AP, NY Times, Wash. Post uncritically reported Bush claim that terrorists "would follow us here" from Iraq
In articles on President Bush's July 4 speech to the 167th Airlift Wing of the West Virginia Air National Guard, the Associated Press, The New York Times, and The Washington Post uncritically reported Bush's oft-used defense of his Iraq war policy -- that Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq will attack Americans inside the United States if U.S. troops withdraw "before the job is done." Yet none of the articles noted that security and terrorism experts have challenged Bush's view, despite several recent news reports on this dispute, including a March 18 Post article.
The AP directly quoted Bush's speech, while the Times and the Post paraphrased his claim. From the July 4 AP article:
"Victory in this struggle will require more patience, more courage, and more sacrifice," Bush told the guardsmen and their families in a half-hour speech in a cavernous aircraft maintenance hangar at the 167th Airlift Wing.
"If we were to quit Iraq before the job is done, the terrorists we are fighting would not declare victory and lay down their arms. They would follow us here."
That line played well with the crowd.
From the July 5 Times article:
Mr. Bush said if the United States were to leave Iraq now, Al Qaeda "would be able to establish their safe haven from which to do two things: to further spread their ideology and to plan and plot attacks against the United States."
Victory, he said, "will require more patience, more courage, and more sacrifice."
From the July 5 Post article:
President Bush warned Wednesday that the Iraq war "will require more patience, more courage and more sacrifice," as he appealed to a war-weary public for time and sought to link today's conflict to the storied battles that gave birth to the nation.
In an Independence Day address before members of the National Guard and their families, the president again painted a dire portrait of the consequences of pulling out of Iraq, asserting as he has before that "terrorists and extremists" would try to strike inside the United States.
None of the above articles mentioned that numerous security and terrorism experts have challenged Bush's argument. In fact, the Post itself published an article on March 18 focused on this very point. According to the article, "U.S. intelligence officials and outside experts" have said that Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) "poses little danger to the security of the U.S. homeland." The March 18 Post article added that according to "government and outside experts," "AQI's new membership and the allied insurgents care far more about what happens within Iraq than they do about [Al Qaeda leader Osama] bin Laden's plans for an Islamic empire" and "[t]hat is likely to remain the case whether U.S. forces stay or leave."
Indeed, other media outlets have produced similar reports. An April 6 McClatchy Newspapers article reported the opinion of "[m]ilitary and diplomatic analysts" that Bush "exaggerat[ed] the threat that the enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland" when he claimed in a April 4 speech that "this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here." The article continued: "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." In addition, as Media Matters for America has noted, an April 30 report from National Public Radio's All Things Considered explored Bush's claim in an April 16 speech that "[i]f we do not defeat the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they won't leave us alone -- they will follow us to the United States of America." The report quoted a number of experts, including retired Army Lt. Col. James Carafano, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, challenging Bush's view.
As Media Matters documented, an April 4 Post article also uncritically quoted Bush's assertion that "if we were to leave [Iraq] before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here," despite its March 18 article. Moreover, previous AP reports have uncritically quoted similar claims made by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and his presidential campaign spokesman.
Yeah...they'll follow the trail of crumbs left by the Halliburton trucks.
Doh! I forgot. Halliburton and the other contractors won't bring the trucks back here...they'll just blow them up and bill us for them.
No, no, no...they'll tell us they were blown up, charge us for them, then sell them to someone who will sell them to terrorists...
...who will blow them up.
Which Haliburton breadcrumb trail did they follow to the World Trade Center in 1993?
Hey, isn't that President Numbnut's talking point? Does he know you stole it?
Hook, line, and sinker.
And were those terrorists from IRAQ? Why no they werent. So that has WHAT to do with them supposedly following us back from Iraq? Why nothing at all, what a shock.
Those turned out to be terroists from Al Qaeda, one of whom was hiding in Iraq for many years under Saddam's hospitality. Yasin Abdul Rahman, wanted for his role in constructing the WTC bomb of 1993, was found hiding in Iraq.
