Ayman al-Zawahri Adopts Howard Dean Talking Points (Updated)
Via Yahoo/Al-Reuters, Al Qaeda's number two guy is insisting that Osama Bin Ladin is still in charge:
"I bring a message of joy to all Muslims and mujahideen that al Qaeda is spreading, expanding and strengthening. Its prince Sheikh Osama bin Laden is still leading its jihad (holy war)," he said in a video interview aired on an Islamist Web site.
It's getting increasingly difficult to determine who is writing the talking points, and who is simply repeating them, as Al Zawahri appears to be channeling Howard Dean:
Zawahri said the United States had suffered a defeat in Iraq and it was only a matter of time before it pulled out its troops.
"Iraq is a catastrophe for America and Americans will leave, it will only be a matter of time.
"I say to Bush: You entered Iraq with lies, you will lose Iraq and lie about it and you will leave with the pretext that you have completed your mission ... America only has to decide on the number of (troops) it wishes to lose before withdrawing."
I hope Howard is proud of himself.
Updated: Klause corrects me - Al Zawahri's statement does indeed pre-date Howard's. Thanks, Klause - good catch!
The point is still valid, though. And it's been pointed out by others, many times, the uncanny similarity between the talking points of the left and the rhetoric of the terrorists. Howard really needs to pull his head out and ask himself if he really wants to throw in with a bunch of murderous thugs before he opens his mouth.
1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Ayman al-Zawahri Adopts Howard Dean Talking Points (Updated).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.dontgointothelight.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4805
From a press release by the Florida Democratic Party: "With the President's latest PR campaign clearly failing, Republicans like Jeff Miller are now cherry-picking Governor Dean's words just like they cherry-picked the pre-war intelligence." Hmm. Let's... Read More
What's even more terrifying is that Zarhawi was able to travel three months into the future to retrieve those talking points from Dean so he could discuss them in an interview that took place on September 17th.
My question for the bellicose:
What does Victory in Iraq mean?
If we leave and they set up a Shia dominated Islanmic state that is essentially an offshoot of Iran, would we have won?
If we leave Iraq and civil war breaks out within five years, or sectarian violence continues, did we win?
If we are forced to keep some kind of military presence in Iraq in perpetuity to maintain stability, does that mean we won?
I just want one conservative to actually define their terms.
What is "victory?"
You're right, Klaus. It's like their psychically connected.
The point is not who said it first. It's that they're all saying we lost. We must retreat. We must surrender.
If the Bush administration were at all competent, they would have killed or captured al Zawahri and his boss long before now. The fact that this terrorist is still sitting there making tapes and giving orders for bin Laden is just more evidence that Bush has not made the world any safer. It's more evidence that the neocon approach to terrorism is wrong. Sorry, warmongers, but treating terrorism as a military issue doesn't work. Terrorism is an international law enforcement challenge. It requires cooperation between law enforcement agencies world-wide. Unilateral military action cannot and will never stop terrorism.
Thanks for the post, Bill.
I'm afraid I have to disagree - when nations support terror, we have no choice but to use our military. Who would act as law enforcement? The UN (chuckle)?
One party's already been victorious:
Iran.
Shingles,
Lets hope not.
LB, are you implying that Iraq supported Islamic fundamentalist terrorists before we invaded?
If you really believe that the US needs to use its military to police countries that support terror, we should have invaded Iran and Syria, not some secular dictatorship.
The misconceptions on the right are ghastly. We started a war unecessarily that could have been avoided by just allowing the UN, yes the UN, to continue to do its job. That the American public thinks Iraq was involved in 9/11 says volumes about the success of the misinformation campaign that Bush and Cheny ran. So sad.
Even when it's a "nation that supports terror," as was the case with the Taliban in Afganistan, military invasion does not stop terrorism. Terrorists can simply fade into the crowd or cross the border into Northwest Pakistan. No, since terrorism is not characterized by military attack or invasion, but is instead always a criminal act waged on society, law enforcement, aided by military assets, is the only way to fight it. Intelligence gathering, cooperation between different countries' law enforcement agencies and, yes, specific military strikes short of all out invasion or all out military force are the only things that work. The last three years should have taught us this if we didn't know it already.
You're right, it's not a matter of who said it first, or who said it all. What matters is whether or not its true, and one thing the White House (and the Republican blogosphere by extension) doesn't understand is that this isn't a PR issue, this isn't about the effectiveness of propaganda, nor is it about the White House and DOD's belief that the solution is playing with terms and altering public perception (i.e. Rumsfeld's recent 'epiphany' that the insurgency will end if we stop thinking of it as an insurgency). This is an existential problem, and no amount of cheerleading or Ivy League PR svengalis can change the reality of what's going on in Iraq (a reality that Murtha laid out very well in his devastating speech this afternoon). I do remember a time, just a few years ago actually, when conservatives would bemoan the delusions of ivory tower academics and their abstracted disconnect with common sense reality. Now, look at the Republicans, being dragged into the mud by Wolfowitz, Kristol, and the rest of the reformed Trotskyites dictating neocon foreign policy with all the real world experience and common sense of a trust-funded grad student (oh wait, that's right, they WERE trust-funded grad students).
