A Penny for Your Thoughts

Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for the photo shop!

Tom Joscelyn of the Weekly Standard on Iraq and Al Qaeda and why the democrats refuse to acknowledge that’s who we fight! Here it is.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

109 thoughts on “A Penny for Your Thoughts

  1. My good buddy Ayman al-Zawahiri and I have moved to Pakistan. Remember Tora Bora. And Bush is afraid to come and get us. Thanks for harboring us Pakistan. Bwahahahaha

  2. iago: You will see to it that Pakistan has a Liberal “IKEA” store, and also take WARD CHURCHIL with you to Pakistan?

    Ps: Take every Liberal anti-american Professor with you and 98% of the Drive By media also. They all LOVE Obama.

  3. Last I heard, Bin Laden was dead, again. One day, maybe he will stay dead.

    In the meantime, his capture or real death will not end the terrorist onslaught of the west.

    Holed up in a cave in Pakistan, Afghanistan or wherever he keeps dying, his existence is reduced to fleeing capture and living with goats.

    Meanwhile, there are thousands of other lesser named terrorists roaming the world, blowing themselves up, murdering and slaughtering innocent civilans and who remain ignored by the left as they only want to get the organizer of Al Qaeda, not the henchmen.

    Isn’t it odd that the leftists never call for getting Ayman al-Zawahiri and seemed upset at the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

    “Get Bin Laden” is just another political slogan to them.

  4. Last I heard it wasn’t just Osama and Zawahiri in Pakistan, it was a reconstituted contingent of Al Qaeda. stronger than ever.

    “Isn’t it odd that the leftists never call for getting Ayman al-Zawahiri and seemed upset at the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?”

    Names please. And don’t give an Alberto Gonzales type answer.

  5. “And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” President Bush to Joint Session of Congress September 20, 2001.

    I don’t see an exception for Pakistan.

  6. Well Hard Cheese, you don’t see an exception, but believe me it is there. Your problem may have arisen from assuming that Bush means what he says. It is a mistake to do that as has been borne out in the past 6 ½ years. The best approach is to see what Bush does or doesn’t do rather than what he says.

  7. Klatu, you are delusional. I really dont believe you know the views of “every Liberal anti-american Professor “. Your ignorance makes conservatives look bad. Make intelligent statements when you are pointing out that Liberals have views that may contradict the war on terrorism. We will have more success in changing the people on the fence. which is ultimately who we need to sway. Right now, Obama is gathering up those people quickly and the Democratic controlled Congress is getting them too. I want who ever feels its necessary to attack our country with terrorism to be rounded up and reprogrammed. That includes whoever was responsible for the Anthrax attacks. I do believe that much of the war on terrorism has made alot of people very wealthy, I wonder if any of those people knew before it started of the financial potential. I am sure the Saudi royal family was aware of the potential in an invasion of Iraq and the Oil revenue they would receive.

  8. For your answer on whether the left denies Al Qaeda is in Iraq, was in Iraq, and thinks this is THE war, read the Joscelyn piece. YOu’ll get all your quotes there.

  9. Funny how the leftists demand more countries involvement in Iraq, while discouraging them also, and then cry about Afghanistan and Pakistan, where there are more countries involved instead of the so-called “unilateral” approach they claim Bush has made in the Iraq theater.

  10. “And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” President Bush to Joint Session of Congress September 20, 2001.

  11. Victoria, actually the question pertained to the following:

    “Isn’t it odd that the leftists never call for getting Ayman al-Zawahiri and seemed upset at the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?”

    Names please. And don’t give an Alberto Gonzales type answer.

    At least I did not get an Alberto Gonzales type answer from Lew. I actually got no answer at all. You were right rightwingacko.

  12. Iago,

    They never answer, no matter how many times you ask nicely, and no matter how pointed your questions may be. I’ve tried in the past, and it just never works.

    As for photos, I prefer this one, which to my understanding is actually NOT photoshopped. Go figure.

  13. iago, you mean you actually wanted quotes? Ones that you will actually read and pay attention to? That’s a change from what liberals usually ask for and do. Usually, quotes supplied go totally ignored.

