Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republican Militarism Spawns Terrorism

Bush is making many scary speeches all over the country advocating militarism. Military battles are needed to win in Iraq, which according to him, is part of the war with Al Qaeda. While he is terrifying his Republican audiences with military talk, his administration issues a report that we must fight the “battle of ideas”; he does this most likely in order to get a few votes from non-Republicans. Bush’s militaristic policies have had the unfortunate effect of not reducing but increasing the number of terrorists in the world.

Yesterday, Bush compared Osama bin Laden to Hitler. He scared his audience with talk of Nazism and Communism. He mentioned Osama bin Laden about a dozen times. It makes me wonder. Why all this scary talk? A real macho character would go after Osama bin Laden and bring him back "dead or alive."

In the midst of all this militaristic (but non-political, according to Bush) talk, an official adminstration document says:

In the long run, winning the war on terrorism means winning the battle of ideas. Ideas can transform the embittered and disillusioned either into murderers willing to kill innocents, or into free peoples living harmoniously in a diverse society.

For 5 long years, many of us have been saying that we can't win against the terrorists through force alone. We are faced with a battle of ideas. We have been called traitors for saying so. Now, suddenly, 2 months before Election Day, the administration issues a report proclaiming that we must be "winning the battle of ideas."

What does this mean? More diplomacy and less fighting? I have a very difficult time accepting this - for one simple reason: Bush is running around, addressing primarily military groups, and speaking of nothing but military action.

Military action is all Bush knows. It was proper to use military action when he ordered our troops into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban. But removing our troops from Afghanistan and bringing them to Iraq was the worst mistake of this administration. It made terrorism flourish. This is not my view, but the view of Lawrence Wright, a New Yorker correspondent, who has written "The Looming Tower: al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11." To write this book, Wright managed to interview hundreds of Muslim jihadists. These are the words he used yesterday on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer:

And it's -- I can tell you this. In November or December of 2001, when, you know, America and coalition forces invaded Afghanistan, and fought the battle of Tora Bora, although we didn't capture or kill bin Laden or Zawahri or some of the other top lieutenants, Al-Qaida was essentially dead.

It was not only that most of the members had been killed or captured. It was repudiated throughout the world. And it -- you know, the internal documents show that they were in great despair. Unfortunately, Iraq has given -- the -- the war in Iraq has given them new life. And I -- I fear the progeny of Al-Qaida are going to be with us for a long time.

The "war president" has given us perpetual war. To fight perpetual war one must maintain perpetual fear. Trying to terrify us is what Bush and Republicans are doing daily. They are trying but not succeeding.

We know now that the battle is over ideas. If we are battling ideas, America is bound to win. We've done it many times before and we can do it again.

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 6, 2006 6:07 PM
Comments
Comment #179460

On 9/11/2001 we were fighting Muslims nowhere in the world. In fact our forces were defending Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia. The only Muslim leader we were having a real conflict with was Saddam Hussien re sanctions and no fly zones. The U.S. had recently worked to find a solution to the Palestinian conflict and we were backing off our support for Israel. If terrorism was caused by American militarism, we should have had no terrorism.

Posted by: Jack at September 6, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #179482

I read both The Looming Tower and the 9/11 commission report. Mostly, these books are about the screwups that allowed 9/11 to happen, for instance the FBI repeatedly asking the CIA for information, which they had, about suspects who later became the bombers. Anyway, at one point in the Looming Tower Osama explicitly says his goal is lure the United States into a protracted war in an Arab country to popularize Al Qaeda. Had we simply stayed in Afghanistan and democratized it, Bush’s ideas may have worked, but he could not resist going after Iraq for purely personal reasons. Bush has done more damage to this country and created more enemies for it than Osama could have ever hoped.

Posted by: Max at September 6, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #179490

“On 9/11/2001 we were fighting Muslims nowhere in the world”

Jack,

Excuse me for being blunt, but “BULL SHIT”!

