Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bush's War

Senator McCain was in Baghdad yesterday. After touring “a newly fortified Baghdad market,” he “declared that the American public was not getting ‘a full picture’ of the progress unfolding in Iraq.” Nearby, six US soldiers were killed by roadside bombs and snipers returned to the marketplace after McCain, his large security team and his attack helicopter escort retired to the Green Zone (where he is required to wear a flack jacket and helmet as per new US embassy orders).

Dude, we can't get out of that clusterf&#k fast enough...

I've been wondering what Democrats will do if Bush vetoes the defense funding bill with the timeline attached. Apparently, they're going to stick to their guns despite all the bad political things Iraq War supporters say they'll suffer. It's a good move. I suspect this will actually strengthen the Democrat's position with Americans.

It's hard to get around the fact that 57% of Americans want a timeline for withdrawal and only 36% think a timeline is a bad idea. Few people believe a handful of foreign al-Qaeda Sunnis will take over a country of 26 million that's 80% non-Sunni, and most people realize that any future terrorist attacks on the United States are being planned in Pakistan, not Iraq.

Some Iraq War supporters believe that a US withdrawal might trigger a regional conflagration. That's pretty unlikely given that a massive Sunni-Shiite religious war is the last thing Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran want. In fact, we're already seeing the Saudis distance themselves from Washington and step into the diplomatic leadership vacuum created by President Bush.

Some Iraq War supporters argue that a US withdrawal would leave the blood of an Iraqi civil war on our hands. It's unfortunate but true that Americans have a great capacity for shedding that kind of guilt -- the massacres in Darfur, Rwanda and after the fall of Saigon are testament enough to that. It won't phase us a bit.

Other Iraq War supporters say a US withdrawal will leave Iraq as a satellite state of Iran. Hello! It's already a satellite state of Iran. President Bush assured that by invading Iraq completely ignorant of Middle Eastern political, racial, social and religious dynamics.

But most of all, Iraq War supporters say forcing a withdrawal will hurt Democrats because Americans hate to lose. Once again, however, it's hard to get around the fact that most Americans want a withdrawal -- and I'll tell you why: This war is not America's war; this war is President Bush's war.

Americans have no stake in this war. As President Bush's chief campaign strategist, Matthew Dowd, recently pointed out, Bush failed "to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war." Bush told us to go about our business and he'd take care of everything. There was no draft, no war taxes, no gas rationing and no victory gardens. This is President Bush's war and whether he wins or loses it, most Americans don't feel it reflects much on them.

As far as most Americans are concerned, we won the war when we toppled Saddam and there's no reason to stay on. Mission accomplished. It's time to bring the troops home.

Posted by American Pundit at April 3, 2007 2:10 AM
Comments
Comment #214765

McCain has truly lost it. That was so ridiculous. What a nice stroll he had down a Baghdad street wearing body armor, flanked by 100 American soldiers, 3 Blackhawk helicopters, and 2 Apache gunships.

the guy has lost all credibility. I seriously think some form of dementia maybe setting in.

Posted by: muirgeo at April 3, 2007 2:54 AM
Comment #214766

AP, this is the war of big oil and US imperialism. The neo cons and Bush intend never to leave Iraq. Why else huge permanent bases and the largest embassy in the world? Iraq is part of the greater game for mid east and indeed global hegemony, to control the regions resources and to ensure that the natives cannot have the temerity to act in their own national interests where those may conflict with US interests. Iran is on the list for regime change, as it was before, when its democratically elected prime minister was ousted in a CIA arranged coup, so as to secure control of its resources for big US and British oil. As usual, a vicious corrupt dictator was installed by the US to keep the locals down, and serve US interests. It was this imperialism which brought forth the Iranian revolution and the rise of the Mullahs and Ayatollahs.

This is imperialism pure and simple, in a post imperial world. Of course it will go the way of all past empires, overreach, bankruptcy and decline. The US in no longer a democratic nation. It is controlled by narrow interests. Why else do the Dems fail to end the charade, which is killing thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and wasting a profligate amount of US taxpayers money, all the while discrediting a once proud nation among the nations.