    Anyways, since you asked and indicated you would actually pay attention to them,

    MICHAEL BERG: “Well, my reaction is I’m sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that.” He went on to say, “I wish the Iraqi people, and the U.S. soldiers who mistakenly believe they are protecting us, good fortune in weathering the upcoming violence.”

    Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat:“This is just to cover Bush’s [rear] so he doesn’t have to answer” for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers.”

    From a Press conference held by Major General Bill Caldwell, spokesman for U.S. Military and the lamestream media reporters and others, a montage of questions asked of Caldwell;

    VOICE: I would just like to understand a bit better why it took 28 minute for the first coalition of ground forces to arrive at the scene.

    VOICE: Was there any evidence that Zarqawi was beaten up before he was taken away?

    VOICE: Were they handcuff and forced to take their shirts off?

    VOICE: Have you determined if the child was Zarqawi’s or if there were any other relationships there?

    VOICE: Describe to us whether Zarqawi was dressed when the autopsy began. If so, what he was wearing? Tell us whether the clothing of Zarqawi was ripped apart as part of the medical procedures at the site.

    VOICE: If there is any concern paid to Muslim burial rights or handling of the body?

    VOICE: Zarqawi appeared in the video that was made available about three, four weeks ago to be a rather hefty individual, what would you say about his shape? Was he a fit man?

    John Kerry (D. Ma): “With the end of al-Zarqawi… it’s another sign that it’s time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq, bring the factions together, end the insurgency, and run their own country,” to which he adds, “bring our combat troops home by the end of this year (2006).”

    John Murtha (D. Pa): [with the death of al Zarqawi] “we should be able to substantially reduce our presence in Iraq and redeploy our military outside of Iraq.”

    Nancy Pelosi (D. Ca): “The death of al-Zarqawi and the naming of the Iraqi defense and interior ministers should bring us closer to… when American troops can come home.”

    Christopher Allbritton, writing for TIME magazine: “Zarqawi wasn’t quite the all-powerful bogeyman the Americans made him out to be several times during the war,” adding further down in the article, “In all likelihood, there will be an immediate upsurge in violence as insurgents allied to Zarqawi attempt to show that their leader’s death will be avenged…”

    Mike Allen & James Carney in a later article for TIME magazine: “The reality is that the removal of al-Zarqawi may unearth as many new dilemmas as it solves.”

    From leftist blog, DailyKOS: “Frankly, I think that the ‘death’ of ‘Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’ is part of a carefully planned disinformation campaign designed to divert attention away from the slaughter of Haditha (and elsewhere).”

    “the major question I have is why the forces encircling Zarkawi’s safehouse didn’t attempt to capture him. Couldn’t he have been a source of enormous utility to them considering everything he knew?”

    “The only miserable part will be watching W. this morning at whatever photo-op they’re going to manufacture.”

    “It violates the rule of law and invokes the rule of force in what should be a criminal, not a military, matter.”

    “No doubt Karl Rove will have the sock puppet president acting as if he personally dropped the bomb that killed that jackass.”

    On Democratic Underground: “Convenient too that this would happen now. Guess we should just all forget about that Haditha mess”

    “Zarqawi was a fringe group of al-Qaida, and definitely not responsible for the bulk of the insurgency and civil war now occurring in Iraq. Any gains that they hope to receive will be short-lived when reality strikes home.”

    Hume’s Ghost on Glenn Greenwald’s blog: [Zarqawi] “has not been brought to justice, he was killed.”

    Cindy Sheehan: [I’m]”troubled by the death of al-Qaida’s top operational terrorist, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, I suspect it’s gong to make the insurgency in Iraq worse.”

    Fidel Castro,(D. Cuba): “The United States acted as ‘judge and jury’ against the leader of the al-Qaida in Iraq. They bragged, they were practically drunk with happiness. The accused cannot just be eliminated, this barbarity cannot be done.”

    Will that suffice, for the time being?