Quite a number of covert ops were under way. That’s why the Bush administration had “intel” to ignore:

“The memo, titled “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.,” had been described by the White House as a largely historical document with scant information about domestic al Qaeda threats.”

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.briefing/

Honestly, I just don’t see how anyone can support this a$$hole Bush any longer. Just the fact that he was elected to a second term scared me worse than any terrorist could.

Once in a while I go out on a limb. Obviously you’ve heard the Bush “bravado’ today that allows him to subvert laws we’ve abided by for decades, so I’ll make one of my “off the cuff” predictions.

If the Republicans maintain control of both the Senate and House this fall they will attempt to repeal the 22nd amendment, and shortly thereafter they’ll go for amending the 1st amendment.

After that we’ll find out what the greatest threat to America has been for the past 6+ years! You’ll then learn that Iran, North Korea, and terrorism have been much less of a threat to Americans than the Republican party.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 6, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #179500

Kansas

Yes. Bin Laden was planning an attack. But if he were merely responding to American militarism, he would not have been. We had just saved thousands of Muslims in Kosovo. We were fighting no Muslims. Our only major Muslim enemy was Saddam Hussein. Obviously NOT fighting Muslims leads to terrorism too.

Posted by: Jack at September 6, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #179504

Umm, Jack, take a look at what Bin Laden himself about his motivations. We support Israel. We stationed troops, especially female troops, in Saudi Arabia. And the only “resolution” he wanted as far as Palestine goes was the removal of Israel from the map. He also views the US as morally corrupt, and spreading it’s values all over the world. There were no shots fired, but the Islamists view this as a war nonetheless, one where we are the aggressors.

I apologise for the lack of my usual cohesive thought. Late summer colds are a bitch, or in my case “bidch” ;-)

L

Posted by: leatherankh at September 7, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #179506

Osama bin Laden has stated his reasons for hating the U.S. more than once. Through his videos and operatives we have captured he has stated his indictment of American policy.

Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Al-Qaida member and mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing, said that the jihad is because of the “infidels” in the “holy lands.” He railed against U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and other Arab lands. Osama bin Laden himself echoed this in two video statements released via al-Jazeera.

Knowing the “why” behind actions is key in deciding which action to take. Did you really think they attacked us because we are a democracy, as our government would have you believe? Google “hate freedom”. I hate my neighbor’s SUV, but I’m not about to kill his kids and his dog! But if he parks it in my backyard, it’s scrap metal. Do you see my point? If al-Qaida and the Taliban were rolling through our streets in tanks, wouldn’t you be fighting them? I would!

The U.S. has bases in most of the countries in this world. Is there even one foreign military base on American soil? Of course not! Would the American people allow one to open here? Of course not! So why should we expect any different from the people of those lands?

The answer is simple: we don’t. Our government didn’t expect anyone to have the ability to organize or the will to fight back. This goes back way before even Daddy Bush! Isn’t it ironic that the organization that attacked us was trained by our own CIA? Headed by CIA Director George H. W. “Daddy” Bush, no less!

So what would happen if we were to close every U.S. military base on foreign soil and bring all of our troops back home? If you needed a bodyguard, would you be more secure with him out looking for threats two states away, or by your side to deal with the threat right in front of you?

Do you see my point? No? Let me be clearer: If the National Guard were not mired in Iraq because of “WMD’s” and “connections with Al-Qaida”, don’t you think the situation in New Orleans would be a little different?

You want security? 138,000(or so) extra pairs of combat boots in our yard oughta do the trick!

Posted by: ChristianLeft at September 7, 2006 12:28 AM
Comment #179509

Oh, and Jack:

Maybe you should do a little research. Saddam Hussein is not a true Muslim, any more than Bush is a true Christian. You can live in a garage and call yourself a car, but antifreeze is still poison!

