On Meet the Press, Gingrich cited nonoperational terror plots as evidence of "World War III"
SUMMARY: On NBC's Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich declared that "we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the Third World War." As evidence of "World War III," Gingrich cited -- among other events -- two purported terror plots that involved alleged conspirators who intended to attack U.S. targets but had no apparent means to do so.
On the July 16 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, Fox News political contributor and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) cited the break-up of two aspirational -- but not operational -- alleged terror plots as evidence of "World War III." To prove that "we are in the early stages of ... the Third World War," Gingrich pointed to the recent arrests in Miami of seven men who allegedly planned to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago, and the arrests of three foreign nationals who allegedly conspired to attack commuter train tunnels in New York City, in conjunction with North Korea's recent missile launches, the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, an apparent terrorist attack in India, and the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
On June 23, federal agents arrested seven men in Miami for allegedly conspiring to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago and some federal buildings in Miami. But, the alleged plot was far from operational. The group reportedly had little in the way of a plan of attack, beyond an apparent desire to establish an independent "Moorish" nation through violence. Indeed, in announcing the arrest, FBI deputy director John Pistole stated that the alleged Chicago bombing plot was "more aspirational than operational." At the same press conference, U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said that the seven men arrested posed "no immediate threat." Additionally, as The Miami Herald reported July 16, upon arresting the suspects, the FBI raided the group's hideout in the Liberty City area of Miami and "found no firearms, explosives, blueprints or terror plans -- only three machetes and a Koran, among other items."
In April, reportedly with assistance from the FBI, Lebanese authorities arrested Assem Hammoud (also known as Amir Andalousli) as the alleged ringleader of a plot aimed at attacking New York City commuter train lines running under the Hudson River. According to reports, Hammoud and other unnamed conspirators were arrested after authorities monitored internet chat room conversations discussing the plot. As the Los Angeles Times reported, the suspects "apparently had not conducted reconnaissance or acquired weapons." New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg asserted that "[t]here is not one shred of evidence that the plan continued beyond the planning stage," although the article further stated that "federal officials said authorities were convinced that the suspects were preparing to act."
Despite evidence that neither alleged plot posed a significant threat, Gingrich touted the two to argue that the world is engaged in "World War III." When host Tim Russert asked Gingrich to confirm that "[t]his is World War III," Gingrich replied, "I believe if you take all the countries I just listed, that you've been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you'd have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III."
As Media Matters for America has previously noted, with the recent escalation of violence in the Middle East and a terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, the right-wing media have declared a new "world war" but have not agreed upon which global conflict the United States now faces: World War III, IV, or V. Also, as noted by the weblog Think Progress, Gingrich has apparently decided that the use of World War III rhetoric is a political winner for Republicans. According to The Seattle Times, in a recent interview, Gingrich talked about the "need to recognize World War III as important for military strategy and political strategy." The article reported that Gingrich was "very worried" about Republicans' chances in the fall elections and felt "the need to recognize that America is in World War III" is an element missing from President Bush's political strategy. Gingrich told the newspaper that "Bush needs to deliver a speech to Congress and 'connect all the dots' for Americans" and argued "that public opinion can change 'the minute you use the language' of World War III." Perhaps for that reason, The Seattle Times reported that "Gingrich said in the coming days he plans to speak out publicly, and to the Administration, about the need to recognize that America is in World War III."
From the July 16 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: And now, joining us in Washington, Democratic Senator Joe Biden, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Welcome, both.
Mr. Speaker, what are we witnessing in the Middle East?
GINGRICH: Well, let me, let me offer three observations.
First, this is not the fifth day of the war. This is the 58th year of the effort by those who want to destroy Israel. As [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, the head of Iran, says, he wants to defeat the Americans and eliminate Israel from the face of the Earth. So we should not see this event in isolation. There is an Iran-Iraq-Syria -- I mean, an Iran-Syria -- was an Iraq before Saddam was replaced -- Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas alliance trying to destroy Israel.
Second, the Israelis withdrew from Gaza to create the circumstance of peace. The Israelis withdrew from south Lebanon to create the circumstance of peace. They now have a thousand missiles fired from Gaza, they've had hundreds of missiles fired from south Lebanon. You clearly have Iranian involvement -- there are at least 400 Iranian guards in south Lebanon. Apparently, it was an Iranian missile fired by Iranians which hit an Israeli warship yesterday. The United States should be saying to Syria and Iran, "South Lebanon is going to be cleared out. We are for Israel and the Lebanese government breaking the back of Hezbollah, getting rid of all 10 to 13,000 missiles, and we will decisively stop any effort by Syria and Iran to intervene."
I mean, this is absolutely a question of the survival of Israel, but it's also a question of what is really a world war. Look what you've been covering: North Korea firing missiles. We say there'll be consequences; there are none. The North Koreans fire seven missiles on our Fourth of July; bombs going off in Mumbai, India; a war in Afghanistan with sanctuaries in Pakistan. As I said a minute ago, the, the Iran-Syria-Hamas-Hezbollah alliance. A war in Iraq funded largely from Saudi Arabia and supplied largely from Syria and Iran. The British home secretary saying that there are 20 terrorist groups with 1,200 terrorists in Britain. Seven people in Miami videotaped pledging allegiance to Al Qaeda, and 18 people in Canada being picked up with twice the explosives that were used in Oklahoma City, with an explicit threat to bomb the Canadian Parliament, and saying they'd like to behead the Canadian prime minister. And finally, in New York City, reports that in three different countries people were plotting to destroy the tunnels of New York.
I mean, we, we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the Third World War, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren't responding fast enough, we don't have the right attitude about this, and this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel. And frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon and that the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force, not as a political force in the parliament, but as a military force in south Lebanon.
RUSSERT: This is World War III?
GINGRICH: I, I believe if you take all the countries I just listed, that you've been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you'd have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III.
"We are in WORLD WAR III."
Man, I MISS the days when only Congress could declare war . . .
I'm have to assume that you believe that approximately 91 terrorist attacks across 23 different countries over the past 6 1/2 years doesn't constitute a World War?
Wikipedia list major terrorist attacks for 1990-1999 at 66 total attacks around the world. My count of those attributed to Islamic terrorists is 23, covering 12 countries.
From 2000-2006 there were 132 total attacks, 91 attacks attributed to Islamic terrorists, over 23 countries.
Give or take, the list is not complete and I could be off by a few, but at a glance I would say it's a pretty good start.
How many different countries must be attacked for there to be "World War III"? Personally, the name doesn't matter to me. It will always be the war on terror. Unfortuantely, we will probably have to suffer through another terror attack on our own soil before people like yourselves to admit that we are witnessing "World War III".
"I'm have to assume that you believe that approximately 91 terrorist attacks across 23 different countries over the past 6 1/2 years doesn't constitute a World War?"
Yes, I do believe that 91 terrorist attacks in 23 countries does not a world war make. Acts of terrorism and acts of war are two different things, except when certain people use acts of terrorism to justify otherwise unjustifiable acts of war.
By your logic, the mere fact that millions of people use drugs across hundreds of nations means that the War on Drugs was a world war all along. What about the war on poverty? That must be a world war, too, huh.
What is happening between Lebanon and Israel has nothing to do with the fake War on Terror that people like you have bought into with such disastrous results.
The day that your GOP thugs start putting Operation Rescue types and KKK types in Guantanamo is the day I will believe that the War on Terror is anything but a cynical ploy to justify doing what the neocons have wanted to do all along.
Also, if you guys want the World War III thing to stick, you might want to explain how Pakistan is somehow on OUR side when they harbor Al Qaeda and Kashmiri terrorists, including the people who killed over one hundred in India so recently, but apparently not so recently that it can't be forgotten by the Bush apologists.
"Yes, I do believe that 91 terrorist attacks in 23 countries does not a world war make."
Thanks Yoda
"Lebanon and Israel has nothing to do with the fake War on Terror that people like you have bought into with such disastrous results."
Right! And Iran and Syria are just mistakingly throwing money to Hezbollah by the millions in solidarity, because they share a common goal! The destruction of a nation! Praise Allah! Let the destruction of the Zionist Regime commence.
"The day that your GOP thugs start putting Operation Rescue types and KKK types in Guantanamo is the day I will believe that the War on Terror is anything but a cynical ploy to justify doing what the neocons have wanted to do all along."