Yes, lazerlou, Iraq did. Hussein gave money to terrorist's families, offered sanctuary to terrorists (including Al Qaeda), and built training camps.
Iraq was in violation of how many UN resolutions over how many years?
The UN apparently has infinite patience. Those who have to live in the real world can't afford to.
I would point out that Saddam's regime supported anti-Isralie Palestinian terror. If that were a criteria for invasion, we could invade a half dozen other middle-eastern nations. Saudi Arabia and a number of other nations sent money to the families of suicide bombers as well. The Saudis even held a telethon for Palestinian families who produced suicide bombers.
I have never seen evidence that Saddam gave shelter to Al Qaeda. I have seen much evidence that they hated him and his secular dictatorship, and he hated them. That they're there now, ex post, doesn't support your argument.
And what training camps are you referring to? This is the first I've ever heard of such training camps, and I'm a foreign policy junkie. There is no chance Saddam ever supported fundamentalist jihad training.
As for the finacial support for Paestinians, see Bill's post above. And if that is sufficient to justify invasion, we should have taken out Syria and Saudi Arabi well before Iraqm, who support Paletinian terrorist far more than Saddam ever did.
It is ok to admit that Bush made a huge mistake if you are a conservative. You don't have to believe, as I do, that he started this war for personal reasons, both financial and familial. But most of the thoughtful cnservatives I know are ready to admit that this war was a huge mistake and has not made the world any safer.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for someon who supports our military efforts in Iraq to give me a working definition of what "victory" means.
Do we win if we leave an islamic state? Do we win if teh Sunni and Shia start a civil war? Do we win if we are forced to remain in Iraq in some way shape or form forever to keep things stable?
What cowards.
Blame Howard Dean for quoting the American Generals and ignore the bad (and non-existant) planning by the child, George Bush.
It truly is cowardly to blame failure on what anyone says. Words don't cause failure. Actions do.
If all it took was one sentence from Howard Dean to create failure in Iraq, how sound could have the initial policy been? If the policy was so incredibly vulnerable that 10 words destroyed it, possibly it was foolish in the first place (that was a joke, of course bushboy policy is foolish - by definition).
But why the diversion towards Howard Dean and not working on 'victory'? That's easy to answer.
The answer is that Republicans are cowardly by nature. Lots of tough talk while hiding behind a PC. Rabid support for a war that they would NEVER EVER join. Not one person blogging on this site would go to fight in Iraq. That's for the other 'unclean' people to do.
Anyone who asks others to die for their foreign policy 'theory', but refuse to go themselves, is a coward. Simple as that. I know it hurts you because you like tough talk, but that's all it is - tough talk.
bok bok Chicken Hawks
LB,
you're so gun ho. Where are you serving in Iraq? Or are you just one more Republicoward?
that was rhetorical. Of course we all know you are a coward.
bok bok Chicken Hawk
LB,
you're so gun ho. Where are you serving in Iraq? Or are you just one more Republicoward?
that was rhetorical. Of course we all know you are a coward.
oh... don't forget. George Bush was supporting terrorists. The 911 attackers were in the country George Bush was the 'leader' of. Bush was president for 9 months while they roamed freely in this country because he was too busy worrying about internet porn. How did that 'battle' go? How did Ashcroft get off of that hook.
The 911 4-year bush grace period is officially over. 2006 - Democrats in the Congress, justice for Bush crimes. Less than a year away!
ha ha ha
bok bok Chicken Hawk
Lars, you are not very smart. If you were, then you would have see on the blog that that LB has already served his country.
The 911 attackers came to this country under Clinton. Guess he was to busy looking up skirts.
Chicken Hawk?
Coward, usually don't fight in a war, they are called LIBS.
That would make LB the Hawk and you the Chicken, wouldn't it? ( more like chicken s**t)
I'll give you my opinion on Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia: Invade them, too! Not using the same tactics perhaps, but bombing raids and what not! I hate all those nations and they are all a threat to this nation. Once we stabilize Iraq, I would see no problem with considering military action against these nations. You're gonna say I'm crazy but what do I care.
Secondly, as for Saddam's connections to al-Qaeda-- While it is true that the 9/11 commission found that there was never a so-called "collaborative" relationship, it did in fact have an active correspondence and openness to Saddam's regime. Don't believe me? Then you haven't read a whole lot.
