Russert allowed Gingrich to cite Fort Dix Six as proof that terrorists "don't plan to stop in Baghdad"
On the May 20 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) suggested without challenge from host Tim Russert that the alleged plot by six men to carry out an armed attack on the Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey represents proof that if the United States withdraws forces from Iraq, terrorists "don't plan to stop in Baghdad. They are coming here as soon as they can get here." However, as Media Matters for America has documented, the assertion that terrorists will "com[e] here" following a U.S. troop withdrawal is widely challenged by experts.
While discussing the Iraq war with Gingrich and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Russert asked Gingrich, "[I]f we set a firm date for withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, what happens?" Gingrich responded in part by citing the purported lesson of "New Jersey" -- an apparent reference to the Fort Dix plot:
GINGRICH: I think that we have dramatically expanded the excitement and incentives of the terrorists, both in the Iranian-funded Shia wing and in the Saudi-funded Sunni wing of Al Qaeda. And I think you'll see a dramatic upsurge. And a simple way to measure this: Watch what our enemies say. If this Congress passes a definitive end of American involvement, every enemy we have on the planet will exalt, and every terrorist group on the planet will claim it's an enormous victory, and they will increase their recruiting. And as New Jersey should just have taught us, they don't plan to stop in Baghdad. They are coming here as soon as they can get here.
But Russert failed to note in response that experts have reportedly disputed the notion that terrorists in Iraq would come to the United States after a U.S. troop withdrawal:
- According to an April 6 McClatchy Newspapers article, as Media Matters noted, "[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, "It'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's
report 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."
Additionally, all six of the alleged Fort Dix plotters have been in the United States since at least 1999. A May 13 Philadelphia Inquirer article reported that three of them "entered the country in the mid-1980s"; a fourth suspect, now 22, entered "as a 2-year-old"; and a fifth suspect entered "in the late 1980s or early 1990s." A May 20 Philadelphia Inquirer article added that Agron Abdullahu "was 16 when he arrived here in 1999."
Moreover, as Media Matters has previously noted, no attack on Fort Dix was alleged to be imminent, and Fort Dix officials have reportedly claimed that the base was not, at any point, in immediate danger.
From the May 20 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Let me go back to Iraq and give each of you a chance, in the closing minutes. Speaker Gingrich, if we set a firm date for withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, what happens?
GINGRICH: I believe we send a signal to enemies to wait patiently and destroy the country as soon as we leave. I believe we send a signal to our own troops to cease patrolling and do everything you can not to be the last person killed on behalf of something that Congress has decreed will be a defeat. I think we send a signal to our allies around the world that we're unreliable. And I think that we have dramatically expanded the excitement and incentives of the terrorists, both in the Iranian-funded Shia wing and in the Saudi-funded Sunni wing of Al Qaeda. And I think you'll see a dramatic upsurge. And a simple way to measure this: Watch what our enemies say. If this Congress passes a definitive end of American involvement, every enemy we have on the planet will exalt, and every terrorist group on the planet will claim it's an enormous victory, and they will increase their recruiting. And as New Jersey should just have taught us, they don't plan to stop in Baghdad. They are coming here as soon as they can get here.
RUSSERT: Can you respond to that?
DODD: Yeah, I -- in fact, I think just the opposite. I think the very things you're talking about, you have the opposite reaction here. I think the world is waiting for the United States to lead again with bold leadership in the country. It's deeply worried about security, deeply worried about global terrorism, and looks on -- over this landscape of the world, says only one country can lead, it's the United States. The Chinese aren't going to do it, the Russians aren't going to do it, the Indians aren't going to do it, not in the foreseeable future. It's going to be the United States.
We're bogged down in a situation here where we're losing credibility. We're losing our moral value. The great moral reputation of the United States has suffered terribly as a result of this. That's a critical element and was critical in building the relationships that allowed us to develop the kind of international cooperation absolutely essential if you're going to deal with global terrorism. So my view is here, it's time for us to say that there's a new mission here, a new direction, a change in course here that will allow, I think, the possibility of Iraqis to decide they want to be a country. Allow us to encourage the moderate Arab states in the region to assume greater responsibility for their neighborhood than they presently are. I think the real opportunity, if you engage not as a means -- not as an end, but as a means to deal with the Iranian-Syrian issue, as we finally did in North Korea, you open up the, the perspective here -- the prospects, rather, of a wider, better set of alternatives for the United States and our allies around the world. That, at least, is a real opportunity. The status quo and escalating this conflict in Iraq on the assumption there's a military solution, I think has been disproven and discredited by most major people who've looked at this. I think they're right.
RUSSERT: Thank you both for making your views intelligently and passionately and in a civil environment. We appreciate it very much.
They came here on 9/11 and in 1993 , that was before Baghdad. When will this lie stop?
No $#!%. Maybe this the simpleminded approach, but didn't the Fort Dix Six terror cell spring up while U.S. forces were still in Iraq?
Believe me, if I knew that no terrorist violence would be perpetrated on U.S. soil as long as our military was in Iraq, I would say leave them there forever. Unlike our president, I'm not ignorant enough to believe terrorism is as simple as that. Anyone with half a brain knows that fighting terrorism is a law inforcement and intelligence battle, not a military one.
It's amazing how Republicans can easily embrace a flawed and unsubstantiated theory such as "if we leave, the terrorists will follow us home," yet evolution and global warming are seen as just interesting scientific theories for which other viable explanations exist. Just more evidence that our country is being governed by absolute lunatics.
Anyone with half a brain knows that fighting terrorism is a law inforcement and intelligence battle, not a military one.
Maybe a law enforcement/intelligence battle. Are the cops going to be allowed to shoot the bad guy? Or are they only going to be able to ask for ID? The problem with that idea is that the cops keep getting picked off one by one (4 by 4) because they aren't able to go into homes and capture/kill terrorists without having to worry about being charged with murder when the 12 year old terrorist's mother complains of abuse.
The police action would work if we took out the liberal "plan-of-action" for cops. Take the handcuffs off the cops and let them catch/kill the enemy as needed, plant GPS devices into the enemy that's captured and release them. Follow where they go and attack the nest. We should plant those devices (just like the ones in your pet) into every terrorist or suspected terrorist we catch. At least we could keep track of them and find out where they congregate. Do any liberals have a problem with that plan??
BZZZZZT. The judges say that you're going to have to be more subtle if you're going to write things like that just to get a reaction out of someone.
Thank you for playing. We have some wonderful parting gifts for you.
"A reaction" I don't want a reaction. I want an answer. Do you think GPS devises should be used in the terrorists? Yes or NO
Just go ahead and shoot them in the head. That'll take care of any terrorists. And if you happen to round up a few innocents, well, they can't be that innocent if we suspect them of something.
So, to answer your question: no, we apparently don't need to implant GPS devices in captured or suspected terrorists.
What do you have against letting them live? I'm simply suggesting that we use the technology we have. We do it to all the other 'animals' in the world, why not these animals? If you are so elated with us killing them, why do you get upset when innocent lives are taken?
