On Glenn Beck, Koch echoed McCain claim that Iraq "terrorists will follow us out here to the homeland"
On the May 16 broadcast of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, during an appearance by former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, host Glenn Beck cited Koch's May 15 op-ed in The New York Sun -- in which he criticized the Democrats' position on Iraq -- and then said to Koch: "I think you're exactly right. What are the Democrats thinking? They are in the dustbin for all time if we pull out, because so many people will die." Koch replied that the Democrats "will be blamed when, as [Republican presidential candidate Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ] quite correctly says, the terrorists will follow us out here to the homeland. And that, obviously, is far worse than our fighting the terrorists in their homeland." However, Beck and Koch both ignored the reported assessments of a wide range of U.S. intelligence officials and military analysts disagreeing with this view.
During the May 15 Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, in response to co-moderator Chris Wallace's first question, "Why should Americans continue to fight and die while Iraqi politicians continue to do so little?" McCain said: "If we fail in Iraq, we will see Iraq become a center for Al Qaeda, chaos, genocide in the region, and they'll follow us home." McCain has made this assertion before, as Media Matters for America has noted.
However, the assertion that terrorists will "follow us home" following a U.S. troop withdrawal is widely challenged:
- According to an April 6 McClatchy Newspapers article, as detailed by Media Matters, "[m]ilitary and diplomatic analysts" say that a similar claim President Bush has repeatedly made about the Iraq war -- that "this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here" -- "exaggerate[s] the threat that the enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland." The article also reported: "U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States."
- A March 18 Washington Post article reported that "U.S. intelligence officials and outside experts" have said that Al Qaeda in Iraq "poses little danger to the security of the U.S. homeland," as Media Matters also noted.
- In an April 30 report from National Public Radio's All Things Considered exploring Bush's claim that "[i]f we do not defeat the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they ... will follow us to the United States of America," NPR correspondent David Welna cited several experts challenging this claim. He reported that retired Brig. Gen. John H. Johns considers that warning "propaganda" and that, according to Johns, "[i]t's actually leaving American forces in Iraq ... that increases the chances of a terrorist attack on the U.S." Welna also reported that retired Army Lt. Col. James Carafano, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, "calls asserting that terrorists will follow U.S. troops home naive and poor rhetoric." Welna also featured a clip of Carafano saying: "There's no national security analyst that's really credible who thinks that people are going to come from Iraq and attack the United States -- that that's a credible scenario."
From the May 16 broadcast of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: But hang on just a second. Mayor, I know you. I've read enough of what you believe. You and I are not that far apart --
KOCH: Sure.
BECK: -- on what's happening in the Middle East. We can't lose this. We can't just -- it'll be a bloodbath, not only over there but here.
KOCH: Oh, I believe that. I believe --
BECK: Is this -- is this a bluff that you're suggesting?
KOCH: No, no. What I'm -- no, no. You cannot bluff here.
BECK: Thank you for that.
KOCH: You must get out if you say you're going to get out. But I believe that we are not able to win by ourselves. Even the English will be leaving after Tony Blair packs it in, in June.
BECK: Something that you -- something that you said in this op-ed piece today that I found very interesting, because, as a conservative, I think you're exactly right. What are the Democrats thinking? They are in the dustbin for all time if we pull out, because so many --
KOCH: They will be blamed.
BECK: -- people will die.
KOCH: They will be blamed when, as John McCain quite correctly says, the terrorists will follow us out here to the homeland. And that, obviously, is far worse than our fighting the terrorists in their homeland.
And I believe it was right to go into Iraq, based on the information then available, and it's right to stay there now, if we could do the job. But we can't do it alone. So, if our allies, NATO, regional Arab allies, don't come in, I believe that we have to get out, but we should give them that ultimatum.
BECK: Have you seen that there seems to be a possible change in the tide in Europe recently, especially with France, but they're even taking on illegal immigration. There seems to be a change over in Europe. Do you think it's too late for them?
KOCH: Yes, I don't believe that the NATO allies will come and help us, because they didn't come and help Great Britain when Great Britain had a resolution recently before the Security Council asking NATO allies to join in, demanding that Iran return the sailors. They refused to sign on.
BECK: Is there -- your prediction on what happens with Iran. I mean, they're getting close to -- I mean, we're getting close to crossing the line of the point of no return.
KOCH: I believe, as John McCain does, that while war is terrible, it's even more terrible to allow Iran to have the nuclear bomb.
i think the tendency will be for them to fight among themselves. look at gaza. no israelis there now, and hamas and fatah are killing each other in the streets.
So Mr. Magoo has contact lenses now?
I'm very nearly physically sick of hearing the buzzword "homeland"
It's like the third-person usage of "United States", but with a German accent, more suited for a utopian country where superior humans are bred.
Thank you. I feel just the same.
They say "homeland," I hear Heimat.
Try saying that when a black person refers to Africa as the homeland, or the motherland.
Oh aren't you cute! It's obvious that the reason Republican candidates call the USA the Homeland is to pound fear into the hearts of voters by giving the impression that if we leave we'll be fighting AlQuada in our back yards--in our homes. Yet, you bring in a different subject altogether, laced with an undertone of racial bigotry. You guys just can't help yourselves, can you? The shoe fits, and by gum, you're wearing it.
wtf are you talking about? Why can't we refer to America as the Homeland? That's why they call it Homeland Security for gosh sake.