The greatest danger in any democracy is the people not playing their role; eternal vigilance upon their rulers. Among those who seek public office there will be many, if not most, who seek it purely so as to exercise power. Megalomaniacs. There are very few who are driven by a commitment to public service.In the US, and many more of our democracies, the people have allowed themselves to become distracted by meaningless pursuits, becoming couch potatoes, and not staying abreast of what the schemers are up to. Look at the percentages who turn up to vote for example, or perhaps more correctly, the percentages who don’t.

I believe the Iraqi occupation will end when the empire ends. When the whole project for a new American century is incinerated to ashes. The US has had its day in the sun. New empires are rising. The cycle of rise and decline is spinning ever faster. The only thing I believe that can stop this evil imperialism, unfortunately, is economic and military and political collapse. That will be a very painful process for the rest of us, but I think it’s a small price to pay to remove a greedy and vicious hegemon from the world. I just hope it doesn’t end in nuclear conflagration.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 3, 2007 3:27 AM
Comment #214778

This isn’t Bush’s war. It is OUR war. Reguardless of your feeling about Bush, If we lose this war, we ALL lose.

Posted by: insensitive at April 3, 2007 8:17 AM
Comment #214786

Insensitive,

And? What we all will actually lose? Our money? Life? Dignity? Humanity? Faith? Patriotism? Super power? World image?

Let’s talk about the losing cost vs winning price, shall we?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 3, 2007 9:41 AM
Comment #214790

“And? What we all will actually lose? Our money? Life? Dignity? Humanity? Faith? Patriotism? Super power? World image?”

Very possibly all of the above and more precious, Freedom.

“Let’s talk about the losing cost vs winning price, shall we?”

OK, Life, Dignity, Humanity, Faith, Patriotism, Super power, World image, Freedom if we lose. Any cost is worth NOT losing.

Posted by: insensitive at April 3, 2007 9:52 AM
Comment #214791

AP

“It’s hard to get around the fact that 57% of Americans want a timeline for withdrawal”

Why is it so hard for you to realize that it is a poll, not a fact.

“it’s hard to get around the fact that most Americans want a withdrawal”

Why is this hard? Nobody said we would stay forever. Not even President Bush.

Posted by: wkw at April 3, 2007 9:56 AM
Comment #214797

“Very possibly all of the above and more precious, Freedom.”

Freedom?

This is a joke, right?

Just who are we losing this freedom to?

“Life, Dignity, Humanity, Faith, Patriotism, Super power, World image, Freedom if we lose.”

Life? That just doesn’t make any sense.

Dignity? Already gone.

Humanity? Tell that to the Iraqis that have been, and continue to be, merely collateral damage in our hegemonic quest.

Faith? Whose faith?

Patriotism? Huh?

Super Power? Wars cannot won with technology alone. If any one lesson can be taken away from this debacle that would be it.

World Image? Long gone. It began to leave with the “my or the highway” attitude American leaders espoused to the rest of the world on our rush into Iraq.

Freedom if we lose? Again, just who are we losing this freedom to?


Bush and his PNAC buddies have truly screwed the pooch. The train has already left the station on this ill-advised, ill-conceived, and ill-executed plan to bring stability to a region that nobody bothered to read the history of.

Posted by: Rocky at April 3, 2007 11:08 AM
Comment #214799
Iraq is part of the greater game for mid east and indeed global hegemony, to control the regions resources and to ensure that the natives cannot have the temerity to act in their own national interests where those may conflict with US interests.

Umm… As an American, it’s hard not to think that’s a good thing for us. Except that I think we were doing a better job of it before President Bush invaded Iraq. That was stupid.

And? What we all will actually lose? Our money? Life? Dignity? Humanity? Faith? Patriotism? Super power? World image?

Very possibly all of the above and more precious, Freedom.

How so, insensitive? Are the terrorists going to turn their mighty air force and giant fleets of battleships and aircraft carriers on America? Do you see the terrorist invasion fleet headed this way?

As I pointed out in my article, we lose nothing by withdrawing from Iraq. terrorists aren’t going to take over there — the Iranians will see to that (thanks to President Bush) — and most people realize that the next terrorist attack on the US is being planned by bin Laden in Pakistan, not Iraq.