  14. Took you a long time to dig for those. Is the Voice a leftist. But for Berg and Castro none of the names and quotes support your statement. Better luck next time.

  15. Like I said, lefties ask for and ignore when they receive.

    Sorry, but it took no time at all as I have them saved from long ago. I do have to work during the day so I can pay taxes to support the lame and the lazy.

    As for Isn’t it odd that the leftists never call for getting Ayman al-Zawahiri and seemed upset at the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? it was totally supported, regardless of how you ignore what was said.

    I cannot prove a negative, so it becomes incumbent on you leftists to show where your moonbat leaders have called for “getting Zawahiri.”

  16. iago and lew your arguments regarding whether or not leftists as a whole were upset about the death of Zarqawi are unimportant and both of you should know better.

    The questions the neocons cannot seem to answer are: If we are unwilling to go after a reconstituted Al Qaeda and its hierarchy headquartered in Pakistan, then how can we defeat Al Qaeda? Why is it important to defeat Al Qaeda in the midst of a civil war in Iraq and it is not important to defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan?

    Imagine if you will if the reconstituted Al Qaeda and its hierarchy were headquartered in Iran or Syria. Would your answer be different?

  17. The vast majority of Americans grasp the salient lesson of the Iraq misadventure: “Winning” this war has nothing to do with winning the war on terrorism.

  18. Hardcheese, imagine if you will some reality. We got NATO involved in Afghanistan, as many Democrats want for Iraq. While we turned over much of the security of Afghanistan to NATO Forces, AL Qaeda reconstituted itself, under the nose of NATO.

    Any guesses what happens to Iraq should the left get their way again and hand much of the security there to the same forces?

  19. If we are unwilling to go after a reconstituted Al Qaeda and its hierarchy headquartered in Pakistan, then how can we defeat Al Qaeda? Why is it important to defeat Al Qaeda in the midst of a civil war in Iraq and it is not important to defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan?

  20. “WE” are willing, Cheesey, are you and the rest of the left?

    Of coure, that might mean the left must start showing support for the WOT instead of undermining it every day.

    Think you can get Pelosi, Clinton, Edwards, Reid, Murtha and the rest to go along?

    Good luck!

  21. Rightwingwacko said…
    “Winning” this war has nothing to do with winning the war on terrorism.

    Klatu said: LeftwingSocialist_ _ _, say the above in front of THE TROOPS” that you and all your Chavez, Castro loving Anti-Americans say you support you _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _. I dare you!

  22. The US Congress has passed a bill that ties US aid to Pakistan’s efforts to fight extremist groups operating from its territory. The Senate passed the bill on Thursday night by 85 to 8 votes. The House of Representatives is expected to send the bill to President Bush for signature by Saturday with its endorsement.

    The restriction would take effect from Oct. 1, the start of the US budget year.

    The legislation, which is tied to the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, prohibits specified military assistance under the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to Pakistan until 15 days after the US president certifies that the Pakistani government is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other extremist groups from operating in areas under its sovereign control.

    Looks like the Democrats showed up on this. Well, it is a start. Let’s see what Bush does with it.

  23. And, just what all else is attached to the bill?

    It’s an old Washington D.C. game of both political partys to put forth bills heavily laden with amendments that cause it to be vetoed, all in an effort to make the other party look bad.

    Look back to Viet Nam again and how bills were passed to force us to abandon them, promising at the Paris Peace Accords that we wouldn’t let them fall to Communism. We left, sent them limited support while the Soviet Union and China resupplied the North and when the North started pushing back into the South, a so-called “bipartisan” amendment was passed that cut off any and all aid to South Viet Nam, preventing them from even defending themselves. Even though labeled “bipartisan,” it was put for by Progressive Democrats of the McGovernite following.

    I actually shudder as I again watch as the same Political party keeps repeating those actions today knowing full well that they will leave the Iraqi and later on the Afghani people high and dry, never realizing the current enemy won’t be content with just taking over Iraq and Afghanistan, but desire the entire world under their thumb.

    For some insight into what happened back then, read this article by the current darling of the anti-war left, James Webb, Sleeping With the Enemy.