Yasin's association with Ramzi Yousef, a known Al Qaeda operative is sufficient to show that Yasin is also a confederate of Al Qaeda.
Yasin's refuge in Iraq is sufficent to show that Saddam knowingly provided shelter to at lest one Al Qaeda terrorist who attacked the US.
This obviates ALL of the arguments that there was no connection between Al Qaeda types who attacked the US and Saddam. Those claims are shown to be patently false by this one fact alone.
Eat it raw, Solon. Ignorance and hubris is about all you have.
"Yasin's refuge in Iraq is sufficent to show that Saddam knowingly provided shelter to at lest one Al Qaeda terrorist who attacked the US."--nl207
According to the Leslie Stahl interview you linked to Yasin's supposed "refuge in Iraq" was actually prison. I think you are stretching your point beyond any credibility.
Its hard to believe NL could have actually tried to bolster his weak attempt at a point with an even WEAKER one but he pulled it off. I cant believe they are still even TRYING that one.
"Yasin's refuge in Iraq is sufficent to show that Saddam knowingly provided shelter to at lest one Al Qaeda terrorist who attacked the US."
That's complete b.s. He wasn't given refuge in Iraq. He lived as a child in Baghdad, so he went back to hide out there after the bombing. He managed to remain free until the following year, when he was thrown in prison. By Hussein. Did you even bother to read your own link? That 60 Minutes interview took place in prison. Prison is not a political refuge.
Furthermore, the State Department has said that the CIA was never able to prove any link between Iraq and the '93 bombing. But I guess they must not have been smart enough to connect the dots like you have.
Or, not as willing to lie.
Rhetoric of fear reigns supreme with the Bush Administration. In order to keep people in line, must make them scared of the "boogeyman" called terrorism. Then they can do whatever it is they want. I'm so sick of this talking point, it makes me sick and really bears no evidence of truth to it at all. Where do the armies of radical Islam store their naval fleet so they can invade the US? Where is their air force to project air power over the US? The more Bush and Company speak, the more and more ignorant they look like. It does make me smile that some of the republican candidates who are running for President keep repeating this inane point and in turn, make themselves look like idiots as well.
The republican party can now implode. I hope that the republicans do finally find someone to lead them away from what the party has become.
What do you expect from stenographers? I do hope they got all the spelling right.
I've never understood that right wing talking point. As Al Qaeda has already demonstrated, if they want to come over here they will - and I'm guessing they are here now. Bush's job is to find them and stop them.
That's where you're wrong...Bush's job is to make himself, Cheney and his "haves and have more" base as rich as possible before Congress impeaches his sorry ass.
Al Qaeda is at present, far too busy running and hiding to mount any serious challenge here in N.A. Even their most recent foray in the UK was lame compared to their prior operations in other theaters and even in the UK.
Now .... disengage them. Let them rest and regroup, and most importantly, let them take the initiative, and you will see just what they can do.
You really believe that crap? Is Bin Ladin in Iraq? Are all terrorists in Iraq? If they want to strike us here, they can do it now just as easily as they can after we pull out of Iraq.
Do you think we have them all bottled up in Iraq? Are you that naive?
Al Qaeda is far more than just Osama bin Laden and his immediate henchmen. On 9-11 there were thought to be some 20,000 fighters who had been trained in Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. In November 2006, Al Qaeda claimed to have 12,000 fighters in Iraq. "Gen. Petraeus calls [Al Qaeda] 'probably public enemy number one' in Iraq." Al Qaeda claims Iraq is the central front in their war upon the West.
So Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq, does it, Nerzog?
Did I say that? Please show me where. While you're at it, please answer my question. Are all terrorists in Iraq? Do you really think Al Queda is so stupid that they will be perpetually suckered into attacking our troops in Iraq as long as we keep them there? Really?
They have been "suckered" so far, haven't they? And if, as you and those like you have many times claimed in other threads that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to 2003, they certainly have flocked to Iraq since then, haven't they?