Hussein was the only one who kept the different factions from killing each other in a “civil” war.(there’s an oxymoron!) His tactics were evil, but Bush denouncing him?!

Something about a pot and a kettle…

Posted by: ChristianLeft at September 7, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #179511

Christianleft,

How many of the bases that we have in foreign countries are there against their will?

We were in Saudi Arabia because they didn’t want to be wiped off the face of the earth by Saddam.

We don’t have any foreign bases here because we don’t need help protected ourselves like Japan or Western Europe did during the cold war.

And if you think that removing all of our troops from the middle east would remove the threat from the terrorists, I have some beachfront land in Arizona to sell you.

Posted by: Keith at September 7, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #179524

“Our only major Muslim enemy was Saddam Hussein.”

Jack,

That explains one half of the Iran-Contra affair.

My math is bad but lets see:

Reagan = GOP. GOP = War on Drugs. War on Drugs = Nicaragua. Nicaragua = need to lie to Americans! (see Iran Contra)

Chapter two: Lies worked once, they’ll work over, and over, and over………..

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

Chapter three: Lies are wearing thin, must change the law!

Oh, and those of us who had our heads out of our butts had heard of Bin Laden.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 7, 2006 2:01 AM
Comment #179525

“We were in Saudi Arabia because they didn’t want to be wiped off the face of the earth by Saddam.”

Keith,

There is no way that Iraq could have “occupied” Saudi Arabia as they did Kuwait. The Bush ‘freindship” with the Saudi’s started many years earlier:

http://www.houseofbush.com/index.php?m=200409

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 7, 2006 2:39 AM
Comment #179527

Keith,

I think you just don’t get it. The governments of those lands allow those bases there because they don’t want to get wiped off the face of the earth by America!

Besides, the money is good. For the elites, anyway. But ask the citizens of those lands if they want U.S. warplanes flying over their houses(or shacks) and U.S. soldiers with machine guns and tanks(and beer) in their streets.

Are Japan and Europe still afraid of the Russians? Isn’t the Cold War over?

We don’t have any foreign bases here because the people would attack them! Whether out of racism(which abounds in the U.S.), past wars, immigration(a PRC base in Chinatown?), or belief in Bush’s xenophobia campaign; any foreign base on American soil would be a daily war zone.

Kinda like American bases in Iraq and Israeli bases in Palestinian territory.

If our bases aren’t there, Marlboro packs won’t be exploding into poorly armored Hummers, the raping and pillaging(that’s right, I said it) can stop, and FOX news can go back to their heartwarming stories about small children and puppies.

But you and yours can’t accept that. You still believe what they tell you. You still believe Osama and his crew just “hate freedom.” And was supported by Saddam. Who still has the WMDs. In his cell.

Because you heard it from Annhole Coulter, and she’s always right. Pun intended.

Posted by: ChristianLeft at September 7, 2006 4:11 AM
Comment #179532

Paul,

The “war president” has given us perpetual war. To fight perpetual war one must maintain perpetual fear.

And keep the same president because, you know, you don’t change president in war time. War as political program. It works in 2004, right?
Question is, how long it will?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 7, 2006 5:16 AM
Comment #179533
… Saddam. Who still has the WMDs. In his cell.

ROTFL!
This one make my day.
Thanks you.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 7, 2006 5:28 AM
Comment #179539

It is neither true that we weren’t at war with Muslim regimes(Lybia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Palestine through support of Israel) pre 9/11 or that Osama bin Laden attacked us because we occupied Saudia Arabia.

Osama is a meglomaniac. He has support because of repressive tyrants and radical propoganda in the region.

To say American oil policy and strategic cold war policies had nothing to do with middleastern anger towards us is also false.

Osama will attack America no matter what we do. He is using us to gain power. He must be hunted down and killed or jailed. Even if we piss off Pakistan. I hope against hope that in reality we have infiltrated the Waziristan regions and are using these new hands off policies as a lure to embolden Bin Laden into exposing himelf.

