CNN aired Bush assertion about Iraq three times in one hour without assessing its validity
President Bush's statement, "The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland. The enemy in Iraq does," was aired three times in the 4 p.m. ET hour of the May 23 edition of CNN's The Situation Room. While host Wolf Blitzer invited Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards to respond to the statement at one point, at no point did he or other CNN personalities note that, as Media Matters for America has documented, the assertion that terrorists will "strike our homeland" following a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq is widely challenged by experts.
In his May 23 speech, as CNN showed, Bush said that "[t]he enemy in Iraq" had "the intent" and "the capability to strike our homeland." Bush continued, adding that "we must fight the terrorists where they live so we don't have to fight them where we live," suggesting that curtailing combat in Iraq would cause terrorists to attack our "homeland":
BUSH: The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland. The enemy in Iraq does. Nine-eleven taught us that to protect the American people, we must fight the terrorists where they live so that we don't have to fight them where we live.
CNN first aired the quote during Blitzer's interview with Edwards after Edwards' statement that Congress should use its funding authority to force Bush to end the war. Following the quotation, Blitzer asked Edwards: "All right, what do you say to the president, Senator?" Edwards replied: "I say the president has used this term that he uses over and over -- "global war on terror" -- as a political slogan. He uses it to justify everything he does -- Guantánamo, the ongoing presence in Iraq, spying on Americans." He continued: "He uses it to bludgeon people who -- who disagree with him, who dissent and speak out in this democracy against it."
CNN aired the Bush quote again during CNN congressional correspondent Ed Henry's report on Bush's speech. Henry contextualized the Vietnam quote -- "Delivering the commencement at the Coast Guard Academy, President Bush tried to push back at critics who say Iraq is a Vietnam-style quagmire" -- but did not report that the assertion is widely disputed.
Bush's quote aired a third time in a report by CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider about which issues were considered important by Democrats and Republicans according to a May 4-6 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll. After saying that "Republicans see Iraq as part of the terrorist threat," Schneider aired Bush's Vietnam comparison. Schneider followed Bush's quote by saying, "Most of the Republicans' top issues relate to national security."
By contrast, the May 23 edition of NBC's Nightly News included a response to another part of Bush's speech in a report by NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory that quoted NBC terrorism analyst Michael Sheehan as challenging Bush's speech. Sheehan's challenge conflicted with Bush's claim that "[t]he enemy in Iraq does" have "the capability to strike our homeland":
SHEEHAN: Al Qaeda clearly has demonstrated an operational capability in Iraq to conduct sophisticated terrorist operations there. However, they have not mastered the ability to export the operatives and the capability to the United States.
Additionally, as Media Matters has documented, the assertion that terrorists will "strike our homeland" following a U.S. troop withdrawal is widely challenged by experts:
- 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 documented.
- 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."
Henry's report and the interview with Edwards both re-aired on the 7 p.m. ET hour of The Situation Room.
From Bush's May 23 commencement address at the United States Coast Guard Academy:
The fight in Iraq is tough, but my point today to you is the fight is essential to our security -- al Qaeda's leaders inside and outside of Iraq have not given up on their objective of attacking America again. Now, many critics compare the battle in Iraq to the situation we faced in Vietnam. There are many differences between the two conflicts, but one stands out above all: The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland. The enemy in Iraq does. Nine-eleven taught us that to protect the American people, we must fight the terrorists where they live so that we don't have to fight them where we live.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the May 23 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Some of the Democratic leaders say they're going to find other opportunities in the next few months to attach that kind of troop withdrawal deadline to other legislation that the president wants. So while they're not going to get everything they want right now, they're still going to have that opportunity down the road.
EDWARDS: This president is not going to negotiate about this, Wolf. How clear could anything be? He will not negotiate. He will not compromise. He does not think he's capable of doing anything wrong. He has to be stopped.
And the power that the Congress has is its constitutional power to fund -- defund. And they need to use that power to force this president down a different course. It's that simple.
BLITZER: The president spoke out today at the U.S. Coast Guard commencement and he said the threat right now from al Qaeda in Iraq is enormous. And he made the comparison to Vietnam. Listen to what he said.
BUSH [video clip]: The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland. The enemy in Iraq does.
BLITZER: All right, what do you say to the president, Senator?
EDWARDS: I say the president has used this term that he uses over and over - "global war on terror" -- as a political slogan. He uses it to justify everything he does -- Guantánamo, the ongoing presence in Iraq, spying on Americans. He uses it to bludgeon people who -- who disagree with him, who dissent and speak out in this democracy against him.
[...]
HENRY: Delivering the commencement at the Coast Guard Academy, President Bush tried to push back at critics who say Iraq is a Vietnam-style quagmire.
BUSH [video clip]: The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland. The enemy in Iraq does.
HENRY: Trying to bolster his case Al Qaeda is the chief enemy in Baghdad, the president declassified intelligence showing in 2005 Osama bin Laden was trying to set up a unit in Iraq to launch terror attacks against America.
[...]
SCHNEIDER: Republican voters show noticeably less concern about all five issues. What are Republicans' top concerns? Terrorism tops the list, followed by Iraq. Republicans see Iraq as part of the terrorist threat.
BUSH [video clip]: The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland. The enemy in Iraq does.
SCHNEIDER: Most of the Republicans' top issues relate to national security. Even so, Democrats are just as concerned about terrorism and more concerned about Iraq, Iran, and corruption. The only issue Republicans are more concerned about: immigration.
From the May 23 edition of NBC's Nightly News:
GREGORY: The backdrop was picturesque, Connecticut's Coast Guard Academy, but the president's message was dire.
BUSH: Al Qaeda's leaders inside and outside of Iraq have not given up on their objective of attacking America again.
GREGORY: Today the president openly discussed two-year-old previously classified intelligence from Iraq. It showed that Osama bin Laden enlisted his top operative in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to establish a terror cell capable of launching attacks against the U.S. from Iraq.
BUSH: In the minds of Al Qaeda leaders, 9-11 was just a down payment on the violence yet to come.
GREGORY: U.S. forces killed Zarqawi last year. The disclosure of this intelligence now appeared designed to bolster the president's argument that terrorists in Iraq will follow U.S. troops home. But a former counterterrorism official suggests the claim may be exaggerated.
SHEEHAN: Al Qaeda clearly has demonstrated an operational capability in Iraq to conduct sophisticated terrorist operations there. However, they have not mastered the ability to export the operatives and the capability to the United States.
"we must fight the terrorists where they live so that we don't have to fight them where we live."
Yes, we must fight them over there so we can use tanks and jets and aircraft carriers and cruise missiles. There's not much profit in using intelligence and law enforcement techniques. We also can't steal their oil unless we fight them over there.
Seems to me that NOW would be a great time to attack our "homeland" given that our efforts are focused elsewhere.
Oops? Did I just "embolden" our enemy?
The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland. The enemy in Iraq does.
Again another distortion and fearmongering sentence by our President. Sad.
I understand now. If "they" were not bogged down in Iraq, "they" would hijack a plane at the Bagdad Intl. airport and crash it into the Empire State Bldg.. I wonder if baby bush realized when he was verbalizing that assumption, the people that would believe it were reading the book: "jerry falwell, GODS one and only right-hand man and spokesman" by: pat ROBBERson? I am sure baby bush had a vision about this when one of the very few functioning brain cells sent a signal thru a dendrite which percipitated a neurotransmitter to cross a synapse in the virtual vacuum in his head. Wet-brain bush never ceases to amaze me with his embarassing gutteral utterances. I see by the lineup for 08, the gop believes we can go dumber!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is the nature of the "media" in this country. Instead of being true journalists, they spew the propaganda from their corporate and government masters. I'm sure most readers here turn the garbage off....and hopefully more will in the near future.
But, lies like this are the nature of the beast. Politics and lying have gone hand in hand for centuries. Why should it be any different here in America?
Bush, CNN, Fox, Cheney, and the rest.....just playing the role. Repeat the lie. repeat the lie repeat the lie. Makes me ill.
Some further reading:
"Politicians Lie? Say it Ain't So!" - click here
Now, come on, Media Matters is being a little hard on CNN here...