To take my comment as a racial slur is absurd. I'm simply pointing out a double-standard that exists. When talking about pilgrimages to Africa to learn about their roots Blacks often use the term homeland. Are you offended by that? Do you think of Nazi's when they say it?
Your position is baseless.
Wrong! You made a 90* turn when our talk of Republican (and some Democrats I admit) poiticians strange use of the word 'Homeland.' We know it is commonly used by other countries, especially Germany.
So why would you imply that African Americans might be angry because we are sick of this strange usage? Believe me, I got your point--perhaps you're the one who missed it.
Not certain, but Nazis I believe used the term "Fatherland." Nonetheless, "Homeland" has always sorta struck that same chord in my brain as well.
double-standard
Same old change-the-subject nonsense that's standard among right wingers. But what the hey, a moment to deal with it before we get back to the actual subject.
1. An American black who refers to Africa as their homeland is neither a government agency, a government representative, nor someone drawing the phrase from a government bureaucracy. (Question for you: How many times did you hear the US referred to as "the homeland" before the creation of the Department for the Protection of the Fatherland - excuse me, the Department of Homeland Security?)
2. Referring to another country, another continent, from which your ancestors came as your homeland is not the same as using the term in reference to where you now live. The former has overtones of a desire for roots with perhaps some nostalgia mixed in; the latter has overtones of jingoistic nationalism.
That answers your question. Now let's get back to the actual topic.
Why can't we refer to America as the Homeland? That's why they call it Homeland Security for gosh sake.
Holy. moly.
Your cause/effect circuit has a short in it, or perhaps was left out altogether.. I'd suggest an RMA, but that would be cruel to the manufacturer. Stick around - you'll come in handy during the next Intelligent Design debate...
The terms "homeland", "fatherland", and "motherland" all have negative connotations to me - mostly, I imagine, due to the tie in, for the last two at least, to historical usage(s).
"If we fail in Iraq, we will see Iraq become a center for Al Qaeda..."
We leave Iraq and Al Qaeda moves in... actually, that should be a neocon's dream. Then the necons could finish bombing Iraq, wiping out Al Qaeda along with Iraq for harboring them. Then we could take their oil...
So, nobody here thinks that the enemy will follow us home? What about the Fort Dix plot? That's just one example. If you truly believe that what happens in the Middle East stays in the Middle East, you are sadly, woefully misinformed.
Bin Laden wants to kill 3 million westerners including 1 million children. This is the number he claims were killed by American policies, sanctions etc. He can't can't reach his goal in his homeland... he has to take the fight to us.
THIS is what we are dealing with. You are clueless if you think we are safe here at home.
Let's see:
Bin Laden kills over 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and The Iraq war kills over 3,400 Americans. They didn't follow us home but they killed us just a dead. So this makes it better how?
Killing them over there is far better than killing them here in retaliation for thousands, or tens of thousands death on our own soil.
Except ADD president Gump left off killing THEM and decided to fight a more profit friendly war with Iraq which had nothing to DO with 9/11. Buy a map for goodness sake.
So those dead soldiers are OK with you, after all they may be Americans but what the he** they died in Iraq not on American soil.
Smart, really smart.
Wait wait!!! I thought we were fighting them over there so we wouldn't have to fight them over here.
Wait wait!!! I thought that if we leave there, they'll follow us home.
WAIT !!! Now you're telling me they are already here, yet our troops are over there??? Now you're really scaring me. Sounds like we can't win, no matter what.
Therick, ditto
I'm so tired of that "talking point".
They will follow us home that's why we are dying in Iraq.
Thanks. However, anything but 'ditto.' :-)
Therrick, I get it :-)
I'm 72, cut me a little slack.
pearlene_scott1602, anytime someone who is 72 requests that I cut them some slack-- you know what I do? I cut them some slack.
(My slack cutting begins at 70) :-)
Have a nice day !
Tired of it as well. Why are we making it easier on them turrists by shipping targets over there? Sure is costing us a helluva lotta money, particularly when we've got millions of law abiding, 2nd amendment loving good ol' boys here in the US just itchin' for a fight. And good luck to them radical islamists will be beggin' for mercy should they interrupt a pre-menapausal support group when they're talking about their sympathetic hot flashes. The first guy that mentions burkkas is gonna find himself in a world of hurt. IEDs might be useful against Humvees, but you best not be screwin' with Mom and her Suburban full of carpool kiddies on the way to swim team. She's got insurance AND a schedule to keep.
You are right on all three counts. Yes, we need to kill them in their own territory. Yes, they will kill us here too. Yes, many are here already. At least you admit that they exist and are trying to kill us.
THE POINT: We need to keep fighting the bad guys. The Left wants us to leave the Middle East let them massacre themselves into oblivion (very compassionate btw), so our troops can come home to what? Ridicule by Cyndi Sheehan and her friends? You'd rather have our energy focused on gay marriage, making Gore rich with carbon offset companies and saving the caribou?
It's better to fight elsewhere...
> The Left wants us to leave the Middle East
Brrzt. Wrong. What's proposed is redeployment. This would involve moving many troops to Kuwait, bringing some home, and continuing the search for Al Qaida and bin Laden whereever the hunt takes us.
What it doesn't involve is parking our asses in the midst of a civil war so our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mommies and daddies can get shot at for no good reason.
And the right just wants to keep feeding our troops into the meat grinder. We are all for fighting terrorists its ludicrous to claim anything else. The only difference between us is the tactics.