Holy cow, you're right! How could I forget, Operation Save America fired off a thousand rockets into schools, hospitals and abortion clinics in New York City last week. Oh wait, sorry that was Hezbollah firing rockets into Haifa. Sorry about the mixup. Easy to make that mistake.
Also, if you guys want the World War III thing to stick, you might want to explain how Pakistan is somehow on OUR side when they harbor Al Qaeda and Kashmiri terrorists, including the people who killed over one hundred in India so recently, but apparently not so recently that it can't be forgotten by the Bush apologists.
Wait, I thought terrorism wasn't a problem. This fake War of Terror sounds like a good idea. Maybe someone will try and take the war overseas instead of getting struck here again**.
**(Clarification, that means that I believe the World Trade Center towers were brought down by terrorist flying airplanes into them.)
Better yet, maybe the government will wise up and start tracking the finances of terrorists, or listening to terrorists when they try and communicate with sleeper cells here in the United States. Now there's a government I can get on board.
Your straw men really put me in my place. First, you conflate Hizbollah with Al Qaeda (look at how well your conflation of Iraq and Al Qaeda turned out; you guys managed to make more terrorists and more allies of Al Qaeda; bang up job, that). As for Syrian and Iranian support of Hizbollah, an organization created to force an end to Israel's ILLEGAL occupation of southern Lebanon, what exactly does this have to do with the US and our interests? Perhaps you guys could focus on, you know, actual enemies of the US, rather than taking on new ones on behalf of a country whose defense we already bankroll and seems to be doing fine on its own. Then you go on to say that Operation Rescue (Operation Save America, to you; nice reading comprehension) isn't as dangerous because they aren't raining rockets down on American schools, like Hizbollah apparently is. I hadn't heard of any attacks by Hizbollah on American interests since they chased that cut-and-run terrorist-appeaser Reagan out of Lebanon. Next you claim that I said that "terrorism is not a problem". Once again, you show that conservatives can only debate caricatures of their opponents and not issues themselves. I never said that terrorism is not a problem. I said that you can fight a war against terrorism no more than you can against drugs. And it is ridiculous to say that the US is against terrorism when it harbors anti-Castro and anti-Iranian terrorists itself. You conservatives seem to want to pick and choose which terrorists the war is against, which shows that the "War" is little more than a facade to do things you wanted to do all along, like grab the second largest supply of oil or let Israel settle old scores and secure the land they think their God gave them. But it was nice of you to use a straw man instead of actually explaining how we can be in a war on terror and still be allies with two of the biggest sponsors and supporters of Al Qaeda. As for wising up and tracking finances and terrorist phone calls, I would imagine even you are not stupid enough to believe that the ONLY way Bush can do that is to break the law. Oh, and by the way, since you are such an expert on the Middle East and terrorism, explain how it is OK for Israel to use terrorism to gain their state (King David Hotel, for an example) but not for anyone else.
So maybe turn off the old blinders and actually read and respond to what I actually said, rather than acting like you conservatives are the only ones who know the dangers of terrorism. I know the dangers of terrorism, which is why I would like our government to actually pursue terrorists who actually have attacked the US and plan to do so again, rather than doing the bidding of Israel or seizing oil. Iran and Syria aren't the ones supporting Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia and most certainly Pakistan are, however.
Oh, and I'll tell you one thing that 91 terrorist attacks in 23 countries proves to me: You and your conservative buddies haven't done a DAMN thing to stop terrorism.
"First, you conflate Hizbollah with Al Qaeda (look at how well your conflation of Iraq and Al Qaeda turned out; you guys managed to make more terrorists and more allies of Al Qaeda; bang up job, that). As for Syrian and Iranian support of Hizbollah, an organization created to force an end to Israel's ILLEGAL occupation of southern Lebanon, what exactly does this have to do with the US and our interests?"
Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Hamas,all of their fringe groups are all the same. They are in existence to do a common goal: Elinate the existence of another people. They will stop at nothing. You sound as though you think Hezbollah is just some protest group. Ok, sure why not, they're just a protest group that fires off rockets from their neighbors' yards, and hides in their other neighbor's basements, praying for the destruction of Israeli civilians and the accidental killing of Lebanese civilians.
And this Illegal Occupation? Or do you mean the war? The one started by the PLO? Go do some research and come back to discuss if you like. The US interest in this mess is very great. Israel is one of our greatest allies. Israel is a nation that has tried to co-exist in peace, but is constantly under attack by terrorist organizations. Beyond that, did you know that there are Hezbollah cells operating in the US? I'm sure they're just making themselves comfy until we do something they don't like. I'd say, like, helping Israel, one of our allies.
"Then you go on to say that Operation Rescue (Operation Save America, to you; nice reading comprehension) isn't as dangerous because they aren't raining rockets down on American schools, like Hizbollah apparently is. I hadn't heard of any attacks by Hizbollah on American interests since they chased that cut-and-run terrorist-appeaser Reagan out of Lebanon."
First of all Operation Rescue now goes by the name Operation Save America, oopsie! (Nice research on your part!!) Yes I don't believe that those people are as dangerous as Hezbollah, period. And way to cheer-lead the taking of American hostages by Hezbollah, hope you feel proud about it!
"You conservatives seem to want to pick and choose which terrorists the war is against, which shows that the "War" is little more than a facade to do things you wanted to do all along, like grab the second largest supply of oil or let Israel settle old scores and secure the land they think their God gave them."
Damn it, you got me. I'm just a bastard war monger who just wants my damn oil. Oh! The damn oil! Yes, that has worked out great for us! Stealing all of that oil, it makes the prices so much lower here. I here that Bush is actually using government money to build a sky-pipeline directly to the US to lower shipping costs.
Your knowledge of Israel's past is so great. I wonder if you remember the Un Partition Plan in 1947. You know, the one accepted by the Jews, and rejected by the Arabs. Let the fighting ensue! The Arabs chose war, the Israelis fought back, and better, and won. And now we look at the present day, and my my, it's still true. Oh, and why was Israel being attacked by rockets, even after their pullout from Gaza?
"Oh, and by the way, since you are such an expert on the Middle East and terrorism, explain how it is OK for Israel to use terrorism to gain their state (King David Hotel, for an example) but not for anyone else.(?)"
I didn't know it was okay, nor did I say so. I also didn't know that Israel was a sovereign nation in 1946. Oh wait it wasn't. The bombing happened during the initial conflict between the arabs and the Jews. It wasn't a time either side is proud of. It wasn't until 1948 that Israel became a nation, when soon after, Lebanon, Irq, Syria and Egypt started banging away at them.
"Oh, and I'll tell you one thing that 91 terrorist attacks in 23 countries proves to me: You and your conservative buddies haven't done a DAMN thing to stop terrorism."
This is my personal favorite. Oh you're right to the extent that the US government has control over 22 other nations. The statistic that matter here, in you know the US, 1 terrorist attack in the last 6 years. So maybe they are doing something right.
Let's remember this is the draft-dodging wimpy with a donut in his face when time came to Fight. This is a perpetual "I hear my momma calling me" guy when ever the fighting starts.
Remember the character of the men whom would pound the drums of war. They always seem to be the last to jump into the fight, and the first the scream for blood. They see others deaths on the battle field as capital to be spent in the ballot box.
They wrap themselves in the flag, and march to the polls telling stories of the Democrats cowardice for not marching in step.
They pass out "Band-Aid Purple Hearts" at their national convention for the world to see as they revel in American death for their power.
When will Americans see the difference between a man whom volunteers in a time of war for the most dangerous duty when he has already served honorably, yet felt compelled because of a friend’s example when dying in combat, and the current leadership whom loudly endorses the war they dodge?
Why do we vilify, insult, and marginalize the leadership of combat veterans, and trade hero’s for the leadership of cowards??
Newt was hiding under his bed when time came to volunteer, now we see him with his chest puffed up and talking tough. We should be laughing out loud at this coward, and shouting him off the stage.
Do the right thing Republican; SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT !!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Once the neocons get enough people believing that we are in World War III, they can grab more power than they already have. If the Democrats don't speak up, they get what they deserve at the polls.
Where are the leading Democrats denouncing this garbage. These neocon fools are forcing the issue... let me raise the question... When hasn't there been madness going on in the world? When hasn't there been bloodshed in Israel...the middle east? Was the Vietnam war the beginning of WWIII? What about the Korean conflict?
This is sick and cheap. But, I don't hear ANY prominent Democrats calling these lying asses to task? Where are they???