Wolfie and Co. are just trying to prop up this poor, pathetic president, before his approval ratings drop into the teens.
It's very dangerous for corporate America if Bush's approval rating dip too low! Wolf is acting in the capacity of sort of corporate journalist diplomat. He's a Con with many hats.
Wolf just bought 10,000 shares of Haliburton stock...
Could it be very dry sarcasim? Was it like an interview with Charles Manson? If CNN knew about a plane crash, they would show video. Putting baby bush on TV just shows how out of touch with reality this administration is. It is a lot like Hitler and his generals. They ultimately became yes men. When they did not agree they were gone. I think I have been watching the movie for the last 4 years. Iraq is like invading Russia in the winter. A really stupid idea. That IS the reason they didn't do it during Desert Storm. Ego and Oil just don't mix
Except that part of the mandate of the Fourth Estate is to do some analysis. It's okay for journalists to dig into a story and debunk a president.
SHEEHAN: Al Qaeda clearly has demonstrated an operational capability in Iraq to conduct sophisticated terrorist operations there..
filling cars with explosives and blowing them up is sophisticated? Who knew?
However, they have not mastered the ability to export the operatives and the capability to the United States.
It's a really long flight, and since they don't have Nintendo gameboys or any good magazines...
LOL, weren't we in Vietnam to fight to commies there and to put a halt to their expantion. We were supposed to figth the Soviet supported north to prevent that we had to figth them in the US. More than the Iraqies (Iraq-AQ is on the stage again) or AQ the soviets were certainly able to reach the US.
bush could be right. I have some dark compected people living in this town in W. ky. with rags on their heads.....or are these people just wanna be cRAP stars. Lets go back into Somalia next week. I think baby bush has thought about finishing up Vietnam in between the thoughts about cocaine and a Jack Daniels IV drip feed. Ask any addiction specialist. Religion never kept anybody off of booze permanently.. Sometimes when baby bush speaks I could swear he has 2 tongues or is suffering from a hangover. Then again, wet brain is a permanent hangover. Alcohol turns grey matter into a gelatinous looking substance. This is called wet brain.
And an other thing: why is the disclosed information conviniently opened just now that AQ and Zarqawi are that closely related? How do they have that info and not OBL? And wasn't it Zarqawi who (with his own terror group) vowed allience with OBL and then became the AQ in Iraq. It seems the sequence of events is turned around by Bush. Can anyone shed light on this?
Oh, and just to emphasize: here we have 9-11, OBL, AQ, and Iraq again mentioned within a few sentences!
Not sure this is the light you are looking for, but it was always my recollection that Bin Ladin thought that Zarqawi was too reckless and didn't want to be associated with him.
Regardless, its my guess that if there was an alliance it happened after our invasion and became very convienent for OBL. I would compare it to someone coming into my neighborhood and harassing someone in my block for something I did. After a while, and seeing how my neighbor was being treated, and that we had a common enemy, I might offer my assistance. After all, if the third person was attacking my neighbor and not me, I would still be free to do whatever I wanted. I would give that guy all the fringe help I could if it meant I could be free.
Somewhere Ted Turner is spinning in his grave.
Except he is still alive :).
I have no idea what this comment means, but I love it!
I want to start using that all the time now: "Halliburton got paid for 30,000 meals it never served to the troops? I'm spinning in my grave!"
How bout "Halliburton got paid for 30,000 meals and all I got was this empty tin" t-shirt?
Ted Turner is not dead. Well, at least not from the neck down.
Wait a minnit...why is it they can't attack us here now?...I keep forgetting...there must be some logical reason...
Because the price of gas it too high to drive the bomb-laden cars all the way from Iraq.
Nerzog,
Its becuz they are too shocked and awed.
Of course. If we just drop a MOAB on Terrorstan then the rest of the terrorists around the world will be shocked and awed into submission.
Dear Mr. Bush,Hold on a darn minute there partner, all those Vietnamese were all going to turn us into communists. What happened, you got amnesia?
And how did you forget that Iraq did NOT have the intent or the capability to strike our homeland, and to boot, they didn't even want to turn us into communists.
Ah, yes, has President Numbnuts also forgotten who we were fighting by proxy in VietNam? In fact, wasn't that one of the ways we were sold that war....to stop the "Domino Effect"?
So much for our president the history major?
As you said, nerzog, wing-nut history proves that the Vietnam War was a proxy war for either the Soviets or the Red Chinese?
Even according to their version of history, both of the leading "Red Menace" nations had the capability to attack us.
I think it an especially nice touch for our glorious leader to minimize the war that he and most of the others selling this war evaded.
He repeated today that the US would leave if Iraq asked us to. Didn't they ask us to once already?
Yes, but I don't think they said please.
"intelligence showing in 2005 Osama bin Laden was trying to set up a unit in Iraq to launch terror attacks against America."
What a crock. I wonder if this isn't one of those little semantics tricks...maybe the original report said "against Americans", which would make sense. They just shortened it to "America", implying the continental U.S. without actually saying it.
If "against America" is actually what it said, why would Bin Laden try to launch attacks against the U.S. from Iraq, when he could do it from any number of other, safer locations? Maybe it's so they have an excuse to stay in Iraq long enough to steal the oil...?. Bush is either the mother of all liars...or the biggest idiot we've ever had in the Oval Office.
Do I really have to choose one?
Well, I guess he could be both.
I'm getting lonly in this subject without Tommy, RINO, et al to chime in and change the subject a few times, accuse various people of personally attacking them and generally whining through about 150 extra posts.
Any minute, now, PegHen will bring us back to the important issue...why Imus was fired.
Until then, let's spend a few minutes chuckling about the fact that even birds think numb nuts is full of it!
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/24/bush-karma/
They say God moves in mysterious ways...I'm starting to believe!
British intelligence has learned that Al Qaeda has a flock of specially trained sparrows...
You're aiding the enemy by releasing this classified information! Traitor!
I thought they had a Flock of Seagulls.
That's Iran.
Now that has got to be true wit!
Why does not the reporter simply ask how the terrorists would come into the United States?
It is not that difficult a question to ask. I am sure it is what children must ask their parents when they hear the president say that they will come.
Oh, no, no, no...!!!
That would mean that we are actually challenging the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!
We don't do that sort of thing at CNN...If we had a Democrat in office, it would be different. We'd be free to attack, but not with a Republicon in office.
The enemy in Iraq, which moved there after we invaded, had the capability to attack us before we invaded Iraq.
Bush has strengthened that capability by invading Iraq and making it a hospitable environment for them.
Iraq is a Vietnam-style quagmire in which we have allowed people who could attack us before we invaded to become even stronger!
MMFA is being a little bit nutty on this one. Al Qaeda has already said that it was to strike again on American soil. Perhaps it's time for liberals to pay attention to what our enemies say. Bin Laden decalred war on America in the mid-1990s and, in a 1997 CNN interview, said he would send Clinton "messages with no words."
Clinton didn't take those words seriously, ignored warnings, and al Qaeda ended up sending those messages on August 7, 1998, October 10, 2000, and September 11, 2001.
The left has to make up its mind. Are we less secure than we were before 9/11? Or is Bush exaggerating the threat? MMFA and other moonbats alternate between one or the other.
Oh yeah, I forgot about Kevin.
Yes. Johnny one note.
I knew JamesBondKevin could find an appropriate Clinton-did-it talking point for this thread; he went to spy school.
JBK, maybe you can answer my question. What...is....stopping....them....from....attacking......us......now?
The left has to make up its mind
See, this is the difference between the left and the right:
Each of us actually has his or her own mind.
I have yet to see evidence of that. In fact, the moonbats here seem to be plugged into a Borg-like MMFA.
Sez JamesBondKevin, as he channels Rush Limbaugh talking points left over from the 90s. Did you buy those talking points on E-bay?
Actually, in common with most of the hate-wing books that magically appear on best-seller list at the instant of release, the expired talking points were remaindered out at Big Lots. I though about picking up a basketful myself, since they were soooo cheap, but my better half stepped in to remind me that I constantly complain that those are worth less than nothing, so not a bargain even if free.