Its so cute for you cons to pretend you care beans about the Iraqis and claim we need to stay there for THIER sake. Problem with that is more than 80% of them want us gone about half of them say attacks on us are justified and less than one percent of them believe we are helping security. So what you are really saying is we dont care what they think we are going to help them no matter WHAT they want. They are nothing but children and WE will decide whether to help them in the way WE say and WE couldnt care less what THEY think. Yeah tell us how compassionate you are and how much you care about the Iraqis and their democracy. Your position is a joke
Link to the British poll.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
the guys in the fort dix plot had been here many years.
So were the guys that hijacked planes on 9/11. What's your point?
We're fighting 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here. If we leave they'll follow us home.
C'mon, you must have a few more of them thar talkin' points.
Hoe 'bout offering some substantive debate, podner?
Those aren't my talking points.
Podner
Screw that. You don't get to control the terms of the debate by defining what is or is not acceptable behavior.
If you can't hang, get out. But the days of telling Dems to behave are done.
well cannon, i guess my point, which you are really supporting, is that those things all happened before we invaded iraq. the guys who bombed the wtc in 93 were let in under reagan/bush. what's...your... point?
I believe most of the guys allegedly planning the attack on Fort Dix were a) Serbian and b) here for something like 20 years. How is our fighting in Iraq gonna do anything about that sort of terrorism?
In fact, how is our fighting in the middle of a civil war, taking shots from two sects of the same religion, helping us in a "war" against a tactic? All it's done is CREATE another haven for one group of those who use terror as a tactic to form up, train, and hide. Wouldn't be we better off letting the middle east deal with its own regional issues, and then dealing diplomatically with those governments in our efforts to fend off terrorist plots and groups?
No, instead we should practice jingo-ism. "Fight 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here." Blah blah. Means nothing in an age where 19 guys can kill 3000, but sure sounds good -- particularly if you don't actually have to do the fighting.
i guess great minds think alike. i beat you by 2 seconds.
Because I was blabbering on too long to make my point -- and I goofed. According to Wikipedia, the six guys were
three from Albania, who snuck in here in 1984
one originally from Jordan, but who is a naturalized US Citizen
one from Turkey (here legally)
and another for whom a place of birth isn't listed, but he's got on of them thar scary soundin' names.
Sure... we let the Middle East handle its own affairs and everthing is honkey dory. No worries about radical Imams preaching hatred for our Western ways. Kohmeni started this crap back in the 70s and it has been snowballing since then. We are friends with Israel, that alone is reason enough for the Middle Eastern countries to hate us and want to kill us.
We tried leaving Iraq alone and Saddam thumbed his nose at us while killing thousands of his own people. He violated no-fly zones and ignored UN sanctions. Would you rather wait until one of those crazies gets a nuke and decides to attack us? Would you wait until OPEC screwed us so bad that we were paying $5 for gas?
Sometimes you have to be proactive in order to survive. Thank a soldier for the freedoms you have to post your opinions here.
Are you now implying that the left doesn't support the troops?
And Khomeni came to power HOW? Oh yeah in opposition to the brutal Shah Pahlavi who WE installed on the peacock throne after overthrowing the democratically elected Mohamed Mossedegh. THAT was blowback for an ill concieved imperialist venture. The Shah was more than once named the worlds worst torturer by Amnesty International. You PRETEND that they have some irrational hatred of us with no connection to things we have done and to show it you name a CLASSIC example of THEM suffering because of OUR interference. Ya got nothin.
;-)
Crazies get a nuke?
While we've been fighting in Iraq, can you say North Korea, Iran.
And let's see, not only did Saddam not have wmd's he didn't have a mushroom cloud either.
That "C" Yale student picked the wrong country to invade under the guise of protecting America or fighting them over there. We now have two countries gaining nuclear capabilities.
Actually, I'd rather spend the billions we're spending on our pointless war improving our mileage standards, developing alternate fuels, and arranging for a buyback/recycling program for older cars for newer more efficient models.
Then OPEC can charge as much as they like while we stay warm and mobile without needing their oil.
Proactive, right?
"You are clueless if you think we are safe here at home."
Wrong... we are not safe at home. What some people are clueless about is that American blood being shed in Iraq has nothing to do whether or when Al Qaeda is going to strike in the USA again. Now THAT'S clueless...!
The Fort Dix Plot?
The evildoers were pizza delivery guys with a grandiose scheme to attack a military base with automatic weapons and RPGs.
How many pizzas would they have to deliver to earn enough money to purchase one AK47 or one M16?
Even with great tips, (we tip very well here in Central NJ) they couldn't get their hands on RPGs.
Nobody followed anyone home in this case. Christ we didn't come home. Who the hell did they follow?
This is serious. We need our military here at home protecting us, NOW!
From our pizza delivery men.
So lets get Ben Laden instead of using him as an excuse to fight profit friendly wars wherever the next neocon wetdream of domination manifests itself. NOTHING is stopping them from coming here NOW. Think Iraq is some compulsion that as long as we are there they are congenitally incapable of coming here and committing terrorism? How dumb is that? Also what is the moral justification for inflicting the price of our war with a Saudi National terrorist nutbag on the Iraqi people? Its as if you picked a fight with the Mafia and decided to fight it at your nieghbors house so HIS family would get caught in the crossfire instead of yours. The very concept is morally reprehensible. Whether or not the terrorists come here has nothing to do with whether we are in Iraq except we are spending so many of our resources there we arent doing the things necessary to fight terrorism itself. This is a mindless talking point to justify an unjustifyable war. Very simpleminded rhetoric. It wouldnt fool a reasonably bright second grader.
havnt the fort dix guys been there since the 80s and early 90s how is that following home ???
cann0nba11 , despite everything you've been told about non-Bushies wanting to be on defense (read:weak) and the horror of "them" following us home, I think reality can be summed up in the answer to one question;
Which was the more successful operation for the US, Fort Dix or Iraq?