Since you skipped answering the first time, should we install GPS devices into each terrorist we capture, then release them to find out their travel patterns?
"apparantly" isn't good enough in your answer. Weaseling out of answering won't work.
Do you think GPS devises should be used in the terrorists?
You write for The Onion, right?
"Okay, now lets elect a mouse to go put this bell on the terrori... er, cat."
I think your ideas seem to work a little better in the countries where most islamic fundamentalist terrorists come from. The apparent shortage of liberals in those countries has allowed the police/state to do many of the things you discuss above.
Maybe we should be more like those countries. That is a great suggestion. Too bad we have all of these stupid liberals here to prevent that from happening.
Really? What did they say their motivation was? Wouldn't happen to do anything with an ongoing occupation or anything like that, would it?
Fact: you can never "win" a "war on terrorism". (How's the war on drugs going, by the way?) Which is exactly how the people in power want it.. an unwinnable war to strike fear in a docile public that will allow them to take whatever freedoms they want.
Do you honestly trust the same people that misled you into a war and let their friends in industry poison your food, air and water with toxic chemicals to protect you from terrorism? This goes for Democrat and Republican.
"See, we don't want you to die abruptly because there's no profit in that.."
Newsflash for the "they'll follow us home" crowd. We're the ones bogged down in Iraq, not the terrorists.
Who is it that is "bogging us down" in Iraq?
And if we simply leave Iraq in this state, what will those "boggers" in Iraq do when they no longer have a war to fight?
Thinking persons might postulate the answer to the first question, at least in part, is "Al Qaeda Jihadists" and the answer to the second, "Carry the Jihad elsewhere".
NL,
I don't think anyone really knows the answers to those questions.......but if Bush hadn't waged and mismanaged such an incompetent war and planned for what was to happen after the initial struggle, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. It should anger every American.
The tragedy is after Bush took his bat to the hornet's nest over there, we really don't know what will happen if we suddenly pull out.......and that will be Bush's failed legacy.
Nonsense. You know exactly what will transpire if we withdraw while the enemy is still in the field.
Let me refresh your memory. We withdrew from Vietnam while an enemy was still in the field. After we left, the Communists took over Vietnam. They also took over Loas and Cambodia, two events the Left swore would not happen because, after all, the Domino Theory was just a false and fabricated notion cooked up by the evil warhawks to scare the American public into supporting more war.
AS it happend, the Dominoes fell. In their aftermath, we were allowed to watch as Pol Poty and his murderous lot went about the business of methodically murdering everybody in cambodia they didn't think were loyal to them. This amounted to some half of that population. In Loas, there was a less well publicized but no less deadly 'removal' of opponents. And in Vietnam istself, beyond the obligatory renaming of just about everything by the now victorious revolutionaries, we witnessed 're-education camps', mass executions, and oppressoin on a scale not seen in that country in its collective memory. And we saw a virtual wave of boat people, so desparate to escape from the socialist worker's paradise that they marooned themselves at sea on small boats.
If we withdraw from Iraq with the enemy still in the field, we will see some variation of these themes played out there, and, unlike Vietnam, I think we will see the Islamofascists resume organized training of Jihadists in Iraq instead of Afghanistan, from which hey will export Jihad once more.
"We withdrew from Vietnam while an enemy was still in the field."?
Wasn't it their field? If we had not left Vietnam when we did, we would not be in Iraq today. We would still be in SE Asia.
It was possible to militarily win the Vietnam War. US leadership lacked the political will to do so resulting in the muddled half effort that was applied. Maybe you haven't heard this: The Viet Cong ceased to exist after the 1968 Tet Offensive. The NVA was soundly defeated in that battle. An American view of these facts. General Giap's Memoirs reveal a similar story, echoed by this view. And none of this analysis considers the possibility of simply eliminating North Vietnam by occupation. That would have halted this war in an instant and in a manner favorable to Western interests. Defeating North Vietnam also would have averted millions of murders committed later by the Communists ....
This story should be familiar to you. You are among those re-enacting this historic tragedy by destroying the political will to win this war.
This issue of whether this war should have been started at all is moot. It is started. It can only end in defeat for one side or the other. To accept the consequences of its loss will be intolerable.
"It was possible to militarily win the Vietnam War." --nl207
You seem to presume it was worth winning.
You need to add that 2-3 million died after the US withdrew from Vietnam because Johnson would not fight to win the war.
Looks like you are a blame America firster.
Do you think the Communists might have had just a bit to do with what happened? How many would have died had we never gone to Vietnam in the first place? That may have been a better lesson to have learned.
My gosh, so much wrong in so little space.- It was Pol Pot (not Pol Poty) and Laos (not Loas). The former easily could have been a typo but you wrote "Loas" twice - and the existence of few other typos tempts me to think that "Loas" was a failure not of typing but of knowledge.- When the US finally left Indochina in 1975, leaving behind a trail of an estimated 2 million killed and 10 million refugeed, there were major insurgent movements in all three countries, all of which could trace their roots to resistance to French colonialism. No one predicted that the government of neither Cambodia nor Laos could fall.- That situation was not even what the so-called "Domino Theory" originally predicted. Rather, it predicted that a "communist" victory in Vietnam would lead to insurrection spreading to neighboring states and had to go through a major re-write when such insurgencies developed prior to such a victory.- What's more, it was not supposed to apply to just Laos and Cambodia but to all of southeast Asia and beyond. To Thailand. To Burma (now Myanmar). To East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). To Malaysia! To Indonesia! The Philippines! To omigod we'll be fighting them in Hawai'i! And yes, that precise argument was made at the time, including the "better to fight them there than here" line. (It was also, interestingly enough, supposed to describe Chinese domination of the region. Note how well that part has worked out.)- What Cambodia went through was indeed horrendous. But even here there are two bloopers: The number who died due to execution or starvation was closer to 1/5 of the population, not 1/2. And the driving force was not "murdering everybody ...they didn't think were loyal" but a bizarre fantasy of forcibly remaking society on a national scale. (And a very non-Marxist vision is was, too.) Conveniently overlooked is the fact that it was, indirectly but to a not-insignificant degree, our fault: Norodom Sihanouk had largely kept Cambodia out of the war until a US-engineered coup in 1970. Until then, the Khmer Rouge had been a very minor threat. After Lon Nol came to power in that coup, Cambodia fell into full-scale civil war. Oh, and of course, Pol Pot was later overthrown. Or is that another anti-Domino Theory inconvenient fact?- Nothing that happened in Laos after the war approached what happened in Cambodia. However, during the war, there was the US carpet bombing of the Plain of Jars, which went on for 10 years and killed an estimated 350,000 people. The area is still considered one of the most dangerous archaeological sites in the world due to unexploded bombs.- There were no post-war "mass executions" in Vietnam, much to the frustration of right-wackos who almost gleefully predicted a million would be executed. And political repression? Yes, but "on a scale not seen in that country in its collective memory" is utter nonsense - especially when you consider the regime from which it had just emerged, with an estimated 300,000 political prisoners (that figure does not include POWs) subjected to torture to such an extent that Amnesty International labeled its use "routine."- Finally, your powers of prediction are no better than your grasp of history: By almost universal agreement, the resistance US forces face in Iraq are Iraqi nationals opposed to our presence and concerned with their own position in a future Iraq, not jihadists, who account for only a small portion of the opposition and are already widely unpopular. A far more likely scenario is that once we leave those jihadists will become the targets rather than the targeters.