I am sure it seems that way to a moron like you. Mired in your world of projection and delusion you are bound to see in us your own shortcomings
"I have yet to see evidence of that. In fact, the moonbats here seem to be plugged into a Borg-like MMFA."
Oh Kevin... that's so naive, it's almost endearing.
You're suffering from an illness that scientists like to call "selection bias". Did it ever occur to you that the reason MMFA's posters seem to you to be exclusively devoted to this forum is because you only see them in this forum?
Kevin, I'm sorry but I just can't ignore you. I usually try to cause for you any and everything MMFA - wrong or incorrect but to answer your questions, No, Yes. We are no more safer today than we were on 9/11. Islamic Jihad's population has grown since our invasion of Iraq. Does junior exagerate, all the time.
And one other fact that I know you guys like to forget. Junior was reading "my pet goat" on Sept. 11, 2001. I know you guys like to blame any and all on Clinton but he was not the President. And by the way becoming president does not come with a 30 day, 60 day, 90 day or 9 month probation. When you assume the highest office in the land you should be able to hit the ground running.
Not so fast. JamesBondKevin will post a talking point that has Clinton sitting on the pot reading Cosmo while 9/11 was happening. Just you wait...
No, but Clinton kept Yasser Arafat waiting while he was being serviced by Monica Lewinsky.
He was also being serviced by Lewinsky as he discussed American troops in Bosnia with Rep. Sonny Callahan.
If Clinton had spent half as much time going after bin Laden as he did Lewinsky and others, bin Laden would have been killed or taken into custody years before 9/11 occurred.
See? JamesBondKevin never disappoints. He has a remarkable grasp of the irrelevant...must be that Spy School training.
Kev...why can't they attack us now?
So, if that's the case, who has been servicing Bush since he has not found him in almost 6 years since 9/11? And who is getting Bush's attention since he claimed to not spend much time thinking about OBL?
"No, but Clinton..." --kevin
Your needle is stuck.
"And one other fact that I know you guys like to forget. Junior was reading "my pet goat" on Sept. 11, 2001."
And Kerry admitted that he was unable to think for 40 minutes after the second tower was hit. So what? Clinton made a lot of appearances in classrooms as well. Presidents do that.
"I know you guys like to blame any and all on Clinton but he was not the President. And by the way becoming president does not come with a 30 day, 60 day, 90 day or 9 month probation. When you assume the highest office in the land you should be able to hit the ground running."
So why couldn't Clinton hit the ground running after 8 full years? During his administration we had the first attack on the WTC, Black Hawk Down in Somalia, the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the bombing of the USS Cole. The 9/11 pilots entered this country before Bush was elected president and reentered it again without proper documentation during the final days of the Clinton administration. How can you defend all those failures. We had a president that was much more interested in pursuing bad girls than in pursuing bad guys. That is why 9/11 is Clinton's main legacy.
That's right! And with the full backing of the US, including all Republicant's who were rah-rah behind him all the time because, like any proper American would do, they backed whoever was in office and didn't distract or detract from him in any way with any frivolous or slanderous allegations, the media, especailly Frax News, was fully behind every attempt he made to identify and go after the perpertrators, and with the full backing and support of Congress, I can't understand why he didn't turn his full attention to this developing problem, especially since the players weren't completely identified yet.
I can't imagine...
You're pushing it now....JamesBondKevin doesn't do sarcasm...requires gray thinking, you know.
The players were identified before Clinton left office. See http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
So, Kevin, if Clinton was wrong to not go after the people who committed the bombing of the USS Cole when he found out who did it a month before he left office, how much more incapable does that make Bush for not doing anything about it during his first 9 months in office?
Try really hard to answer that one question, Kevin. Read it twice so you understand the point, and then let us know how you can scold Clinton for one month's delay but never mention Bush's 9 months of inactivity.
[The deafening sound of chirping crickets fills the forum...]
The same way you seem set on pretending that Junior was not President. And maybe if Junior wasn't so focused on Iraq when he assumed the office of the presidency and his Natl Sec. Advisor, Rice had more experience than Russia things might be different.
Kevin you want to blame Clinton but ignore the fact that from Jan. 2001 till Sept. 10, 2001 Junior was the President. He held the safety and well being of this country in his hands and we were attacked. With all of the previous things that Clinton missed Junior should have been much more aware of the threat but he was not and we were attacked. Anyway you circle around and try the Clinton blame game, George Herbert Walker Bush was President of The United States Jan. 2001. His promise was that what happen to the U.S. Cole would never happen on his watch and he was right Something far worse than the U.S. Cole happened, September 11, 2001.
And the really sad fact is you know when Bill received his bj. That's way to much information and something no one should know.
- George Herbert Walker Bush was President of The United States Jan. 2001. - pearlene
I checked at the UN library...George Herbert Walker Bush was president from 1989-1993.
You actually had to check someplace to correct that mistake?
Nope...but that's her favorite organization for correcting the ills in the world...only trying to be credible with pearly...any more questions, bub?
Wes, Kevin sorry Wes or Kevin. I'm 72 years old but I won't use that excuse for my ignorance. I'll give that one to you to use, if you like.
And darling I've NEVER been any one's "bub"
Ah, Kevin, I'm sorry. I usually refer to him by his given name "Junior" Is that better.
"The same way you seem set on pretending that Junior was not President. And maybe if Junior wasn't so focused on Iraq when he assumed the office of the presidency and his Natl Sec. Advisor, Rice had more experience than Russia things might be different. "
The Clinton administration was nor focused on al Qaeda when it left office. It was focused on Iraq. See
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010903.htm
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm
"Kevin you want to blame Clinton but ignore the fact that from Jan. 2001 till Sept. 10, 2001 Junior was the President. He held the safety and well being of this country in his hands and we were attacked. With all of the previous things that Clinton missed Junior should have been much more aware of the threat but he was not and we were attacked."
It would have been much easier to stop 9/11 if Clinton had not allowed the 9/11 pilots into the country without proper documentation. Clinton had 8 years to take care of bin Laden. Bush had fewer than eight months.
"Anyway you circle around and try the Clinton blame game, George Herbert Walker Bush was President of The United States Jan. 2001."
No he wasn't. He left office in January 1993.
"His promise was that what happen to the U.S. Cole would never happen on his watch and he was right Something far worse than the U.S. Cole happened, September 11, 2001."
It was the USS Cole, not the U.S. Cole. Show us where Bush made that promise.
"And the really sad fact is you know when Bill received his bj. That's way to much information and something no one should know."
Not even his wife?
It would have been much easier to stop 9/11 if Clinton had not allowed the 9/11 pilots into the country without proper documentation.
First off, Clinton never worked as a border guard, so he didn't "let" anyone in.
Secondly, Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Hani Hanjour, and Ziad Jarrah (the 9/11 pilots), all entered the country with valid visas.
That's the point or did you marry Bill and didn't tell anyone. Are you and Bill secretly living in sin.
Listen young man, you can correct my mistake all you want but you can't make a case (not one that any sane person would believe) that on Sept. 11, 2001 "junior" was the President. And again, unless assuming the office of President of The United States comes with a probation period "junior" was in the house. And I do mean the White House.
congratulations...I knew that you would finally get it...because at 72...there's really no excuse...except one.
That was weak.
what a true christian you are, slick.
Ah, Wes you sweet talking little devil
Lovely. So what's your excuse, Wes?
Hey Kevin, was Kerry President?
No, but he did stay at a Holiday Inn.
I too want to stay at the Holiday Inn :-)
I just want a holiday.
F*ck it, I'm taking Monday off...
No, he wasn't. Should the fact that he was unable to think for 40 minutes after the second tower was hit enough to have disqualified him as a presidential candidate in 2004? I realize you Democrats didn't have much to choose from. Just Kerry, Sharpton, and the draft dodger Dean.
A Republican brought up draft dodging? REALLY? How many would you like? Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft etc.
Speaking of Kevin, I am guessing you are under 42. Are you serving your country? How have you?
Kevin would have served if it weren't for Clinton.
Any of whom look like George Washington next to Bungler Bush.