Thomas Kean of the 9/11 commission said, quite clearly, that "there was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida. At one point, there was thought maybe even Al Qaida would find sanctuary in Iraq. And there were conversations that went on over a number of years, sometimes successful, sometimes unsuccessfully."
They hated each other?! Then maybe you can tell me why they were always engaged in thoughtful discussions on how to bring down America. Maybe Iraq never did give money to al-Qaeda or form a "collaborative relationship." But a lack of "collaborative relationship" has turned into, as Al Franken has said, no relationship at all.
By the way, if Bush really lied about al-Qaeda/terrorism connections, then so did impeached former president Bill Clinton's administration. As you may remember, the administration at the time indicted Osama bin Laden. And guess what the indictment said?
"Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist
group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their
perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
OOPS! Looks like we have two lying-liar Presidents here!
And you are forgetting the fact that British Intelligence still stands by the belief that Iraq sought uranium in Niger. You probably don't know this but the British government did an investigation into this and guess what-- they still stand by the statement! It was NOT based on the so-called "Yellowcake Forgery," as British intel services had not even obtained a copy of the forged documents when it reported that Iraq sought uranium. That would mean Bush DID NOT lie. Remember, Bush cited "British intelligence."
Please obtain a basic understanding of the nature of why conservatives support the war in Iraq before ever talking about it again.
Oh, and BTW-- assuming that liberals aren't lying when they claim to support Bush's war in Afghanistan, are YOU a Chickenhawk for not heading on over there to fight for it? C'mon ya chickenhawk.... didn't you sign up right after 9/11 to go to war? No? Oh but you were SO supportive of the war right after 9/11!
Quit it with the tired talking points.
Oh and just to give you links to verify my sources on my first post:
For the 9/11 commission comment, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6014-2004Jul22_3.html
Clinton Indictment you can read here: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
And you can read the Butler Review which vindicated the intel on Iraq/uranium here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_07_04_butler.pdf
Have fun!
Please answer lazerlou's question.
"Do we win if we leave an islamic state? Do we win if the Sunni and Shia start a civil war? Do we win if we are forced to remain in Iraq in some way shape or form forever to keep things stable."
I'm tired of the arguments. The republicans control all branches of goverment. They are going to be calling the shots. What's the plan?
What is America going to get for the 250+ billion dollars and the 1000s of lives? Please answer.
The surest sign that things are in fact going terribly in Iraq is the Right's pathetic and obscene attempt to paint democrats as terrorist collaborators.
Klaus is right on - Bush's carefully staged, "Victory" speech on Iraq just shows that the Bushies are more focused on media presentations for domestic consumption than on what to do about the mess they predictably created in Iraq. No matter how the right-wing spinmeisters try to manipulate perceptions, reality has a way of asserting itself. And that reality is ugly - very very ugly, and not likely to get better for as long as we are there.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq are slipping into the hands of the fundamentalists, and we are hated around the world - NOT because of our way of life (as Bush dimly repeats ad nauseum) but because of our actions. The Iraq war has become al-qaida's best recruiting tool. In this context, the road to "Victory" over terrorism begins by extracating ourselves from Bush's Iraq folly.
"Do we win if we leave an islamic state? Do we win if the Sunni and Shia start a civil war?"
Thanks for making the absolute best case for staying in Iraq, stabilizing the country, and preventing civil disrest. We must stay to PREVENT these things, do you not understand this!?
I guess cutting and running and leaving the nation to ZARQAWHI'S disposal is a much better plan, right buddy? How does "Al-Qaedastan" sound? Imagine an al-Qaeda member ruling an entire nation. We must CRUSH the insurgency, not leave. Why not suggest ways to crush the insurgency instead of ways to abandon the Iraqis and leave the nation to Iran, the Baathists, or, worst of all, al-Qaeda.
"The surest sign that things are in fact going terribly in Iraq is the Right's pathetic and obscene attempt to paint democrats as terrorist collaborators."
I don't think all Democrats are traitors. Just some.
"Klaus is right on - Bush's carefully staged, "Victory" speech on Iraq just shows that the Bushies are more focused on media presentations for domestic consumption than on what to do about the mess they predictably created in Iraq. No matter how the right-wing spinmeisters try to manipulate perceptions, reality has a way of asserting itself. And that reality is ugly - very very ugly, and not likely to get better for as long as we are there. "
Alright? I don't see any logical points in there so there's really no way to respond unless I risk lowering my own IQ.
"Both Afghanistan and Iraq are slipping into the hands of the fundamentalists,"
Huh? They're voting freely for whoever they want. Define fundamentalist and make the case for how they are taking over these nations.
" and we are hated around the world - NOT because of our way of life (as Bush dimly repeats ad nauseum) but because of our actions."
