NY Times did not challenge Bush claim that terrorists "would attack us at home" if U.S. withdraws from Iraq
SUMMARY: An article in The New York Times reported President Bush's assertion that withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq would "embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home," without noting expert opinion that a U.S. troop withdrawal is unlikely to result in a terrorist attack on the United States.
In a September 4 article inThe New York Times, David S. Cloud and Steven Lee Myers reported President Bush's assertion that withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq would "embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home" -- without mentioning the numerous security and terrorism experts who have challenged this claim. Further, the article ignored a recent survey finding that only 12 percent of experts believe that the United States would be attacked by terrorists as a direct result of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. Moreover, some foreign policy experts have said that it is the U.S. occupation of Iraq that increases the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the United States. An April 30 report on National Public Radio's All Things Considered quoted retired Brig. Gen. John H. Johns saying, "It's actually leaving American forces in Iraq ... that increases the chances of a terrorist attack on the U.S."
As Media Matters for America previously noted, media outlets routinely fail to mention challenges to the Bush administration's oft-repeated assertion that a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq would result in a terrorist attack on the United States. In the third issue of the Terrorism Index, a nonpartisan survey of foreign policy experts conducted by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine, released in August, only 12 percent of the experts polled said they believed that a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq was either very or somewhat likely to directly result in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The findings in the August survey are consistent with analysts' claims that a U.S. withdrawal is unlikely to result in attacks on the United States.
For example, according to an April 6 McClatchy Newspapers article, "[m]ilitary and diplomatic analysts" say that a similar claim by Bush -- that "this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here" -- "exaggerat[es] the threat that enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland." 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." The article quoted a U.S. intelligence official as saying that "[t]he war in Iraq isn't preventing terrorist attacks on America" and noted that "the likelihood that enemy combatants from Iraq might follow departing U.S. forces back to the United States is remote at best."
Moreover, as Media Matters has also noted, The Washington Post reported in a March 18 article 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."
From the September 4 New York Times article:
"After talks with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, and Ryan C. Crocker, the ambassador to Iraq, Mr. Bush said that they "tell me that if the kind of success we are now seeing here continues it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces."
Mr. Bush did not say how large a troop withdrawal was possible. Nor did he say whether he envisioned any forces being withdrawn sooner than next spring, when the first of the additional 30,000 troops Mr. Bush sent to Iraq this year are scheduled to come home anyway.
Still, his remarks were the clearest indication yet that a reduction would begin sometime in the months ahead, answering the growing opposition in Washington to an unpopular war while at the same time trying to argue that any change in strategy was not a failure.
"Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground -- not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media," Mr. Bush told a gathering of American troops, who responded with a rousing cheer. "In other words, when we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure. To do otherwise would embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home."
Jesus H. Christ...I can't believe he's still peddling this bullsh*t. Please, President Numbnuts...explain one more time why they can't attack us now, and how having troops in Iraq stops them from attacking us here?
This is a old washed up argument now. Can we move on please mr. president??
KING...You coined a brand new word!
Girlie Man George learned this lame lie of a comment from the Vietnam War. President Johnson warned that San Francisco would be invaded by North Vietnam if we pulled out of that conflict.
It's too bad Bush didn't learn the true lessons of the Vietnam War. I must say, what a total dishonest jerk he truly is.
That's the first time I've ever had to say that about a President. Even Nixon wasn't this bad.
If we leave Iraq, won't the turrsts be kinda busy emfightening the other factions?
Emfightening. Thanks I loved that.
It shows how desperate they are for ANY rationale that they are still using this warmed over version of an excuse that didnt work when they used it for Vietnam. Were fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here.
My thoughts exactly. I don't see how anyone in the intelligence community or the military community can possibly believe this nonsense. It's propaganda meant for consumption by the masses. The real question, as it has always been, is why are we really there, and why are they so determined to stay there?
Is it just because Bush doesn't want the "loss" to be recorded during his term? Could it be that simple? Is he that simple?