" Should the fact that he was unable to think for 40 minutes after the second tower was hit enough to have disqualified him as a presidential candidate in 2004?" --kevin
How long has it been since George Bush has been able to think? Has it happened yet?
And as a Senator he didnt have to. However I bet if he were President he would have gotten right up told the kids he had to go do President things and NOT gotten hypnotized by the kids book
Hey Kev, be a dear and do me a favor, won't you? You keep bringing up this "40 minutes" business. Since it's such a cornerstone of your argument, maybe you could provide the original context for the quote?
You see, all I've found online so far are references to Kerry saying in an interview that after the second plane hit the WTC, "nobody could think." This doesn't mean that a doctor administered a test of cognitive abilities at the time and determined that all thinking ceased for 40 minutes; it means that Kerry is colorfully describing how people felt stunned. Get over it, Kev.
Oh, and by the way... what does this have to do with anything????
maybe kevin could explain why bush opposed the creation of the 9-11 commission, tried to limit it's scope, wanted to give it too little money, and delay the report until after the 04 election, and then would not testify with a transcript and only if cheney was there with him. he had to be forced into it by the jersey girls, who were then attacked by the right wing. maybe it's because the commission wrote things like this, page 201: "no principals committee meeting on al qaeda was held until september 4, 2001 [although the principals committee met frequently on other subjects..]." or this on page 254: "there were more than 40 intelligence articles in the presidential daily briefings from january 20 to september 10, 2001, that related to bin ladin." think it's just a coincidence they picked that period? maybe they knew bush said he was "not on point" about bin ladin.
"maybe kevin could explain why bush opposed the creation of the 9-11 commission, tried to limit it's scope, wanted to give it too little money, and delay the report until after the 04 election...."
Maybe because he knew the Democrats would put political hacks such as Jamie Gorelick (who had a major conflict of interest) and Ben Veniste on the commission. These people were chosen by the Democrats to defend Clinton's mistakes and blame Bush.
and yet, the commission had an equal number of republicans, was chaired by a republican, it's staff headed by a republican, and the report was signed by those 5 republicans. did the democrats make up the part about no meetings on al qaeda and the 40 mentions in the pdbs? did somebody force bush to say he was "not on point" about bin ladin? i'll save you the time. the answer is no.
Clinton instituted a special al Queda unit at the NSC, which unlike Bushs antiterrorism unit ACTUALLY MET, during this watch the millenium bombing was thwarted, plots to bomb the Lincoln and Holland tunnels an attack on the UN building,and an assult on the Israeili embassy in Washington. Between 1996 and 2001 federal spending on counterterrorism increased dramatically to 12 billion annually, the FBIs counterterrorism budget went from 78 million in 96 to 609 million in 2000 tripling the number of agants assigned to CT duties. Domestic preparedness went from 42.6 million in 987 to 1.2 billion in 2000. Bush did WHAT other than remain committed to operation ignore the terrorists? He told the agent that gave him a briefing ENTITLED Ben Laden determined to strike in US ok you've covered your ass then spent the rest of the day fishing and the rest of the month on the longest presidential vacation since Nixon though he had only BEEN president seven months. HIS counteterrorism group NEVE MET A SINGLE TIME. Clinton can be criticized for not doing enough, effectively enough, but he at least did SOMETHING. Bush did NOTHING.
Great synopsis, Solon.
Kevin asks us if "we less secure than we were before 9/11? Or is Bush exaggerating the threat?"
Both.
We are less secure. The terrorists now have more places from which to attack us, and we didn't secure the one main place they were coming from while we had the chance.
We are also less secure because concentrating on Iraq distracts us from other remedies.
And Bush is exaggerating the threat from Iraq, and from Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda had the ability to attack us before we invaded Iraq. Iraq didn't give them that ability! They can attack us there and here. We don't have all the terrorists cornered in Iraq. We didn't draw them all there, although we did draw many there. I bet if you asked the Iraqi's, they wouldn't be happy being our surrogate battleground in exchange for getting rid of Saddam. Hey, you know what? We have asked them, in polls, and that is exactly what they are saying.
Thats not the point. Nothing we are doing in Iraq is stopping al Queda from attacking us here. I am sure they will try. Lets get them. Clinton took al Queda more seriously than Bush the dimmer did. In fact Robert Oakley Reagans antiterrorism czar said overall he gave Clinton high marks on his antiterrorism actions his only complaint was his obsession with Ben Laden and that was BEFORE 9/11. Have you figured out how to blame Clinton for the gophers in your garden yet? Meanwhile Bush was so deeply enamored by operation ignore the terrorists that he made an antiterrorism task force in April of 01 and by 9/11 it still hadnt met a single time.
Well, leave it to Kevin to break up this little liberal "circle jerk". Kevin, these liberals are scared to death of global warming, a threat that is far from being certain, yet they poop poop the idea that something that has already been PROVEN to be possible over and over again might actually happen AGAIN. They are blinded by their ideology and are incapable of rational thought. It's all about politics for them and the thought that we could be attacked again gives way too much justification to the administration to keep prosecuting the war on terror...something people committed to defeat and surrender cannot tolerate.
what exactly has been "proven to be possible"?
You know NOTHING about rational thought. That would require higher brain function and I see no evidence you have this capacity. No, regurgitating talking points based on strawman arguments is your speed. You wait for Hannity or Limbuagh to tell you what you think and spew it like contaminated milk at anyone near you. You wont find any liberals around here that dont think there is danger of a terrorist attack. However Bush isnt PROSECUTING any war on terrorism, he gave that up for a more profit friendly war in IRAQ. What we keep saying and you are far to stupid to GET is they are not the same thing. We can STILL be hit by terrorists whether or NOT we are in Iraq and IF the problem is fanatical Islamic terrorists then invading the most secular Islamic nation in the middle east because Halliburton needed a new parking lot was pure insanity. I understand that since Limbuagh hasnt told you to think this yet you wont be able to understand it but WE do. See the thing isnt that WE dont understand rational thought or that we dont DO rational thought the thing is YOU are a moron who doesnt even RECOGNIZE rational thought.
Solon, As usual, you have nothing but name calling and hatred to add to the discussion. Why don't you grow up?
Let me translate from wingnutese. WWAAAHHHHH its ok for me to call you guys a liberal circle jerk, say you are incapable of rational thought, and say you are comitted to surrender but how dare you call ME names just because I am committed to getting as many Americans killed as possible and have PROVEN I am incapable of higher brain function. WWAAHHH only I get to be rude and make personal attacks WWAAHHH. And you are telling ME to grow up while you are snivelling like a six year old girl that I am treating YOU the way YOU are treating US? Why dont you grow a BRAIN?
Are we less secure than we were before 9/11?
Significantly so.
Or is Bush exaggerating the threat?
More like purposefully mischaracterizing it (that is, lying about it.) There is certainly a threat and has been and will probably always be. Bush has demonstrated that he isn't interested in taking it on in any competent manner. It was on his watch that 9/11 happened, despite intelligence that warned of such an attack. And it was on his watch that we attacked Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, a country was contained. This guy has made blunder after blunder.
- terrorists will "strike our homeland" following a U.S. troop withdrawal is widely challenged by experts - brian levy
- Al Qaeda in Iraq "poses little danger to the security of the U.S. homeland - brian levy
- 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 - brian levy
Yeah, I get it brian...we need to stop picking on those poor muslims in Iraq. We should just apologize...declare defeat...bring our troops home...and live happily ever after.
Brian Levy and mmfa have every right to espouse their anti-war appeasement strategy...I simply disagree and won't return to the pre-9/11 head in the sand...it's a law enforcement matter thinking.
Maybe Wesley can tell us....what's stopping them from attacking us now?
It's obvious...the terrorists read mmfa. They don't have to attack us because the liberals are going to declare defeat and bring the troops home...I understand that muslim's are a patient lot.
Yep, once we pull out of Iraq their will be a chicken in every pot...the sky will be royal blue...oh happy days are here again.
No answer; that's what I thought. You know it's just a lame talking point, but just can't bring yourself to admit it.
What did you expect? Wes is all hat.