WHAT?! To the forgetful: WE WERE ATTACKED BEFORE WE WERE IN IRAQ! WE WERE NOT IN AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2001. YET THE VERY NEXT DAY THE VERMIN OF THE EARTH FLEW PLANES INTO OUR ECONOMIC AND MILITARY HEADQUARTERS. WHAT "ACTIONS," OTHER THAN NOT ENSLAVING WOMEN AND KILLING POLITICAL OPPONENTS, HAD AMERICA COMMITTED THEN? WHAT DID AMERICA DO THAT TIME?! Do you see now why so many conservatives are quick to call you people traitors?
"The Iraq war has become al-qaida's best recruiting tool."
Once again, they were at war with us far before Iraq. If we weren't there, they'd have another reason. We must crush those worthless peices of garbage regardless of what they believe or want.
" In this context, the road to "Victory" over terrorism begins by extracating ourselves from Bush's Iraq folly. "
Nope! That's called the road to "Failure."
But hey cutting and running has always worked, right? When we cut and run from Somalia, for instance! That certainly put a cap on the growth of terrorism. And Vietnam! The south did a great job of guarding themselves from the Northern Communist front. Oh, and the Bay of Pigs! Castro is now out of power and Cuba is a wonderful little democracy.
Cutting and running always works in the minds of liberals, doesn't it?
Truth hurts, Scrappy
Or are you saying that YOU are avoiding the war cause you are a Liberal. Both you and LB are cowards. I don't care what you or LB did in the past. We live in the present. What is LB doing now?
How are you winning the war, scrappy? With guns or hiding behind your Dell, dude?
911 attackers were here for 9 months under bush/Ashcroft's not-very-aware noses. They attacked while bush read children's books. Ashcroft draped curtains over statues.
To NeoCowardCentral,
I know why conservatives support the war in Iraq. Because they are too cowardly to do what is really necessary to neutralize the mid-east. They'd rather drive guzzlers and send off soldiers to die than make the tough choices. We've been watching this come to fruition for decades. You're not fooling anyone.
I did notice that usual Republicoward canard. There are lots of dictators out there that presidents speak about (including the child bushboy). That is wildly different than mounting and invasion and occupation. I don't see you joining to fight in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia - where the real support for islamic terrorists is.
Truth hurts... you are cowards. No excuses or hyperbole on your part get around the fact that you need people to die for something that you do not in the slightest understand. Bush counts on support from the Useful-Fascists like yourself. How else is he going to boost his family and friends profits? How much did Cheney personally make off the war last year alone? over 25 million... Fancy that. Coincedence I guess.
2006 - welcome to the year of impeaching the seditious president. Get used to it. ha ha.
bok bok chicken hawks
Ok, neocon. So you have answered my question. Thankyou. We "lose" if those things happen.
You arguments seems to assume that the insurgency can be "crushed," as if it is some kind of real army with limited population.
I guess my next question would be, do you think we can fully "crush" this insurgency or do you admit as long as we are there, Sunnis and Islamic extremist will be resisting us, therefore creating a need for perpetual occupation?
Do you admit that there is a guerilla war there, with a continuous stream of fighters, and as such the insurgency can never be fully eliminated? Or do you think we can successfully get rid of all sunni and islamic resistence?
I just want to make sure I understand what "Victory" means in the eyes of people like you. Do you think there can be a discreet end to all this, or do you admit that now that we are there, we will have to be there in perpetuity. And if that is the case, does that mean we "win?"
Dear NeoCon:
"Thanks for making the absolute best case for staying in Iraq, stabilizing the country, and preventing civil disrest. We must stay to PREVENT these things, do you not understand this!?"
Do you not understand that the unrest, the possibility for sectarian war, and for a fundamentalist state to emerge in Iraq were caused by the US invasion, and that these things were predicted by regional experts before Bushies went and did the dumb thing? Look, all of those things are real possibilities, whether we leave now or leave in 10 years. So why don't we save hundreds of billions and thousands of lives by leaving now?
In fact, leaving now - the least bad choice - may give Iraq the best chance for reaching some sort of stability. With us gone, the Shi'a and Kurds would be free to assert their dominance. The US being there only fuels more insurgency, and gives the sectarian violence there some credibility as fighting against foreign occupation.
Finally we are having a national debate over the wisdom of continuing this ill-conceived policy. But as we move forward, we must also never forget who lead us into this mess, and that we should have had this debate 3 years.
And neocon, you kind of sound like an idiot when referencing Viet Nam. Viet Nam proved that peace combine with time, or "cutting and running," as you so sheepishly put it, does in fact work. Viet Nam is a peaceful country again that is pro-western. I'm sure that if we had stayed in Viet Nam forever, like you seem to be suggesting for Iraq, that the country would be in as good shape as it is now.