Nerzog:
"Is it just because Bush doesn't want the "loss" to be recorded during his term? Could it be that simple? Is he that simple?"
Yes, he is that simple, the stupid, and that much of a megalomaniac.
Oh yeah the" liberal "NYT can't even do basic reporting and report that many experts, studies, and intelligence here and around the world that has concluded we are MORE at risk because of Bush's war, invasion, and occupation in Iraq of terrorist attacks not less at risk.
Just WHO does he think is going to follow us here.
Osama Bin Laden who he hasn't been able to find in SIX years?!
Reminder that who was responsible for the attack in September of 2001, NOT Iraq, or terrorists from Iraq.
But now Bush Jr. has managed to flame the fire of terrorism around the world. News form GERMANY confirmed that yet again today.
Only fools believe the pure crap coming out of that creatures mouth now.
Nice work NYT.
I think you could be right. I have often asked the rhetorical question...How many lives is George Bush's ego worth?
Still waiting for an answer.
HELP!!! I have to know how the terrorists are going to follow us here? Al-Terrorist Airlines or Trans-Al-Terrorists American Cruise Lines? Probably not either of those, maybe across any border.
My concern is who will the Cons blame if/when an attack occurs? Will the reasons be, the Democrats "wanted" us to leave Iraq so it emboldened the bay guys...or...the Dems showed a weakness which emboldened the bad guys...or....we brought 10,000 troops home so the bad guys thought we were weak so they attacked us to teach us a lesson.
The tossed salad being thrown at the masses have now included IRAN. It was reported that the last meeting the the President had with the mouthpieces of the Cons were told to start the war drums on 9/4/07. This coincides with the Bush book and the Bush "surprise"(planned well in advance) visit into Iraq. And what happens, Hammity starts beating the drums, local jerks start beating the drums, Rush starts beating the drums...since when does America conduct a PR campaign for WAR? Maybe since the number aren't right for the Repulans. God help us, how stupid can the public be? And as I have said before, if terrorists strike us first, would it be considered a pre-emptive strike or a terrorist attack? And if we attack Iran first, what would that be considered?
You mean you don't know? They are going to fly to mexico and sneak across the Rio dressed as poor mexican immigrants.
Maybe they'll just come here normally like they did last time and then conduct another attack wherein 3000 people are killed? you guys really don't take this seriously do you? It's all just a big joke to you.
Yeah, I remember how much I laughed and laughed on 9/11. It was great! If only I had been smarter and realized that if we went into an unrelated country and killed or displaced millions of people, those Saudi's would have never come over here!
What a ridiculously offensive and ignorant comment, Wagner. I bet we don't support the troops, either, don't we? Maybe we are ivy league elitists who get off on the power trip of providing services to poor people? Any other stupid talking points to throw in there?
"HELP!!! I have to know how the terrorists are going to follow us here? Al-Terrorist Airlines or Trans-Al-Terrorists American Cruise Lines?"
I was offended by this. This statement means to me, that the person who wrote it doesn't take terrorism seriously. If you want to accuse me of using some kind of "talking points" then go ahead.
Well, we've been offended for 6 years now as people on your side of the aisle called us un-american, traitors, treasonous, and just about every other vile name in the book because we didn't blindly follow and then saw through the whole pack of lies. When can we expect our apology for the seditious statements?
I'm a Democrat you jackass. I don't support the Iraq war. I just thought that your comments along with the ones i quoted above showed a certain lack of seriousness when it comes to terrorists easily getting into America and conducting terrorist attacks. Don't paint me with a conservative Bush supporting brush.
I'm a Democrat you jackass.
Was that a play on the Democratic donkey, or did you resort to name-calling again?
Coulda fooled me, Mr. Grumpy Pants. But if you have a problem with feeling secure, take it out on the current administration and not some lil ol' blogger who's more interested in the truth than in cowering in a corner with my thumb in my mouth screaming "Ahhhhh! They're coming to get me!"
is wagner the new "casey"? these trolls wear out quickly these days.