The problems with the anti-war liberals are two-fold: (1) They have no stomach for defending themselves except by appeasement, and (2) they are incapable of extrapolation (or to put it simply: they have no common sense).
OLDMARINE, crawl back in your foxhole... What American would not want to defend his country. Right after 9/11 there were no liberals or conservatives, just Americans... all willing to support our country and our President. It's the Bush crowd that has clearly demonstrated a lack of common sense in the entire Iraq fiasco. Need I remind you, Iraq didn't knock down the Twin Towers. But even giving the Bush crowd the benefit of the doubt common sense would dictate that if you're going to depose Saddam in a full scale attack on Iraq at least plan on securing the country in the aftermath. Common sense would dictate the employment of sound, practical advice of military experts (who warned that we were going in too light) instead of the questionable, untested theories of a bunch of armcjair hawks. Common sense...? Ha...!!!
Au contraire, IRONY! Shortly after 9/11, the liberals were back at it with hand wringing about offending Muslims, regret that it didn’t happen on Clinton’s watch, complaints about Bush disappearing in Air Force One when he should have been out there reassuring the nation, etc. It’s interesting that Democrats were falling all over themselves to sign on to the war resolution, even holding up the vote so that they could go on record with their statements - including Hillary. Now, they claim they were “duped” by Bush, this dumb-ass frat boy that couldn’t think his way out of a paper bag.
I’ll give you the good point that we really screwed up the liberalization (that’s in the classic liberal sense, not the modern Liberal) of the country. Mistake no. one was de-Baathisization. Here were all of those Sunni army people out of work and sitting on tons of ammo and weapon stashes. Well, here’s some news for you: doing hard things isn’t easy. We committed far more screw-ups in WWII than we have in any major war since: Korea, Viet Nam and the cold war with the Soviets (which liberals claimed we couldn’t win). Yet, back in the WWII days, people were what you say “just Americans, willing to support our country and our President”. We toughed it out or muddled through, whichever way you’d like to look at it, and finally prevailed. One big advantage in that war over Viet Nam and this war is that the liberal anti-war crowd was largely silent.
No, Iraq didn’t knock down the twin towers but everyone outside of Saadam’s inner circle “knew” he had weapons of mass destruction and was hell-bent on acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, including Democrats and all of their liberal supporters in the press and around the world. IMHO we went into Iraq for two reasons: (1) to demonstrate to the Islamists that Mogadishu did not represent our usual way of doing business, and (2) because we really did believe Saadam was on his way to having a nuclear capability.
And SOLON, it’s clear to me that you hate war. The problem is that this is the way the world is. Do you believe in liberty and the need to defend it? To my way of thinking that’s a noble cause and one I’d still give my life to defend.
And IRONY, speaking of foxholes, if you were in the one next to me, I’d be watching in that direction for fear that you wouldn’t be there when the chips were down.
And as for John Wayne, he was a beaut. You know what you can do with today’s Hollywood “heroes”.
And why was Marion, "A beaut"?
He was a movie tough guy , not the real thing.
A 4F tough guy as Kurt Vonnegut put it.
"Now, they claim they were “duped” by Bush, this dumb-ass frat boy that couldn’t think his way out of a paper bag." Oldmarine
That is your first fallacy. Bush is conservative through and through and has been very successful at pushing the conservative agenda. Here's a short list of his conservative successes:
Centralizing power within the executive branch to an unprecedented degree.
Starting two major wars, one started with questionable intelligence and in a manner with which the military disagreed.
Placing two far-right justices on the Supreme Court and stacking the lower federal courts with many more.
Cutting taxes during wartime, an unprecedented event.
Passing a number of controversial bills such as the PATRIOT Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Medicare Drug bill, the Bankruptcy bill and a number of massive tax cuts.
Rolling back and refusing to enforce a host of basic regulatory protections.
Appointing industry officials to oversee regulatory agencies.
Establishing a greater role for religion through faith-based initiatives.
Passing Orwellian-titled legislation assaulting the environment — “The Healthy Forests Act” and the “Clear Skies Initiative” — to deforest public lands, and put more pollution in our skies.
Winning re-election and solidifying his party’s grip on Congress.
He's not stupid, he only plays stupid on TV. Bush's failures are the failures of today's conservative right wing authoritarianism. No wonder you and droves of Republicans are distancing yourselves from Bush, you cannot hold conservative leaders accountable for their failures, so the only way out of this pickle is to say that they were not really conservative.
"We toughed it out or muddled through, whichever way you’d like to look at it, and finally prevailed. One big advantage in that war over Viet Nam and this war is that the liberal anti-war crowd was largely silent."
Damn, right we stuck together. There is no comparison between Iraq and WWII. It's just that simple. WWII was necessary and right, Iraq is neither.