Are you such a colossal fool as to think you can leave a force like Al Qaeda undefeated on the battlefield and not be attacked by them at a later date?
I think it is you who is foolish enough to think that you can kill every single one of them without creating more than you started with.
Thomas Sanderson, a terrorism specialist at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies, called Mr. Bush’s argument “completely ridiculous” and said Iraq would not have become a training ground for Al Qaeda had the United States not invaded. “We created the biggest terrorism training ground known, which is Iraq,” he said.
You forgot, Iraq is also the biggest source of funding for Al Qeada. Lots of it showing up in Afganistan. They couldn't do it without shrub, take a bow.
So far it has been Al Qaeda's graveyard. If we go ahead and use the force necessary to win, Al Qaeda will be buried in Iraq at least for this generation.
If we do as you and others like you want, and withdraw, Al Qaeda will emerge both victorious and stronger than ever.
Which option presents the greatest long term peril for America?
And you know that HOW? Did you use the same crystal ball you rightwingers have used to be absolutly WRONG about every single prediction you have made about Iraq so far? Why in the world would anyone with the good sense God gave a common garden slug take any prediction the right makes NOW seriously when you havent been right YET. While the LEFT has been correct right down the line on OUR predictions about Iraq.
The option that holds the greatest long term peril to America is to continue to beat that hornets nest with a stick.
It appears both of those ridiculous options were created when our idiotic president first decided to invade Iraq.
I believe our battle would have been much easier had we not done something so stupid as invading Iraq in the first place. That said, what's done is done.
We are now in a position where I believe staying in Iraq helps the enemy and leaving Iraq does as well. The only question is which one hurts us less in the long run. All we have is pretty worthless speculation for both sides of that argument IMO.
It comes down to credibility for me. I am done listening to the morons that got us into this mess for now.
al-Masri claims they have 12,000 fighters and another 10,000 in reserve and you simply take him at his word? You are gullible.
I submit to you that the "Al-Qaeda foray in England ' was nothing more than a scene they saw in " Casino Royale '. Home grown nuts.
If they weren't in Iraq prior to the invasion, but are now, does that mean they ran to us, not from us? If so, does that mean we invaded Iraq so that they would follow us there instead of staying here? Damn clever.
Hmmm...I've got a better idea. Since they apparently only follow our military, let's disband it. That should really confuse them.
Hey, I know...let's put all of our troops on ships, and sail them out to the middle of the Indian Ocean. The terrorists, being too stupid to use a map, will follow them out there and drown. Problem solved.
OOOPs, I need to read all the posts before I post. Sorry Nerzog
As another poster once pointed out we should put all our troops on carriers and destroyers in the Atlantic Ocean and they will drown trying to swim out and attack us
False dichotomy. There is no reason to just forget about al Queda WHEN we leave Iraq. They WERENT there before we invaded, they arent all there now, NOTHING is stopping them from coming here now, much less us being in Iraq they are CHOOSING to put resources in Iraq that could change tomorrow. Nothing you or President Gump have said demostrates there is any saftey being gained by being in Iraq even IF it were true there is no moral justification for making the Iraqi people pay the price for our war with al Queda
Every single assertion you make here has been proven false by other links I have made on this thread.
(1) AQ in the person of fugitive WTC bomber, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was being harbored in Iraq prior to 9-11 by Saddam.
(2) AQ is present in Iraq in large numbers today.
(3) AQ isn't leaving Iraq as long as the issue there is in doubt.
(4) AQ in Iraq won't be leaving Iraq under their own power if they lose there. The dead don't travel without help.
Only in your dreams
1) Harbored in PRISON? Give me a break. By that definition we are harboring Mumia Jamal
. 2) They are NOW what right do we have to afflict the Iraqis with our war with al Queda? AQ as I have provided links before to show was afraid that we would leave Iraq prematurely because they were afraid if we did the fighters they had recruited would just go home you have no way of knowing that is NOT how it would work out THIS time.
3) You have no way of knowing this and your record as a prophet leaves much to be desired.