American foreign policy must be addressed, and middle east anti-US propoganda must be countered to reduce our exposure to hate groups. Karen Hughes is not what I mean.

In my opinion, Bush has failed miserably at pursuing either of these goals. He (his administration) seems to sufffer from an entrenched tunnel vision.

Posted by: gergle at September 7, 2006 6:38 AM
Comment #179542

So, let me get this straight. In the lefty universe, we must never engage the enemy because it makes more enemies? Thank God you guys didn’t have as much influence during WW1 and WW2. We’d all be sieg heiling or bowing to the Japanese emperor.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 7, 2006 8:03 AM
Comment #179544

nikkolai, But we did in ww1 and ww2 and we did it in less time then bush has in Iraq!

Posted by: Jeff at September 7, 2006 8:20 AM
Comment #179545

Paul,

Thanks for keeping up with the BLAME AMERICA FIRST / SELF-LOATHING AMERICANS (BAFSLA) crowd. You were starting to drift towards the back of the pack there for awhile.

BAFSLA UNITE!! (See their website at www.moveon.org/bafsla)

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 7, 2006 8:29 AM
Comment #179546

Jeff,

So you’re saying we can Dresden Iraq? That’s okay with liberals now? …. because that’s how we got through Germany in a decent amount of time.

Leveling stuff is fun, let’s do it!!! Dems & Libs in charge, here we go!!! Launch the alert bombers!

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 7, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #179551

Wow repugnitwits are so angry get some therpy!

Posted by: Jeff at September 7, 2006 8:52 AM
Comment #179554

“Thanks for keeping up with the BLAME AMERICA FIRST / SELF-LOATHING AMERICANS (BAFSLA) crowd.”

This has nothing to do with Americans other than the moron-in-residence at 1600 Penn. Ave. He is to blame for such utter failure in the Middle East… and now his sole focus on “Security September” is limiting the legal responsibility of his Administration should the REPs loose Congress in Nov. No new initiatives… no new direction… simply legalize what has already been deemed unconstitutional. Basically, Congress should make past actions legal so Bush & Co don’t have to face jail time. That’s their plan for keeping America safe (ie, cover your ass.)

In case you think these guys have any sort of ability to fight the “war on terror”:

We are in dire straights in Afg. & Iraq (our military are begging for more troop in Afg. - they are loosing the battle now to the Taliban.)

Pakistan has now offered safe haven for Al Queda - which means, by our past statements, we should invade and wipe out OBL there… but we have nothing but words to throw at them right now.

Iran is thumbing their noses at us because they know we’re all bark and no bite (got no more teeth left.)

(by the way, blaming the Administration has never been the same as blaming America, esp. when the majority of Americans are against the Administration…)

Posted by: tony at September 7, 2006 9:26 AM
Comment #179557

tony:

We are in dire straights in Afg. & Iraq (our military are begging for more troop in Afg. - they are loosing the battle now to the Taliban.)

Perhaps you can help me understand your above comment, in light of the fact that NATO has assumed control over the fighting in Afghanistan. Additionally, Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the Joint Staff’s Director of Operations said recently that we have adequate troops in Afghanistan. He certainly is not begging for more troops there.

Perhaps you can cite a couple examples of who in the US military is “begging” for more troops in Afghanistan. That would be helpful, since I was unable in my quick search to find anyone doing so. My search was certainly not a long one, but I’d suspect you have the facts at your disposal to prove your statements, so I appreciate your assistance.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 7, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #179562

nikkolai,

So, let me get this straight. In the lefty universe, we must never engage the enemy because it makes more enemies?

No. You must never engage the *weakest* enemy after lying about the hypothetical threat he *could* had posed in the future and forging links with your *real* enemies.
And, no, sharing the same religion is not a hard enough link, sorry.

Thank God you guys didn’t have as much influence during WW1 and WW2. We’d all be sieg heiling or bowing to the Japanese emperor.