Okay, ROUNDHOUSE (I guess we can’t corner you), let’s take those one at a time and see where either you or I are full of it:
The comment about Bush being a dumb frat boy with a tiny brain is simply a distillation of what liberals and Democrats have been saying about him - except when they claim he has duped them. It ain’t my quote and I think Bush is a very bright and very honest fellow and very much falls into the category of “what you see is what you get”. He has demonstrated two very large shortcomings: (1) he has attempted to placate with Democrats (i.e. be a “uniter not a divider”), and (2) he has not been articulate. I hope the next Republican presidential nominee will not make these mistakes.
I’m startled at your comment about “centralizing power to the executive branch to an unprecedented degree”. Have you really paid attention to what’s was going on under Clinton? If anything, the current congress has been attempting to dictate foreign policy and have a say on who the president can hire and fire for his cabinet and those who report to them. Moreover, congressional Democrats have actually been attempting to undermine the president’s foreign policy, to with Nancy Pelosi’s recent trip to the Middle East. To me what Pelosi and Reid have been saying is treasonous
Supreme court justices? One man’s “far right” is another man’s “originalist”.
Now, on the next paragraph, we totally disagree down to every bill. With the exception of the Medicare drug bill, all of that legislation you listed is good stuff IMO, especially the tax rate cuts. A little aside here because, for all I know, you may be a recent product of the U.S. education system. It’s rates that were cut, not taxes. As has been proven every time it’s been done, tax rate cuts have actually produced greater tax revenues than when the rates were higher. It’s a little thing called economic incentive. That’s where you get to keep more of your money to spend however you want rather than the government taking it and spending it their way (mainly to buy votes).
Okay, we’ll skip the Bush bashing stuff and cut to your last paragraph:
“Damn, right we stuck together. There is no comparison between Iraq and WWII. It's just that simple. WWII was necessary and right, Iraq is neither.”
I couldn’t disagree more with you on that last assertion. As long as little kids in the madrassahs are taught to hate and kill infidels, this war will continue (and I think you must agree that we’d like to be on the winning side). That’s where the comparison to WWII is right on. FDR pushed our allies to declare that we would accept only unconditional surrender from the axis powers. As a result, little kids in Germany were no longer taught the superiority of the Arian race and little kids in Japan were no longer taught to die for the emperor.The comment about Bush being a dumb frat boy with a tiny brain is simply a distillation of what liberals and Democrats have been saying about him - except when they claim he has duped them. It ain’t my quote and I think Bush is a very bright and very honest fellow and very much falls into the category of “what you see is what you get”. OM
That argument is basically a non-sequitor as it does not address, in any manner, the evidence supported argument that Bush is a successful conservative. His regressive, failing agenda is the failure of authoritarian conservatism.
As for Bush being honest, just look at the unethical firings at justice department and the spying program which is increasingly being found to be illegal. Both of these scandals have been perpetrated by cabinet members who serve at the pleasure of the President, these dishonest dealings belong equally to Bush.
"I’m startled at your comment about “centralizing power to the executive branch to an unprecedented degree”. Have you really paid attention to what’s was going on under Clinton?"
Again, non-sequitor. Clinton has aught to do with the actions of the George Bush Administration.
"If anything, the current congress has been attempting to dictate foreign policy and have a say on who the president can hire and fire for his cabinet and those who report to them"
It's called checks and balances. Congress has a duty to check Presidential power.
"To me what Pelosi and Reid have been saying is treasonous"
Then a majority of the country are traitors too.
"Supreme court justices? One man’s “far right” is another man’s “originalist”."
That's fine. One man's 'far left' is another man's protector of freedom.
"That’s where you get to keep more of your money to spend however you want rather than the government taking it and spending it their way (mainly to buy votes)."
Go ahead and try to fund, with your tax break, the infrastructure that protects and empowers your ability to prosper.
"I couldn’t disagree more with you on that last assertion. As long as little kids in the madrassahs are taught to hate and kill infidels, this war will continue (and I think you must agree that we’d like to be on the winning side). That’s where the comparison to WWII is right on. FDR pushed our allies to declare that we would accept only unconditional surrender from the axis powers. As a result, little kids in Germany were no longer taught the superiority of the Arian race and little kids in Japan were no longer taught to die for the emperor."
Those nations had standing armies and could be fought with a conventional army. Terrorism is an idea, a manipulated emotion, conventional warfare is useless against it. Ask the Brits how they quelled the IRA.
You again assume facts not in evidence. Everyone should hate war but I am not against all wars. I think there are times when they are unavoidable and necessary, the just war doctrine works for me. Iraq isnt in the same universe as a just war. As for todays Hollywood heroes you mean the ones that can actually act. As opposed to JW who couldnt act his way out of a wet paper bag? You know what YOU can do with your assessment of them.
The problem with the Bush idolotor warmongers is twofold. First they are morons. Far too stupid to understand what is going on in the world so they react like fear biting dogs who lash out at anything they think MIGHT be a threat in between bouts of hiding under the bed and two the love death so much they want to get as many Americans killed as they possibly can so they can have their vicarious John Wayne fantasies. Its the only way to get their little thingys hard.
Exactly, Solon... the fear part, that is. I was driving out of Manhattan on 9/11 when the first plane hit. I returned many times thereafter... and I can't tell you how angry it made me every time I saw that hole in the ground where the Twin Towers stood. Going after Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the individuals who planned the attack was the right thing to do.. if for no other reason than to send the message not to f*ck with us. But you know what? 9/11 didn't destroy this country. Another 9/11 won't destroy this country either. We're stronger than Al Qaeda and the entire jiadist movement. Punish the bad guys? Absolutely! But to waste billions of dollars and American lives over Saddam Hussein? To abrogate the Constitution and everything America stands for? It's as though the neocons, deep down, don't have the confidence that our country and our Constitution are strong enough to survive 9/11.