Wow I'm the one who uses only hyperbole lars? Funny, my first post was filled with facts. Your's was filled with hyperbole. Point by point:
"I know why conservatives support the war in Iraq. Because they are too cowardly to do what is really necessary to neutralize the mid-east. They'd rather drive guzzlers and send off soldiers to die than make the tough choices. We've been watching this come to fruition for decades. You're not fooling anyone."
OOO, spooky secret neocon agenda! Beware the conservatives, lars!
"I did notice that usual Republicoward canard. There are lots of dictators out there that presidents speak about (including the child bushboy). That is wildly different than mounting and invasion and occupation. I don't see you joining to fight in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia - where the real support for islamic terrorists is."
Before I continue: I agree about Saudi Arabia but I also challenge you to remind me which Democratic president took a harsher stance with the Saudi's. Now, as for Pakistan: Isn't that funny? Only ONE Islamic nation GENUINELY joins the U.S. to fight terrorism, actively finding and arresting al-Qaeda terrorists, and, so, who does the Left think are the REAL BAD GUYS?! That one country, of course! Starting to notice a bit of a pattern here, lars? The real Islamic nation we should invade is the one helping us fight al-Qaeda. Why is that? Is that coincidental?
"Truth hurts... you are cowards. No excuses or hyperbole on your part get around the fact that you need people to die for something that you do not in the slightest understand. Bush counts on support from the Useful-Fascists like..." BLAH BLAH BLAH
I'm SICK of hearing that! Quit it with the OLD talking point that "Democrats and liberals are the smart ones and conservatives just sit there and absorb everything they hear." No, not all of them, and certainly not me. I am the only one that gave HARD, SOLID facts in my posts so far(and I tried to post links to verifying stories but it wouldn't let me.) All the libs have just regurgitated the Frankenspeak: "Chickenhawks!" "Liars!" Easily mislead!" SHUT UP.
"2006 - welcome to the year of impeaching the seditious president. Get used to it. ha ha."
AaaaaHAHAHAAHA. You'd think you libs would catch on eventually: If the Dems wanted to impeach Bush, wouldn't they have done it earlier? Hmmm, we all keep hearing he should be impeached for lying, yet it never happens. The Dems certainly hate him enough. So why won't they? Ever considered that maybe even your own party leaders see that the grounds for an impeachment of this President is shaky at best, and, at worst, flat-out unrealistic? Why won't they impeach him if they have the evidence lars?
Neocon: "I guess cutting and running and leaving the nation to ZARQAWHI'S disposal is a much better plan, right buddy?"
I think a little factual context is in order here. According to our Pentagon, the military offered the Bush administration 3 separate chances to kill Zarqawi in early 2003. Each time, Bush rejected the plan for what the Pentagon called "political reasons." The Bush admin. felt that killing Zarqawi would "undercut some of the rational for invasion." Zarqawi has gone on to personally cut two Americans' heads off and kill hundreds in terrorist attacks. This was reported on MSNBC and the Washington Post briefly and then quickly dropped. Just how serious was the Bush administration about killing terrorists? Zarqawi's not the first guy they've let off the hook.
"Do you not understand that the unrest, the possibility for sectarian war, and for a fundamentalist state to emerge in Iraq were caused by the US invasion, and that these things were predicted by regional experts before Bushies went and did the dumb thing? Look, all of those things are real possibilities, whether we leave now or leave in 10 years. So why don't we save hundreds of billions and thousands of lives by leaving now?
In fact, leaving now - the least bad choice - may give Iraq the best chance for reaching some sort of stability. With us gone, the Shi'a and Kurds would be free to assert their dominance. The US being there only fuels more insurgency, and gives the sectarian violence there some credibility as fighting against foreign occupation.
Finally we are having a national debate over the wisdom of continuing this ill-conceived policy. But as we move forward, we must also never forget who lead us into this mess, and that we should have had this debate 3 years. "
Not very specific. Let's hear some more specificity. I just hear wanting blather without any facts or citations.
"And neocon, you kind of sound like an idiot when referencing Viet Nam. Viet Nam proved that peace combine with time, or "cutting and running," as you so sheepishly put it, does in fact work. Viet Nam is a peaceful country again that is pro-western. I'm sure that if we had stayed in Viet Nam forever, like you seem to be suggesting for Iraq, that the country would be in as good shape as it is now."
Oh wow, I forgot what a rosy picture Vietnam truly was. Your right. Thousands upon thousands didn't continue to die after we cut and run from Vietnam. Admittedly, the war could have been slightly better handled. And there's nothing wrong with saying that. I disagree with some of the ways this war has been handled. But I refuse to call for a withdrawal at a time where leaving could mean just another brutal Islamist fascist state.