4) Do they glow in the dark? They dont? then how do we tell THEM from plain old Iraqis? Or do we just kill them all and let God sort them out? Yeah all we have to do is WIN. And all I have to do to get my Ferari is win the lottery and all we need to do to end our energy independence is create a perpetual motion machine.
And you STILL havent addressed the point that your original post was a false dichotomy there is no reason to forget about al Queda because we leave Iraq in fact we will have MORE resources to fight them.
On the theory I have oft repeated on such forums, i.e., "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth," I bring out my favorite scenario for review by all in this forum. No matter how AQ got into Iraq, and no matter what happens if the US were to withdraw troops, the concensus of all, including many here, is that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, knows what will happen in Iraq and the wider middle East from this moment. What only we know is that there has been a thunderously-large disturbance to the Force thanks to our unlateral and massive invasion of Iraq. So we need to be doing something else besides arguing about whether removing or leaving troops will help or hurt our, or anybody else's, cause. We need a proposal to change the situation. I propose two, and I offer these in complete seriousness. First, we move every single troop from Iraq to the West Bank. We tell Israel and the Palestinians, We are here until there is a 2-state situation that both sides can live with. We (the US) will offer strong financial incentives to BOTH sides if they are able to come up with a solution, and in the short run, our troops will guarantee police protection of areas throughout Israel and the West Bank. If these sides cannot agree, then the US says, Right, we are going to put a time limit to the sale of arms to anybody in the middle east at all including the Saudis, Israelis, and Turks until such a time as you can get it together. We allow Hamas and Hezbollah into the negotiations, since each of these organizations has strong political following in the region. We invite the EU, Russia, China and others interested into the negotiations to secure this situation. Now for part 2 of my plan: legalize all drugs in the US across the board, making drug use a medical, versus a criminal, issue, and thereby denying the mullahs and Taliban of their HUGE incomes from producing 80% of the world's heroin in Afghanistan. This does two things: (1) tends to remove many wouldbe jihadists from signing with AQ, and (2) makes a run at drying up their HUGE source of income. The ONLY longterm solution to our problem lies not with the force of arms and militarism, but with showing ourselves to be interested in a middle east in which everybody has a chance to have such a country as they wish, whether an Islamic republic in Iran, a democracy in Israel, a monarchy of despots in the other Persian Gulf countries, or whatever. If we do this, because we have bucks, and in the event of peace round the oil fields, they will be perfectly happy to supply us with oil for cash on the barrelhead, perhaps only with the provision that the payment be in Euros.
1) according to your link above, 1993 WTC bombing suspect Yasin was what you refer to as "harbored" by Saddam in a prison cell.
2) Strawman...(reread solon's original arguments in his post above)
3) Mindreading
4) You seem to think we can kill all of the terrorists. Can you guarantee there won't even be nineteen of them left to carry out another 9-11 sized disaster using the current strategy?
Not a chance they will follow us here. first of all , follow who ? Second of all, the root cause of all this is the ever presence,6 years, of uniformed american soldiers, very visible, walking the streets. I would support a permanent presence of US Navy carriers, 24/7 ready for battle, ready to move in and quell any disturbance, That makes US presence almost invisible and still effective.
Not a chance they will destroy a 100+ story office building in downtown Manhattan during broad daylight, is there?
Well, as you pointed out, they found New York just fine on 9/11, and they didn't need to follow our troops home to do it. Please explain how keeping troops in Iraq is going to stop them from doing it again. Take your time...you can call a lifeline if you want to.
Nerzog, you are too stupid to even be embarassed when someone pulls your pants down in public.
Investigate what the word "initiative" means in a military context. Al Qaeda had the initiative all during the Clinton Presidency and we witnessed a string of the most daring attacks. After 9-11, we siezed the initiative. AQ attacks outside the war zone since then have been limited to transportation attacks in Europe.
Refute my arguments. Take your time. Take all the time in the world for all the good it will do you.