No, it’s not the terrorists who are destroying our freedoms. It’s the politicians who authorized unconstitutional invasions of privacy, secret arrests based on secret evidence, and secret detentions who are responsible for that.

wkw, I suppose that 36% of Americans will believe anything…

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2007 11:23 AM
Comment #214806
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. —- John Kenneth Galbraith
Guess w has his wish after all… Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 3, 2007 11:45 AM
Comment #214807

AMERICAN PUNDIT I love this quote:

“and I’ll tell you why: This war is not America’s war; this war is President Bush’s war.”

I think this is the best way to summarize the situation at hand. I really do hope that the democrats stick to their guns and if possible find ways to impeach the bastard.. I am sick and tired of looking at his stupid face on tv talking nonsense and saying the same things over and over again.

INSENSITIVE: You have lost all of your marbles and your rationale does not make any sense to me and I am sure the majority of the sensible human population

Posted by: itsmyopinion at April 3, 2007 11:47 AM
Comment #214808

AP
If controlling the regions resources would be a “good thing for us,” then why would we want Iran controlling Iraq?
Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of our country if we did not allow that to happen?

Posted by: kctim at April 3, 2007 11:48 AM
Comment #214814
Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of our country if we did not allow that to happen?

Too late, kctim. It happened as soon as the newly freed Iraqi people elected Iranian-backed politicians, mullahs and militias as their leaders.

That’s why we’re no longer encouraging Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to hold fair elections.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2007 12:01 PM
Comment #214815

We’ve been in Iraq long enough.
Leaving now does not mean we lost.
It’s time to leave.
Should our troops be used this way for nation building and babysitting civil wars?
Iraqis need to decide if they want to save their own country or keep killing each other for no good reason.
We’ve given Iraq plenty of time and money already.
The sad fact is that it is quite possible they will never (any time soon) stop killing each other; they may be determined to have their civil war with or without us, no matter what.
We’ve done enough.
None of this is making the U.S. safer.
In fact, this whole thing has probably made the whole world less safe.
Leaving doens’t mean we lost, nor does it mean they will follow us here.
Besides, some are already here, and wide-open borders and ports makes it all the easier to do.
It is right to endanger our troops trying to stop their civil war?
What about Darfur?
Why only the interest in the middle east (oil perhaps?).
Should a Draft be started for a foreign nation’s civil war?
This whole thing was a mistake.
Especially since there was no WMD.
Our troops can’t be the world police.
Our troops deserve MUCH better.

  • Most Iraqis polled want us to leave (who can blame them?). 82% of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the continuing occupation, and 45% of Iraqis feel attacks against coalition troops are justified! The battle for hearts and minds has already been lost!

  • A poll of U.S. troops in Iraq (released by the Zogby International polling firm) finds that 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should leave Iraq.

  • In March of 2006, 25% of U.S. troops said the U.S. troops should leave Iraq immediately.

  • Our troops deserve better. It’s not right to subject our troops to danger for nation-building and baby-sitting civil wars. Iraq will have their civil war with or without us.

The cost to continue this war will be enormous (in terms of lives of U.S. and coalition troops, and Iraqis, and monetary cost).
And while our troops risk life and limb, go without adequate medical care and promised benefits, our illustrious Congress votes on pork-barrel and another raise for themselves (the 9th raise in 10 years).
Never mind that the National Debt is now $8.85 trillion, Social Security surpluses are still being plundered and Social Security it $12.8 trillion in the hole, and there’s an approaching entitlements/demographics iceberg in which 77 million baby boomers will soon start becoming eligible for entitlements at a rate of 13,175 persons per day!

Posted by: d.a.n at April 3, 2007 12:04 PM
Comment #214820

Sen. John McCain is being a bit dishonest don’t ya think?
After all, he was surrounded by U.S. troops for protection, wearing a bullet proof vest, and there were U.S. snipers on the nearby roofs. The area was also probably already scanned/surveyed in advance. 24 hours later, there were snipper incidents in that same market. And what about outside the small green zone? There seems to be a dishonest attempt to leave viewers with the false impression that all of Iraq is that safe, when most of Iraq is much less safe. I used to have some respect for John McCain, but he is now trying to twist the facts and portray reality to be something different. He can kiss his chances at President good bye. Something else I don’t understand about John McCain is his voting to let illegal aliens receive Social Security benefits (as did these other Congress persons).