"Time combined with peace" has resulted in one thing over the years: Bloodshed, more bloodshed, bloodshed again, and then, maybe if we are lucky, eventually 40 years later peace again.
And what is worng with Castro neocon? I do admit he violate shuman rights, but so do we. At least in his country working people have healthcare! I can only imagine how successful Cuba might have been had the US cooperated with it after the cold war ended. Pretty amazing countr if you ask me given the economic dicrimination they were up against after the fall of teh Soviet Union.
Neocon Central: "If the Dems wanted to impeach Bush, wouldn't they have done it earlier?"
Republicans control both houses. Therefore, all committee chairpersons are republicans and they set the agenda. That is why there have been no investigations into anything. The Provisional Authority under Paul Bremer couldn't account for $9 Billion in taxpayer money, potentially the largest taxpayer fraud in American history, and republicans running congress couldn't care less. Just 7 years ago, they spent $70 million investigating a President's role in a losing $250K land deal.
"I don't think all Democrats are traitors. Just some."
ALL bush supporting Republicans are cowards. No exception. Some are traitors.
Bush in the traitor for sending troops to die based on lies, for profiteering off of the war, and for undermining the CIA's WMD detection efforts.
Bush could have told the truth in the first place, that this war is a theory advanced by oil company lobbyists such as Cheney and Rice. But if bush boy did tell the truth, he'd have the of about 3 people.
bok bok Chicken Hawks
"Ok, neocon. So you have answered my question. Thankyou. We "lose" if those things happen.
You arguments seems to assume that the insurgency can be "crushed," as if it is some kind of real army with limited population.
I guess my next question would be, do you think we can fully "crush" this insurgency or do you admit as long as we are there, Sunnis and Islamic extremist will be resisting us, therefore creating a need for perpetual occupation?
Do you admit that there is a guerilla war there, with a continuous stream of fighters, and as such the insurgency can never be fully eliminated? Or do you think we can successfully get rid of all sunni and islamic resistence?
I just want to make sure I understand what "Victory" means in the eyes of people like you. Do you think there can be a discreet end to all this, or do you admit that now that we are there, we will have to be there in perpetuity. And if that is the case, does that mean we "win?""
It's very simple, sir: We stay until Iraq has a large enough military and a strong security force so that they may protect themselves. Is that a complicated concept? We CAN crush these terrorist scumbags. It may take a while. (OH NO! FINISHING A JOB!?) But eventually Iraq its self will be able to maintain its own security.
BTW-- I'll admit that the war shouldve been run a bit more old-fashioned style, i.e. dropping leaflets in cities warning people to leave in 48 hours with no weapons whatsoever, assigning checkpoints on the outskirts, checking citizens for weapons (shooting them dead if any are found) and then entirely flattening the city and starting anew. But in all likelihood, you wouldn't support this route either. Hey I got a question: Is there anyway you CAN win a war in LibWorld? Like I mean a real war.... with those gun things and stuff.... is there a way you think we can win anything at all?
With all due respect neocon, and there is not much due, you obviously have no idea how impeachment works. Perhaps if the Dems controlled the House, Bush would have been impeached by now.
And I'd hate to sound like a cynic, but there was plenty of bloodshed in Iraq before we arrives, and there will be plenty after we've gone.
At least it isn't ours.
Hey lars, since you decided to respond to only one single point I made, I'll do the same:
"Bush could have told the truth in the first place, that this war is a theory advanced by oil company lobbyists such as Cheney and Rice. "
Got any evidence other than paranoid suspicions?
Neocoward,
A quick word in support of Bill who notes that Bush can't be impeached as long as he has the support of the Republicoward controlled congress. That's how Congress works. Even Nixon was safe until he lost the confidence of his party.
That's changing next year. Feel that wind? That's change. Count how many soldiers are coming back Democrat.. and they're all running for congress.
Got all those swift boats ready? you'll need them.
bok bok Chicken Hawks
"And what is worng with Castro neocon? I do admit he violate shuman rights, but so do we. At least in his country working people have healthcare! I can only imagine how successful Cuba might have been had the US cooperated with it after the cold war ended. Pretty amazing countr if you ask me given the economic dicrimination they were up against after the fall of teh Soviet Union."
Oh sorry-- I made the mistake of thinking that you weren't one of those CRAZY leftists who see no big in Communism, no big in lack of freedom of speech, no big with Castro. I was wrong. Castro=good because they have healthcare! (And I'm sure the doctors there are amazingly sanitary and that the healthcare is the most advanced in the world.)
Neocon,
Nobody wins at war. Its about how little you lose.