Amazing you have the lack of irony to call Nerzog stupid since you are the most ignorant, brainwashed, braindead poster here. I have a houseplant that does higher brain function better than you. As you are a complete moron you fail to qualify as a competent judge to decide whether someone else is stupid. We took the initiative. I was all for going into Afghanistan then ADD President Gump lost interest in those who actually attacked us even saying he doesnt think that much about Osama ben Forgotten anymore, to fight a more profit friendly war in IRAQ. You have the memory thing down, you record and regurgitate the propaganda parrot talking points admirably. If you can just add a functioning cerebral cortex we MIGHT get a decent discussion out of you some day. I wont hold my breath. Until you add a few dozen IQ points, at least enough to qualify as a cretin your attempts to tell others they are stupid is a laughfest.
Al Qaeda didn't do a very good job of attacking the US mainland for over 8 years after the 1993 WTC bombing.
I think Al Qaeda is counting on people like yourself to self-congratulate themselves into a false sense of security in order to get us to lower our guard.
You never noticed Al-Qaeda waited 8 years to attack us again on the mainland? How do you know they aren't waiting another 10 or 20 years to pull off the next one?
BTW, I find it interesting that according to your own logic, Bill Clinton did a great job of keeping us safe here on the mainland after the 1993 WTC bombing.
When I heard Bush on TV yesterday repeat once again his they'll follow us here B.S. I thought to myself...
Is this a Live speech or one out of the archives?
This guy is in need of some new speech writers.
I still don't understand. How in the world would the Iraqis get here? Most of the insurgents are pissed-off Iraqis. And why come here when they have 150,000 targets walking around in Iraq.
Then again, those Viet Cong Sappers were going to crawl over here and attack us also. I wonder what type of air is being pumped into the White House??
Conservatives never alleged that VC sappers would come to the US in the wake of a withdrawal from Vietnam. Conservatives alleged that the rest of Indochina would fall under Communist domination if the Vietnam War were to be lost, which as history has shown, did indeed happen.
The salient message here is this: Conservatives were correct about what the consequences of withdrawal in Vietnam would be and the left either supported tghe spread of Communism or was incorrect. I prefer to give the left the benefit of the doubt and choose the latter option because the former labels them as outright traitors.
Once again we are in an unpopular war and Conservatives and Liberals are divided about what the consequences of withdrawal will be. My money says the Conservatives are once again correct and the Liberals are once again wrong.
Yeah, they're batting 1000 so far, aren't they?
On Bizarro Planet Wingnut, where history is baked fresh daily... and nothing is as it seems !
The rest of Indochina under communist domination? Laos is the only other communist country in the region and last I knew, they (or Vietnam) are not much of a threat to us.
Pol Pot? Mass murders. Boat people, those hundreds of thousands willing to throw their lives away at sea rather than remain in that place. Re-education camps? Political executions so numerous trenches became graves?
Of course, in the Liberal rendition of history none of these things actually happened and the proletariat lived happily ever after under the egalitarin blessings of the new order.
You have an exceedling short memory to go with your myopia.
Not going to respond to the gist of things? How far does IndoChina extend in your mind? Also, name one thing this current administration has gotten correct about the War in Iraq? Mission Accomplished? The length of the War? How we would be greeted? How democracy would spread through the region? How the oil revenues would pay for the War itself? How few troops we would need to secure the country? Weapons of Mass Destruction? The meeting in Prague that was "pretty well confirmed?" Was the breaking up of the Iraqi army a good idea? These are the guys you trust?
Or do you mean "conservatives" in general like those now jumping ship (Lugar, Warner Domenici (sp?))?
They have gotten one thing correct about Iraq: It has proven to be a magnet for Al Qaeda, the authors of the 9-11 attack. It offers the only plausible killing ground for AQ in the middle east, in large part because of its relatively well educated population and its diverse religious culture. It is the one middle eastern country outside Iran where Al Qaeda can expect to find the least support amongst the general populace. If you must fight guerillas, then it is best to fight them where you will get the most indigenous help.