Let's see ... we can't defend ourselves or extrapolate if we're "anti-war liberals."
Do you think that blowing up religious fanatics, letting them martyr themselves on our swords, so to speak, is the best way to defend ourselves from them? Extrapolate, if you will. If they consider it glorious to die for their cause, and their cause is to hinder and cut at us as much as they can, should we continue to blow them up purposelessly? Better yet, should we continue doing it, knowing we're creating martyrs and purpose by accidentally (?) hitting civilians while doing it.
OR ...
Should we take away the fuel of their fire by rising above their one-dimentional world view of us, develop defenses against their attacks, and then create and share wealth to uplift all?
Granted, neither one is likely to make the hardcore extremists think of us as anything but a demonic entity, but at least the normal folks might at least think we're not so bad, and stop swelling their ranks just because they're fed up with our clumsy imperial arrogance.
If killing our enemy only breeds more, will you adapt new ways to fight them or continue to kill? Adapt and Overcome, Old Marine.
REDRIGHTHAND, Yes on both alternatives. If you look at what’s really going on with the majority of Iraqi citizens, they want us there until the terrorists can be defeated. Our boys and girls over there are doing a fantastic job of being friendly and helpful. That’s the real 90% news from Iraq. Unfortunately, although these video feeds and email are readily available to the MSM, they prefer to give us the 10% of bad news as if that were the only news.
But I digress a bit. You are on the right track with your observations:
(1) What do we do to thwart an enemy who is not rational in that he/she is willing to die kill infidels? We need to eliminate the radical element and appeal to the rational. That’s exactly what our troops are doing a very good job of in Iraq right now.
(2) Yes. No doubt that fighting them “breeds more” enemies. They do recruit faster when they can convince the neutrals among them that we have given up. (This is my problem with the treason currently being committed by most Democrats and a few Republicans in congress. They’ve announced to the enemy that a lot of Americans have given up).
(3) “Normal folks might at least think we’re not so bad …” The problem, of course, is that normal folks aren’t in charge - except in a democracy where the rules are followed. In the ‘hood’, the hoodlums are in charge. This IS changing. Normal folks now have well over 200,000 Iraqi troops who have experience fighting (something they nor their ancestors have ever done before, unlike Americans) and are continuing to pummel their enemy: those who do not want a free Iraq.
(4) Your last sentence is right on: “Adapt and Overcome”. Do you think that this is not what we are currently doing?
You are flat out delusional. According to the poll taken by the British I have already linked to once 82% of the Iraqis STRONGLY oppose the presence of coalition troops. Less than 1% of them think we are helping security. You WISH it were true that they want us there but the FACTS that is on PLANET EARTH, they dont. There is no treason from dems who oppose this war there is blatant moronic ignorance from warmonger idiots who lust after getting as many Americans killed as they possibly can. Death worshipping morons who love to see Americans killed as long as some dark skinned people somewhere else are dying along with them. Brain dead sychophantic warmongers who think foriegn policy is best defined by a John Wayne movie.
Koch is not a Democrat
Never was and never will be, he was a racist mayor.
The Dems will be "in the dustbin for all time?" What about the Repubs and their insistent "strategery" that prolonging the bloodbath over in Iraq will make them look strong? The dustbin is large and getting larger.
I agree. This country should never forget how badly Bush screwed up, and how many lives he's cost, all because he went along with some screwy neocon theories about controlling the world and how to fight modern wars. Donald Rumsfeld should be forever held in disgrace for the way he planned this war. What to do now is an entirely different matter. We are now left with only bad options. But people should never forget how we got to this point.
Outstanding point , especially about the criminal Rumsfeld.
...and I think I didn't even make any typos this time, either. ;>)
Thanks, Doris.
This logic of fighting them over there or else they will come over here is the dumest thing ever said.
Terrorists is not standing armies where they pick a location to fight our soldiers or where our soldiers pick a location to fight them. If it was a matter of that why didn't Bush sent the soldiers over to the South Pole where the terrorists will follow our soldiers over there and fight? Based on the screwy logic of this administration that's the way it would have to play out.
So we're fighting them "over there" so "they" won't "follow us home." I see.
So it's somehow physically impossible for any terrorist or terrorist group to come to the US so long as we have troops in Iraq, which Ed Koch, also known as King Ed the I (that is not a Roman numeral), assures us is the "homeland" of terrorism.
But wait! What about the Fort Dix plot? That proves they'll "follow us home!" Except of course we haven't "come home" and the guys accused didn't "follow" anyone here, having arrived as small children with their parents over 20 years ago. And except, of course, for the quaint, oh so "pre-9/11" concept of innocent until proven guilty.
I'll say one thing for the wingnuts: It takes a lot of mental discipline to keep all the nonsense they carry around in their heads from crashing in on itself, taking what's left of their reasoning powers with it.