Hey Wes, since your predicting can you tell me when I will win the lottery?
Maybe you should take it up with the UN...you remember.
Only if you promise to sit behind me like George Tenet did.
Why do I need to go to the UN when thanks to bush I can call Maxwell Smart?
Wesley,
Nice to see you are back and you brought some strawmen with you.
Thanks...your collegiality is always appreciated.
We always enjoy your weak strawman arguments and stupidity.
Uh oh...looks like the boss of the train had a hard day on the rails.
Wrong again I am off about 48 hrs between trips. Been off for about 30 hrs now. Just returning serve. You like to be snide and call us names I treat YOU the same way.
The terrorist can read? Oh my god, they can read!
What is obvious is they read ignorance like YOUR post and say the conservatives in the US are so comitted to getting as many Americans killed as they possibly can they are doing our job for us. They thank Allah for morons like you every night.
Nerzog, Wes is a physic like Bill. his predictions of Iraqi freedom and prosperity have come true so when he tells us that they are going to follow us home we should pay attention.
Defeat? You non-thinking, automotons keep whacking at this ephermeral pinata that is Iraq! You guys are the cheerleaders on the sidelines with the football team on the field staring at each other while the other team is in the stands with sniper rifles picking off your players one by one!
I still don't get how you "win" an occupation.
Speaking of Law Enforcement...let's compare the results of Law Enforcement tactics and Bush's he-man troglodyte tactics in Iraq. Yeah, Bush's way is much better...
So go sign up then and serve, mr. "I can see clearly now".
And YOU have every right to espouse your warmonger lets get as many Americans killed as we possibly can policy. We just disagree.
The People of The United States has lost all respect for themselves if they continue to believe the most idiotic line Bush is giving.
This fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here is another of his long list obfuscations he has been peddling. Nothing Bush can say will change the fact that he is committing war crimes against an innocent Nation. Against a Nation that has zero to do with 911 Al Qaeda or terrorism. The simple plain fact is he lied this nation into a war similar as to what Johnson did in Vietnam.
He has only one message for the People of the United States when he leaves office and that message is his middle finger along with calling us suckers for not impeaching him.
Hey everyone kevi just emailed me. And after reading all of his research I have to agree with what he had to say.
Clinton's crimes (listed in no particular order)
1. Every Yankee's lose since 1995
2. Reality TV
3. Killed Nichole Brown Simpson and blamed OJ for it
4. Tooth decay (possibly gingivitis too)
5. Hurricane Katrina
President Bush had only been in office less than 55 months, therefore Hurrican Katrina is entirely Clinton's fault. Duh.
; )
Democrats are still unable to extrapolate or, at least admit the results of extrapolation. First off, the Islamists have already been here: two attacks on the WTC. Secondly, where do you think Muslim leadership will go if we let the Democrats get us defeated in Iraq? Will it go to the moderates or will it go to the radicals? C’mon, folks, get real.
I'll try to bring you back to reality.
Bush said that if we don't fight them over there, they'll come over here.
Except they don't have to do one or the other. They can do both. They have chosen to not attack us over here. Who knows why. Maybe some of their plots are taking a while to plan. They're getting regular infusions of money from all the discontented in Iraq, and they're sending that money to Al Qaeda in the mountains in Pakistan. They're getting that money because we invaded Iraq, and now there's corruption that gives them spare money as well as kidnappings of rich people and they use that ransom money to fuel terrorism.
Bush's invasion of Iraq made our threat from terrorism greater not lower. The people who wanted to terrorize us could do it before our invasion. Bush has made it easier.
Is it possible that the reason we haven't been attacked here if because we've done a good job decimating the ranks of Al Queda?
Is it possible that some of this administration's policies have helped protect this country?
I'm not saying they have or not, but if you can't even admit that it might be a "possibility" then you're just a blind partisan with no credibility.
I'm certainly willing to say that it's possible the Iraq war has made us less safe. And that it's possible that we haven't been attacked for a dozen different reason.
I'd say it's too soon to say either way.
Well I am a liberal not a Democrat but I extrapolate very well. Did anyone say that al Queda was never going to try to attack us if we just leave Iraq, because I didnt see that claim. Are you guys addicted to the strawman argument while trying to lecture US about extrapolation? The point is how are the two connected. The point is why in the world is us being in Iraq STOPPING al Queda from attacking us. The point is we will have more resources to go after those who DID attack us if we leave the country that DIDNT attack us with several OTHER advantages like not alienating the allies we need to help us with international intelligence by using terrorism as an EXCUSE to invade another country. These points have been pointed out ad naseam. Perhaps YOU should spend more time working on YOUR reading comprehension and less reading OUR minds to see how well WE extrapolate. Here is a clue repeating rightwing talking points is NOT extrapolation.
Also they will go whereever they want and can JUST LIKE RIGHT NOW. Your lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy isnt tying them down anywhere.
Not to get off topic but I feel this is kind of urgent and I am not seeing anything of this in the MSM. I understand Congress is mostly unaware of this as they prepare to leave on vacation. The long and short is, as of May 9,2007 Bush has dictator powers like Musharaff. The timing has been precisely calculated as to the issuance of this directive. Read it and weep.
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHI20070521&articleId=5720NOTTHAATGEORGE, SOLON, Okay. From the top. “Extrapolation (in the non-mathematical usage): to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture.
What we know: the Islamists have been attacking us since the mid-eighties (you all know the list so I’ll spare you that); The Islamists have declared war on us in no uncertain terms; They have also declared war on moderate Muslims; There are lots of Muslim sympathizers already in the U.S. (In spite of the fact, thank God, that the vast majority of U.S. Muslims are moderate, we still have a bunch who are radical and are encouraged as we see from time to time by radical clerics - yes, right here on our soil; We have thwarted roughly half a dozen planned attacks, most of which would have taken dozens to hundreds of lives right here in the U.S.; Ahmadinejad, certainly not a moderate but a certified Islamist has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, presumably as soon as he can get the nuclear bomb production line going; Islamists are doing their stuff all over the world against western, moderate people: mainly Africa but also in South and Southeast Asia including the Philippines.
What else we know from history: Victory attracts supporters and demoralizes adversaries; Capitulation encourages adversaries.
So, why would we not infer from all of the above that, given our capitulation in Iraq, that the Islamists would be able to mount attacks, very devastating attacks in the U.S. in fairly short time from the day of our defeat?
Now, as for making friends, what do you call what just happened in France? The MSM had us virtually convinced that the Europeans, especially the French, hated our guts because of our involvement in Iraq. So, here is Sarkozy running on a conservative platform (at least for France) and, moreover, friendship with the U.S. On a more personal note, if you run your life to please and placate others, then others will dominate you and, although you may feel more secure, you won’t be happy being dominated.
I sincerely want to thank you for taking the time to lay out your argument. I think you make some good points, but some of the points seem a bit vague. I have a few questions.
How do you define "Victory"? How many more months/years/decades do we need to stay in Iraq to achieve it? When we achieve victory (assuming we already haven't), will we have to stay in Iraq in order to avoid any appearance of capitulation?
Is Iraq worth spending about $100 billion a year on?
What else is left to be done in Iraq? Haven't we met our goals? Wasn't that McCain's point in strolling down to the open-air market in Baghdad the other day?
Do you think our presence in Iraq has generally increased the ranks of terrorists or decreased them and why?
OPEN MIND, Thank you for the civil reply. I appreciate your concerns and I certainly don’t pretend to have answers to all of this but more of an overriding faith in human nature and the urge to, in the end, rely on common sense.
By victory over the Islamic radicals (Islamists), I can only expand on a point put forth earlier: victory will come only when little kids in Madrasas are no longer taught to hate infidels. It could take a long time. Bush said this at the very outset of the war right after 9/11. I don’t know if this is the definition you were looking for. Maybe I misinterpreted the question.
As for how long we need to stay in Iraq, my sense is another two to five years with troop strength dropping rapidly a year from now. That really depends on the outcome of congressional action which, it’s sad to say, is strongly dependent on how much influence the MSM has over politicians spending most of their time in the D.C. bubble. If Democrats in congress are successful in their goal, which I claim is to get us defeated in Iraq and make it look like the fault of the Republicans (good luck on achieving that), then the time table could stretch out from that.