Sorry about that mess. I have no idea why the paragraphing vanished.
Your view of the war in Souteas Asia is flawed how does the domino theory make sense when AFTER we left Vietnam invaded Cambodia and China invaded Vietnam? Yeah they were communist but they were not monolithic. Sure the communists took over, that is why we kept cancelling the reunification elections Eisenhower said the reason was that Ho Chi Minh would win with 80% of the vote is your contention that we were justified in invading a country to stop them from putting in the government THEY wanted? By the way who was it that supported Pol Pot AFTER the genocide? Why yes we did Carter Reagan AND Bush I did.
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/hermansept97.htm
The Times editorial of June 24 recognizes a small problem in pursuing Pol Pot, arising from the fact that after he was forced out of Cambodia by Vietnam, "From 1979 to 1991, Washington indirectly backed the Khmer Rouge, then a component of the guerrilla coalition fighting the Vietnamese installed Government [in Phnom Penh]." This does seem awkward: the United States and its allies giving economic, military, and political support to Pol Pot, and voting for over a decade to have his government retain Cambodia’s UN seat, but now urging his trial for war crimes. The Times misstates and understates the case: the United States gave direct as well as indirect aid to Pol Pot—in one estimate, $85 million in direct support—and it "pressured UN agencies to supply the Khmer Rouge," which "rapidly improved" the health and capability of Pol Pot’s forces after 1979 (Ben Kiernan, "Cambodia’s Missed Chance," Indochina Newsletter, Nov.-Dec. 1991). U.S. ally China was a very large arms supplier to Pol Pot, with no penalty from the U.S. and in fact U.S. connivance—Carter’s National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski stated that in 1979 "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot...Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him but China could."
Life is a funny old dog sometimes.
Solon, apologies if I've pointed you this before, but it doesn't hurt to keep pushing this data up into the stream anyway.
Henry Kissinger's particularly loquacious day at a secret meeting with Chinese Prime Minister Chou En-lai; June 20, 1972. This is the excerpt of the Vietnam part of the discussion. The whole transcript is available from the NSA Archives(3.1mb PDF). Make sure you note the up and coming Silver Bullet spook in an early supporting role as NSA staffer: John D. Negroponte. Kissinger dropped some quotable bombs:
"More Important Business" is a Nixon realist's reason to engage in backstabbing betrayal of an ally. That's keeping it real all right. Also, I seem to remeber a Chou Enlai reference to punking Dr. K with nothing more than properly prepared Peking Duck. I should look that up for a proper citation.
The tragedy is after Bush took his bat to the hornet's nest over there,
Tommy, if you have a hornet's nest in your back yard...how do you get rid of it? Should you spray it with chemicals until all are dead? Should you place the entire nest in a bag and bury it? Should you burn it? Or do you just leave it alone and hope none of the hornets bother anyone??
Tell us how we should have handled that "hornet's nest". I expect to hear; "I don't know, just not the way we did". Is that what you're going to tell me?
I'll throw my answer out there on how we should have handled things, just because its an opportunity to do the Monday-morning QB thing. Not trying to speak for Tommy, btw.
I would've liked to see us continue with the containment/inspection route. Continue to fortify a strong presence in friendly Arab states like Kuwait. Maintain the no-fly zones, round the clock surveillance by satellite, as well as more hard intelligence from spies on the ground, etc.
All the while funding and supplying the budding democratic movements in both Iraq and Iran and let the people of those countries who want change, wait for it- foster change on their own. Kind of like the French helped us during our own Revolution.
Saddam was contained-but still in power, a paper tiger to our armed forces, but still a percieved threat to his neighbors, which meant that Iran was also not going to get too uppity anytime soon. Is it just me or was it a coincidence that Iran started to get even more beligerent when Saddam was deposed?
If nothing else, this strategy would have bought us time to build more of a consensus for support in the UN (specifically the EU) so that, if it came to war, we would at least be able to shift more of the burden to our long standing allies.
Of course, this is all after the fact and useless and off topic, but historical "what if's?" are always fun to me. Please don't take this post too seriously, its just a mental exercise.
Bush kicked the hornets nest, and we're going to be cleaning up this mess for a long, long time because of his decisions.
If nothing else, this strategy would have bought us time to build more of a consensus for support in the UN (specifically the EU) so that, if it came to war, we would at least be able to shift more of the burden to our long standing allies.
So your strategy would be to let the hornet's nest get bigger, stronger and more dangerous while you wait for neighbors to come over and remove it for you? Good plan.
Again, how would you deal with the hornet's nest after the neighbors came over??
Who is it that is "bogging us down" in Iraq?
The general consensus is: the Iraqis.
And if we simply leave Iraq in this state, what will those "boggers" in Iraq do when they no longer have a war to fight?
So you think that the civil war in Iraq will just stop if we pull out? Isn't that a good reason to leave, especially since intelligence has been shown to be more effective at thwarting terrorist plots than Iraq?
Thinking persons might postulate the answer to the first question, at least in part, is "Al Qaeda Jihadists" and the answer to the second, "Carry the Jihad elsewhere".
Thinking people can be wrong, especially since the "jihad" as you call it is already happening all over the Middle East.
Isn't that a good reason to leave, especially since intelligence has been shown to be more effective at thwarting terrorist plots than Iraq?
What happens when that intelligence says there are WMD's in Iraq? At what point are you going to trust or dis-trust the intelligence community? I think you'll stop trusting them when they say there is a clear and present danger in Iraq because fighting in another country's land is forbidden since we left Viet Nam. The fact is you only trust intelligence when it tells you what you want to hear. If we stop a band of 'youths' from attacking a US military base then the intelligence is good. If we stop a national leader from building a nuclear weapon the intelligence is bad.
Can you say "projection"?
Waiting for proof of WMDs in Iraq, after 4 years of finding nothing, is tantamount to waiting for the second effing coming.
And did we stop a national leader from building those nuclear weapons? "Find" them? Hell, we stopped him from building them! Would you have prefered we waited until AFTER he built them?
Stopped nothing, dude, he never started building them! You are sooooo paranoid...
Is that why clinton bombed Iraq in 98(?), because he was "paranoid"?!?
Do you think your solution was the most cost-effective way to deal with the problem?
According to post-mortem reports from David Kay and others, the sanctions/inspections regimes did more to get rid of Saddam's WMD programs than your $500 billion solution did at a fraction of the cost.
Did Kay mention how much effect the food/oil corruption had on Saddam? Or the matter of not letting inspectors in? I don't beleive your explanation. It sounds like lefty rants to downplay the danger that was present. Or, the UN wouldn't have needed to inspect in the first place!
"Or the matter of not letting inspectors in?"