- Where are the leading Democrats denouncing this garbage. - peet
No where!!
...does that mean you agree with me? Maybe we're making some progress here.
BTW: Newt is currently selling "Apocalypse 2007" concert T's on his website. You may want to get some for your friends.
Hey Wesley;
Why when discussing Neo-Con atrosties the subject becomes Democrats response or lack of response?? Could it be that a Democrat's crying out about Neo-Con madness never makes it to the air??
How else would we be here having this dialogue about the conservative slant in the media?? Where is that left-wing media when we need them?? Their on the internet, hopefull not the version invisioned by the Republican Senator from Alaska.
When will you just accept the truth before you. They lied and our troops died. They lied for power, they are the cowards that dodged the Vietnam War, only to vilify real American Heros, wear Band-aid Purple Hearts while sending American troops in to battle for thier lies, and their lust for power.
How can you stand with these cowards??
How do you carry the pail for these scoundrels??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Standing right next to the Republicans, voting for all the murder.
The Democrats are not our saviours.
So, who is? I do agree with most of the posters on this site... we all better vote 'democrat' in November or our so-called Democracy is over = actual checks and balances. Once that's restored, I'm happy as hell to entertain any legitimate 4rd/4th/5th party ...
Democrats are not a viable alternative. They will keep all policies in place , the wars will continue, the threats will keep coming from DC, they are in the pay of the same masters as the Repubs...as they have always been. There's no difference, it's all an illusion of democracy.
I cannot with any conscience vote for a party that has and is helping mass murder so many innocent people....can you? Green's are the only real liberal party out there. They believe in social justice, real government reform, and peaceful foreign policies, things the Dems and Repubs obviously despise. Vote your conscience, I know I will.
... but splitting the 'liberal' vote will ensure that the GOP continues their stranglehold on our political system = NO checks and balances. Voting 'green' sounds lovely, if it had a chance of actually doing anything but satiate my conscience.
Our system is currently broken. The only real solution (beginning) is to get the only other real party in our 'democracy' back in action = Democrats. After that, we can talk about conscience.
As much as I DESPISE the Democratic party, there is a special realm of disgust in my heart for the GOP, and I don't want to see the nation get Nader-ed into more GOP governance. Personally, I feel that the GOP has gotten so schizophrenic that they will be the first to break up. You can't keep a "big tent" over Libertarians who think that the government should stay out of our lives AND over religious nuts who think that government should intervene in Terri Schiavo's final hours or force religion on others. You can't keep under one big tent fiscal conservatives AND the drunken sailors of the GOP who currently hold the purse strings. You can't keep under one big tent inherently isolationist realpolitik types AND the neocons who want to build the rest of the world in our image. And most importantly, you can't keep greedy businessmen who care about nothing but money AND those who would sell out business interests for their pet social causes. The GOP could be a big tent when they weren't in power. But now that they are in power, they are supposed to "dance with the ones that brought them." Therein lies the rub, since given Bush's two percent "mandate", every one of these GOP groups have a claim to having brought W. and the rest of those clowns to the dance.
Sadly, I think we must all sit back and watch the spineless, unprincipled democrats enable the GOP's excesses in order to split the GOP first. Once we have a party of religious nuts of the Pat Robertson ilk split from the GOP, we will have the numbers to make the dems pay for pathetic failures. Until then, I say "no" to being Nader-ed again.
"Anti-Republican and -Democratic, if they self-destruct, that's anti-climactic."
Every 4 years someone from a third party shows up on both sides to run for president. That's the only time you hear from them. I want to see them committ to building a GENUINE VIABLE political party, they should start by earning seats in the city and town councils and state legislatures. Build a real feasible political base before showing up every 4 years and being spoilers. Right now we don’t have the luxury of casting protest votes.
Standing right next to the Republicans, voting for all the murder.
The Democrats are not our saviours.
- redking75687 / Tuesday July 18, 2006 01:07:54 AM EST
I want you to tell me how else we may get hearings, investigations, and trials needed to purge this government of the Fascists that have dismantled Democracy.
What other party has the ability to obtain an majority ?? The Green Party?? Are you relying on the mercy of Republicans??
Quit whining, get involved, and if there is a Democrat that falls off the boat, let him drown.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Where are the dems crying for hearings and trials? Haven't you heard all the democratic leadership assuring the electorate that they will NOT make investigating Bush a priority? If they had ANY principles, they would at least boycott Congress since they aren't getting these hearings and such that you speak of. They did it once and then sheepishly returned to their professional roles as submissives in the perverse sado-moschistic world of Congress. The dems are complete cowards who can't even stand up for themselves (See: John Kerry getting Swift-Boated; majority of Dems rolling over on Iraq because it was politically expedient at the time). And you think they can stand up for the rest of America that thinks the cons are BS? There are a handful of dems who have shown some fortitude. The rest keep their heads down and try to hold onto their jobs. At least Lieberman is an out-of-closet Bush enabler. Most of the rest do so through inaction and then whine that we need MORE spineless democrats before they will ever stand up for their principles and, gasp!, risk losing their cushy jobs.
As an elder statesman of California politics, John Burton, once said on his retirement, "if something is right it is right and you should fight for it whether it is politically popular or not." If the dems had made a principled stand on ANYTHING, then maybe they would have suffered in the short term, but they would be better situated in the long term. Now, all the dems can argue is that they can rubber-stamp Bush just as well as the GOP but will whine as they do it.
Bombasting Democrats when they are the minority is a waste of breath, they do as minorities do, as much as they can, which is little when they have no say in the agenda.
They are doing as they must to win. Pout to yourself until they are in the majority, then you will be well advised to scream at the top of your voice. Then the trials, hearings, and investigations will come.
In the meantime, reality in the USA is what it is, if we are to save our form of government we must have the Democrats in control of one house or the other.
The answer to whom is making the fight today;
The Ten whom voted against the Patriot Act. The Black Congressional Caucuss. Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Chuck Shumer, Barney Frank, Ron Wyden, are just a few, they are there. They just don't have a network or two, or three to pound their message all day 24/7. That mythological "leftwing media" is no wear to be found.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Over and over you make excuses for the Democrats, and claim they need a majority to fight. They are complicit in Bush's policies. Yes there are a handful of good Democrats, but they don't represent most of the party. You blame the media. Most of the progressives on this MMFA site don't rely just on mainstream media for news. If they were fighting the neocons, we'd know it through sites like Common Dreams and BuzzFlash. However, all I have to do is go to the roll call on the Congressional sites to see they are voting with the Republicans. It doesn't take a majority to filibuster a Supreme Court nomination. The Democrats caved in and virtually promised to never filibuster. Recently, Hillary Clinton co-sponsered a bill criminalizing flag desecration. She just doesn't want to push for a constitutional amendment. When 12 million people in the world marched against invading Iraq, where were most of the Democrats supporting the opposition? Supporting Bush. When the Democrats had the convention in Boston, where were the protestors put by the police? In a pen under a bridge. Democrats said nothing. Democrats supported the Patriot Act. The Democrats blamed Independents for their 2000 loss and in 2004 when the Independents didn't constitute a significant voting block, the Democrats still lost. The list goes on and on. Until the Democrats take responsibility, self-reflect and stop blaming Independents and the media, they will not be successful.
DanGrady - Making Excuses for the Democrats // west1 / Tuesday July 18, 2006 09:57:46 PM EST
I dare say that is the best argument to be made for my debunking the Neo-Cons tsunami of rhetoric, propaganda, newspeak, and outright lies to re-write history no sooner than the ink dries.
I agree that Democrats in both Houses are complicate to the Republican crimes against democracy, yet if the nation sends a resounding message of how they believe that good governance, a freedom loving, law abiding representation that protects civil liberties with the same passion as they pretend to protect our security!!
The Reality; without a Democratic majority in either or both houses to provide the oversight needed, our Democracy will dissolve into a Dictatorial Fascist State with rubber stamp shams for elections, and we’ll be seen as something worse than Russia’s explanation of a Putinistic Republic.
The fact is we may already be a Quasi-Fascism, yet I intend to fight for an American Democracy. I pray I’m not alone, I would expect that I stand with a vast majority of true Americans.
Where do you stand?? Freedom, Fascism??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
So in order to try to win Democratic Party votes, you are suggesting that people like me support Fasicm because we are fed up with the Democrats! Yes, attacking people into voting for Democrats is a real good strategy for the Democrats (sarcasm). This is a tactic straight from Karl Rove's book. Why don't you put a little American flag next to "Freedom" while you are at it.