Posted by: d.a.n at April 3, 2007 12:40 PM
Comment #214836

AP:

Great article!

You are right: This is Bush’s war. And it is already lost.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at April 3, 2007 2:19 PM
Comment #214844
“Some Iraq War supporters argue that a US withdrawal would leave the blood of an Iraqi civil war on our hands.”


Yes, it would! And, seeing as how the left “cares” so much about the Iraqi people, and the Right doesn’t, it wouldn’t go over well with the left, would it?!


“It’s unfortunate but true that Americans have a great capacity for shedding that kind of guilt — the massacres in Darfur, Rwanda and after the fall of Saigon are testament enough to that. It won’t phase us a bit.”

Yes it will. Another 9/11 attack would certainly “phase” us! And, that’s exactly what will happen if we leave Iraq; as Al Qaede has claimed so many times, “Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror”. That’s where the biggest stake is for both the allies and the enemy.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 3, 2007 2:44 PM
Comment #214855

“INSENSITIVE: You have lost all of your marbles and your rationale does not make any sense to me and I am sure the majority of the sensible human population


Posted by: itsmyopinion at April 3, 2007 11:47 AM”

With a name like yours, You sure are quick to dismiss my opinion.

I firmly believe that if we lose in Iraq and Afghanastan we will have more terror attacks on our shores within 5 years including suicide bombers.

Posted by: insensitive at April 3, 2007 3:38 PM
Comment #214865
Another 9/11 attack would certainly “phase” us! And, that’s exactly what will happen if we leave Iraq

rah, Islamic extremists will attempt another attack whether we leave or not — but, the attack will be planned, funded and directed from Pakistan, not Iraq. There is no way al-Qaeda can operate out of Iraq, even if we withdraw.

The notion that a Shiite-Kurdish-dominated government would tolerate Iraq becoming a safe haven for al-Qaeda is improbable on its face. Even if U.S. troops left Iraq, the successor government would continue to be dominated by Kurds and Shiites, since they make up more than 80 percent of Iraq’s population…

At best, al-Qaeda could hope for a tenuous presence in predominantly Sunni areas of the country while being incessantly stalked and harassed by government forces — and probably hostile Iraqi Sunnis as well. That doesn’t exactly sound like a reliable base of operations for attacks on America.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2007 5:24 PM
Comment #214866
as Al Qaede has claimed so many times, “Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror”.

Everytime I heard this line, it was claimed by the White House and Bush followers. I didn’t know Al Quaida are among them.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 3, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #214870

Insensitive,

I don’t think you really understand what is going on in Iraq. While there are Al Qaeda and other “terrorists” there, they aren’t the real problem. It is a Sunni/Shiite civil war. This is a totally different animal than the terrorist you fear so much. No Sunni or Shiite is coming over here to attack us once Iraq turns into total chaos and it is ridiculous to think so.

There also seems to be a tendency on the right to think that willing us to win in Iraq is going to make it happen. I could will myself to be purple and I could do this for years and I still won’t be purple. It is the same with this war. I do understand that losing this war is not without horrendous consequences but the fact is we are not going to win no matter what we do, how long we do it, and how many people we send over there to do it. It is already lost - it is tragic but true and since this war has been the creation of the neo-con right they seem to be willing to continue the sacrifice of American and Iraqi lives to try to save face.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 3, 2007 6:15 PM
Comment #214872
as Al Qaede has claimed so many times, “Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror”.

Rahdigly,

It’s the White House that makes these claims, not Al Qaida.

Funny. For all the times you’ve inaccurately accused us of considering Bush more of an enemy than the terrorists, this is I think the first time I’ve seen anyone call Bush a member of Al Qaida.

Well done.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 3, 2007 6:33 PM
Comment #214874

“Insensitive,

I don’t think you really understand what is going on in Iraq. While there are Al Qaeda and other “terrorists” there, they aren’t the real problem. It is a Sunni/Shiite civil war. This is a totally different animal than the terrorist you fear so much. No Sunni or Shiite is coming over here to attack us once Iraq turns into total chaos and it is ridiculous to think so.”