This is a reichwing falacy and you should educate yourself on the situation. I remember Bush making this claim as he was announcing we were attacking within days. The problem was, I knew inspectors were there AT THAT MOMENT and had been for quite some time.
NL, maybe you, at long last, are the conservative with the answer I have been looking for. Here it comes...are you ready?
What is stopping them from coming over here now, if they are so inclined?
Have you ever tried to plan out the next 24 mounths of your life, including covert international travel to a land with which you are largely if not totally unfamiliar and smuggling of contraband weapons/explosives all in coordination with some small number of your confederates while you are running like hell from the most powerful army in the world?
Now, take away that small distraction and hypothesize access to a safe have training area, instruction in English and the ways of America, confederates with the freedom of action to aid you, money, etc. How much easier has your task become?
Never underestimate the value of initiative. Right now, we have the initiative strategically. Withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda gains the initiative by default. Then watch out.
That would be a valid point if ALL the Islamic terrorists were in Iraq. Do you have any reason to believe they are? Our State Dept had a list of 60 countries al Queda was active in, Iraq wasnt on that list, including Pakistan, the Phillipeans AND Indonesia the worlds most populous Islamic country. THERE they already have everthing you listed therefore you did NOT give a compelling answer to his question. A thoughtful one but not a compelling one.
Solon, why is it I always hear a tone in my left ear when you are around?
Maybe you are unaware that Al Qaeda in these other places you mention are running from the local army there. In the Philippines, the US Army is assisting the Philipine Armed Forces against Abu Sayyaf. In Indonesia, the government has been waging war against Islamist insurrectionists in league with Al Qaeda.
Much the same story is true in nearly every country with Al Qaeda elements in it, even in China.
According to some intelligence estimates, Iraq has 60,000 Al Qaeda fighters in it. I doubt this very much, since Abu Al Masri, the recently deceased leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq only claimed 12,000 fighters on the ground and he was most certainly exaggerating his actual numbers, perhaps by as much as 2x.
The pre-war estimates of Al Qaeda's total worldwide strength was about 20,000 trained fighters. If they really do have 12,000 in Iraq now, that has to include most of their remaining trained fighters. Since they have been deprived of their training infrastructure in Afghanistan, their new recruits, regardless of how numerous they might be, will be no where near as good as what's been lost. Let them up now and I think they will very quickly find safe havens for training in the Sunni triangle of Iraq and in 3-5 years they will be positoiin to once again strike a 9-11 like blow in the US. Will they succeed under such a scenario? Who knows, but they only have to be right once. If we adopt a defensive posture, we need to be right each and every time.
Why do you hear a tone in your ear? Perhaps its your substandard brain complaining it will be forced to perform the unfamiliar chore we like to call higher brain function. Do the terrorists glow in the dark? If they dont then its still pretty easy to blend into a large city and do the planning they need to do in a basement. The 9/11 hijackers trained in the gym. Pakistans Southern and Western provinces are still pretty al Queda friendly and the Pakistan government is doing very little to disrupt them. The guys claim of 12,000 fighters sounds like blowing his own horn to me and I doubt seriously there are that many. What evidence do you have that most of their fighters are there? NONE? Imagine my suprise. As HBL points out do you REALLY think the grunts shooting at our soldiers and planting IEDs are the planners of al Queda? If so I have a brige over some swampland I would like to sell you. Cheap. The truth is NOTHING we are doing in Iraq is stopping terrorists from coming here and attacking us again. NOTHING. Even if it were so. What is the moral justification for foisting this battle on the Iraqis? If the fight is between us and the Islamic terrorists making the Iraqis suffer from being in the crossfire is morally unjustifyable. It is certainly draining OUR resources, which could be better used to fight terrorists and protect our country from them. Any evidence that it is stopping THEM from attacking us here is conspicuous by its absence.
Do you really think that the muscle who carried out the 9-11 attacks, excepting Mohammed Atta, were any of the planners of that attack?
Ah no and if any of them had been hit by a bus they would have been replaced just like the boxcutters used if they got lost so it still isnt very relevant. The footsoldiers are a dime a dozen. They can be found anywhere. If you think every single one of them is in Iran or running for their lives from some army of another I think you are very optimistic. So still NOTHING we are doing in Iraq is stopping them from coming here.
What evidence do you have that most of their fighters are there? NONE? Imagine my suprise.
And what evidence do you have that "most" are NOT there? NONE? Imagine MY surprise. You just keep spouting the same liberal mantra over and over again. You are just like all the right wing pundits you always complain about. Only you do it with hateful retoric. Now, go drive your train over that brige you have to sell.
You have no evidence or facts to support your notion that the war is protecting the US from additional terrorist attacks and no end plan, yet your willing to support this path and offer up other peoples lives on this 'theory'?
And you have no facts or evidence to support your theory that leaving Iraq would create a peaceful world with al queda living peacefully with all it's neighbors for all of eternity. But you have no problem taking that gamble with innocent lives of people who don't join the military with the expectation of going to war.
What exactly is my theory smart guy? Please do tell.
And once again the insane rantings of Autopsychotic, moron supreme. capable only of repeating the most ignorant of rightwing talking points. Specializing in the mantras so stupid even the most comitted aparatchiks have given up on them. A demented Myna bird has a higher IQ. A broken tape recorder set on Sean Hannity makes more sense.
Yes, solon. And like your job you have no steering wheel, you just go where you're told with no ability to deviate. You think the same way. You fit your job perfectly. My job takes thought and deduction. 99% of the people in the world cannot do my job, anyone can do yours, even those as moronic as you. Time for you to lighten up with all the slander and hateful retoric or your democratic party will remove you from OUR airwaves! Since I am still on probation, I cannot flag your illegal rants each time they show up. You must be in upper management for mmfa, since they allow you to break all the rules of allowable posting. Goes to show that liberals break every rule they complain about the right doing, only whine when a righty does it and defends it when a lefty does it. No wonder MS always says liberalism is a mental disorder. You certainly can't think normally.
Just in case you never read this: http://mediamatters.org/etc/terms " Media Matters reserves the right to remove comments, topics and threads that are hateful, derogatory, trolling, irrelevant to the conversation, or in violation of copyrights. "
You've cornered 4 of the 5 listed. In fact you specialize in 4 of the 5 listed. Too bad mmfa only means they will remove conservatives who do those and not liberals. I guess they don't know the meaning of the word hypocrisy either.
Hey moron HE made the claim so its his to back up. Besides the fact there were terrorist attacks in Spain and Britain IS evidence they arent all in Iraq. Please aquire some brain cells before entering into the adult discussion. We prefer to deal with posts coming from higher brain function as of yet that is far beyond your wildest dreams. You are too stupid to tie your shoes. Now run along the shortbus wont wait for you forever. Your posts are getting even more ignorant and worthless and I didnt think that possible.
The evidence that they ARE in Iraq is overwhelming. Even those who play with toy trains can figure that out. Unless they get stuck under the fake mountain, then you have to get a coat hanger to get it out. And, everyone knows you know what to do with a wire hanger!