Exactly... Bin Laden has even spoken of their patience and how this is a life-long jihad. Don't you think preparations for another 9/11-type attack are in the works at this moment? Why aren't we devoting more of our efforts to increasing the effectiveness of our intelligence gathering, for example? Why are we wasting hundreds of billions of dollars (and American lives) in Iraq? It's insanity. We can't even afford to help re-build a major U.S. city (New Orleans) that was destroyed in great part because of a failure of it's federally supervised levee system, but yet we can dump hundreds of billions of dollars into a rat hole. We're not protecting Americans in America by being in Iraq. Bush and his arrogant crowd of neocons were cocksure that Iraq would be over in a snap and not one of them had the balls to admit that they were wrong and corrected course early on... and that's why we're still there.
That, and the fact that they still have a group of people(including our visitors OLdmarine and Rinohunter) who are actually buying the "follow us home" line.
Seriously, I know it's been discussed here enough, but am I the only one that finds it a bit bizarre that some of our fellow Americans and voters actually think that the guys shooting in the streets of Baghdad are in Terrorist management positions?
Sorry, HBL ...
Obviously, these are the terrorist managers, after all, just like America, they outsource all the low-level positions ... as proven by our pizza attack junior jyhad squad.
... err ... or something.
I'm sure those street fighters in Iraq are terrorist lieutennants and everything! After all, they fit the racial profi--uh ... I mean, the common sense, right?
Wow. I feel like I've seen a unicorn! I thought this "follow us home" idiocy was just rhetoric, and no thinking person would actually fall for it. Yet, Cannonballs apparently believes it. Wow. Do you sleep well under your bed, Cannonballs?
Cannonballs, please explain to us how this works. What, exactly, is stopping them from coming over here now? And, please, don't repeat Dick Morris's theory that it's easier for them to kill our troops in Iraq...that's beneath you.
As a female veteran Marine, 1981-1989, I can say that Oldmarine does not speak for all Marines. Most of the Marines I knew were reasonable thinking people. That being said I address this to Oldmarine, Sir you are an embarrassment to my Marine Corps. As a side note I learned in chat rooms that usually someone who has to put their service name in their "name" is usually someone who never served and are usually wannabe's who dream they had the guts to actually serve their country.
Oldmarine before you besmirch my actual service to my country you should know that I also served in the USNR during Desert Storm so don't even go down that road. If you do you will end up looking foolish.
Missouri Democrat, Semper Fi!
I had the honor of attending the 60th Iwo Jima memorial at Camp Pendleton. I hadn’t been there since ’51 and it really choked me up. Seeing and talking to the young Marines in action is probably behind my picking the name “oldmarine”. Too bad that choice got in the way of expressing myself on this blog, or worse yet, prompted you to use that as a weapon to attack someone on the other side of the political divide.
I belong to the MCA and give to wounded marines and the DAV and have sent a couple of my own packages of appreciation to Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ll be taking a chocolate cake to the local USMC recruiter tomorrow in honor of “Recruiter Appreciation Day”.
I may be an embarrassment to you although I don’t know why. I’ve said nothing about military people or the Marine Corp for that matter. I appreciate that we’re on different sides of the political fence (and politics is really rough these days), but I can’t imagine why you think I may be about to “besmirch” your service. How about it? Where did you get that idea?
For the record, I went into the Corp Christmas 1950 at the time of the Chosen Reservoir action. I served in Korea from March ’52 to March ‘53. No doubt, your duty was tougher than mine but that’s just the way the chips fell.
I appreciate your not besmirching me or making false accusations. If you’ve got a political point to make, flail away, but lay off the holier-than-though approach.I dont care if you served or not. Calling other Americans traitors because you have policy disagreements with them makes you an embarassment to America. Thomas Jefferson said dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
You would appreciate NOT besmirching or making false accusations? YOU have called us lefties cowards and the enemy. YOU are a moron. YOU dont deserve to be treated with ANY respect because you dont GIVE any. Get over yourself you self important mindless brainwashed zombie
I’m not calling other Americans traitors simply because I have “policy disagreements”. Here’s my rational beginning with a question to you:
The Islamo-fascists having declared war on us, do you consider us to be at war with them?If you say "yes", then consider two points and a logical question:
1) As taught in the US military, the objective of war is to "DESTROY THE ENEMY'S WILL TO FIGHT".
2) Do you not consider that the Democrat party leadership has, in fact, been doing the exact opposite, that is encouraging the enemy to stick it out and defeat us in Iraq?
Is this not TREASON by every sensible definition (next line)?
…………………………….
Note: “Treason” definition: “a violation of allegiance to one’s state; the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery
Regarding my calling you cowards. I apologize. Since I don’t know YOU personally, I can’t say that. I’ll just say that those on the left have historically assumed that murderers, dictators, thugs, and more recently, terrorists have a good side which can be appealed to and at least negotiated with. Historically they’ve been wrong.
As for calling you leftists or left wing, that’s just a discriminatory term to distinguish those who think your way from those who think mine. I think it’s pretty much universally accepted.
Finally, I want to thank you for your insult regarding my sincere thanks to “Missouri Democrat” regarding her service to the country as a U.S. Marine. When you’re really frustrated with someone else’s argument, there are always insults. Cheers! I hope you’re having a good weekend.
SOLON, More on the treason issue. Here's an extract of a letter from a soldier currently surving in Iraq, Jim Funk CW4, US Army:
...