I understand a lot more about war and Iraq than you might think. I also understand a bit about war. I don’t think it will be sunnis or shiites who will be attacking us. I DO know that surrendering in Iraq will strengthen terrorists all over the world by making us look weak.

“There also seems to be a tendency on the right to think that willing us to win in Iraq is going to make it happen.”

I don’t know what the right are thinking, but I know that it takes hard work and a high price in life and money to win a war like this. Since you brought up will, I firmly believe you can will yourself to lose and that’s what I see from you and others like you.

“I could will myself to be purple and I could do this for years and I still won’t be purple.”

If you really want to be purple, hold your breath for 10 minutes.

“It is the same with this war. I do understand that losing this war is not without horrendous consequences but the fact is we are not going to win no matter what we do, how long we do it, and how many people we send over there to do it. It is already lost - it is tragic but true and since this war has been the creation of the neo-con right they seem to be willing to continue the sacrifice of American and Iraqi lives to try to save face.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 3, 2007 06:15 PM”

I’ll add you to the surrender column.

Posted by: insensitive at April 3, 2007 6:39 PM
Comment #214939

Newsflash:

“John McCain’s presidential bid went up in smoke in Baghdad, yesterday. Another casualty of war.”

Posted by: gergle at April 4, 2007 12:25 AM
Comment #214944
I know that it takes hard work and a high price in life and money to win a war like this.

insensitive, it takes even more than that. It takes a competence that this administration just does not have. It takes a lot of hard diplomatic work to get the three main Iraqi factions to stop fighting each other — work that this administration refuses to do. And it takes the 400,000 troops the military has asked for all along and which this administration refuses to commit.

If President Bush insists on losing this war by fighting it in the half-assed manner in which it’s been prosecuted over the last four years, then I cannot support him. And I don’t understand why you would support that kind of leadership either.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 4, 2007 1:59 AM
Comment #214952

I’ll fight a half assed war with a half assed leader before I surrender like some of you want to do.

Posted by: insensitive at April 4, 2007 4:18 AM
Comment #214956

I’ll fight a half assed war with a half assed leader before I surrender like some of you want to do.

This statement indicates the tone of a suicidal Bush lemming.

Posted by: ILdem at April 4, 2007 7:49 AM
Comment #214966
I’ll fight a half assed war with a half assed leader before I surrender like some of you want to do.

Please, please, please let me know when you play poker for money again. I’ll be there!

There’s no easier way to win a bunch at gambling than to have an opponent whose pride is so big that he’ll double-down on any bad bet, no matter how bad.

It’ll be so much fun for me to play with someone who prefers to lose huge instead of playing smart, throwing good money after bad instead of cutting losses when necessary to be able to have a better chance at the next hand (which is the better long-term strategy).

So, when will it be? I’ll bring the chips. You just bring your money. I prefer crisp bills.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 4, 2007 8:53 AM
Comment #214970

insensitive,

I DO know that surrendering in Iraq will strengthen terrorists all over the world by making us look weak.

Weaker? Eventually.
Weak? That’s already the case. The most powerfull and rich nation of the world didn’t succeed to bring security back in Iraq since 4 years. Wake up.

I don’t know what the right are thinking, but I know that it takes hard work and a high price in life and money to win a war like this.

But, still, no draft but tax cut during wartime.
Don’t worry, you’re not alone when it comes to know what the rights are thinking, indeed!

If you really want to be purple, hold your breath for 10 minutes.

We’re holding our breath since 4 years in Iraq and still no… cyanosis to see.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 4, 2007 9:40 AM
Comment #215004
“Everytime I heard this line, it was claimed by the White House and Bush followers. I didn’t know Al Quaida are among them.
“It’s the White House that makes these claims, not Al Qaida.”

No, it’s Al Qaeda saying it!!a>

“Bin Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the “American crusaders” and that the Iraqi insurgency has been “100 percent successful so far,” according to a Taliban participant at the mid-November meeting who goes by the nom de guerre Sharafullah.”

“Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits. All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said. Why? Because the terror chieftain and his top lieutenants see a great opportunity for killing Americans and their allies in Iraq and neighboring countries such as Turkey, according to Taliban sources who complain that their own movement will suffer.”