Al queda IS in Iraq...always has been...always will be. Your classicly liberal thinking says we should leave al queda alone in Iraq and chase them in another location. Your liberal thinking would prefer we run all over the world fighting al queda, but to ignore the main gathering point. That's why liberalism is considered a mental disorder.
They can leave Iraq whenever they choose. They aren't "on the run". To whatever extent Al Qaeda is in Iraq, they are drawn there to attack our troops or to foment the civil war. They are there by choice. If they want to attack us over here, they can disengage and do it any time. 9/11 was planned from a cave, as far as we know.
Now, if you think we have the manpower to attack Al Qaeda all over the world simultaneously, your plan might work. Then, they might actually be "on the run". If you think our troops in Iraq have Al Qaeda too occupied to plan an attack elsewhere, you're dreaming.
Obviously ou haven't been paying attention. Loook at the post above which lists just a few places around the world where Al Qaeda is under attack: The Philippines, Indonesia, and China. AQ is outlawed and/or under attack in virtually every country in which they have a presence. About the only places they are actually secure are secluded areas in Muslim countries such as Pakistan where the government doesn't really have control, in safe houses supported by those few states who will still sponsor terrorists, and surprisingly, some South American countries where there are enclaves of Muslim converts.
Take the pressure off them, which is exactly what the liberals in this country want to do, and they will have a chance to regroup, reorganize, train and re-equip. Then there will be the devil to pay.
Again you make a false assumption. That leaving Iraq would entail ending our fight with al Queda. When in FACT if we left off the war we are fighting as using terrorism as an EXCUSE we could focus our efforts and resources against al Queda. We could get international cooperation with intelligence and agreements to fight them as well as using our special forces to find and get them where they are. Something countries are much LESS likely to do as long as they see us using fighting terrorism as an EXCUSE for military misadventures. Pakistan has basic control over their country but really dont have enough control to go to the al Queda strongholds. They COULD however allow our special forces to do so without too much fallout. What you are presenting is a false dichotomy. Either fight al Queda in Iraq of not at all. And it STILL doesnt answer the question of what would stop them from attacking even if we STAY in Iraq either the whole world is making it so they are unable to focus an attack in which case Iraq is irrelevant or they already have the ability to make an attack in which case Iraq is STILL IRRELEVANT.
NL (Needs Lithium) seems to have a problem with logic. He is reality-challeneged enough to still believe the lie of Iraq having anything to do with 9/11. After all SH hated OBL, it was not until we invaded that AQ came down from the north (where we were protecting their camps with Bush(41)'s No-Fly zones from his own war he instigated) to train on the unarmored and under-equipped and trained targets dumbaya thinks are toy soldiers.
Lets assume for a moment thast you are not one of the tinfoil hats who believes 9-11 was an insiode government job.
(1) Al Qaeda has been found accountable by no less an authority than the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States.
(2) Regardless of how or why they have accummulated there, Al Qaeda claims that 60% of its pre-Iraq war strength is concentrated in Iraq.
these two facts lead to this conclusion: If, as you claim, Iraq is unrelated to 9-11, then there must be no Al Qaeda presence there. Since this proposition is false, your argument that the Iraq war has nothing to do with 9-11 must also be false.
(3) Iraq is the one "arab" country in the world where 80% of its population is ethnically something other than Sunni Muslim - Arab. It also has an unusually large percentage of educated people for a populous "Arab" country. In short, its indigenous population has a great many intrinsic reasons to reject Al Qaeda, which is Sunni Muslim Arab in its orientation, as are all true Wahabists.
(4) Prior to the war, Iraq was ruled by a Stalinist Dictator with a demonstrated proclivity for the aquisition and use of Chemical weaponry. This man had a great many enemies in the region, making him an attractive candidate for deposition.
These facts imply that of all the countries where AQ has a significant presence, Iraq is perhaps the most attractive theater in which to engage them militarily.
Regardless of how or why they have accummulated there, Al Qaeda claims that 60% of its pre-Iraq war strength is concentrated in Iraq.
these two facts lead to this conclusion: If, as you claim, Iraq is unrelated to 9-11, then there must be no Al Qaeda presence there. Since this proposition is false, your argument that the Iraq war has nothing to do with 9-11 must also be false. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Please you must realize that there is no logic whatsoever in that statement and it is a classic non sequitaur. If al Queda is in Iraq and if thursdays is bean curd day how long is a piece of string makes as much sense.
"these two facts lead to this conclusion: If, as you claim, Iraq is unrelated to 9-11, then there must be no Al Qaeda presence there." --nl207
Total non-sequitur. Are we to assume the US is involved with 9-11 because there has been Al Qaeda presence here as well?
After all SH hated OBL, it was not until we invaded that AQ came down from the north (where we were protecting their camps with Bush(41)'s No-Fly zones from his own war he instigated)
Came down from where? Do you mean the no-fly zone IN Iraq? That sounds like you are saying that Al queda was already in Iraq. But, you just got done saying the "lie" of an al-queda/Iraq link was dispelled. Which is it??
He appears to be referring to Ansar Al-Islam which resided in an area of Iraq that was not directly under SH's control due to the no-fly zones enforced after the first Gulf War.
Hmmm, doesn't that just shoot all to heck the liberal theory there is no Iraq/al queda connection? Whether Saddam liked them or approved of them isn't the question. The fact is that al queda was already in Iraq before we attacked. Therefor dispelling another liberal anti-war point.
Wrong. I don't see liberals stating that Al Qaeda wasn't in the area, they're saying they had no relationship with Saddam Hussein. See the difference? No, apparently not since you've obviously heard it time and time again and still don't grasp the difference.
I am not wrong! Just because you wear blinders doesn't mean the rest of us do. What country was being lead by Saddam? What country was al queda training in?
Yeah..its just like bored teenagers..ya got to keep them occupied. Great answer to international terrorism.
I like the fact that some of my fellow Americans still think the people fighting in the streets of Iraq are actually the ones in charge of planning future terrorist attacks.
And don't quite get that 9/11 was accomplished with 19 "soldiers", and probably not a real drain on Al Qaeda upper management's time.
That is a VERY good point.
And how many more confederates, resources, etc. were also committed to this plan? We have several people in jail in Gitmo and one more in SuperMax who were directly involved in this operation. This doesn't include the AQ leadership and operatives involved who are still at large or are deceased.
Do you really believe that the frontline actors are the only players involved in any military or para-military operation?
This is simple minded.
What is simpleminded is thinking that just because we are fighting a war in Iraq al Queda somehow cannot scrape together another 20 nutbags give them a few thousand dollars and hit us here again.
NL,
You said
"And if we simply leave Iraq in this state, what will those "boggers" in Iraq do when they no longer have a war to fight?"
I have a suggestion then:
If you want to prolong an illegal war and completely destroy any chance of America to be seen as a decent place that follows the Rule of Law and holds dear its own Constitution then why don't you go and join the Army and go fight!
You have a right to your opinion but if you feel that this war is nescessary, then go see how much fun it really is!
If you have or are in the military then I wonder what the heck are you thinking?