I wrote it and stand by it. Are you convinced that if we leave Iraq that the terrorists will "FOLLOW" us here? Are you convinced that if we stay in Iraq that the terrorists will stay there? My comment did have some sarcasm but the question stands. Why does our action in Iraq keep the bad guys over there? And this BS is being spouted by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This statement is being heard round the world and they laugh at such comments. And please, you or the Cons do not own 9/11...always remember that.
HELP HELP HELP
Exactly. These chickenhawks are trying to have it both ways. We're supposed to be safer under the efforts of Bush, the proof being we haven't been attacked since, but we're supposed to be worried about an attack on our homesoil if we leave Iraq?
Again, I'm not a "con", I'm a Democrat. I don't think that leaving Iraq will increase terrorist attacks here. I DO think that your sarcasm betrays a certain lack of seriousness when it comes to terrorists getting into our country and conducting terrorist attacks. How did the 9/11 hijackers get here prior to 9/11? Did THEY take a terrorist cruise line? Was that all just a joke prior to 9/11?
And the Presidents' comment do exactly what? I believe that his rhetoric is SARCASM.
And no, I feel that terrorism is a threat but it will not control my life. And if I wish to disagree with this President, I will. If that disagreement is considered sarcasm, so be it. But this post is about THEM coming over here if we leave Iraq. Simple enough. For you to suggest that a comment lessens ones' concern about what happened on 9/11 makes you a prime target of TERRORISM, not the physical threat but the mental threat which is TERRORISM. But, I appreciate your comments.
Lies are not sarcasm.
Umm well Wagner no, they took American airlines and put the attack into motion while Bush Jr. vacationed in Texas ignoring the " Bin laden determined to attack on US soil" from an urgent daily briefing.
No one here takes terrorism lightly or the attack of 9-11-01 as just another day. We all lived through it, it was horrifying.
What posters here are trying to get across to you is that the propaganda that Bush Jr. states that if we leave Iraq the terrorists will follow us here, is so inane, ignorant, and insulting that one has to mock HIM to keep one's sanity.
There are many many hotbeds around the world, Pakistan being one glaring example. For the love of peace on earth the "war on terrorism" is not being "fought in Iraq. Terrorists are being created in Iraq, and around the world BECAUSE we are there. It's that simple.
"they took American Airlines and put the attack into motion"
"HELP!!! I have to know how the terrorists are going to follow us here? Al-Terrorist Airlines or Trans-Al-Terrorists American Cruise Lines? "
In light of how the 9/11 terrorists attacked us, I found this quote to be particularly offensive. I've already stated that
1. I'm a Democrat
2. I don't believe that leaving Iraq will bring the terrorists here
I just think it's ridiculous to joke around about terrorism. If you guys think that makes me a Republican or some kind of conservative that toes the line for the Bush administration, then my Democratic party is in serious serious trouble.
Many people use humor to deal with the most horrific situations. It's more a comment on the human condition than on the topic at hand.
No one is saying that a terrorist attack is funny. The point they're making is that the bedwetter in the White House makes an asinine comment comparing terrorist to puppies who follow us home and we're supposed to take that seriously.
It's a stupid statement and anyone who adheres to the belief that terrorists are going to follow us home, or that they hate our freedom, are acting like sheep.
Why is it your belief that the terrorists would not follow us home and attack again?
I just think it's ridiculous that all I did was point out that even though what Bush said was untrue, we shouldn't be joking around about terrorism. And for that everyone started trying to call me some kind of right-wing nut. Just suggesting that we don't make light of terrorism makes me a Conservative? I mean, I freakin' live in NYC and I donate to the Democratic Nat'l Committe for pete's sake. I shouldn't have to prove that i'm not a Republican just because I disagree with joking around about terrorism.