So in order to try to win Democratic Party votes, you are suggesting that people like me support Fasicm because we are fed up with the Democrats! ///
How did you leap to this conclusion, do you read??
Yes, attacking people into voting for Democrats is a real good strategy for the Democrats (sarcasm). This is a tactic straight from Karl Rove's book. Why don't you put a little American flag next to "Freedom" while you are at it. //
Man, did you take a civics class in school?? Oversight, man. No Democracy without Oversight!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I'm sorry if I sounded shrill, because I totally understand where you are coming from. But, personally, I would rather see Dems stand up for what they believe and risk losing elections rather than pretend they are acting on their consciences and then do what they know is wrong. The Iraq war is a prime example. The Dems rolled over on that, when anyone with an internet connection and a free mind knew that the case for war was bogus. And if the dems had actually stood up for principles, maybe people would trust them more with national security. The dems gave their support to a disastrous war because they wanted to minimize their losses in the 2002 election, and because they did that, they have ZERO credibility on Iraq and can't turn that huge issue into a winner for them. Maybe the dems would be doing better now if they had stood up for their principles then. But instead of acting in the best interests of the nation, they chose job security. And a lot of good it did them, posturing themselves as GOP-lite.
You feel that the dems did what they had to to survive. I say that a party that acts that way has no business asking for my vote. We both can agree, however, that the GOP has even less business asking for my vote. And we both can agree that voting for dems in this election is the right thing to do. But I personally will hold my nose when I do it, just as I did when I voted for the Gore-Lieberman All-Censorship team, and when I voted for John "I Can't Even Stand Up for Myself Let Alone the Nation" Kerry.
According to The Seattle Times, in a recent interview, Gingrich talked about the "need to recognize World War III as important for military strategy and political strategy."
This really stinks.
WW III is so loaded, so filled with an apocalyptic dread, like a sci-fi nightmare, if this phrase were on the lips of our leaders and media, how could reason maintain a foothold in a sea of escalating violence? Conflict and crises don't need this type of rhetoric soiling diplomatic potential (or even militaristic solutions).
For Gingrich to pull out the usage of this phrase so prematurely and irresponsibly, his commentary is made worthless.
However, he said it first. If it catches on, saying it first will be very helpful in his Presidential bid in 2 years.
For Newty's presidential bid. We will get to see the GOP tear him apart for his disgusting treatment of his wife and his other moral shortcomings. Ditto for Guiliani.
It will be a war to see who on the right can out-Rove the other and play as many "John McCain has a black baby" slanderous games. Then, in the actual election, the dem running will get to say "even your GOP opponents think you're a slimeball", though that would never be said because that would take balls, which NOBODY in the field of serious democratic presidential contenders has.
"John McCain has a black baby" slanderous games. it amazes me that the people who say that racism is a thing of the past would use this as a smear. I had a black baby and it was a wonderful thing.
Who booked this clown on the show? Why is he getting a second act? This cretin has no morals or integrity whatsoever. How many times does he have to prove that fact?
His "ideas" are a joke. Like all of conservative "thought", it's been thoroughly discredited. Clearly, Clinton got rid of the Reagan/Bush deficit in spite of this schmuck and the republican slime in Congress.
His commentary is always worthless,
However, he said it first. If it catches on, saying it first will be very helpful in his Presidential bid in 2 years.
- therick /
_______________________________________________________
If there's a God, he'll run. This schmuck might actually give Cheney a run for his money in the high negatives department. And these yutzes think Hillary's got high negatives. He's still the same, amoral huckster he always was.
... because hysterical and terrified people tend to vote Republican.
Remember Rice and her "Mushroom Cloud", that Saddam was going to unleash on the USA?
Too bad Newt isn't in the Congress any more: he could propose a WAR RESOLUTION, name names, explain who is in our crosshairs, and make it OFFICIAL.
"America declares WAR ... on Osama Bin Laden!" Oh, wait. Bush isn't thinking about that guy any more. Hmmm. This WAR stuff is great rhetoric, but getting down to the nuts and bolts of actually DECLARING it on somebody ... that's a little tricky.
careful tex, you are coming across as a patented condescening elitist liberal. and i know you don't want that.
should be "condescending".
What about his post is condescending? He's absolutely correct. It's been shown that the more fearful someone is, the more likely they will vote Republican.
And this "elitist' labelling is specious to begin with. What it really means is "intellectual". What exactly is wrong with being intelligent and using logic? Proof again that the proto-fascists are following the old line of attacking intellectuals first.
... because hysterical and terrified people tend to vote Republican.
not to worry, i wouldn't expect you to be able to tell what was condescending about the above statement. to give you an analogy, it would like if i said "lazy, uneducated people who look to the government for assistance tend to vote democrat"
But in that case you'd be wrong. Those type of people tend not to vote at all. And by the way, you can't call us uneducated and elitist at the same time. Statistics show that liberals are more eductated than conservatives.
Now you know he should know what's condescending elitist and arrogant. Seriously though, what nerve calling someone condescending.
Here's the irony. What makes me an elitist? I'm a middle class community college dropout. Being called an elitist is pretty flattering actually.
I voted for Jimmy Carter when I turned 18yrs, joined the Navy to serve in the IO/PG during the hostage crisis in Iran.
I have never collected a penny of government assistance, just a military payroll check.
I have been registered as a Democrat for 30 years.
I have on occasion voted for a Republican, but not in over 20 years.
I am proud to be a Democrat.
Are you proud to be a Republican in todays Republican party?? Do you have your "Band-aid Purple Heart?"
Neo-Cons collect military payroll, only they never seem to be wearing the uniform when they do it, and nobody in the military is making the green Halliburton is pulling down.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
This new WW is a War on Convert Operations, the likes of which date back to cavemen sneaking out of the bushes to hurl rocks at rival tribes. It's a war on human behavior, and it no amount of spying or killing will eradicate the threat. This is the PERPETUAL WAR the Republicans are hoping will motivate the American public to crown them Dukes of the United States, all hail King George! The Republican boogey man show isn't about the safety of the American people, it's about usurpation of ABSOLUTE POWER; the end of democratic process through successive erosions of our civil rights till eventually the people just yield the last vestige of what was the Constitution, all in the name of FEELING safe.
We aren't there yet. But that's where we are headed.
Hey Tex;
When will you stand with me?? "SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!"
Save us, Cowboy up, stand up, mark it up, "SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!"
If Barry Goldwater was around, he would be a Democrat!!
I know your progressive, and I mean no criticism, I need allies, voices to sound the mantra.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
Its July, and we have only til November, you love your country, your freedoms, SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
You don't have to be a Democrat to vote for a Democrat, you just have to love your country, you just have to be one of the brave, to keep us free!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"Seven people in Miami videotaped pledging allegiance to Al Qaeda"
Wow, now I realize it MUST be WW3, if seven loons in Miami say they want to overthrow the US government (or whatever the hell a pledge of allegiance to Al Qaeda might contain). Never mind that they had no means or methods.
And surely, there has never been any wars like this before. Well, except for the Six Day War, the Vietnam War, the war in former Yugoslavia, the Iraq-Iran war, Desert Storm, and the continuous bombing of Iraq during the Clinton years in the 90's, and maybe something else I'm forgetting. Maybe those were part of WW3 too... we've probably been in World War 3 since the late 60's.
Maybe Newty is only wrong on the numbers. Maybe this is actually World War 8 or 9 or something and they slipped a few past us when we weren't watching.
Wouldn't the War on Christmas be a world war, too, making the New World War on Terrorism World War IV? And at what point will we stop using Roman numerals to denote all these World Wars raging in the minds of conservatives? Somewhere down the line it will start to get confusing, like all the Rocky movies.
A number of rightwing pundits, spokespeople, and others started using the phrase over the weekend. It makes me feel like adding "TM" to the phrase, because they're just rolling out another slogan that's supposed to pull our emotional chains.
The problem is that they've build up our tolerance to the point that it's getting difficult to make an impact. They need to use ever-stronger stuff, for an ever-decreasing effect.
Maybe by next weekend they'll be talking about Armeggedon (TM). Total World Annilhation (TM). The Complete Destruction of the Universe (TM).