Would we need to remain in Iraq beyond victory? Absolutely not. It will not be only our victory. It will be a victory by and for the Iraqi people.
Is it worth $100B per year. My God, we spend lots more than that on welfare entitlements. This is the fight of our lifetime. It’s worth all we can give it. Unlike WWII, where we ended up with a (short lived) monopoly on nuclear weapons, we are about to see a radical Islamic regime begin producing nuclear weapons on a large scale. That puts an added element of extreme urgency into defeating the Islamist cause and even demands that we continue to adopt preemptive war as necessary for the survival of freedom and liberty in the world.
What we have left to do in Iraq is continue to support the growing strength of the Iraqi military. This is not just a matter of training and numbers but experience and, most of all, victories over their adversaries. I think our main task now is to take on Syria and Iran and cut off the flow of munitions and personnel from those two countries into Iraq.
I think our presence has increased the ranks of the terrorists. But this is what we want. We want them to throw everything they’ve got into this war. We need for them to expend themselves in all the fury they can muster and get it on and get it over with. It would be a tragic mistake to assume that we could pull back and then get it on again at a later time. That simply could not happen. It’s now or never.
Finally, let me say if you don’t mind my getting personal, that many have finally seen the light and converted from liberal to conservative (conservative used to be liberal but that’s another story). One you may (or may not) relate to is Dennis Miller. I used to listen to the guy when he was, well at least not conservative. His transformation is interesting. He’s not really a Republican but he is certainly no longer a liberal. You may want to check out his websight or listen to him on O’Rielly on Wednesday evenings or on the Half Hour News Hour on Sunday (both on FNC).
If you want to have a private conversation, please set up a temporary email address and pass it. I’ll answer and do the same.
Cheers!
"We need for them to expend themselves in all the fury they can muster and get it on and get it over with."
More comic book nonsense. Is this Armageddon? Ragnorok? Do you honestly believe that, even if we nuked Baghdad today, it would end the threat of terrorism? You're the one who needs to wake up.
"This is the fight of our lifetime. It’s worth all we can give it. "
Really? Then why doesn't President Numbnuts rescend his tax cuts so we can pay for this "fight of our lifetime"? Instead, he tells us to "go buy stuff".
NERZOG, Get a grip. Who said anything about nuking Baghdad (or even Tehran for that matter). We paid for WWII. We can afford this one. It’s conflict with the ChiComs that’s likely to be expensive. (Do we defend Taiwan or not?)
OldMarine, I too appreciate your civil tone and straightforward remarks and will do my best to respond in kind.
I don't feel that you - or anyone, for that matter - have clearly defined "victory" in Iraq. You talk about defeating "the terrorists" as if they were a particular entity, or an army with a fixed number of troops.
My perception of what is going on in Iraq is that there are a number of different players, whose interests overlap or come into conflict in a bunch of ways. If we were to, literally, kill each ond every person in Iraq bent on doing us or the Iraqi government harm, it would only breed more resentment and, thus, create more fighters.
I can't see any way the situation can be improved with a military solution. In fact, the presence of the military is exacerbating tensions in Iraq, not abating them. The only way I can see the Iraqi conflict being resolved is 1) by them fighting it out until they are exhausted or 2) a negotiated settlement.
I can't see how the U.S. military can have any effect on those outcomes.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
I dont know how civil that tone is telling us we are unable to extrapolate and running the old surrender talking point at us like it makes sense. Maybe I am getting too sensative but I saw marginal civility at best.
Very perceptive and I agree. It was marginally civil.
VALENTINIAN, Thank you for your thoughts too.
Defining victory. Let me give a little more backup to my definition (i.e. when little kids in Madrasas are no longer taught to hate infidels). In WWII, FDR insisted that the Allies require unconditional surrender of the Axis powers. The war was not over until this happened in both the European and Asia-Pacific theaters. Our opponents were driven to totally capitulate: no cease fires, no armistices, and no truces. Our enemies were totally and utterly defeated. 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 the superiority of the Japanese race and the divinity of the Emperor. Look how Germany and Japan have turned out since. Defeat of the motivating tenets of radical Islam is no less of a noble goal, and certainly no less of a necessity for the survival of liberty, than that of defeating those of the Axis powers in WWII.
Thus, I repeat that this GWOT won’t be over until little kids in Madrasas are no longer taught to hate infidels.
Of course, there are a bunch of conflicts of interest in Iraq. That goes for life in the USA too although we don’t have the suicide bombers and IED/EFP’s to put up with. I think if you read enough and tune into enough channels you can find several that have the ring of truth and, in turn, get a good feel for what’s really going on at ground level in Iraq. The internet is full of them. My sources are “Captain Dale Dye” on KFI (clear channel AM Los Angeles) who is on from 1700 to 1900 every Sunday. He has good contacts in the military and does a good job of keeping up to date. He was once a USMC company commander (if I remember his responsibilities correctly) in Nam during the Tet offensive, is a military consultant for film makers, and has appeared in several Hollywood films himself, recently as the Colonel in the series “Band of Brothers”. I also read the Marine Corp Gazette on occasion, including a recent article on how things have improved in Anwar.
Yes. Of course our presence is exacerbating the conflict. The same was true on Guadal Canal in 1942. Because we decided to make a strategic stand there, the Japanese poured several tens of thousands of troops into the conflict on that island. It was a forcing function on both sides. The same is true of Iraq and Afghanistan today. We really are, in spite of what some of our left wing buddies say, there to establish liberty and democracy, not take over the oil fields. In the absence of liberty and democracy, there will most certainly be a radical Islamic government in Iraq which will then serve not only as a base from which to take over the MidEast and its oil but as a sound defeat for the U.S. and its allies and an attraction to otherwise moderate Muslims to climb aboard and join the jihad.
I differ with you on the solution to the Iraq conflict. I think there is a good poll which you may want to look at, sponsored by the BBC taken shortly after their first election (remember the purple thumbs) which you may want to check out in terms of how Iraqis felt. Given the turning of the tide in Anwar and the more battle hardened and experienced Iraqi troops, I daresay that such a poll taken today would be even more in our favor.
A good book for understanding Middle Eastern history and the Persian/Arabic cultures is “The Middle East - a Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years” by Bernard Lewis who teaches at Princeton.
He asked you about victory in Iraq and you AGAIN went to talk about Islamic terrorists. Until you expain to me if your fight is against Radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists how invading the most SECULAR Islamic country in the region makes ANY sense at all I DENY they are the same thing. Now if the Bush adminstration gets ITS way which I claim is getting as many Americans killed as they possibly can. It will do NOTHING to stop terrorists from attacking us here. Nor will it do anything to stem their tide nor aid in any way the fight against terrorism itself. What you fail to understand is that we are on the same page about fighting terrorism and ONLY disagree on HOW.
Yeah many have converted from liberal to conservative thats why the GOP did so well in the last election. WAIT, thats not what happened. Your take on the world is not definitive of reality its more a mishmash of talking points.
SOLON, I was asked my definition of victory. I even expanded on it just now below Valentinian’s post.
Okay. You probably missed it because I know your cover a lot of ground on these MM blogs. I posted what I think are the three major reasons we invaded Iraq below one of Nerzog’s posts roughly 4 hours ago.
I appreciate that we don’t agree on HOW to fight terrorism. I’m not sure we agree on who the enemy is though. Not being sarcastic, but would like for you to clarify that.
Statistic for you:
US Daily KIA Rates: WWI = 199, WWII = 301; Korea = 32; Vietnam = 20; OIF = 2You’re right about how screwed up the GOP congress was and that’s why they lost. Quite a few Democrats (mostly southern states) who won ran on conservative principles. The GOP squandered their mandate by spending like drunken sailors and most of all by not answering the Democrats and their supporters in the MSM on all of the phony charges.
Okay. You probably missed it because I know your cover a lot of ground on these MM blogs.