I didn’t remember US had engaged a nation not connected to Germany or Japan during these wars. Instead, I remember US engaging directly them frontally. Aka the *real* enemies.

Tell me again how much terrorists involved in 9/11 were iraqis?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 7, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #179576

I don’t have the exact figures, but if you take just North America (USA & Canada) and the European Union, you get a total population of just under 900 million. Now, since 2001 as an abitrary starting point, how many people have been killed all over the world, not just in NA & EU, as a result of terrorism? Anyone know the figure? Could it be 10,000? 100,000 even? I’m not even going to bother trying to calculate the risk, I think the figures are obvious enough. WHAT ARE WE WORRIED ABOUT???? Do people sweat about the risks of flying? Driving? Walking? Swimming? Cycling? Home fires? So what makes the miniscule problem of terrorism so terrifying that people become irrational? All we need to defeat terrorism is to know it and its causes, and the solutions will come simply. They may not be easy, but at least we will know how to do it. Take a chill pill. There are greater problems than terrorism.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 7, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #179583

JBD -

CNN, main web page

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/07/afghanistan.ap/index.html

“KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — NATO’s top commander on Thursday urged allied nations to send reinforcements to war-ravaged southern Afghanistan.

Taliban militants are inflicting heavy casualties on foreign forces there and captured a remote town from police for the second time in two months.

Speaking in Belgium after visiting Afghanistan this week, Gen. James L. Jones said the coming weeks could be decisive for thousands of troops fighting Taliban in southern provinces, amid the worst upsurge in violence since the hard-line regime’s ouster in late 2001 for hosting Osama bin Laden.”

Posted by: tony at September 7, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #179586

@joeba
Maybe the american forces are not calling for more troops in afganistan but the rest of the NATO is. Look up canadian, australian, british, dutch news. You’ll find they all tell you they dont have enough troops in the regions where they are located to do the job. And because there population feels they have been fooled into the war in iraq by the bush administration there govenments are unwilling to send more troops to afganistan to help out. It problaby isn’t logical but international politics seldom is.

Posted by: jappe at September 7, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #179592

jappe:

I was interested that tony said “our military are begging for more troop in Afg” when its obvious that NATO is not OUR military. Sometimes one can see a Freudian slip in the people’s comments. Sometime people are just in a hurry to complain about the USA and they forget that NATO forces are US forces.

Your premise is rather unsound. You state that other countries are unwilling to send troops to Afghanistan because of the Bush administration. That’s a pretty fine way of saying the US is always responsible for the cowardly failures of other countries.

If Afghanistan has nothing to do with Iraq, which many people say, then other countries should be willing to support the Afghan effort. Unless of course you recognize that these same other countries are unwilling to send troops en masse ANYwhere. Check out how Europe and Africa are handling Darfur, or how they handled the Balkan crisis in the 90’s. They wait for the US to take charge, then complain that the US took charge.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 7, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #179600

“I was interested that tony said “our military are begging for more troop in Afg” when its obvious that NATO is not OUR military. Sometimes one can see a Freudian slip in the people’s comments. Sometime people are just in a hurry to complain about the USA and they forget that NATO forces are US forces.”

Now, that’s a bunch crap…

“General Jones is the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR) and the Commander of the United States European Command (COMUSEUCOM). From the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, Mons, Belgium, General Jones leads Allied Command Operations (ACO). The mission of ACO is to preserve the peace, security, and territorial integrity of the NATO member nations. As COMUSEUCOM, General Jones commands five U.S. components: U.S. Army, Europe; U.S. Navy, Europe; U.S. Air Forces in Europe, U.S. Marine Forces, Europe and Special Operations Command, Europe. The European Command’s mission is to support and achieve U.S. interests and objectives throughout 93 countries in Central and Eastern Europe, Africa, and portions of the Middle East.”