I understand your point. I am not going to criticize you for it. Prince is a good poster and has never shown any lack of sympathy or understanding that I can remember. Sometimes terrible things are made light of. EMTs and Sugeons at times of disaster make jokes. That is NOT because they dont take the situation seriously rather sometimes you have to laugh or you will start crying and never stop. Sure he takes it seriously but doesnt want the fear to rule his thinking. What to do? I think judging the defense mechanism used in THIS context is not helpful. Now BUSH making a prescripted joke out of it for an audience is another matter altogether but personally I am not so quick to jump on someone who tries to lighten a seriousl situation up in a personal intimate context like a message board. We are just having a conversation here.
I guess GW's little show at the "correspondent's" (I use that term lightly) dinner, about WMD's (weren't over here, maybe here...no...), must have got by you...the corporate press wasn't offended, they just laughed along with the joke...and he got "elected", so who's not taking what seriously?
Oh, I'm sorry.
We have to be more serious but GW can clown around looking under his desk for WMDs while our people are dying in Iraq.
Now I understand.
I wasn't referring to you. But if you think it's okay to "clown around" like Bush did, then go right ahead. I'd rather that we as Democrats take terrorism seriously. But hey, maybe I'm just crazy.
Wagner- Why do you keep insisting your a Democrat? Thou doth protest too much. Remember we are all Americans. Heck I know Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, and Democrats who think Bush Jr's so called war in Iraq is one of the most egregious mistakes in the history of the United States.
no ONE wants terrorists to attack Americans.
Give it up already...
Oh, we take it seriously. Who was it who demanded the ports be thoroughly inspected? Who was it who said an arab country shouldn't be controlling our port security? Who was it who said we should develop alternate forms of energy so we can decrease our reliance on terrorist countries for our needs? All of those are way more important than this "they'll follow us home" sideshow that you take offense with. If you really are a Democrat, how about joining the show and focus on the important stuff?
Maybe we'll get some more WMD zingers at the next black-tie dinner.
Which lie do we believe? They will follow us home or there will be mass murders of innocent Iraqis if we leave?
ENOUGH WITH THE LIES!!!!!
This administration, during a time when almost every country in the world supported us, started a war with a country that did NOTHING to the US. They had NO ability to attack us with wmd's, mushroom clouds or a baseball bat. How can you expect anyone to take a conversation regarding terrorism seriously when you have to respond to stupid statements like "they will follow us home"? We have spent billions, I do mean billions on a war for NOTHING!. You want a serious conversation regarding terrorism, let's discuss how those BILLIONS could have gone towards port security, nuclear security, border security, first responders, updating communications between local, state and federal agencies (really updating not some half a** job). You want a serious discussion about terrorism, tell Junior to stop planning his future employment and how much money he can make to "re-fill his coffers" and plan on how he will hand this mess over to the next President.
Actually, the big joke is in the White House. That's who we don't take seriously.
Nerzog, so true. When this WH say stupid statements like " they will follow us home" I think of a lost puppy, not terrorist. I know that there are Islamic fundamentalist who hate America and what we represent but I will not take Juniors "they will follow us home" seriously. That's a Republican "talking point" designed for the kool-aid drinkers. You want to talk seriously about terrorism, fine, but the bull sh** Republican talking points" will not start ANY honest discussion.
You know who didn't take terrorism seriously? The Bush adimistration. They were warned repeatedly and very specifically about the threat of Bin Laden himself. This is well-documented and the fact that it isn't talked about all the time (being one of the most important facts of our time) is one of the biggest proofs of a right-wing bias in the media. Could you imagine if Clinton had ignored the warnings that Bush ignored and then suffered a 9-11? The 'mainstream' media would have absolutely DEFINED his adminstration by that failure. It was his administration warning the incoming Bush team about terrorism. Bush decided to go with missle defense as his main objective. That and cutting brush in Texas, at least until the very terrorists he'd been warned about gave him a pile of cement, steel and dead 'New York iberal elites' to stand on top of with a flag in the background. You guys don't just kill Iraqis and American soldiers, you've also killed irony.