Posted by: rahdigly at April 4, 2007 12:57 PM
Comment #215006

rah,

For all that you copied, there’s nothing at all like the quoted “Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror”. For that, you have to look to Bush, Rice, etc.

What was your point again?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 4, 2007 1:10 PM
Comment #215012

Meanwhile everybody could find this line being *exactly* said by…

To the contrary, I believe it is critical that we continue to remind ourselves why this nation took action, and why Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, and why we have a duty to persevere.

—- Vice President’s Remarks on the War on Terror, November 21, 2005

Is Cheney an Al Quaida leader, or what?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 4, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #215075

Lawnboy, read the critiques again; those two bloggers said they only heard Bush and Company saying it and not Al Qaeda. Don’t get smarta-lecky and parse words here; the proof is right there. Bin Laden wants to cut back funding in Afghanistan; you know, the place where the left feels we should be exclusively to fight Al Qaeda, and send it to Iraq to “kill” Americans. That’s shifting the “focus” from Afghanistan to Iraq.

By the way, I saw this political parody commercial about the ACLU; the trademark was:
“The ACLU, protecting criminals from people like you since the 1920’s”. I immediately thought of you. Ha! Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 4, 2007 8:13 PM
Comment #215083
Don’t get smarta-lecky and parse words here; the proof is right there.

That’s right, rahdigly. I’ll keep in mind that the proof of any statement you make is in your mind, not in the actual text of the statement.

I didn’t realize it was considered “smarta-lecky” to be able to read, but point taken.

those two bloggers said they only heard Bush and Company saying it and not Al Qaeda.

And this helps your argument? You ascribe words to Al Qaida, and you point to a source of people who have heard Bush say it, but haven’t heard Al Qaida say it?

What????? It’s not even a quote of Al Qaida, it’s an analysis piece, and your description of it here is completely opposed to your point.

That’s shifting the “focus” from Afghanistan to Iraq.

And yet it doesn’t mean that it would become the “central front”, words that are directly taken from Bush, Rice, and Cheney.

Here’s a tip (which I have every reason to expect you will ignore): when you are challenged on a quote you have ascribed to a person or a group, you have to actually support the claim with a reference to the quote. Your extreme hand-waving in the face of supported opposing evidence does not constitute “proof”.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 4, 2007 8:39 PM
Comment #215106

Lawnboy, first off, you can keep your “tips” to yourself; the rahdigster doesn’t need them. Believe that! Also, I noticed you didn’t say anything about your precious ACLU. :-)


You’re parsing words when the source cites: “Bin Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the “American crusaders”“. Yet, you want to say that he didn’t say “Central focus”, so it’s not the same thing. It’s so funny watching some of you squirm around the obvious just to avoid reality; many of you hate Bush so bad you can’t even accept the facts on this one.


Keep trying Lawnboy; your ad hominem attacks are entertaining to me. I’m laughing at your comments not with them. Ha! Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 4, 2007 11:07 PM
Comment #215118
Bin Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the “American crusaders”

Sure. Iraq’s a lot easier for jihadists to get into than Afghanistan. But I don’t understand your point, rah. Bin Laden’s not in Iraq. Doesn’t it make more sense to move the central front in the war on terror to where its leadership is plotting the next attack on America?

According to whatever that was you cut & pasted there, it’s only costing bin Laden $1.5 million to get the US off his back and grind down our armed forces in a quagmire while he plots al-Qaeda’s next attack on America in peace.

You’re happy about that?

Posted by: American Pundit at April 5, 2007 2:21 AM
Comment #215122

LawnBoy,

Your extreme hand-waving in the face of supported opposing evidence does not constitute “proof”.

Oh please, everybody knows proofs are left-biased!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 5, 2007 5:01 AM
Comment #215123
many of you hate Bush so bad you can’t even accept the facts on this one.

We claim such quote was from White House officials *AND* provide one link from government web site to back it as fact.

Provide us a quote attributed to Al Quaida where it’s said that “Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror”, back up with a link, and you will have a fact we could accept.