Sounds like OUR guy. And even if you only see it as NATO… That is US (unless you think NATO is fighting for the terrorists.) Some people look for any out to avoid accepting their side is failing…

Posted by: tony at September 7, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #179601

Paul- I certainly agree with your premise that we need to use ideas to win. I will disagree with your premise that the President and the right only venerate the god of militarism and force. There is a place for both ideas and force and both are used by this country in pursuing this war.

Unfortunately, if it bleeds it leads, to the exclusion of information on the public works started, the schools built, the children (and adults) fed, trained, befriended and the medical assistance provided to Iraq by soldiers and civilians in this war.

Understand please, the vast majority - 95, 98% of the people want us there and wanted our help digging out of the hell hole that was Saddam’s Iraq.

Those who want us out understand only force. We have made two mistakes in Iraq. We should have finished it during Desert Storm and we have held back on the application of force to those few who want us out now.

Posted by: Seminole 6 at September 7, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #179607

If most of the people 95-98% want us there we could finsh this thing up in a week or two.

Posted by: Jeff at September 7, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #179627

Iraq is now lossing 1600+ civilians (they’re the ones who you think might like the US) a month. I think we’re running out of friends fast.

Posted by: tony at September 7, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #179648

Seminole6:

“Understand please, the vast majority - 95, 98% of the people want us there and wanted our help digging out of the hell hole that was Saddam’s Iraq. “

Says who? You? Like most of your brethern on the Right, unless I see some verifiable proof of this statement, I’m going to assume this is more neo-con bloviation. Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 7, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #179660

Tim - I spent a year there recently and I speak from some experience. Doesn’t make me an authority, but Iraqis are people just like us. They want to be left alone, take care of their families, not worry about the the midnight knock on the door. If we - you or I or any responder on this thread - lived in a Saddam world, would we not want to be free of that?

Posted by: Seminole 6 at September 7, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #179664

Paul, I agree.
Perpetual war is definitely what the Neocons are all about. All one needs to do is look at what they’ve been writing and advocating for over the past twenty years to see that this is true.
If they and their friends get to profit by it, well, they like war even better.
As for the perpetual fear-mongering and the vilification that goes right along with all of their chickenhawk war-mongering, I’m with Keith Olbermann, who asked the other night : “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #179665

Whoops, that should have read “the vilification of liberals that goes right along…”

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #179667

Gosh, a true testimonial, folks. So from this heartwarming personal touch it follows that 95% of the Iraqi people are wanting us to stay in Iraq? You wouldn’t be a bit prejudiced in your reasoning, would you? Polls state that the vast majority of Iraqis are fed up with us being there.

And if three members of your family were raped and murdered by members of the US armed forces, and every time American troops show up in your neighborhood, more of your freinds and neighbors ended up dead, you’d want the Americans to stay?

Please.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 7, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #179670

Darn! My link didn’t work. Let’s try this again: Olbermann’s Latest Special Comment Targets Bush: “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #179671

Okay, the link didn’t work again, yet it worked when I previewed it before posting. I don’t get it.
If anyone really wants to see it, click on my link, then click on the Crooks and Liars logo, which will take you to the home page, find the search box on the page, type in Olbermann and there you will find it.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #179697

Seminole, You post that the main reason our focus is on now is beacuse “if it bleeds it leads”.

Why is W spouting all his military victories and constitutional rule breaking all over the mainstream media? What’s bleeding there?

Posted by: bet at September 7, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #179712

joebagodonuts,

“You state that other countries are unwilling to send troops to Afghanistan because of the Bush administration. That’s a pretty fine way of saying the US is always responsible for the cowardly failures of other countries.”

If your friend is robbing a police station, would you jump in and help him? No! Why? Because what your friend is doing is STUPID!

So why would any leader in their right mind help the U.S. military right now? Besides oil?

Posted by: ChristianLeft at September 7, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #179734

Adrienne

So you’re the person whose watching Olbermans show.