Of course it doesn't help their cause, but they stopped thinking, or acting, logically a long time ago. Otherwise they might realize that Americans are beginning to think that this goofy thinking is part of the problem, not the way to solve it.
"They need to use ever-stronger stuff, for an ever-decreasing effect. "
I'm convinced that the "ever-stronger stuff" they are using comes in baggies from men on street corners. I think they might have gotten too much into Ronald Reagan's product.
Offered up at the summit.
It's so simple, it's brilliant.
The people lobbing bombs and fighting should just "stop this S**T!" -- according to GW Bush.
Why didn't the SMART people think of this FIRST? Hmmm? Just STOP it. We're truly in the presence of greatness.
What do you think is being evoked when Bush talks about the Global War on Terror?
The Republicans act like the USA never tried to combat terrorism before the foreign terrorists hit on our soil.
Do they really think that we didn't react after the Oklahoma City bombing?
Do they really think that Clinton didn't work to prevent millennium attacks?
Do they really think that no previous Presidents worried about and had their law enforcement and spying agencies working against both upcoming terrorist attacks overseas as well as going after people that committed attacks?
Of course they don't. They know that US Presidents and agencies like the CIA and the FBI have worked for decades to combat terrorism. Nations around the world have fought terrorism since the beginning of time! There's no "GWoT". It's all a ploy to scare the populus to get them to fear changing boats in midstream. It's part of the long-term plan that the Republicans hatched decades ago to gain control of the US political structure and then keep it (and us) in a stranglehold.
Democratic politicians need to expose this behavior for what it is - shameless pandering to the baser instincts of humans rather than a legitimate attempt to protect Americans! If they had wanted to protect Americans, they would not have ignored the perfectly acceptable platform created by the Clinton administration in response to their identification of Osama bin Laden as the leader of the group that bombed the USS Cole in late 2000. They would not have ignored the 'hair on fire' warnings that were flooding their inboxes in the summer of 2001.
They are not talking about this because they care about the American people. They are talking about it because they care about keeping political power for themselves.
It is shameful, and they are shameless.
Why would Fox News's independent political analyst be pushing a Republican election strategy on a news program?
*Snap*....This is me snapping all my fingers in front of all my liberal brethern's face to get them to come out of their 70's haze and wake up. Hypothetical: If there were millions of Islamic Fascists who wanted to kill everyone that wasn't an Islamic Fascists what would you do? Maybe if I changed the name to Neo-Conservative Fascists you would atleast call them bad names. These are the Fascists you are so afraid of taking over your country, and they are out there, yet you want to blame us and call Conservatives fascists and blame the U.S., the military, and especially Bush's foreign policy. There is a fascist war to be fought but you guys are fighting the wrong one.
I'd use my intelligence assets, small-scale covert operations, and limited strikes on terrorist facilities to attack the actual enemy. What I wouldn't do is go start a war of choice in Iraq that diverts the resources necessary to do those things.
Well then you agree with George Bush. That's exactly how the war in Iraq is being waged right now.
the insurgents our troops are fighting in Iraq were the same as the terrorists EC was referring to. While there may be some small overlap, the two groups are not the same.
they are the same, they believe the same thing and want the same outcome.
Wrong. The insurgency is almost all home-grown. As long as there have been occupations, there has been insurgencies. Look at the movie Red Dawn. We created the problem in Iraq.
next. I should be more clear MILLIONS of them, and countries that will support them.
I expect someone will say, "Clinton could have done it." or "Howard Dean has a magic wand to stop them from hating the world."
Where are you getting the "millions" figure? It seems to me like the actual number of Islamic terrorists is more likely in the thousands.
As for Iraq, our military has said that they are fighting two groups over there: insurgents, mostly home-grown, and terrorists from all over.
You asked how we would fight Islamic terrorism. I say going into Iraq (unlike Afghanistan) was counterproductive if the goal was to fight Islamic terrorism. If we hadn't gone into Iraq we might not be having such a hard time finishing the job in Afghanistan, where the terroristic Taliban is still a problem.
with everything that is going on in the Middle East how Iraq is counterproductive. Oh well.
The resources that have gone into and are going into Iraq would have been better used elsewhere, if the goal is to fight terrorism. That's all I'm saying.
That beating a hornets nest is counterproductive. Iraq was no threat to us but invading it has brought even MORE chaos to the middle east. IF the problem is fundamentalist Islamic terrorists invading the most secular Islamic regime in the region, one the CIA said directly they had no evidence of involvement in international terrorism for a decade was pure insanity. THAT is how it was counterproductive. You know in the common sense way
Wait, don't tell me where this line of reasoning comes from, because I think I know.
MILLIONS of people who want to take over America? Are you really that much of a coward that you actually think that the THOUSANDS of ACTUAL terrorists out there will come over and TAKE OVER America? Newsflash: If anyone is going to end the American way of life, it will be conservatives like you who sit back and watch the Bushes of the world use terrorism as a pretext to restrict the freedoms that ARE the American way of life. George W. Bush has done FAR more damage to the American Constitution than Osama Bin Laden ever could.
And they weren't terrorists in Iraq until Bush made them terrorists. If you want to confront the IDEOLOGY that breeds terrorism, which is what your post seems to imply, then please explain why your dear leader attacked a secular thug instead of the Saudis and Pakistanis who actually spread this ideology and harbor the terrorists who actually attacked us, not the ones Bush invented in Iraq.
You bring up some very GOOD points...of course me thinking so won't WIN you any friends here, as I'm a Conservative [though a fairly mild mannered one]
I think PART of the problem here is that the Democrat/Liberals have grown VERY cynical at anything uttered by the Right. And I can't really blame them. Of course Newt is one of the most intelligent voices on either side, BUT he will always be identified as ONE of the bad guys out to take down Clinton. But I digress...
World War III? Newt MIGHT be jumping the gun here (no pun intended)...HOWEVER if one can look at the PRESENT situation without any PRECONCEIVED bias, and compare the developments leading up to WWI and WWII--it could convince you it might NOT be so "farfetched".
Without delving too deeply into the history of those 2 wars [I'm quite certain MOST here know as much, if not more than I about the wars]...is it really that unrealistic to not see some parallels with the world situation today?
WWI was SPARKED by an assassination...BUT it's what was FESTERING below the surface that inevitably led to the world at war. There was the rise of nationalism, military alliances & the build up of nations armies, and competition for colonies.
WWII began with Germany's invasion of Poland, BUT the CAUSES can be traced to the problems left unsolved by WWI. The treaties drawn up to end the first war created new problems. Dictators came to power, nationalism again was on the rise.
And as Hitler seized territory, other nations sat back and did NOTHING... at first.
A world war would need the ACTIVE participation of the BIG 3...USA, Russia & China. And the next tier, France, England, Germany...and to update to the 21st century, ADD Iran, Israel and perhaps Syria...and the nutjob wildcard North Korea would want to join in.
IF the current situation in the Middle East escalates and IF the Big 3 start taking sides...and God forbid get involved militarily...BOOM!!!
Is a 3rd World War possible? Of course. To pretend otherwise is to stick your head in the sand.
To have Newt OR any other person DECLARE it's already started is PREMATURE. But, we should still heed the warning.
Of course since the two previous World Wars had Democrats in the White House...maybe we're ok till 2008? [I'm joking around here before someone jumps on this--yeah I know, NOT a funny topic]
however we are fighting a world war (at least we should be) against Islamic Fascists and the people that support them and let them gain strength. It should be a global "want" to rid the earth of these people.
You shouldn't want to get rid of them. It's the only thing that's kept the cons in power. In fact, I'll make the assertion that the cons are inept at the war on terror precisely to prolong this menace and capitalize on the fear it generates.
exactly, there is no war of threat from islamo fascists in the world, it's all manufactured by neocons to retain power. 9/11 was an illusion, a fantasy created by neocons to retain power. terrorist slicing off people's heads and blowing themselves up in the middle of civilians, nah, not to worry. just a neocon ploy to retain power. thankfully fringe extremist views such as yours wouldn't be given the time of day by a democrat or a republican.
Nice strawmen. I said nothing of the sort. I said that their bumbling in foreign policy may be more than just incompetence. It may be motivated, consciously or subconsciously by the desire to stay in power. Look at Bush. He's an utter failure. Yet, the country still couldn't replace him because of their aversion to changing leaders mid "war".