And why is it a magnet? We created that magnet. Do you think the Iraqis would not fight for their own country against AQ?
It must be nice to view such complex things in such a childishly simple way. Perhaps the unfamiliarity of concepts such as evolution leaves some rightwingers at a disadvantage with regards to reality based situations.
Tactics are constantly changing by our forces and our foes. It is not so easy these days to identify and kill the enemy as these tactics evolve. In a way, we are teaching the terrorists/insurgents how to be better at what they do as time goes by.
Are you suggesting that we should have "officially" expanded the war into Cambodia? Are you suggesting that Cambodia became a communist country because we weren't able to get the VC and NVA to surrender?
Where did you get your history lesson, from Limbaugh or Hannity?
The Cambodians and Vietnamese have historically been enemies going back to at least 1954.
Although both were communist countries they seldom worked together. In fact it was the Vietnamese communists who eventually overthrew Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.
The War in Vietnam could not have been won without decimating the population. The Communists were prepared to fight to the last man. We, thank God, were not. If we had not come to our senses we'd still be there. And we would not have had a military to send to Iraq.
The war was expanded into Laos and Cambodia back in the 60's when the NVA cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail from the North to the South through those countries in defiance of their governments and violation of their sovereignty. This is what is know as an "act of war".
I don't disagree with any of that, but I fail to see what that has to do with the above posts.
Expanded into Laos and Cambodia is not the same as at war with Laos and Cambodia.
You didn't address what I or anyone else has said, you only repeat the lies of those who chose not to serve in that war.
Maybe if more of your heroes had actually been involved in the war, they'd remember the lies they were told about how ALL of the dominoes would tumble and that the enemy would eventually wind up on our shores.
You people have enough on your hands re-writing the history of the quagmire in Iraq. You should leave the history of our prior "engagements" to history not histrionics.
"Of course, in the Liberal rendition of history none of these things actually happened and the proletariat lived happily ever after under the egalitarin blessings of the new order."--nl207
It is pretty pathetic how some conservatives like nl207 have to resort to inventing strawmen or using wild hyperbole to represent the supposed liberal point of view. Weak.
Actually, NL has revised the original prediction in order to make it fit the outcome. The "domino theory" claimed that all of Southeast Asia would fall to communism, not just Indochina. But alas, communism's grip on even Indochina didn't last; Cambodia became a democracy in 1993.
Also, contrary to the assumptions of the theory, the communists weren't even a happy family. Vietnam eventually attacked the Khmer Rouge, resulting in China attacking Vietnam. Marching onward is difficult when you aren't even marching together.
That is why it is often insufficient to view the history of southeast asia strictly in terms of the ideological struggle between communism vs. capitalism. Most of the support for communist regimes, although very complex, seams to have stemmed more from nationalist and anti-colonialist sentiments.
And what of the situations in Thailand, Malaysia, Burma and Singapore? Do any of these feature anything resembling free governments?
And what part of the Liberal predictions about the consquences of Vietnam withdrawal came true? Zero as near as I can tell.
I often hear liberal hand wringers decry US inaction in the 1939-1941 time frame vis-a-vis Adolf Hitler's antisemitic campaign. these same hypocrites ignore their own role in enabling Pol Pot to implement his murderous program.
"And what of the situations in Thailand, Malaysia, Burma and Singapore? Do any of these feature anything resembling free governments?"--nl207
You appear to be moving the goalposts here. Communism (what the "dominoe theory" refers to) is a form of economy. Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore are inarguably full blown capitalist/free market/free enterprise economies. Their laws are often very strict, but that has nothing at all to do with their economic policy.
BTW, what makes you think the US backed Bao Dai or Ngo Dinh Diem regimes were so politically free and liberal in comparison to the countries you mention?
As for Burma (Myanmar), it chose socialism in the early 1960's and is supported by China and India. I hardly see how us "winning" in Vietnam would have had any effect at all on what happened in Myanmar.
I am in Vietnam now. It, and Cambodia and Laos next door, make up Indochina.