I have met many soldiers that upon coming back from Iraq and reading or hearing the truth of how and why we are there and wanting it to end. Period!
At this point we have pissed off about 90% of the worlds population, I fear that the only way to keep them from coming here might be to stay and that is scary enough or pull out now and begin the healing process by ridding ourselves of the garbage in the White House. It won't make them all happy but its a begining!
This is my opinion, deal with it!
You amuse me. Invariably, those of you who suggest that anyone who supports taking aggressive military action against Islamofascists in general and Al Qaeda in particular should join the military are folks who are plagued with their own inadequacies on this subject.
I am going to speculate, based on your attitude, that your parents were probably smoking pot, swilling beer, acting irresponsibly and and having a great time on campus while some of the rest of us were prosecuting a war in a place called Vietnam.
You should think about this.
No, NL, you should put your money where your mouth is and head down to your local recruiting office.
Or do you have a pilonoidal cyst or something?
And if we simply leave Iraq in this state, what will those "boggers" in Iraq do when they no longer have a war to fight?
Every leftist will tell you that they will find jobs at the local oil refinery or bakery. The leftist will tell you they will never leave Iraq to fight more, since "US out of Iraq" is ALL they are after! The leftist will tell you there is nothing to worry about because the insurgents are only interested in having their country left alone so it can prosper in the world economy. There probably isn't even a lefty among us who even agrees there IS a terrorist in Iraq. They are all "freedom fighters" to the lefty. The lefty isn't very smart, but since "Bush lied-soldiers died" they will tell you that leaving Iraq ASAP is our only option. The lefty will tell you our borders are secure. There are no drug runners sueing the US government...the lefty will tell you. There are no insurgents planning on attacking US military bases...the lefty will tell you. In fact, anything that even remotely resembles a terrorist action is considered 'isolated/random' acts of violence by 'misguided youths'. That is what the lefty will tell you.
Lefties aren't very smart. "Reality" is a word on the shows they watch, not life.
Darn those left handed people. We should force them to write with the right hand! That would teach em to be lefties.
Your lame comment about reality TV is laughable. Statistics repeatedly demonstrate that conservatives watch far more TV than liberals and progressives (I don't have cable by choice), and that conservatives are usually also far less educated (proportion of Phds for liberals to GEDs for cons).
Get outta the gene pool, autopsychic.
More generalizations from AP. Why do you even bother?
Russert also "allowed" Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd to respond immediately to Gingrich's assertion........fair and balanced.
Look, if you want to jumpstart a discussion about whether or not the terrorists will follow us here, or the debate surrounding an announced timetable, then just do that.......but to cloak this Russert piece as some sort of lazy reporting or misinformation is ridiculous.
I take this to be more about Gingrich and his repeated silly notions than about Russert, so maybe it's the title that is misleading?
It absolutely is about Gingrich, but shouldn't this be about some misinformation or how unfairly the media is covering this. Russert was completely fair and unbiased as he had both sides on his show to balance each other out.
Allowing him to spout this agenda driven talking point that any reasonable ten year old could see the logical problem with and not challenge it is a form of misinformation. Its like he allowed him to say the sky isnt blue because he looked outside yesterday and it was grey, and Russert NOT saying well that must have been clouds.
If you have no confidence in one of your presidential candidates to refute what Gingrich is saying, sitting right there being asked directly by Russert to respond, that is your problem.
Find better candidates then.
And if YOU dont think its the hosts obligation to challenge piteously weak talking point propaganda that is YOUR problem. Personally I would vote for Dodd to catch dogs in Flagstaff, his shortcomings dont excuse Russert.
You might have a point if Russert was interviewing Gingrich one on one.....but I imagined he figured Dodd was up to the challenge of answering Gingrich himself. Russert did his job, too bad Dodd wasn't up to the question.
And Dodd wants my vote?
I am sure he wants both our vote, he wont be getting mine, at least in the primaries. Perhaps that is what Russert thought. It is still legitimate to take him to task for not challenging Gingrich.
It's the host's job to call the guests on comments like this.
Russert didn't do it. It's great that Senator Dodd called Gingrich on it. That does not remove the burden from Russert's shoulders.
It's the host's job to call his guests on their baloney.
Russert has a history of not doing this, and he didn't do it again.
If you have no confidence in one of your presidential candidates to refute what Gingrich is saying
The confidence anyone has here is their candidate is not the issue, it's the confidence in Russert as a journalist.
Yes. he called on Dodd to respond but that just makes it another variation of the "Republican says v. Democrat says" shtick, the standard "partisan squabble" attitude. I think a lot of us here think the job of a journalist should go beyond that, that when someone makes the kind of argument Gingrich did, they should be challenged it themselves. (For some examples of the idea, listen to some interviews conducted by BBC journalists.)
And no, I'd have no objection if they did it to folks on the left side of the spectrum, under just two conditions: They do it to everyone and folks on the left side have as much access as folks on the right.
they should be challenged it themselves
Dang. That's what I get for skipping doing a preview. That should read
they should challenge it themsleves
I... agree. About Russert being fair this time.
Well, I suppose it's alright to have anyone on the airwaves as long as you have someone else to try and refute them.
Is this particular Democrat incapable of refuting such a ridiculous opinion as the one offered up by Gingrich?
Should be easy, right?
And it's easy to refute Intelligent Design. Why is there a push to get it taught in schools?
If you don't or won't answer my question, fine.....but to introduce an irrelevant and off topic one of your own is pointless.
It was an analogy Tommy. Meaning, it won't be easy.
1. It's not the Democrat's job to refute the Republican's nonsense.
2. Since it was nonsense, the Democrat could have easily refuted that nonsense. As you know, he did refute it. Still not his job.
3. Russert fell down on his job.
4. The analogy was trying to explain this to you, since you didn't understand the simple facts.
Even if it were true that these men were part of a terrorist network, we are still in Iraq and they were already here!
Exactly, Yellow Bird. I think condensing Newt's theory in a more straightforward way helps to show what a pinhead he is.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Newt said--
"We're keeping the terrorists in Iraq by being in Iraq. The proof of that is that they are here."
Huh?
I am certain that you are right. Those fighters in Iraq who say they are part of Al Qaeda could not possibly mean THE Al Qaeda of 9-11 fame.
If they were not already busy playing cat and mouse with American troops and Iraqi police in Iraq, they certainly haven't got enough mental power to arrange for transportation to any other country, could they.
You are saying it's easier or better for al Qaida to stay and fight against our military than to come over here and fight against you and me? Then, the obvious solution is to keep our military there forever, or until the terrorists stop being terrorists or we kill them all. Is that what victory means to you and if so, how many of your kids and grandkids are you willing to sacrifice (assuming you've already served your time in Iraq, of course)?
Gee, I'm relieved that the terrorists are that stupid. Let's just station our troops on an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean, and the terrorists will all drown trying to swim out there and attack them.
NL207, are you aiming sarcasm at yourself? If so,nice work.
Those fighters in Iraq who say they are part of Al Qaeda could not possibly mean THE Al Qaeda of 9-11 fame.