Solon does cover a lot of ground on these MM blogs…He has about 4 or 5 sentences or phrases that he uses…”you and your STRAWMAN argument”, “ you need to GROW a brain”, “…rebubs plan for GETTING AS many people killed as possible”, “you and your repubs talking points” and the ever popular “you know NOTHING moron !!!”. He surfs the different topics, cuts and pastes one or two of his “classic” sentences into each one adding an insult or two to mix things up, paying no attention to what is really being said and adding very little to the discussion. He’s also VERY FOND of using caps to make his non-points. It does get old very quickly and I usually just choose to ignore him completely.
I appreciate your civil approach in these discussions and agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Iraq and the larger WOT.
OPEN MIND, I do want to give the folks on the left their due about the real reasons for our invading Iraq (and I’ve said this before).
I think the number one reason is that the Bush administration wanted to show the Islamists that Mogadishu was an aberration, that we can kick butt seriously. I think the number two and three reasons are had about equal weight: (a) what we have been discussing so far: the need to establish a bridge head in the Middle East from which to defeat the Islamists, and (b) that we really and truly did believe that Saddam was much closer (than revealed by the few mobile labs not taken to Syria prior to the invasion) to having a viable nuclear bomb making capability than he apparently was.
Don't forget what Cheney told us....that Iraq sits on top of the world's second largest known oil reserve.
I think Bush has given every would-be jihadi in the Middle East reason to think that it's easy to kill American soldiers.
I can't imagine a greater disservice he could have done to our men and women in uniform.
VALENTINIAN, You lost me on that one. I thought the NYT did a pretty good job in that regard by giving them an illustrated guide to where their snipers should shoot in order to kill U.S. soldiers.
Do you really think he had to give the world a reason to fear the US military? Please the US marine is the most feared fighting man in the WORLD no nation ever took them lightly.
Yeah, I know what extrapolation is. I have known the word for a long time, I didnt need to look it up. Perhaps YOU could look up strawman and get some remedial reading comprehension. We are on the same page as far as Islamic terrorists. Lets get them. Iraq is NOT a battle in that war. Iraq was the most secular Islamic nation in the entire region. NOTHING we are doing in Iraq is stopping them from attacking us here. Whether we leave or stay its pretty clear we face the same danger there. You have rewarmed the two Vietnam talking points and put them together. I still remember the talk about how we had to fight the communists over there or we would be fighting them in Miami. AND the talking point that if we lost our credibility by leaving our fight there it would embolden the communists. Except we DID leave Vietnam and lo and behold they never showed up in Miami. You can pull all the speculation in the world from your I Ching or your ouiji board about what will happen. The problem with that is twofold your argument is weak. Since our fight is with an enemy OTHER than Iraq there is no reason staying in Iraq is keeping them from attacking us here, this is the argument we keep making and leaving your condescension aside or perhaps you learned a new word and are so proud of it you had to show it off, you have come nowhere NEAR addressing. Second you rightwingers have been making prediction after prediction about Iraq from day one and NOT ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN EVEN CLOSE TO TRUE. So exactly WHY after the last dozen or so spectacularly WRONG predictions you guys have made about Iraq should we take THIS one seriously? Meanwhile us guys on the left have been RIGHT, down the line about what WE said was going to happen in Iraq. WE have the track record on OUR side YOU DONT. No one here I know of is saying we should abandon the fight against terrorists, you are preaching to the chior about their dange what WE are saying is we can fight THEM more effectively when we LEAVE IRAQ for several obvious reasons.
SOLON, Okay. Got it. (I’m sure your vocabulary far exceeds mine but I try). Anyway, we DO disagree on strategy. Please see the Guadal Canal illustration posted within the last few minutes.
OldMarine....your president got us defeated in Iraq three years ago.
NERZOG, Got a bulletin for you: We haven’t been defeated in Iraq. We and the Iraqis have the bad guys on the run. Look at the encouraging news from both Anwar province in Iraq and from Afghanistan: In Anwar, the Sunnis have grown weary of having bombs going off and suicide bombers doing their thing and have actually turned on the insurgents and their imports. The Intel is going our way and we are kicking their butts.
In Afghanistan, the bad guys have lost so many of their leadership that they’ve become demoralized. And you say Bush lost the war? In your and your liberal buddys’ dreams.
What does Afghanistan have to do with Iraq? Well, there is that little problem of the resurgence of the Taliban, which probably wouldn't have happened if Bush hadn't diverted most of our resources into the Iraq rathole.
There is no "resurgence" and the supposed spring offensive that was supposed to happen has yet to materialize. Their leadership has been killed. They've lost every battle they've had with US/NATO forces. Sounds like they're making a strong comeback.
As for losing the war in Iraq, provide some...any... factual basis for that statement. It may be a stalemate of sorts but to say we've lost is just silly.
"We and the Iraqis have the bad guys on the run"
Um, I hate to break this to you, but a lot of the "bad guys" are Iraqis. I guess whether or not we're making "progress" in Iraq depends on your definition of "progress". I predict that the meanings of "progress" and "victory" will morph as often as our initial justification for invading did. If you got your news from somebody other than Rush Limbaugh, you'd know that violence is increasing in Baghdad, and even Gates predicts that it will get worse over the summer. Yep, that's what I call "success".
OldMarine, Wesley, JamesBondKevin...can one of you please explain what is stopping the turrists from attacking us now? I'd love to know....and I'm sure President Numbnuts would give you a job in his administration if you could come up with a halfway logical explanation to back up his lame talking points.
Take your time...
Hah! How about good Intel and enhanced interrogation techniques. Also, there could be cells ready to spring into action when the majority in the congress is up against that magic September date - that is one last pusche to get us to really quit the Middle East.
My prediction: they'll do it but their action will have the opposite effect: The cowards will whine, blame it on Bush, and run for cover. The vast majority of us will finally get this war on seriously and win it.
OldMarine, your view of the Iraq war sounds like something out of a comic book. In any case, please explain how our presence in Iraq is stopping the terrorists from attacking us. Are you a proponent of Rhino's theory that all of the world's terrorists are in Iraq?
Our presence in Iraq is not stopping them from attacking us on U.S. soil excpet only peripherally by way of Intel we might gather from captured enemy. If, on the other hand, the Demos succeed in getting us to leave the field in Iraq, the enemy will be emboldened and our friends will become fearful (see post above on extrapolation).
Not familiar with Rhino’s theory. I think I’d probably prefer to hear it from him unless you can quote it precisely.
"the enemy will be emboldened"
Is that all you've got? Did you "extrapolate" that yourself? Might they also be "emboldened" if we stay in Iraq? Isn't it possible that our invasion of Iraq "emboldened" them? Here's the problem...conservatives like yourself seem to be looking at this in the WWII paradigm. You think, or seem to think, that we're fighting a well-defined enemy with a finite army, and once we kill enough of them, they'll just ....give up. Sorry, but life is more complicated than that. You cannot kill enough Iraqis to make us safe from another terrorist attack.
The "War on Terror" is like the "war on drugs". We're fighting a loosely knit network that is united by a not-so-well-defined set of ideas. They are not monolithic; they are not centralized. Sometimes they fight each other. Turning Iraq into glass will not make them just "go away". What we're doing in Iraq is like swatting flies with a sledgehammer.
Okay, NERZOG, I haven’t heard anything from you folks regarding how you would attack (if you’ll pardon the expression) the Islamist problem. Let’s hear it…
Start with the First Rule of Holes, and take it from there.
OldMarine, no disrespect intended, but I think you are stuck in an incorrect paradigm when you talk about this conflict.
You talk about "the enemy," as if the people setting off IEDs share anything with the 9/11 hijackers other than religion and eye colour.
You talk about "victory" and "defeat," as if this were World War II.
It's not.
We are an occupying force in a country that does not want us there. There is no way to "win" an occupation, but a million ways to lose. We are up against jihadists, Salafists, Ba'athists - and also some guy whose mom was "collateral damage" from a laser-guided bomb, or whose brother was mistakenly imprisoned in Abu Ghraib and had a DieHard wired to his balls.
We invaded without knowing what we were doing, and we're now stuck in the middle of a complex, multi-partite civil conflict that in many ways has nothing to do with us. We cannot resolve the conflict militarily. No matter how much manure we dig through, there will be no pony.