Liberals would have stayed in Afghanistan until the job was done. Additionally, they wouldn't have handed the religious fanatics exactly what they wanted. By invading, occupying and subjugating an Arab, nation, especially one that couldn't be shown to be a threat, we gave credence to the extremists rhetoric. They need the support, tacit or otherwise, of the masses. By acting beligerently and worse capriciously, we've secured the perception of us as imperialists. So, Bush has created the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy.
U.S. soldiers raping women and shooting babies in the head? Or U.S. forces destroying entire cities because they THINK inusrgents are located there? Nah, not to worry, only liberal propoganda aimed at destroying America.
I get some of what you are talking about, that looking at the events leading up to the other two World Wars, that people probably didn't always see them on the horizon. But I would offer the counterpoint that even though World War I was, as scholars say, started by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, he was not the first person to ever be assassinated and none of the others started world wars. Ditto with territorial conquest like Hitler's.
The prime difference is that wars tend to be fought between countries. Somehow you conservatives just don't get that, so while we are being cased for the next attack by a shadowy group that operates in secrecy in dozens of countries, you conservatives can only seem to think in your Cold War terms of starting a new war with a non-state actor. How many wars has Israel fought against state actors? And how safe is Israel from terrorism?
described it WW1 is an argument for what happens when preparing for war becomes starting war. The way I remember it after the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand France mobilized, then Germany mobilized and we 'drifted' into WW1 I remember thinking at the time, wait, you drift into a sandbank not a World War. Now I see the dynamic. Cowardly people snivelling WAAAHHHH. I am afraid, get the bad people before they get me. WAAAAHHHH. Protect me while I hide under the bed.
That's the sound of me smacking the back of your head with a baseball bat. The "terrorists" in Iraq have a totally different goal than the islamic terrorists in general. Zarqawi & co are the exception to the rule for what is happening in Iraq, they wouldn't be there in the 1st place if we hadn't invaded.
from these libs. You want to hit me with a baseball bat? My point exactly that you guys are fighting the wrong war.
No...we have conservative fascists at home that are the real threat to our freedom.
We've got the taliban coming back to power, afghanistan just produced the biggest poppy crop of all time, we've got KKK and neo nazi's inside our borders, the columbian drug cartel, etc. etc. etc. and these reichwingers primary concern are a few thousand islamo fascists?
the point isn't to differentiate one terrorist from another, or why did we invade iraq in the first place. it's all history now, granted a mistake in my opinion in hindsight, but the point is we are there and what do we do now? we need solutions, not dredging up old debates because it gets us nowhere. the terrorists, iran and the jihadists want a war against israel and the west. it's about power and hatred, that is what is fueling the conflict. destroy israel, destroy the west. it is ww III. what is the answer/solution? i don't know anybody knows. what we do know is you don't appease or negotiate with fanatics, you defeat them. it didn't work with hitler, it won't work now. history is a powerful teacher.
Who said anything about appeasing? And as for solutions, the pro-war people who got us into this mess have never listened to the anti-war people at any other point in the process. Why are we supposed to believe they'll suddenly listen to our ideas now?
i was speaking about appeasement in the general terms. but read around here, plenty of your fellow leftists think it's all blown out of proportion anyway, this whole terrorist thing. no big threat. we are the ones that are making it worse anyway. so blame bush or blair or anybody but the real terrorists. don't call it appeasement if you'd like, call it naive then.
It is possible that terrorism is a real threat AND it is being blown out of proportion. That's what I think. Here's why:
On 9/11 we Americans were shocked and traumatized by a horrific terrorist attack on our soil. While we had experienced smaller-scale home-grown terrorists before, this was something new for most of us. Islamic terrorism had existed for years, but the fact that we had never seen something like this in America made it look like a new threat. Not only new, but very horrific and also difficult to understand.
It is well known among people who assess risk that people tend to overestimate the risk of hazards that are new, particularly frightening, and difficult to understand, whereas the risks of familiar hazards tends to be underestimated. For instance, there's much fear about mad cow disease, but you don't hear much about pneumonia. Guess which one has a vastly higher probablility of killing you?
I submit that terrorism is akin to mad cow disease, or maybe SARS. New (to us), scary, difficult to understand, but posing little risk to you or me. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take it seriously and try to eradicate it; it just means that we should keep things in perspective.
I'm only talking here about the terrorist threat to the U.S., which is a little off-topic from all the "WWIII" talk about the current events in the Middle East.
If only your mischaracterization of people's views was correct. But, alas, you show that not only are you simply wrong in your views, you can't properly read a post without construing opinions that simply aren't there. This tendency to use straw men isn't uncommmon amongst cons. It's also a sign of weak positions on the issues.
The point is, it's not "World War III". It simply isn't. And the use of such rhetoric can only be for inflammtory and political purposes. If you want to swallow this talking point and change your venacular just because Newt says its so, go right ahead.
However it is not one we will bomb our way out of. And invading Iraq escaberated the problem and was in no way part of the solution to the problem. IF we had AT THE TIME actually handled the problem in Afghanistan, that is wiped out the terrorist threat there instead of allowing ADD president Gump to take the war to Iraq we had an opportunity. We COULD have rebuilt that country, built hospitals, roads, schools, and began a basic infrastructure that benifitted the people of the nation. THAT would have shown goodwill, it would have gone a long way toward defusing among the Arab population the antipathy toward the west for our foolish foriegn policy debacles in that region. The terrorists need support from the people the way a fish needs water to swim in. The tactic we need is international cooperation in intelligence and an isolation of the extremists from the population they dissapear into. IF we can get the guy that just goes to work to turn in the terrorists because they hate their tactics THAT is a huge step in winning. Then we can get international support for treaties that allow special forces groups to track and follow these groups into any country and eliminate them. In the seventies France had an Algerian terrorist group blowing up their subways. They didnt invade Lebanon, they quietly assasinated them all over Europe and the middle east for about three years. That ended the problem and for the next two decades they had no further problems from those groups. What they DIDNT do was make the problem worse by taking actions that directly HURT civilian Arab populations thus alienating them and making them part of the problem. IF we begin seeing the Arab populations or Islam themselves as the problem as with people talking about millions of extremists trying to destroy the west we are defining the problem as a holy war. IF we start calling it WW3 instead of the global terrorist problem not the global Arab or Islamic problem we are making a self fulfilling prophesy of doom. We need to reach out to those Arabs and Islamic peoples who are NOT part of the problem and convince them we dont SEE them as part of the problem they are NOT the enemy and we need to not MAKE them the enemy. Give them a reason to see us as part of THEIR future and a force for democratic change, for allowing them to follow their culture and modernize in THEIR way. That we can and will HELP them to the extent they ARE trying to make their countries better according to their way of seeing that as long as it involves better human rights, less poverty, and fighting terrorists in their midst. We dont have to MAKE this WW3 at least not yet we dont. Those itching to do so are following a path of insanity and profound destruction. Absolutly find, identify and fight the terrorists, but not everyone who looks vaguely like them, just dont expand that into targetting civilian populations that we dont HAVE to define as the enemy and thus MAKE them the enemy. That way lies madness and destruction of biblical porportions
The U.S. has failed to garner support from the educated, middle-class, secular Arabs who are crucial to minimizing the appeal of extremist groups in the region. Sadly, U.S. policy is widely viewed as anti-MUSLIM/ARAB, not anti-TERRORIST, which has alientated mainstream, law-abiding arabs and provided fertile ground for the expansion of extremism in the Muslim world.
The U.S. must counter the view that it is duplicitous in its Mid-East policy by actually acting as a neutral negotiator in the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
And you know it. This is just more of the disingenuous strawman that you cons roll around in like s*&t. You cons seem to define "appeasement" as "not doing all the wildly foolish things to inflame the problem further" with appeasement. Saying that we should hunt down terrorists where they are using methods we have available instead of making new ones by using methods that can't possibly work is not appeasement. It's called being rational, rather than being a coward wildly throwing blows in the hopes it might keep you safe.
Nice to see you swallow a good talking point just like the other Bushbots. Nobody that I know of has called it "WWIII' until just a few days ago. Then suddenly, a bunch of cons on the shows start using the obvious talking point. Then, out of the woodwork, folks like you who have never thought to use the term before in this context start squawking in unison...."WWIII....(squawk!!!)....Right On's a pretty bird....(squawk)....World World Three....(squawk!!!)"
