bill in Chicago | July 27, 2007 9:08 PM

I recommend Bruce Schneier’s Beyond Fear and his weblog to anyone who wants to think deeply about security. The way to fight terrorism is like fighting any other distributed threat: good intelligence work, competent police work, and well-equipped first responders. A military response is appropriate when a nation is sponsoring terrorism, but short of “if you won’t police the terrorists operating within your borders, we’ll do it for you”, the proper response is law enforcement.

Posted by: Max Kaehn | July 27, 2007 8:33 PM

The US military is simply not an appropriate response to a network. International law enforcement should deal with Al Qaeda. If there is truly a network of terrorists, then a network of law enforcers must deal with them. Besides being legal, as opposed to invading soverign nations, hundreds of thousands of lives would be spared the horror of war. Enforce the law, restore America's character, and save lives.

Posted by: cotterperson | July 27, 2007 5:49 PM

Here, There and Everywhere

TrackBack

Comments

Post a comment

Our Posts

Your Comments

Moyers Beats

Subscribe

Podcasts

Frappr!

Archives