Yes you can win a conventional war where there are armies sponsored by states. I'm not sure calling an unjust invasion and a resistace by the minority group that used to be in power a war. Nor do I consider terrorist a proper war enemy.
If you want my answer to teh problem of terrorism, you address the sources of the problem, not the symptoms. The cold war has been over for 20 years. It is time to scale back thhe international presence of our imperialistic military industrial complex. Religioud freaks are just that - freaks. We nee dto free them from religion through economic progress and education. The enlightenment hasnt really taken hold in Islamic countries. That is our project, not military dominance and having military bases in every country in the world, which just breeds resentment. I'd also allow them to keep the profit form their oil, not our oil companies. But that is just MHO.
Neocon Central: "It's very simple, sir: We stay until Iraq has a large enough military and a strong security force so that they may protect themselves. Is that a complicated concept?"
I believe people are starting to understand that any size military or military operation cannot stop terrorism. Terrorism, as I said above, is basically a seemingly random criminal act committed by un-uniformed people who can fade into the crowd or cross the border to another country. And, Neocon, before you go off on "LIBS" for not being able to wage war, please go back to the history book and check into WWI and WWII.
Neocon, now you are being ignorant. Cuba has one of the best health care systems in the world and have created some of the most advanced medical procedures available. Look it up. I'm no fan of a lack of freedom of speech or press, but might I remind you the Bush administration has been caught covertly paying independent media outlets to advance its propoganda both here and in Iraq. So much for free press huh?
"With all due respect neocon, and there is not much due, you obviously have no idea how impeachment works. Perhaps if the Dems controlled the House, Bush would have been impeached by now.
And I'd hate to sound like a cynic, but there was plenty of bloodshed in Iraq before we arrives, and there will be plenty after we've gone.
At least it isn't ours."
Control over the House is needed for demaning an article of Impeachment? As far as I remember, only one prominent Democrat ever called for impeachment of Bush and that was years ago, he's now out of office and he was not even a Representative. Tell your leaders to get the balls to at the very least say that Bush should be Impeached. If they won't even say it now, why do you think they'll do it then?
"And, Neocon, before you go off on "LIBS" for not being able to wage war, please go back to the history book and check into WWI and WWII."
Hey idiot-- check out some of the things those "libs" believed. FDR threw Japs in the Pacific into internment camps. Do you agree with racial internment for the Arabs/Muslims? After all, the "liberal" FDR did it. Oh and Wilson? What a great example! He, unlike FDR, holds many more parallels to the modern liberals. He refused to go to war until he absolutely had to-- after being attacked repeatedly at sea. Then, to top it all off, he led an end to the war that led like night and day to World War 2.
Wilson you're right, he's certainly a liberal. FDR, however, holds almost no parrallels. Do you support racial internment?
"Neocon, now you are being ignorant. Cuba has one of the best health care systems in the world and have created some of the most advanced medical procedures available. Look it up. I'm no fan of a lack of freedom of speech or press, but might I remind you the Bush administration has been caught covertly paying independent media outlets to advance its propoganda both here and in Iraq. So much for free press huh?"
Hmmm... well if you knew your history, you'd know that slipping propaganda into countries in which the U.S. is stabilizing has been quite common practice for decades in this country. It's called "winning wars."
As for healthcare: I'm not changing my opinion. Nice healthcare does not qualify for Castro's well documented supression of freedom and his brutal record on human rights. Plus, he's a Communist. I know that doesn't bother you, but it generally is not looked greatly upon in America, inasmuch as it does not agree with the capitalism which this country has promoted since its creation.
But anyway we're all getting off-topic here. When it comes down to it no one could argue the facts I presented in my first post. Bye bye.
I can't respond to all of your misunderstanding and lies, Neocoward. You type them faster than anyone can debunk them.
As for the oil connection with the iraq war. That's called observation and common sense.
It's the same common sense that told me if Clinton has all these girls coming and going, he's probably fooling around. I didn't doubt for a second that Clinton fooled around with Monica. I just didnt' think consensual sex is a high crime.
I didn't think Newt Gingrich's (or any of the other Republicans that were outted) affair was a high crime either, just hypocritical on their part.
Remember.. liberals enjoy sex, conservatives enjoy ordering surrogates to kill innocent people.
As for Iraq
Let's see now...
1. Everyone in the bush admin is a current or former oil lobbyist. The list is very impressive - which includes my favorite criminal - Gail Norton, who was also a Lead lobbyist.
2. Bush family made over 1.5 billion $$$ in middle east oil profits.
3. We're attacked by a non-oil producing country, but bush responds by attacking an oil producing country. hmmmm.. the ol' switcheroo
4. First thing done upon enterting iraq, securing oil fields. Not the borders, or municipal services or the other things important to civilian life.
2 plus 2 equals what?