Wagner:
I don't see anyone making JOKES ! But now that you bring it up there is one very big and very sad joke...
That joke is you and your lousy, dishonest, excuse for a President.
If you want to make a legitimate defence of a President who lies to our faces, go for it, but suggesting that this is a funny joke here is way out of line and dishonest.
I guess you musta pushed my trigger button.
I think to some extent this administration is setting us up for the inevitable rightwing rewriting of history. Wait until a democratic President brings home the troops then immediatly begin saying "We were just about to win it all in Iraq, the insurrgents had gasped their last gasp and the Dems cut and ran". That is as predictable as the tides. I think there is more too it than that. Even the business community was against Nixon toward the end during Vietnam, and real power still seems to be supportive of this war and I really dont GET why. Unless the oil and keeping control of Iraqs oil is worth virtually anything to them it just doesnt make sense to me.
Furthermore, this constant drumbeat of "fight 'em there or fight 'em here" is the setup for when there is another terrorist attack here (and there almost certainly will be.) If it happens on a Republican's watch, it'll be "See! We told you! Now let's get back to work." If it happens on anyone else's watch, it'll be "See! We told you! This is your fault for not believing us."
Nerzog,
I agree fully, however, one of your thoughts....."It's propaganda meant for consumption by the masses." makes me have to ask:
Who are the masses? The top 1%? The weak-minded followers of FOX?
The propaganda spewed won't change any minds that haven't been changed already at this point, with a few exceptions:
We all know that Bush lives in a bubble and his handlers have to know that they are losing followers every time they speak the same talking points.
Of course, it doesn't help to keep trying to scare these treasonous thugs when we have a Democratic leadership that still hasn't found their grapefruits!
I think it's mostly to keep their base confused and scared. You know that whenever a "Family Values" champion gets caught cruising the men's room, a lot of the Republican base is tempted to turn away in disgust. Bush's rhetoric is meant, in part, to keep these people too scared to stay home on election day. He has to remind them that a Turrist invasion is even more scary than a Gay invasion.
I think that since the war began the administration has been able to weed out all of the non-believers from the highest positions in the military and intelligence communities.
Very fews of those who remain are willing to point out the emperors new clothes.
We also have an evenly divided congress, a toady fourth estate and a population that feels powerless to affect change.
The administration knows this and will do anything to continue their war on terror and our constitution.
It is such an outrage that the media continues to let this President lie , and lie and lie. Terrorists are not coming here because we are in Iraq, they came here before the warmonger invaded Iraq.
Iran was mentioned above. Stand by for more rants about Iran. We and the world can probably survive our agression in Iraq as recognisable continuing societies. If we come to attack Iran I don't believe this will be possible.
The sorry thing is that the same lies are being used about Iran as were used to get us into Iraq. Same drumbeat. I can only hope that any serious talk or move to invade Iran is met with an impeachment and removal.
- Terrorism Index...a nonpartisan survey of foreign policy experts conducted by the Center for American Progress -
This is a self-described "non-scientific" survey conducted by a very liberal organization...Center for American Progress....in which they surveyed twice as many democrats as republicans.
Non-partisan? Hardly. Weighted survery? Certainly...to reach the desired outcome of the liberal agenda.
Wesley, if the survey was limited to foreign policy experts, I'd say they probably had to really scratch to find a Republican for every two Dems.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Shout out, "Oh Yaaaaaaa!" if you were ridiculed, and vilified for speaking up about the Iraqi Invasion, and following Draft-Dodgers to war!!Any suggestion that these people were at least skeptical as to step back in the run-up to the war to ask "What is different NOW with Iraq that makes them an immediate threat that it wasn't before 9-11?" is a LIE, and they should be treated as LIARS NOW!The free press is a thing of the past; the corporate media is in bed with the Neo-Con and should go the way of the Neo-Con in the next election! We should demand the dismantling of these media empires that pervert our democracy for the profits of a few!Remember they can not tolerate a dissenting voice when selling America on War; they need to vilify anyone whom would dare dissent! How American is that!!? Remembering the "experts" Fox News could only find days before the invasion were Will Farrell and Jeannine Garofalo, a TV actor & a "gay comic," not the real experts like Scott Ritter, or Juan Coleman!!Remembering the special captions that were on every network, in every headline in every newspaper advertising a war with the wrong country, for no verifiable reason!!Will we allow them to run this game on us again?Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Oh Yaaaaa!