The question is not whether to leave, but when.
VALENTINIAN, Sorry if it wasn’t clear: the enemy is those who are waging a jihad against infidels, the radical Muslims, also known as Islamists.
The illustrations from WWII had to do with two aspects of this argument we’re having (1) what is victory (stated and expanded upon by way of illustration of the end result of WWII being the same result which defines victory in this war with the Islamists, and (2) the caldron which is Iraq and how it is THE battleground which will turn the tide of the war - IF the Democrats in congress and the buds in the MSM don’t get us to withdraw and thereby get defeated first - the illustration being the caldron of Guadal Canal in WWII.
No. It’s not a conventional war. It’s called an asymmetric war for all the reasons you folks have put forth. Nevertheless, we are fighting it well. We have most of the hearts and minds of both the Afghans and the Iraqis on the side of freedom and democracy and our troops have conducted themselves extraordinarily well in comparison with any other troops who have been engaged in this type of warfare.
Thanks to our and the Iraqi military solving part of the problem militarily, a political solution to the problems posed by the various opposing interests in Iraq appears to be a viable reality.
WWII ended when the governments who controlled, armed and funded the militaries which whom we were fighting agreed to lay down their arms and capitulate. After that point, the mopping-up of "dead-enders," if you will, was relatively short work.
In this conflict, there is no government to surrender. We are not fighting a regular military who had invaded a third country, as in Guadalcanal. We are fighting the citizens of a country we invaded. Even if we wanted to - were able to - kill every insurgent to the last man, more would spring up. Not even Hercules could cut off all the heads of the Hydra.
I agree that an understanding of history is an important thing. However, sometimes one can look at the past and create parallels in the present where none really exist. I would submit to you that the relevant lesson from history is not the Battle of Guadalcanal, but rather the British occupation of Iraq circa 1917.
Thank you for your "marginal" civility in this discussion...
How bout this? We've destroyed a large percentage of the Al Queda leadership. We've hurt Al Queda badly in general. We've attacked their funding. We have increased intelligence capabilities.
And one must realize what Al Queddas "goals" are. It is not to attack the US on US soil. Sure they will and sure they want to but their overall goal is not that. Rather,
The goal is "war until judgment day," according to Jenkins.
The source for this and other assessments is largely the terrorists themselves. Some of it comes from the interrogation of captured Al Qaeda members, but much of the Islamist worldview is in plain sight, in communiqués issued over the years by bin Laden and his top lieutenants.
And to wage this war they need many things but the main thing they need is NEW RECRUITS and money. They get neither by attacking the US. By focusing on US involvement in Iraq and recruitment efforts there they can achieve both things, new recruits and fundraising activities.
So being in Iraq almsot certainly has helped recruitment and thus bred new terrorists. But who cares! If extremists are heeding the call I say that's good. Because at the end of the day, we must kill every one of them. they can't be reasoned with. They can't be negotiated with. They'll obey no truces or cease fires because living in peace with others is not and never will be their goal.
We did not know where people who illegally overstayed their visas were then and we do not know now. False documents were a big business then and they are now. There was not true border and port security then and it does not exist today either.
In this regard there have been no significant changes in the last thirty years.
Hey all you John Wayne right wing types. GB squandered and pummeled the once amazing fighting spirit that once existed in abundance after 911. Case and point, Pat Tillman. Exit the Tillmans of the world and enter gang members, racists, felons and lower recruitment testing scores. Ask yourself why. I know the answer and flag waving will no longer cure it. It’s just plane old strategic stupidity in its purest deadliest form. Way to go Neo-Cons. We need to refocus or objectives. Getting the hell out of Iraq and its occupational sitting duck shooting gallery is one of them. That’s not "losing the war" that’s called regrouping your forces. The Dems are not giving up the fight on threats to this country or Al Qaeda. To reframe this pull out as Defeatism by the right wing is a political lie. A clear debate tactic used to continue or cover the, to put it very mildly, the bungled effort by Neo-Cons to pursue a flawed and debunked theory once held above all else, including bringing Bin and the boys to justice, in PNAC’s guide to dominate the globe.
Well said. I've said it before...but how many lives is George Bush's ego worth? How many lives is a barrel of oil worth? How many lives is a share of Haliburton stock worth?
Old marine,
Nice job of stating your opinion on Iraq/terror...reasonable and well thought.
Most readers that frequent this site will disagree with you...after all...it's a liberal site. I don't know how long you have been reading mmfa...but you have or will find a core group who will argue with you...even if you agree with them.
Feel heartened...your calm reasonable thoughts were appreciated...and this conservative looks forward to reading more of your opinions.
Wesley, no one can do condescension quite like you. In your hands, it is art.
Condescending? That's the nicest thing I've been called today...don't go getting all sappy on me.
Wesley...care to take a stab at the burning question? You sidestepped it earlier, and OldMarine refuses to answer it with anything but gratuitous assertions.
Why can't they attack us here while we have troops in Iraq?
NERZOG, Asked by you and answered (see above)
WESLEY, I very much appreciate your words of encouragement and the compliment.
My take on a lot of what we hear from the other side on this blog is that they are handicapped by not knowing enough history. History, especially military history (and the politics that go with it) is one of my favorite pastimes.
Another, and perhaps THE fundamental difference between right and left is the basic philosophy of the function of government. At the risk of oversimplifying, a distillation of my observations (since I started observing in earnest around the mid 70’s) follows. (Remember that what today in America are called conservatives were once known as “liberals” - an interesting confiscation of terms which I won’t go into)
The best way I can define the term “liberal” as used today is to draw the (my) distinction between those who today, in a populist sense, are called “liberals” and those who are called “conservatives”. Here’s how I classify a “liberal”: One whose core belief (whether so expressed in the political arena or not) is that there is a (probably small) segment of society who are well meaning, caring, thoughtful, educated, and very intelligent who know what is best for society at large, who believe that the inequities in life can be solved to a very significant degree by a kind of socialism and, more importantly, believe that the right people (those of their own ilk, of course) in positions of authority could make life better for all citizens. A “conservative”, on the other hand is one whose core belief is that people are unfailingly human and that the great majority of society appreciates, or should appreciate this fact when making political decisions. (He is, by the way, thankful that the founding fathers of the United States saw things that way and attempted to construct a constitution by which real human beings might successfully conduct their lives in a cooperative (lawful) way).
The consequences of their core belief gives rise to liberals being in favor of attempting to “level the playing field”, most notably in the U.S. by a progressive income tax. This approach to society’s inequities is also manifest in a mostly government run education system, one in which I think our high school students place anywhere from 12th to 18th depending on the subject matter as compared with high school students in other countries. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that fair and open competition in most areas of life (even religion) tends to raise the standard of living and quality of life for all. Conservatives believe in individual initiative and that the rewards and penalties for exemplary or poor works should be due to the individual’s efforts and not to the heavy hand of a “benevolent” government. Liberals, I think, unfortunately depend for their political power on the image of a fatherly government whose primary concern is the comfort of the masses, whereas conservatives depend more on the discontent of the masses (e.g. Ronald Reagan’s famous charge “Government cannot solve your problems. Government IS the problem”).
I’ll mercifully close here rather than continue into the current manifestations politically of these two core beliefs. We can save that for another time.
OldMarine said: "Our presence in Iraq is not stopping them from attacking us on U.S. soil..."
Well, on that, we agree. You'd better notify President Numbnuts, though. He seems to think that having our troops over there has created a magic bubble from which no terrorist can escape.
Shouldn't this be in the Propaganda/Noise Machine category? Just because Bush used the word "Iraq" and CNN uncritically reported Bush's comments shouldn't mean the issue under discussion is the "War in Iraq."
This critique is about another instance of how propaganda is disseminated by the MSM, I chose to click on the "War in Iraq" to see what was being said about events in Iraq, not expecting them to be accurate, of course. Even so, reports on the war are a starting point for further research on what is actually happening there. Since this piece was simply an analysis of propaganda, it was in the wrong place.
Just an observation,
Barbara