Posted by: Keith at September 8, 2006 1:38 AM
Comment #179752

most demotards cant see the silver lining!!! cause there to busy being angry and worried that there political stand will be in jepordy !!! IF DEMOTARDS WOULD QUIT BEING A BUNCH OF PANSIES MAYBE 9-11 THE COLE AND ALL THE OTHER ATTACKS WOULDNT HAVE HAPPENED ON OUR EMBASSEYS!!! SO KEEP UP YOUR BULLSHIT DEMOTARDS WAYS AND JUST KEEP ON CRYING CAUSE IF IT WASNT FOR DEMOTARDS OUR COUNTRY WOULD BE IN A DROUGHT WITHOUT ALL THE TEARS YOU SHED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: tennvolssmokey at September 8, 2006 7:02 AM
Comment #179759

tennvo -

Wow, that was a complete waste of your time and ours. Also, I try to ignore people’s grammatical errors, but if you’re going to call people “tards” at least get your spelling right. Sheeeesh, you’re an embarrassment to trolls.

Posted by: tony at September 8, 2006 8:14 AM
Comment #179767

Tony,

You just gotta love the enthusiam in that post though, don’t you? Man, if only we could harness it, all of our energy worries would be gone overnight. One giant Matrix-style troll-battery and oil would be a thing of the past. The only downside would be the amount of CO2 released as all that hot air would have to be periodically vented to prevent explosion.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at September 8, 2006 9:01 AM
Comment #179807


The point is that terrorism does not exist in a vaccuum. We need to have a paradigm shift. Al Qeada did not exist in Afghanistan in isolation.

The USS Cole did not occur in Afghanistan. The Khobar Towers bombing did not occur in Afghanistan. The first Trade Center bombings did not occur in Afghanistan. Black Hawk Down did not occur in Afghanistan. 9/11 did not occur in Afghanistan.


The terrorists had to have support in the home countries they operated in. Logistics, financial, etc… in order to carry out these attacks.
Yet everyone seems to think Al Qaeda is isolated to Afghanistan.

Terrorism is pervasive. It crosses borders. And we have to fight this war with a different perspective.

Posted by: RedStapler at September 8, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #179833

“One giant Matrix-style troll-battery and oil would be a thing of the past. The only downside would be the amount of CO2 released as all that hot air would have to be periodically vented to prevent explosion.”

The only down side to this idea is the extreme amount of methane released from the troll-batteries.

Posted by: tony at September 8, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #180041

Interesting little article right here on yahoo about the supposed tie between Sadam and Bin Laden. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060908/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc_3

Posted by: Sherri at September 9, 2006 1:43 AM
Comment #180114

Redstapler: If you subtituted the word communist for terrorist in your post it would sound right out of the fifties. That is exactly the retoric that kept us in the stupid Cold War for forty years. Incredibly costly and wasteful. Dangerious beyond comprehension and largly useless. It was an excuse for US intervention in other countries affairs all over the world,usually in support of right-wing dictatorships at the behest of US corporations. That seems to be the goal of our current regime,to bring those days back.
If your goal was to justify the Iraq invasion by your logic we should bomb Modesto or Boston also. There have been terrorist cells suspected there also.
Have you looked under your bed for terrorist yet? Can’t be too careful.

Posted by: BillS at September 9, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #180252

ill tell you this i agree with tennvols stop the crying. yes clinton did nothing with the attacks of the cole and embassys. just sat back in office and ignored everything thats was going on didnt want to jepordize his political career. tony if you think spelling tards is so important tell me how you spell deomtards. i think what hes saying is DEMOCRATS = RETARDS AND SHORTER VERSION WOULD BE DEMOTARDS. ifd democrats was so much better why isnt gore or kerry in office. and dont say cause bush stole his way in that a bunch of bull

Posted by: thgame at September 10, 2006 7:35 AM
Post a comment