Hello media, do you know you indirectly kill American soldier’s everyday. You inspire and report the enemy’s objective everyday. You are the enemy’s greatest weapon. The enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield so all he does is try to wreak enough havoc and have you report it everyday. With you and the enemy using each other, you continually break the will of the American public and American Government. We go out daily and bust and kill the enemy, uncover and destroy huge weapons caches and continue to establish infrastructure. So daily we put a whoopin on the enemy, but all the enemy has to do is turn on the TV and get re-inspired. He gets to see his daily roadside bomb, truck bomb, suicide bomber or mortar attack. He doesn’t see any accomplishments of the US Military (FOX…you’re not exempt, you suck also). Let’s give you an example. Couple days ago we conduct an air assault. We lift troops into an area for an operation. The op goes well and we kill several, take several prisoners, free 2 hostages and uncover a massive weapons cache containing munitions and chemicals that were going to be used in a truck bomb. Next morning I wake up and turn on AFN (armed forces network) and watch the nightly news (NBC)…..nothing, none of that reported. But the daily car bomb report was reported, and the file footage was not even from the event. There was a car bomb in the Sadr City area and your news report showed old car bomb footage from another part of town from some other time. So we really set the enemy back that night but all he had to do was turn on the news and be re-assured that the enemy’s agenda (objective) was still going to be fed to the American public. We…the soldiers keep breaking the back of the enemy. You….the media keep rejuvenating the enemy.How hard would it be to contact the PAO (public affairs officer) of the 1st CAV, 36th CAB, 25th ID or the Marines and ask what did you guys accomplish today? How about some insurgent blooper videos? We’ve got plenty of captured video from insurgents being stupid. How about the video that shows an insurgent getting ready to fire a surface to air missile? He is untrained and has the tube elevated to high. The missile leaves the tube and as it launches, its’ back blast catches the shooter on fire. Now that would be something to show on the evening news. Media….we know you hate the George Bush administration, but report both sides not just your one sided agenda. You have got to realize how you are continually motivating every extremist, jihadist and terrorist to continue their resolve to kill American soldiers.OK, enough on the I hate the media stuff. ..."
Missouri Democrat,
I forgot to say something important.
Thank you for your service.
Oh and I forgot to say something important, you are an idiot
Follow us home? I heard McCain say this a couple of weeks ago and thought it was so child-like. The idea panders to the paranoid righties while scoldiong the lefties to be more supportive of this ass-hat war.
Follow us home? They're already here! They've come through porous borders, attend univerisities and flight schools, etc.
If nothing else, the past 6 years has shown how truly divided, silly and dangerous this country can be. Compared to the rest of the world, America is a teen-aged democracy that speeds everywhere it goes, retaliates against authority, experiments with anything that will produce a profit-high and doesn't give a s**t about its galactic Kharma.
I never, NEVER thought anything would make me miss the Clinton years.
"Them." "The enemy." "The terrorists." "Victory." Allow me to interrupt this polemic with a few facts and some conjecture.
Most estimates are that 5% to 7% of the people engaged in attacking US troops in Iraq are foreign Al Qaeda forces. The other 93% to 95% of the attackers are nationalist sectarian forces.
What's going to happen if we withdraw? The 93% to 95% of the insurgency are going to turn and attack the foreign interlopers. Moqtada al Sadr and his Shiite forces are going to turn and attack and destroy the Sunni Al Qaeda forces in a matter of weeks. There is NO WAY a Sunni-based terrorist organization is going to have any influence in a Shiite-dominated country.
The new "Iraqi" government will be dominated by the 60% of the country that is Shiite. Non-government personal armies will secure larger and larger areas of the country. Sunnis will move out of Bagdhad and closer to Saudi Arabia. Shiites will consolidate around Bagdhad. The Kurds will remain a semi-independent group within the north. In a few years, the middle-class and educated class that have fled Iraq may return.
Net result? Iraq will be a semi-stable and semi-fragmented country. Killings and bombings will drastically drop. Shiite religious fanatics may take over the government, but any kind of stability is better than the average of 3 American and 60 Iraqi deaths PER DAY currently taking place.
Hey Beck, Hanity, etc. there’s a plane leaves everyday for the war zone. Let’s all get Congress to create a new "Volunteer Average Americans" strike force to supplement our all volunteer armed forces. All you need to show is your little yellow magnet and you’re in. Never stopped Clack Gable or other celebrities from enlisting in what they perceived as the most important fight of their time. How about it all you big strong chicken hawks? You righteous righties now admit that Bush didn’t send enough troops so what are you waiting for? Pack your sh** and get to it or STFU! What you can’t this week because you got a $20,000.00 dollar speaking engagement? If you want something done right do it yourself. Screw the Democrats you guys can show them how it's done and someday you may have the eternal thanks of a gratefull nation or not. See ya. Good luck. Don't forget to blog.
You got that right. Exceptions should be made for the Chickenhawks. If you're old enough to sell the war, you''re old enough to serve in some capacity.
Is it just me or are the only "personalities" flogging this dead horse of a war these clowns who are too old to serve.
I'm always amazed how some men grow a pair at such a late stage in life.
The internet chicken hawks, cable news chicken hawks, and the chicken hawk architects of this Middle East disaster are quite a bunch aren't they? How many of them actually served in combat/war or even the freaking peace corps? I believe the number is none. I’ve been watching the 2008 Republican presidential contenders, and have found that they are another group of war mongers and fear merchants. Oh yeah and I do believe Giuliani I support torture and I can claim some kind of combat cred because I happen to be in NYC at it's worst moment in history had 5 deferments during the Viet Nam War.