How many of you followed the Garry Trudeau and Doonesbury strips about the terriost following Ray home from Iraq because he didn't know how to get here. Now that is some true satire!
Just follow the strips and make sure you got your pop-up blocker on!
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070820
Bush said: "…embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home"
Why does this logical statement appear to be such a problem for some on this thread?
Withdrawal without the Iraqis both in agreement on political issues and dominating those who benefit by Iraq instability, namely “our enemies”, would embolden those enemies. Withdrawal under without such conditions in existence is a clearly a retreat. An emboldened enemy is more likely to attack us at home than he would otherwise.
The only precursor to this argument is simply that one would need to agree with the assumption that we are at war.
Bush said: "…embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home"
Why does this logical statement appear to be such a problem for some on this thread?
Because the “terrorist” are NOT puppies. To think that they will follow us home is a ridiculous statement and a line from some stump speech. Islamic radicals are all over the world and gaining in numbers since Juniors invasion and occupation of an Arab country. To continue to "pretend" that Iraq is the only place with Islamic radicals and if we leave Iraq "they will follow us home" is a lie.
We won the “war” and Saddam is no longer in power. We cannot however win a “civil war” where you don’t know who your enemy is cause they don’t wear uniforms. How long have we been waiting for as Junior said in June 2005:
Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.
When? Do you know how many American lives have been lost since June 2005? How much of our money have been spent, lost and stolen waiting for the Iraqi army to stand up?
The President also said:
In all three aspects of our strategy – security, democracy, and reconstruction – we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. Dec 2005
Nothing, not one single part of the strategy outlined by Junior in December 2005 has happened, not one single thing. It is now September 2007 and Iraq is not secure. Reconstruction is not happening. Poor to no sewage, limited electricity if any at all, unemployment in ridiculously high numbers. There so called democracy is a joke. It's run by the party that has been oppressed by Saddam for years with the only revenge on it's mind. You ask what’s wrong with his statement? It’s another lie in a long long list of lies that this administration continues to tell.
Enough with the lies.
Old Marine, Just want to know which WAR we are discussing...The WAR on Terrorism or the Occupation of Iraq, excuse me, the War in Iraq. As an Old Marine, you may have a sense that the War in Iraq is a battle against insurgents (ala Viet Cong). The Hawks keep describing the enemy as Al-Queda, now Iran, but has anybody reported that when a body count is let out, how many of these dead "insurgents" are really Iraqis who are pissed that we have invaded their country? I have never heard such a report unless one Syrian is in the bunch.
Right, we can only have a reasonable discussion if we know the facts and decide which WAR is being discussed. I'd rather go after the enemy in Pakistan. And for anyone to suggest that the Dems expect an imminent withdrawl of all troops is only a talking point. Even the Sen. Reid comment about the "war is lost" is way out of context but it is very useful in the Rightwing Fantasy World.
PEARLENE,
Good Morning!
If you’re talking about the quote by MM from the top of the thread (the one I quoted in my message), your reply doesn’t make sense to me. So, do you think that if we leave Iraq with Al Qaeda and the Iranian backed Shiites not being dominated by Iraqi military and police, that this would NOT embolden our enemies (Al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed Shiites, that is)?
I’m happy to debate the other issues that you appear to be so passionate about but my comment was confined strictly to the MM subject matter (the Bush quote) and the response by most on this thread.
PRINCEofWHEELS,
Ah, I see the problem. You think (or at least you claim) that there is more than one war going on here. That’s where we disagree. It’s called “The Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) which I think is a misnomer. It should be something that names the perpetrators, I think, e.g. “The Global War on Muslim Militatants”.