I'm just an observer. Bush doesn't send me his emails, but they will all come out in due time.
Oil is the reason why Bush ignores Afganistan and has OVER 10 times the troops in Iraq. The day oil is discovered in Afganistan is the day bush ups the troop levels there.
bok bok
Neocon, while you did argue that paying Iraqi media is part of the war effort, how do you justify covert payments to American media to promote No Child Left Behind? Again, so much for the free press.
And yes, control over the Senate is needed to instigate investigations. For Christ's sake, you Repubs wouldn't even allow Oil execs to be sworn in. And then control over the House is needed to introduce impeachment proceedings.
As for your concern for individual rights, might I remind you that our country, for the first time in its history inder this president has jailed one of its own citizes in a military prison without access to legal representation or due process. If I were you, I'd be much more concerned about how the rights of Americans have been eroded under this president. He pays of the DOMESTIC media. He jails citizens without due process. He give money to religious institutions. He even tortures prisoners. Castro looks like a saint compared to Bush. But I'm glad you admitted your ignorance about Cuban healthcare. A republcian who can admit he is an uneducated ignorant dupe si ok with me!
"Or are you saying that YOU are avoiding the war cause you are a Liberal. Both you and LB are cowards. I don't care what you or LB did in the past. We live in the present." What is LB doing now?" I don't know, ask LB.
As for me, I help the war effort by engaging idiots like you who want to dish it out but can't take it. I also provide support and trainning assistance to the military in several areas.
( and that what I do today, is that present enough for you?)
What have YOU done lately?
No, I'm not a liberal (gag) or a Republican, nor have I avoided the service, have you?
FYI, I've included the definition of Coward (that you are so fond of calling everyone that does not agree with you. Try and use it correctly in the future.
"one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity"
NeoCon Central:
"WHAT?! To the forgetful: WE WERE ATTACKED BEFORE WE WERE IN IRAQ! WE WERE NOT IN AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2001. YET THE VERY NEXT DAY THE VERMIN OF THE EARTH FLEW PLANES INTO OUR ECONOMIC AND MILITARY HEADQUARTERS. WHAT "ACTIONS," OTHER THAN NOT ENSLAVING WOMEN AND KILLING POLITICAL OPPONENTS, HAD AMERICA COMMITTED THEN? WHAT DID AMERICA DO THAT TIME?!"
This is such a tired, fallacious argument. Lest YOU forget, dear neo-con, it was radical, fundamentalist extremists who attacked us on 9/11. Lest we take our eye off the ball (oops, too late!), the enemy here is religious fanaticism - not Arabs, not Islam, not Shi'a, not Iraq, and not Saddam.
These minority of fanatics are sheltered, trained, and financed in many countries throughout the region - especially in our "allies", Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. So naturally, Bush decided to invade... Iraq, one of the most secular and western-oriented nations in the region.
Saddam, for all of his muderous tryanny, was the mortal enemy of al-qaeda and the religious extremism.
Shortly after 9/11, sympathy for the US soared throughout the Middle East and the entire world. If Saddam had somehow been implicated in 9/11, there wouldn't be any trouble in getting the entire world to join us in invading Iraq. Recall that nearly the entire world supported our invasion of Afghanistan, seeing it as clearly justified.
Since invading and occupying Iraq, however, support for the US has plummeted throughout the region. Immediately after 9/11, the US was seen favorably by nearly 80% of Egyptians. Now, only 2% of Egyptians support the US. In no country in the region does the US poll higher than 30% (Lebanon).
Indeed, going after Iraq only drains resources away from fighting the terrorists who attacked us. The invasion has only managed to alienate the entire world, which in turn means that other countries will be much less likely to help us in our quest to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. And doesn't invading Iraq play right into the hands of Osama, whose plan is obviously to provoke a full confrontation between Islam and the West? Doesn't invading Iraq lend creedance to Osama's assertion that the West is conniving with Israel to take control of the middle east?
The neocons idea is to spread democracy and freedom by military intervention. Instead, they will probably end up spreading more religious fanaticism, which is the enemy of us all - especially women. How does it better serve the interests of the US and of the people in the region for a theocratic dictatorship, closely allied with Iran, to rise out of the anti-occupation sentiments in Iraq? In the end, the neo-cons will only end up strengthening the true enemies of humankind.
Lars
FYI - I'm retired military (20 years), with a 25% disability (spinal injury). I deployed to Saudi for Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and lost several close friends in the Khobar tower bombing in '96.
If called back, I would happily serve.
If you want to spout the "chicken hawk" meme, go somewhere else. It doesn't apply here, and it's an ad hominem attack, which is definitely not welcome.
If you want to debate, discuss, or converse, then by all means please hang around. If you can't make a point without personal attacks, please leave.