Vietnam and Laos -- Communist, more or less (less and less every day). Cambodia, not communist -- but not nearly as safe as Vietnam, by the way.
The other countries you mentioned are part of Southeast Asia, not Indochina.
You'll have to excuse me now, but Brokeback Mountain is on HBO and I don't want to miss it.
Doug Reese
Let me get this straight, I thought all dominoes were to fall once one was set in motion. How narrowly are you defining IndoChina? Are Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Burma part of it or were those dominoes spread too far apart.
You really are going to take this regime's word for things? Why not ask Cheney how we were to be greeted or ask Rumsfeld how long the war would last?
And, please spare the 9/11-Iraq connections. You know as well as the rest of us that the two are not connected. Yes, Al-Qaeda is in Iraq, but it is not the main enemy. The numbers just aren't there.
That is BUNK I remember the Vietnam war and they were ABSOLUTLY claiming we had to fight them over there or we would be fighting them here. It was a major talking point about keeping the Vietnam war going. In fact one of the most laughable things about Iraq is the way you rightwingers keep resurrecting the talking points that DIDNT work then as if they will suddenly become MORE credible even though they were shown to be wrong then.
I doubt seriously you were old enough to wipe your own ass during the Vietnam war.
Since you are so stupid I am shocked you remember to breathe I dont care WHAT you THINK. I am in fact old enough to remember Vietnam. YOU are too stupid to know the color of your socks
This is part of Bush's "FAITH BASED INITIATIVE".
It's a variation on the ancient INCA practice of offering up sacrifices to the gods, to prevent them getting angered and bringing disaster to visit upon the homeland of the leaders.
If you just keep sending sacrifices, then, you are personally safe in your home. THIS is Bush's rationale, that of BLOOD SACRIFICE of the "expendible" to save the sorry asses of the leadership. The problem THEN, and NOW, is that it's a MYTH, a superstition, a hope based upon acting like you're doing something when actually you are doing WORSE than nothing ... you are committing immoral and soulless acts in the name of your own safety.
This type of blood lust/superstition has appealed to a certain type of fundamentalist fanatic throughout history. History views them as MONSTERS, but in America today, they are known as NeoCons.
Buchanan was right...we are in the middle of a culture war. It's the thinkers vs. the non-thinkers.
This whole "they'll follow us home" BS relies pretty heavily on hammering a very simplistic vision of the world.
How many people did it actually take to pull off the 9/11 attacks, in relation to the number of potential terrorists in the world?
The planning wasn't much more complicated than setting up a vacation or business trip, and the number of bodies needed was just a handful of fanatics.
To think that the ones who are distracted with fighting our troops over there would otherwise be busy planning attacks over here just shows a pretty flimsy grasp of math and an equal ignorance of the division of labor and management.
Exactly. Gee, how did those Doctors escape from Iraq long enough to plant those bombs in England? NL? Oh, wait...not all terrorists are bogged down in Iraq, are they? In fact, we're the ones bogged down in Iraq...not the terrorists.
Investigate the military concept of "Victory". When victory is achieved, peace follows. The enemy are no longer able to wage war. indeed, the enemy may no longer even exist.
This concept has applied to every conflict in the history of mankind. Warfare, once ignited, continued until one side or the other was completely defeated, sometimes stretching across several generations as the Punic Wars did.
Who do you want to win this war? There are only two choices: The Islamofascist Jihadists or the West.
Your very example contradicts the point you tried to make. The Punic Wars, were a series of three DIFFERENT wars the first one lasting 3 years the second lasting 17 years and the third lasting three years. With 20 years of relative peace between Carthage and Rome between the first two and about 50 years of peace between the second two.
Considering our mutual disdain for Pol-Pot and his methods, just how exactly would you propose to identify and eliminate our enemy. Would your tactics/strategy differ much from Mr. Pot's? Should we just obliterate all Iraqi's and let God sort it out? If not, how do you propose to completely annihilate the "Islamofascists" without killing large numbers of innocents (assuming we agree killing innocent people is bad and should be avoided if at all possible)? Or are there any innocents in Iraq to you and your apparently manichean thought process?