Incidentally, while we’re on the subject, it’ll be interesting to see how the Democrat congressionals respond to the Patraeus report next week. My prediction is still that they won’t pull the plug on our efforts in Iraq. In spite of polls to the contrary, I really can’t believe the American people will tolerate a defeat for us in Iraq - and the adults in the Democrat party know it.
Have a good day!
Old Marine...please explain why they can't attack us here now. Please. Our efforts in Iraq apparently didn't stop them from trying something in Germany. If your answer is that they'll be "emboldened" if we leave, I have to ask, how much bolder can they be? They're willing to attack the strongest military in the world and blow themselves up...please explain what could be more bold?
Your statement implies that they are somehow afraid to attack us here now because we have troops in Iraq. Do you really believe that?
NERZOG,
They can attack us here now. Of course (according to Hillary) that might give the Republican party a little help in ’08.
Let me see if I understand your point of view: the enemy is NO MORE emboldened by success than they are be lack of success? Are you kidding? (Are you even thinking?)
Oh he is thinking no evidence you EVER have. Regurgitating bumper sticker propaganda is NOT thinking in case you are in your usual state of delusion. The success was there the DAY Bush invaded al Quedas stated purpose is to replace secular regimes like Iraq was with Islamic governments which is what we will have in Iraq. Bush has to be Osamas favorite world leader. He must have a pin up poster of him on his cave and thank Allah for him every night. He gave Osama a present he could NEVER have accomplished on his own. On the other hand I dont think even al Queda thinks we are going to stay in Iraq forever. It is not a victory for them that we have reached all viable military goals and the time has come to go home like the vast majority of the Iraqis want us to.
There are no Democrat Congresscritters. There are DemocratIC congresscritters and ReNAMBLAcan Congresscritters. NO, Iraq has NOTHING to do with any war against Islamic fundamentalist extremists if our fight was against them then invading the MOST SECULAR country in the entire region was pure insanity.
This has got to be the lamest MMFA topic yet. I mean, the NYT goes out of its way to bash the President every single day of the week. And even that is not good enough for the whiners at MMFA who go ape-sh*t if a reporter even quotes or mentions anything that the GWB says.
ON THE SAME DAY THAT THIS STORY RAN THE NYT, IN THE BOOKS SECTION, RAN AN EXTENDED EXCERPT OF ‘Dead Certain’ . (a new and highly critical book of GWB)
Geessshhhh - does MMFA ever had anything to really complain about in the liberal MSM?
JOHNTORRES,
Why the whining? The libs are desperate. The 800 lb gorilla in the liberal living room is the overwhelming sense of frustration. In spite of rhetoric and media bias, the left wing base of the Democrat party senses that their guys and gals in the congress are not up to pulling off defeat in Iraq.
And it’s driving them nutso!
Semper Fi!
I may have to back off from this assertion. The congressional Democrats yesterday and today appear to be determined to get us defeated in Iraq. At least, they want to totally discredit Patraeus and the military in general, but most of all, Bush, of course. Are they trying to do what I suggested weeks ago: get us defeated in Iraq but make it look like Bush’s fault?
Maybe the congressional Democrats are dumber than I thought…
Even if they were they would still be ten times smarter than you moronic ReNAMBLAcans who only want to get as many Americans killed as you possibly can.
Perhaps they are just giving the ReNAMBLAcans enough rope to hang themselves with their lets get as many Americans killed as we possibly can policy. Its the ReNAMBLAcans that are desperate. MOST Americans agree its time to bring the troops home a large majority of the TROOPS are saying its tim to come home.
Another completely worthless contribution by you. Never having ANYTHING to add. Even a brainless ignoramus like YOU should see this follow us home BS is plain stupid. Nothing is stopping them from coming here now. It is just the warmed over BS they tried in Vietnam it didnt work then but they have nothing else so they are trying it again.