This is groupthink at its worst.
didn't 9/11 teach you anything about preparedness and underestimating your enemies? if we hadn't treated terrorism as a law enforcement issue prior to 9/11, maybe, just maybe, it could have been prevented. nevertheless, you are so fearful of conservatives, never underestimating the power you say they are out to seize - yet you refuse to acknowledge the threat posed to you from the islamo fascists and real terrorists in this world. maybe you better wise up and focus your anger and energy against those that really do want to see you destroyed, instead of some political comeuppance game you live to play.
Clinton understood the threat. He passed the information on to Bush with dire warnings. Bush ignored it. Simple fact. Clinton was on top of it. Bush was on vacation.
Before long, Bush will have killed more US troops in Iraq than people who were killed on 9/11. At what point does that equation go out of balance. This doesn't even take into account the lives lost to future terrorist attacks due to Bush's flaming hatred for America. 9/11 supposedly changed people's perspective. It didn't change mine. You see. I knew about terrorism and the groups that spawned it before 9/11. It was only the ill-informed and asleep at the wheel cons that seem so shocked. And who's to blame them? If they parroted their fearless leader on September 10, what would they say is the biggest threat to America? Ballistic missles and Iraq. Cons wer caught with their pants down so it's understandable that you've overreacted.
Al-Qaeda's ambitions are purely regional. They want to overhtrow the corrupt and undemocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt that exist in large part because of U.S. support. As I have said before, Al-Qaeda possesses neither the intent nor the ability to overthrow the U.S. government. Hamas and Hezbollah were formed with very specific objectives that never involved global domination, but rather the retreat of Israel out of Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Hamas garnered widespread popular sup[port in the occupied terrirotries because it provided key social services to an impoverished populace, which the group parlayed into political clout.
You state that we're fighting the wrong war. That implies that you are fighting the right one. Which branch of the service are you in? What is your MOS? Have you been to Iraq yet? Until you have, you're not fighting, you're just mouthing off.
I actually have served in Iraq....my father has served as well. As of right now my father is in Gardez, Afghanistan helping train and mentor and Afghan Corps with MPRI which is part of L3 communications.
Most of the conservatives posting hear have no idea what they are talking about as they push for this war. To them war is some abstract thing that they'll never know. I jumped the gun and assumed you had not served. I apologize. I appreciate your service and hope that our country will not forget your contribution.
you don't have to thank me but thank you for the kind words. Your point however goes for both sides of the aisle. If we were confined only to hear from people who have experienced war we would be limited in our analysis. People who haven't served have just as much right to say their opinions and contradictions of the war.
Glad you're safe. I respect you for honoring your comittment and for walking the walk. That said, most of the loudest voices in the right wing punditry and media who pushed for this war and who advocate military solutions to everything opted out of actually serving in the military when there were multiple opportunities to do so. I for one will continue to refer to them as chikenhawks and chicken-hawkettes or my new favorite - stay at home warriors.
not that it is relevant anyway, but what right wing pundits in the media opted out of serving with mulitiple opportunities to do so - the ones with the loudest support of the war? can you name names?
Dick Cheney, Saxby Chambliss, Karl Rove, George Bush, Rush Limbaugh. Is that enough?
[link to www.nhgazette.com]
Brit Hume, Neal Boortz, Roger Ailes, William "Bill" Bennett, "Newt" Gingrich , William "Bill" O'Reilly, the list goes on
see [link to www.nhgazette.com]
I was going to post the same link. None of the political and media people mentioned in the above posts served in their generations wars. And quite a few of them have denigrated men who did serve in the very war that they avoided. they all had various excuses. They had to get an education, they had families, they had other priorities,etc. So did a lot of the people who did go. I have nothing against what anyone did to serve or avoid service as long as they're consistent.
but Right On knows exactly who these people are, everyone knows that now. They have their own shows over at Fox with the exception of Ollie N. But lets not forget those in the print media particular Bill Crystal who now seems to be advocating a pre-emptive strike against Iran.
that silenced most of them. for they love the term chickenhawk and many say unless you volunteer to serve you have no business supporting the war, or some such nonsense. thank you for your service to our country.
While I was wrong to jump the gun with Evil, I still believe that there are far too many people pushing this war that should be fighting it but are not. There are also far too many in charge in this country who actively avoided service in Vietnam while others were sent to fight. These same people ridicule and denigrate the service of the veterans of The War in Vietnam. I'll never be silent about that!
Maybe you should go back, so my nephew can come home. We need wild-eyed zealots over there fighting.
vile. I guess I'm a baby killer to. Your nephew joined because he wanted to, plus I will be going back over there, but I doubt that would bring you nephew back.
"vile. I guess I'm a baby killer to."
I don't know. Are you? You brought it up. Need to get something off your chest?
What's vile about wishing that the people we have in Iraq really, really, really, really want to be there? Hmmm? Those that die for Bush, should really believe in the cause. That way, their family can feel better.
for the military I didn't sign up to die for Bush(that sounds funny). I don't know how clear I have to be but it's a VOLUNTEER military. Of course no one wants to be there, its war. Yeah I really enjoyed being shot at, come on. But my enlistment came up last year and I went back in and will be going back in soon for reasons you would never even begin to understand. It has nothing to do with Bush or my feelings on this war or America's foreign policy I can worry about that as a civilian. It has to do with my family and my bretheren who are still fighting over there. That is fighting for my country.
stick around long enough and you will become familiar with scott johnson's m.o. i have been here for a few months and have witnessed his patented bomb-throwing, insults first hand. the only saving grace is that they are wildly entertaining, even if a little scary that there are people out there who share his lunatic fringe opinions. i don't sweat it through, never will they be in any position of any authority thankfully - only scratching at the floorboards for attention.
and i realize this is a personal attack, i apologize, but sometimes i take the bait just because it's so damn irresistable.
Name a lunatic fringe opinion that I hold. Name one.
You're right about my style. I don't take any prisoners. Number one of my lists are so-called moderates such as yourself who deep down are apologists trying to mitigate the harm the to rotten to the core GOP. I don't buy it, so I give no quarter. Tough luck.
Still waiting for you to name a fringe opinion. Here's a hint. I'm not on the fringe. It's only your scaredy cat tendency, along with Bill O'Reilly, to label anyone who disagrees with you as fringe. That may fly in the All Spin Zone, but it doesn't work around here.
No...that's fighting for your brethren. But there's a quandry here. You emphasize that it's a "volunteer army". Fine. Then don't expect ticker tape parades when you came back. After all, you volunteered. You can't have it both ways. If you want people to support the troops, part of that support is making sure our leaders don't squander your lives for stupid and illogical reasons. We supported Afghanistan. Hell, I would have volunteered if I wasn't a bit too old. I wanted Bin Laden's head on a platter. But that's not what this administration gave us. Instead, it made a half-hearted effort in Afghanistan only to divert the troops to the itch that Bush needed to scratch. It's the ultimate bait and switch, and the troops above all people should be outraged.
scott's nephew serving in the military certainly defies the old adage that the apple doesn't fall very far from the tree. apparently in that family tree, the apple was orchards away.
He doesn't know any better. He's soon to go for his second tour. Pressing his luck I say. But he did vounteer. Hopefully, the ones that buy it over there are the people who truly want to fight for Bush, rather than the poor who needed the college money. He's the former.
Lost in the Neo-Con bull-sh_t.
Hypothetical: If there were millions of Islamic Fascists who wanted to kill everyone that wasn't an Islamic Fascists what would you do? //
Fact: Islamic Fascist is a Neo-Con invention, radical Isamic believers are a minute fraction of Muslims, we make them loud in the public square by using their crimes as justification for the Neo-Con crimes.
When you pull your head out, I promise you the air will smell so much better, and you'll see so much better.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Fact: Islamic Fascist is a Neo-Con invention, radical Isamic believers are a minute fraction of Muslims, we make them loud in the public square by using their crimes as justification for the Neo-Con crimes.
this is why it is vitally important and critical to this country that people who share this lunacy above, never, EVER, get anywhere near making any serious policy decisions in this country. or god help us all.
He's right. Once again, you don't assail the simple truth of a person's post. Instead, like Coulter and Limbaugh, and O'Reilly et al, you'd rather just label them looney. What's looney about what he said. It was common sense. Are you admitting you have none?