OpenMind, I think NL was just being helpful. I posted above that this War on Terror scam relies heavily on a large number of Americans having a very simple minded view of the world, and NL volunteered to back me up.
Thanks, NL.
Bush is as stupid as they come. West Point has up on their web site acutal papers written by terrorists. I read them.
One of the methods is to get us to spend as much money as we can only to have that money go down the drain.
With the annoucement of the surge the smart thing for Al Qaeda would be to leave Iraq. This would be the perfect joke on Bush. Sending all the troops over there and nothing.
Right now all Bush is attacking are the Shia's in the poor neighborhood of Sadr causing thousands to flee thier homes.
Meanwhile Bush is parroting idiotic lines. We have dumped trillions of dollars down the black whole. Al Qaeda 1 Bush 0 Halliburton lauging all the way to the back.
There are more private contractors in Iraq than troops. We are wasting all our tax dollars paying for these contractors which are billing us for imaginary services. Al Qaeda 1 Bush 0 Halliburton and private contractors laughing all the way to the bank, tax payers showing the world their empty pockets.
But, according to NL, we're keeping the turrists too busy there to attack us here. Shhhhh. Maybe they won't notice, and they'll keep jumping in front of our bullets.
I get it now.
That's why we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. If we left, they would come over here and fight us. How logical.
This time of year, my mind turns often to the founding of the United States, and the sacrifices made by our brave forefathers who forced the Redcoats to cut and run from the shores of our newly formed republic, after which we hopped in our boats and followed them to England where we blew up random shoppes and inns with carriage bombs, killed their children and watered down their beer. On a personal note, Capt. Zachary "Candlelight" Desert, my great great great great grandfather very nearly single-handedly destroyed an entire pub. Wearing a concealed cannonball waistcoat, he shuffled resolutely into the Cock and Bull. But when he retrieved the flint from it's hiding place under his wig, he found that it had become damp from the sweat created by the exertion required to walk with 300 lb clothing, and he could not strike an ember with which to detonate his improvised explosive garb. A feisty bar wench eventually subdued him and he was forced to consume a pint, play darts, and sing songs. But for a hairpiece, it would have been the turning point of the war, and we might well rule the British Isles today. I still weep with pride sometimes when I think about it, but not too much. Without that pint and the feisty bar wench, it's likely I would not be here today.
I like learnin' history. Aces, Neon.
Neon,
That explains a lot. My guess is that talk of loading the 9 inch cannon somehow got mixed up in translation.
Fortunately for you and your long lost cousins that report in here every day that many on your side have a penchant for wenches.... Or maybe your side simply has more success with them?
;-)
Just like a Tory - to abandon the exemplar to pursue the erotic.
For shame!
(But aye, Granddaddy Candlelight was rarely averse to revealing the ammo in his breeches to the lasses, so to speak)
Of course they do, ever hear anyone say they want to get a nice peice of elephant?
My Great Uncle, Prince Guiseppe was a kamakazie pilot for the Italian Air Force in WWII. He was a hero in his time. He retired after 24 missions.
FEAR FEAR FEAR
That and a few dozen 9/11 references are the only cards this guy can play anymore.
I tried to watch his speech, but soon realized I've heard every line he spoke about a 1,000 times before.
Is it OK for news agencies to report the news instead of editorialize it? If the AP does a story to let the public know what a Bush speech was about, isnt that all it should be. Example: Bush:"terrorists will come here if we dont stay in Iraq". AP story report: Bush said, "terrorists will come here if we dont stay in Iraq". Whats the beef?
Because it leaves the impression that is the only side of the story. To tell the ENTIRE story it should have been noted that this is a highly disputed contention one which several well known experts dismiss.
Obviously John has no clue how propaganda works, in fact, he's been propagandized soooooo much that his brain has been trained like a wide eyed bushy tailed puppy dog to take whatever the master feeds it.