Meanwhile, it’s only your claim.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 5, 2007 5:07 AM
Comment #215139

AP,

“”According to whatever that was you cut & pasted there, it’s only costing bin Laden $1.5 million to get the US off his back and grind down our armed forces in a quagmire while he plots al-Qaeda’s next attack on America in peace.” “


Try reading the Article first before you comment on the source! I linked it under No it’s Al Qaeda saying it!!; directly above the “pasted” quote.
Bin Laden’s Iraq Plans
At a secret meeting, bin Laden’s reps give bad news to the Taliban: Qaeda fighters are shifting to a new front.


“”Doesn’t it make more sense to move the central front in the war on terror to where its leadership is plotting the next attack on America?”

Yes, though the left doesn’t want to go into Iran! Yet, I’m sure you were referring to Pakistan. Right?!


Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2007 9:00 AM
Comment #215144
Lawnboy, first off, you can keep your “tips” to yourself; the rahdigster doesn’t need them. Believe that!

I do believe it. As I said, I don’t expect you to take it. By taking advice from someone, you’d have to admit that you don’t already know everything, something you seem to deny despite the obviousness to everyone else.

You’re parsing words when the source cites: “Bin Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the “American crusaders”“. Yet, you want to say that he didn’t say “Central focus”, so it’s not the same thing.

No, rah, this has nothing to do with parsing words. This is about your not knowing what you’re saying. Let’s look back at your initial claim:

as Al Qaede has claimed so many times, “Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror”.

Your claim here is that Al Qaida often has used the phrase “Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror”. In fact, as we have shown and described, that phrase is/was a favorite of Bush, Rice, and Cheney, not Al Qaida.

Furthermore, the link you provided as “evidence” shows that an analyst believes that Al Qaida might find Iraq to be an ideal battleground. That’s a completely different concept than the “central front” on the “war on terror”, that’s not a quote (as you implied), and that’s not support for your claim of “so many times”.

So, you claim a quote as coming often from a particular group. The evidence shows instead that the quote comes from someone else, it never came from the group you claim, and it didn’t come “so many times”. Congrats, you are wrong on the facts three times in one sentence.

It’s so funny watching some of you squirm around the obvious just to avoid reality

I’m sorry, but you’re the one squirming around the fact that you incorrectly ascribed a quote to someone. Hatred or acceptance of Bush has nothing to do with your inability to make or defend an argument.

your ad hominem attacks are entertaining to me.

Once again, you show you don’t know what an ad hominem attack is. Please learn the meaning of words that you use.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 5, 2007 9:04 AM
Comment #215157
you hate Bush so bad

I have to point out the delicious irony of this statement.

Rahdigly confuses Bush with Al Qaida, putting the words of our president in the mouths of a terrorist organization. A few of us point out that, no, Bush is not a spokesman for Al Qaida, and that the quote is misattributed.

What on earth could be our motivation for pointing out that President Bush is not a member of the terrorist organization that attacked us 5 years ago? According to Rahdigly, it’s that we hate Bush.

Of course.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 5, 2007 10:19 AM
Comment #215195
Yet, I’m sure you were referring to Pakistan. Right?!

I was. Let me get this straight, rah: You are absolutely fine with letting the perpetrator of 9/11 plan his next attack on US soil in peace.

That sounds traitorous. Are you speaking for all Republicans when you say that? ‘Cause that would explain a lot.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 5, 2007 12:42 PM
Comment #215242

‘the rahdigster’?

Too funny.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 5, 2007 3:15 PM
Comment #215246

AP,
“That sounds traitorous. Are you speaking for all Republicans when you say that? ‘Cause that would explain a lot.”

There’s that word again “traitorous”. You’re fixated on that word; though, you might want to attribute it towards the dems, they are the one’s getting played by the terrorists. And, going to Pakistan is not the answer. They have a myriad of islamofundamentalist that would overthrow the gov’t; a gov’t that has a nuclear weapon, by the way. We don’t know for sure if Bin Laden is (definitely) in Pakistan and, even if he was, he’s not going to end the war on terrorism. Besides, some believe he’s in Iran and has been there for years; though we don’t know for sure.


Lawnboy,

“Rahdigly confuses Bush with Al Qaida, putting the words of our president in the mouths of a terrorist organization. A few of us point out that, no, Bush is not a spokesman for Al Qaida, and that the quote is misattributed.”