Religious nuts of all stripes want their message heard. We've become the recruiting arm of religious extremists the world over. That's absolutely true and some very credible military people have come to the same conclusion.
me to pull my head out while your sticking yours right in. Hopefully we won't have to suffer under your misunderstanding of the situation. You should visit Israel and see Jerusalem it's an eye opener. And if you have seen some of things I have you would realize we are not screaming loud enough in the square.
No substance. You obviously can't assail his points. Typical rhetoric from someone without a well-formed argument.
You should visit Beirut or Baghdad.
You cons want us to use Israel's tactics, so why don't you explain how Israel's War on Terror has made them safer? After 50 years, they are still terrorized and they still don't get that their tactics are part of the problem, that they create ten terrorists or at least sypathizers with every civilian they kill.
Come on, you brought up the non-sequitur of Jerusalem, as if the people of Jerusalem aren't INFINITELY better off than their counterparts in the Palestinian territories, who are terrorized by both state actors and settler fanatics every single day.
Ok, one more attempt to show you the light.
6 yrs of complete control of American Governance top to bottom, 12 years of Congressional control and we are screwing up two wars in two countries, not because our troops aren’t up to it, but because they cant keep up with the Republican illusions of their militaristic solutions to everything.
Our government is spying on Americans without warrants or oversight, our military is shrinking in man power, materials, and strategic strength through the abusive use of a Republican Imperialism run amok, and no draft. This is happening while we are spending a record 450 billion dollars on a military that is crumbling under the pressure.
How is that I wonder, could we be spending this money on Neo-Con cronies??
Ok, how are we better off now, than if the loony Liberals were in charge when the nation had a military that was the envy of human history, the world at our feet wanting to help us, a balance budget, or say a 220 billion dollar surplus, an intelligence community that was on alert for Al Queada, and the respect, honor, and moral standing to tell Russia to act like a Democracy, the Israelis to stop being occupiers of in an illegal occupation, the moral standing to be a leader of democracies.
I see how you would be concerned we would have our HONOR back, and would not be the stupid-ugly-bully in the world.
I wonder how Bosnia compares to Iraq??? Bosnia was responsibly and carefully handled, which is why it was a success. Iraq was bundle for day one, lying our way into what we were not prepared for, and then refusing to accept the realities and perpetuate the same mistakes for now going on 4years.
Who’s LOONEY??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Hey "Evil Conservative" ;
Neo-Conservative? Snapped???
Who would be surprised about that? If you have a consciense we would assume that the "SNAPPING" would be inevitable.
The realization that all the frustrated quips, and two word matter of fact assumptions made instead of serious policy solutions resulted in the disasterous state of our nation, and the world's contempt for our militarism certainly should not come as a surprise.
Fascist's?? Look up Dr. Laurence's 14 signs of a Fascism. We have been lead down the road of a first rate Peron style Fascism, we need only start the disapearances, and the whispering about our neighbors, and we'll be there.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
So we've gone from Peace and Prosperity under Clinton to "WWIII" under Bush and the Republicans.
Would you give your car keys back to the guys who just drove you off a cliff?
If they want to run on hysteria, fine. Just throw it back in their face. The Aliens could be attacking at the moment but most people then would want to know who we've got on the home team defending us.
For those who are interested there is good information about the Iraqi insurgency here: [link to en.wikipedia.org]
This recent talk of WWII is based on the events in Israel over the past few weeks.
Iran and it's radical Islamist clergy and Syria are waging a war against Israel via proxy through Hammas and Hezbolah.
The U.S. wages war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Again, much of the so called insurgents are financed through Iran and Syria.
Radical Islamists are fighting a terrorist battle against India, England, France, the U.S., and Russia, plus other countries in S.E. Asia.
So it seems to me there is ample reason to characterize this as a World War. On the one side you have the Islamofacists, and the other, the Western World.
As I said earlier, the use of the term WWIII is due to the recent open hostilities against the Islamofacists in Lebannon and Gaza who are being directed and financed by the regimes in Iran and Syria.
The cons want WWIII cause they want Armegeddon to come. That's why they are welcoming this recent setback in Israeli/Palestinian relations. Fick sucks. Can I have your car, AA, when you get raptured? Also, can I have your kids' clothes as well? Saves me a trip to the Value Village. I'm assuming they've achieved an age where they have a soul.
The Attacks in England and madrid, were the work of homegrown terrorists radicalized by the war in Iraq and other anti-Arab western policies. The attacks in Russia have been part of a long standing battle for Chechnyan independence. Russia certainly did not help themselves by leveling Grozny in 1995, which resulted in thousands of civilan casualties. Iran has no interest in supporting the Sunni, ex-Baathist insurgency since its ruling clerics are all SHIITE!!!! AA, do you condemn high level politicans in the Iraqi government for forging close ties with Iran? The leading Shiite power-brokers in post Saddam Iraq were exiled in iran during the 1980s and were quite cozy with Ayatollah Khomenei. How do you feel about that?
You have no proof of Syrian aid to insurgents in Iraq other than the fact that it hasn't secured its border to the extent that the U.S. desires. Hypocritical, since America has some of the most unpoliced border territory on earth.
Wake up AA.
That our great "Ally" in the War on Terror, Pakistan, trains, funds and harbors the Kashmiri terrorist groups, and even uses its artillery to provide cover fire for the Kashmiri terrorists to enter Indian Kashmir. Not to mention that Al Qaeda is currently calling Pakistan its safe haven, and that Pakistani intelligence is and always was the greatest friend to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
If this is a World War, we need to pick teams again, because Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and a lot of other countries Bush covers for are more our enemy than Iran and Syria, who don't support Al Qaeda or other anti-American terrorist groups.
i, for one, refuse to dignify the actions of a half a dozen swarthy dudes with cell phones by calling it world war three.
anotheramerican / Tuesday July 18, 2006 02:00:21 PM EST
Radical Islamists are fighting a terrorist battle against India, England, France, the U.S., and Russia, plus other countries in S.E. Asia.
So it seems to me there is ample reason to characterize this as a World War. On the one side you have the Islamofacists, and the other, the Western World //
Linking these groups and their interests as a conserted, organized effort to make war against the Western World is a self serving generalization of terror organizations that have operated at this level, and worse for 40 years, suddenly it's a World War??? What morons would compare the nukes of the Soviet Union, the navy, and foriegn military advisors promoting revolution, and holding up rogue governments could possibly be compared with the Arab stuck in a cave in Afghanistan, and our foolish desision to invade the wrong country, Iraq?
When Ponch Villa crossed into Texas to raid rich Texan ranchers, did America invade Canada?? When Russia invaded and occupied Afghanistan in the 80's should we have invaded Pakistan ??
This bizarre thinking must give the " Military Industrial Complex" a regular woody. Is it a big suprise that Carlisle Group, Halliburton/KBR, and GE all so well represented in this administration???
We are the last Super Power left standing, and instead of strengthening our position in the world with diplomacy, and our economic influence after a event that brought the world to our aid, we decided to stomp around biligerantly and invade the wrong country, making it's occupation the festering wound the world worries about most.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
The Iraq War is not a front in the war on terror and has the ability to be resolved if not for repeated U.S. obstructionism that will only continue the violence.
Led by Karl Rove, the White House has launched an all-out political offensive to portray the war in Iraq as something akin to the Battle of Armageddon, a titanic good-versus-evil struggle on which the fate of the universe depends. This portrayal by EC and RightOn that this is WWIII is exactly what the political spinmeisters in Washington WANT you to believe. Think for yourself for once!!!!
One way to end the carnage in Iraq is for the United States to negotiate a deal with the Iraqi resistance to end the fighting. That deal would involve a ceasefire by the insurgents in exchange for a fair share of power in Iraq and a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. But to recognize this as a viable option in Iraq would undermine the right-wing narrative that this is a massive, unending conflict that will be resolved only when all Arabs are dead and their cities destroyed.
Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, called on the international community in early July at a conference in Tokyo to rethink its war on terror, saying that its present strategies were "going in circles". Karzai also stressed the need to focus on the root causes of terror.
Do you right-wingers deride him as an appeaser of terror, even though Bush installed him as the president after the fall of the Taliban? Do you deride Iraqi Human Rights Minister who wants to end immunity for U.S. soldiers in his country as "anti-American" or "pro-terrorist" or will you now realize that the line between the U.S. and the "enemy" is not so clear?
"three machetes and a Koran"
This terrifies you?
in the preplanning stage, before any real harm could be done. HMMM, I wonder, was the information gathered illegally (wiretaps, bank transfers, or??)??