Well, they could mean it but whether or not they are is a different question. It's now become almost conventional wisdom that "al-Qaeda" has become less the actual organization than, if you will, a brand name, a slogan, where groups declare themselves al-Qaeda to show solidarity and a supposed commonality of purpose (not always true) without having any operational connection to bin Laden's hierarchy or even to each other.
Which is the fatal flaw in your entire argument here, which rests on, indeed requires, anything "al-Qaeda," (more, anything related to terrorism) to be one, massive, centrally-run and -organized network. I'm sure you found the "international communist conspiracy," which turned every resistance movement, no matter where or how driven, into a tool of the Kremlin, equally seductive.
Call me an optimist, but I think planes and ships carrying thousands of Iraqi Shia and Sunni over to the USA that are now cutting each others throats in Iraq might be noticed.
And if it is just a few that we have to worry about coming in with WMDs, I do not think protecting foreign borders works quite as well as protecting our own.
GINGRICH: I think we send a signal to our allies around the world that we're unreliable.
Like the British?
You know they are desperate when they use these weak recycled Vietnam excuses to continue the war that DIDN'T convince anyone when they were tried DURING Vietnam.
O.K. Newty, I guess this blows the "we're fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here" line of b.s. all to hell then doesn't it?
There once was a fella named Newt
His BS not hard to refute
But he keeps on a tellin'
All those lies he's a sellin'
Fear mongering is at the root
Love it! Nice one, Julia!
Okay...NL apparently thinks we have all the terrorists cornered in Iraq. Doh! Does someone want to try explaining what NL can't...how our staying in Iraq stops them from attacking us over here?
I thought he was perfectly clear: it's true because he is telling us it's true.
I'm just afraid he's going send us to bed without dinner,
I sort of gave up on NL after its last post. Seemed to be arguing with itself while sarcastically agreeing and disagreeing with... never mind, I'm not sure what was going on there.
Are these the same "intelligence experts" and "outside experts" that made all the dubious claims and assertions leading us into Iraq in the first place? Probably not, but the point is that the credibility of the experts is a little....suspect.
Secondly, I read an article on MSNBC last week about Hezbollah agents setting up shop in Paraguay.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17874369/
Its not that much of a leap to think that our enemies could and would strike at us at home again.
I'm trying to not fall into the "fear-monger" category that the Bushies so often get tagged with, but I also think it would be unwise to rest on our laurels, so to speak.
There is no question that fanatic terrorists might attack us again, in fact its likely. The question is whether staying in Iraq has any relationship TO that likelihood. There is no reason us being there stops them from coming here.
........
Damn. I need to stop skimming. Let me try again.....
The problem is that Newt is making a spurious claim and conflating two different things.
"If this Congress passes a definitive end of American involvement, every enemy we have on the planet will exalt" (TRUE)
... and every terrorist group on the planet will claim it's an enormous victory (TRUE)
...., and they will increase their recruiting. (TRUE)
And as New Jersey should just have taught us, they don't plan to stop in Baghdad. They are coming here as soon as they can get here." New Jersey, along with some of the other plots uncovered on our shores, shows that various terrorist groups would like to hit us again here. So this statement is also true.
But these different things are not necessarily directly related. Newt tried to tie them together and in the process, muddied the waters.
Newt is a stinky poo-poo head. There. Much better.
Actually while I think the second is true the first and third are debatable. I think if we ended the war in Iraq it would hurt terrorist recruiting and I KNOW al Queda, according to their own documents was WORRIED that the US would end the Iraq war for this reason and dont think they would PRIVATLY rejoice thought I am sure they would publicly.
Have links to those? Not doubting you, just haven't read that.
This isnt the source I read but it references the same letter.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/100306.html
The letter, dated Dec. 11, 2005, amounted to a warning from a senior al-Qaeda operative known as “Atiyah” to the then-leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The letter faulted Zarqawi for attacks on fellow Muslims that had alienated key elements of the Sunni-led opposition to the U.S. occupation.
Atiyah told Zarqawi that “the most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest.”
Indeed, the “Atiyah letter” – like a previously intercepted message attributed to al-Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri – suggests that a U.S. military pullout in 2005 or earlier could have been disastrous for al-Qaeda’s terrorist bands, which are estimated at only about 5 to 10 percent of the anti-U.S. fighters in Iraq.
The “Zawahiri letter,” which was dated July 9, 2005, said a rapid American military withdrawal could have caused the foreign jihadists, who had flocked to Iraq to battle the Americans, to simply give up the fight and go home.
Thanks for the link.
Jeez, he said he would be brief and to the point. I'd hate to see a long, detailed letter from this guy.
True and did you notice it was almost as boring as a city water board meeting about sewers? These guys really need a life.
Okay I am getting really tired of this dufus notion that if we leave Iraq they will follow us home. Who's the Dumb A#@ who thought that one up? These terrorists have financial resources, worldwide contacts, and the fanatical ideals to wreak havoc upon America wherever in the world they choose.
The Fort Dix perpetrators were here for years and I suspect there are others already in this country and probably have been for quite some time.
In fact, what better time to strike us here on our own soil than while we are distracted elsewhere. Also, do you not think the terrorists have heard this asinine rhetoric about following us home in this instant-news age we live in?
By constantly repeating the "keep them there mantra," I am sure this incenses the REASONABLE sensibilities of these extremists so much so that this nonsense spewing out of the war mongering hawks is like drawing a line in the sand and daring them to strike us here just to prove a point. That point is that they will not stop until non-muslims are dead all over the world. This is their stated goal, hell they have been warring with other muslims for centuries, do you think this will ever truly stop? The answer is no.
NL, Tommy and all the other brainwashed Stepford townfolk - if you think something as silly as an ocean will stop them from attacking us here, then you are as much of a fool as this current president and the rest of the fools who spew this nonsense about keeping the fight over there.
We should regroup and rearm our forces and send out hit squads to kill these beanturds wherever we find them. Let them know that no place is safe for them, but of course we cannot do that because we are expending so much of our resources figthing shadows in the middle of a civil war that we helped create.
Here is a little mind exercise I like to trot out everytime
some one makes the "they'll follow us home " argument
regarding the bombers in Iraq. Imagine a young middle
eastern fella rents/steals/buys/inherits a delivery truck.
Next he drives over to the fertilizer store (it's called a
CO-OP here, and in most ag areas). What are the chances he
will be able to buy enough fertilizer to make a truck bomb?
Zero. Even if he is not of middle eastern ancestry, as
happened in NJ, someone in the community will say something
before the murderous plot gets too far along. Also, the law
enforcement lapses that led to the 9/11 murders, and the
Oklahoma city truck bomb murders so embarassed the law
enforcement community that every beat cop and rural sheriff
deputy is on the look out now. Just ask, they'll tell you
how much they would like to catch the next spineless coward
planning mass musrder. A terrorist cel in the US just
simply will not have any community support. As porous as
our borders are, it is still much more difficult to smuggle
something like a bomb, or bomb parts/materials into the US
than it is in Iraq. Compare if you will the likely hood
that a US border patrol agent will take a bribe to allow a
bomb to be smuggled in compared to an Iraqi border guard,
much less the chance that at some level of goverment in
Canada or Mexico would be complicit in allowing smuggling
of this sort to occur. We know there is no shortage of
individuals so consumed with hate that they will desire to
kill and maim on a mass scale but this has always been so.