I will admit that I did misattribute the terrorists saying “Iraq’s the central focus”; that was the Bush Admin that said that. However, Al Qaeda has indeed been focusing their efforts to Iraq (to which I’ve sourced) and they (Al Qaeda) are certainly proving Bush’s claims to be true. Yet, the anti-Bushies won’t admit it; most of their (hateful) complaints are centered around leaving Afghanistan to go fight Iraq. Now, Al Qaeda’s doing that and it’s (somehow) Bush’s fault for claiming “Iraq as the central front”.


Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2007 4:07 PM
Comment #215249
they are the one’s getting played by the terrorists.

Says you.

We don’t know for sure if Bin Laden is (definitely) in Pakistan

You’ll have to take that up with the CIA. They say he is — and he’s rebuilt his networks and training camps there because Republicans like yourself are being played into thinking Iraq is important.

As Al Qaeda rebuilds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, a new generation of leaders has emerged under Osama bin Laden to cement control over the network’s operations, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

You say,

a gov’t that has a nuclear weapon, by the way.

And you think it’s a grand idea to let bin Laden run around loose in a country dominated by Islamic fundamentalists with nuclear weapons? You think it’s just dandy to let al Qaeda plot a nuclear strike against the US in peace?

I take back the “traitorous” comment. You sound like you’ve merely let your partisanship override whatever good judgement you may have.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 5, 2007 4:25 PM
Comment #215254
I will admit that I did misattribute

What? Rahdigly admits he’s wrong about something? Finally! How many times of pointing out blatant errors of fact and logical flaws did it take? Wow!

Heck, I’ll even ignore your insistence that disagreeing with you on strategy is “hateful”.

Yipee! I’ll have to go find Rocky.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 5, 2007 4:54 PM
Comment #215273

Lawnboy, that’s what being a man is about! And, “telling Rocky”; he needs to just answer questions (specifically). Now, YOU still haven’t scored a victory on anything b/c Bush is still right about Al Qaeda focusing on Iraq. You didn’t mention anything about the article and the fact that most of the left has been crying about just focusing on Afghanistan rather than Iraq.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2007 7:16 PM
Comment #215275

I’m sorry, rah, I’m not going there. You got caught (again) not knowing what you’re talking about, so you’ve completely changed the subject. Have fun on your diversionary tangent.

I’ll see you on the other side.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 5, 2007 7:37 PM
Comment #215277

Sounds like a (true) “cut” and “runner”!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2007 8:06 PM
Comment #215301

Where would the world be without parentheses?

“Parentheses are occasionally and sparingly used for extra, nonessential material included in a sentence.”

Posted by: Rocky at April 6, 2007 12:30 AM
Comment #215335
I will admit that I did misattribute the terrorists saying “Iraq’s the central focus”; that was the Bush Admin that said that.

Thanks to, finally, agree with us on that.

However, Al Qaeda has indeed been focusing their efforts to Iraq (to which I’ve sourced) and they (Al Qaeda) are certainly proving Bush’s claims to be true. Yet, the anti-Bushies won’t admit it; most of their (hateful) complaints are centered around leaving Afghanistan to go fight Iraq. Now, Al Qaeda’s doing that and it’s (somehow) Bush’s fault for claiming “Iraq as the central front”.

If Bush didn’t choose to go in Iraq, today Bush admin will be still known to say “Afghanistan is the central front in the War on Terror” and Al Quaeda would have *not* shift its focus from Afghanistan to Iraq.

You make it like the War On Terror battlefield was choosed by Al Quaeda. But the last time they did it was in NYC, 9/11.
Since, Bush choose the battlefield. First Afghanistan (OBL was there being a good reason), then, for unrelated reasons, Iraq.

Al Quaeda just goes where they could easily attack US soldiers. And it’s easier for them in muslims region than, well, South Korea, Gitmo or obviously on US soil. Should Bush choosed to go war against Pakistan, Syria or Iran instead of Iraq, Al Quaeda focus will have moved in Pakistan, Syria or Iran, no doubt.

But we knows it break your “Saddam was behind 9/11” line. How sad.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 6, 2007 10:21 AM
Post a comment