We were somewhat naive and gullible before Oklahoma and
9/11, but what are the chances similar schemes would be
successful now?
Correct Teach. Intelligence gathering, international cooperation, and excellent police work do more than any army in this situation.
In the paper today (Seattle P.I.) an article that Al Qaida is recieving large amounts of money from their brothers in Iraq. So we're not only providing an excellent training ground, we're producing doners to support Al Qaida. Hat trick or what?
ITS NOT ABOUT RUSSARD, ORIELLY,MATTHEWS,HANNITY ETC. ON 910 DID WE THINK WE WOULD BE ATTACKED ON 911? THESE EXTREMIST WHO DONT CARE FOR THERE OWN PEOPLE DONT CARE ABOUT US .SO SAYING IF WE WERE NOT IN IRAQ WE WOULD BE SAFE AT HOME IS ? AT BEST. WEAK MINDS DONT NEED MUCH CONVINCING AND THESE RADICALS KNOW IT AND THERE GETTING RESULTS HAVING AMERICANS GIVING OR ENEMYS RIGHT AND OUR COUNTRY WRONG. SORT OF LIKE THE PATTY HURST SYNDROME
You lost me at "ITS"
Hey, this isn't the one-armed pundit making a return , is it? Fanny Franke or something?
Is there a flag for capslock trolls?
Well going by your posts your own life experience ought to tell you how weak minds think. Perhaps you can tell us WHO is saying that if we arent in Iraq then we will all be safe. Personally I have heard no one make that claim. The question is does it make ANY sense whatsoever to say that us staying in Iraq is doing anything to stop the terrorists from attacking us here. Your strawman argument is basically meaningless in the context of what is ACTUALLY being discussed. Your weird Patty Hearst reference shows you are rambling and not making any sense and it should be noticed that it is BUSH who has given our enemies everything they could have asked for. Given up on Osama Ben Forgotten. Starting a war with no justification that skyrocketed his recruiting, and doing it in such an incompetent manner. I bet Osama not only has a pin up poster of George the dimmer on his bedroom wall he also thanks Allah for him every night. Him and the other warmongers that want to get as many Americans killed as they possibly can.
Ter-ists won't follow us here. Best bet is they will be stuck in a layover in Chicago. ;)
Corporate media types aren't too keen on truth, unvarnished and raw. They like to follow along with INSIDE THE BELTWAY mass mind, a different thing than reality. To step outside that mass mind and get some fresh air, one has to stop perceiving truth as a mid-point between two people trying to get elected president.
"we fight em over there...." what a puke on so many levels. Start with the "we" part for example. The we doesn't include BushCo of course. They need the naive and the poor to do that part. As in Vietnam. The conned like to still believe that we could have "won" that war, even though the generals and strategists had free reign to "win" for over 8 years. Kind of hard to win even with an overwhelming force when the "enemy" includes people resisting an occupation, normal citizens. Like in the U.S. revolutionary war.
Another amazing line is "oceans no longer protect us" Yep, like when the British invaded and burned the White House. That's probably what Dolly Madison muttered while she was running with the flag.
MARY,
Quite frankly, you speak in assumed generalities. Commanders in Vietnam were not given free reign to win the war, ever. There were so many damned rules in the rules of engagment there most of us felt handcuffed at times, though not all the time. Furthermore, It wasn't the naive and poor who served in that conflict. 77% of us were volunteers. 76% of us came from middle class homes to lower middle calls homes. The casuality rate was equitable to the racial make up of the populaton at the time. And while it is true, that in the beginnning of the conflict more engagements were fought against guerilla forces this became less and less of an issue as the war progressed. Fro example in the Tet Offensive in 1968 over 70,000 NVA troops openly engaged us and the ARVN forces. Their is no way to really gauge the feelings of the South's people in regards to their support for Democracy or Communism. Many in the population centers and alot of people in the agricultural sector were rabid anti-communists. It was the North's persistence to unify the country that fueled the ongoing conflict. It was the North who saw us as invaders and occupiers. It was the North who engaged in heinous acts against civilians with disregard. I'm sorry, but I can't sit idly by and see people blindly compare this war in Iraq to Vietnam. there are certaintly similiarties, but all wars have similiarities. The ideology put forth that only the poor fought and died in Vietnam and that we were there as imperialist invaders is a lie. Plain and simple.
We've got a moron in the White House NOW, Could we possibly
get this Idiot next. with investigation incomplete, Newt has already
got'm pegged.....ben laden
When is the "they'll follow us home crowd" going to wake-up and understand that this WAR ON TERRORISM is being fought by BOTH sides. Correct me if I am wrong but don't you need two sides to fight a war. If that is correct then why would anyone wait to FOLLOW us home. They can do whatever they want to hurt us. And if that crowd really believes the tripe being hurled by their talking heads then reality has no chance with that crowd. Keep believing that the AQ types will enjoy us leaving..don't you realize that they can kill Americans and go home at night to be with the family. And they are here..SO BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID
If they are already here then giving them amnesty and a green card so that they can use their green cards to legally buy weapons like the Virginia Tech shooter did with his, is beyond stupid.
The only way the Republicans can win in 08 is to keep their base scared to death...of the turrists and that wicked witch Hillary. If Obama happens to get the Democratic nomination, look for a full-scale Karl Rovian smear campaign against him.
Also look for more stories about the threat from Iran. Glenn Beck is on this full time, now, with backup from Rush and Sean, and all the other lying Right-Wing Propaganda Parrots. Unless we can get Cheney and his sock-puppet Bush impeached, they'll probably figure out an excuse to attack Iran by next spring.
What Newt forgot to say is that these crafty Al Ka-heeda have training camps where their teaching these cave dwelling illiterate stone age ruffians how to golf and order smart looking leisure wear from L.L.Bean. We’ll never spot them here. An invasion of Borats? Be afraid. Also he’s right about hurting our credibility. Lesson learned. Do business with the US so we can supply you with arms and intelligence and be our surrogate army against a Muslim theocracy in one decade and we may come back later and hang your ass. No harm no foul there. I got go buy some new tennis shoes. You know the ones on sale at Wal Mart made in Vietnam.
Gingrich offered this bit of comedy during the MTP interview too:
As this statement consists largely of hyperbole and gross exaggerations, it too qualifies as another of Newt's fictions. Newt's war story fictions represents the sum total of his personal knowledge of wars' hardships, as he was sadly unable to serve in Vietnam, after procuring a Medical Deferment from the draft due to his Weak-Knees.
There seems to be so many misconceptions about the situation we are facing. Considering the gravity of the matter, you would think there would be better analysis of the events.
Check out this clip made as a response to the Fort Dix Six connection to Al-Qaeda.
http://www.hotconflict.com/blog/2007/05/hannity_gingric.html
www.HotConflcit.com