    Just because a bill is put forth now doesn’t mean much until we know what else is inside the bill that they hide from the public.

  24. Well don’t keep us in suspense Lew. What are the offensive attachments to the bill? Or is it possible you have no idea and are just talking gibberish.

  25. Lew “WALTERS” said…
    You are a useful idiot klatu.

    27 July, 2007 21:24

    Klatu said: Hardly Socialist Breathe. I’m a Capitolist. I beleive in Capitolism. Only Socialist Communists like yourself can be a useful idiot America Hater.

    Ps: _ _ _ OUT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

  26. Cheesey, I don’t know what else is in the bill any more than apparently you do. That’s why I said, “Just because a bill is put forth now doesn’t mean much until we know what else is inside the bill that they hide from the public.”

    Hard as it may be, a wait and see often is necessary. All I know so far is that there are 1,776 Earmarks (pork) In the Defense Bill, by members of both party’s.

  27. Lew and klatu,
    The lefties don’t care about the facts, they just care about the fact that we shoot guns in someone else’s country. Don’t you get it? They don’t even want us to shoot guns in our own country! They don’t care about national security. In their world there are no borders, no country, nothing to die for (to paraphrase John Lennon), there’s no such thing as anyone who would want to do us harm. They just pretend that the first bombing of WTC in 1992 didn’t take place. Or Somolia. Or Saudi Arabian bombings of our military. Or the embassy bombings. Or, for that matter, the WTC bombings. They don’t care that KSM’s nephew is in prison for the first WTC bombing. There’s no connection, remember? We’re making it all up, remember? Nobody’s really dying except bad guys and innocents. We don’t count; our soldiers don’t count until they make for a nice anniversary number to tout on their blogs or newspapers. They don’t care about our country because their underlying belief is: we deserve whatever we get.

  28. I don’t know what Victoria is talking about.

    “And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” President Bush to Joint Session of Congress September 20, 2001.

    1. We are engaged in a War on Terror.
    2. The primary enemy is Al Qaeda.
    3. Al Qaeda and its leadership have a safe haven with our “friends” in Pakistan.

    What, if anything are we going to do about it?

    If we are not going to take military action then would it not be reasonable to put some pressure on Pakistan to be accountable and to tie US aid to its efforts to fight Al Qaeda?

  29. For Victoria and all, especially those eagerly looking forward to newly installed British PM Gordon Brown “setting Bush straight,” sorry,

    PM hails Bush’s leadership

    Cheesey, we don’t know everything they are doing. Whatever we hear about the terrorists hear about too and are able to counteract our moves.

    Only fools, bufoons and traitors desire to broadcast our every move to the world before we do it, in this or any war.

    When I was still in the Army with my security clearance, it was still a matter of “need to know.”
    We do not have that “need” on every move.

  30. I always thought that the
    “JOHN LENIN” (No I didn’t Misspell Lennons last name) Song “Imagine” was about Socialism and the Socialist Peace Movement. The Peace Symble and the (Hijacked WWII Victory sign) peace sign really offend me.

    Peace Through Strength
    PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN

  31. “In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan — with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.”

    This is what I want to hear.

  32. Cheesy, what advantage is there to retreat from Al Qaeda in Iraq, which the Terrorists claim is the central front, and send Troops to an even harsher environment that NATO is involved in?

    Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to threaten to invade a soveriegn nation and condemn invading another soveriegn nation, both for the same reason?

    Why is it that you can support someone who so strongly desires a defeat in one theater, and speaks tough talk of taking on another theater?

    If we walk out on Iraq and allow Al Qaeda, Syria, Iran and Suadi Arabia to enter and it really does become a Civil War, who do you expect to help out and support in Pakistan? Who will stand with us knowing we will leave them high and dry?

    Or, does your boy advocate unilateral manuevers there, something the left has wrongfully accused Bush of doing in Iraq?

    Little wonder so many oppose him on this and Saint Hitlery calls him naive.

  33. This is a first. I never thought I would see lew hiding behind Hillary Clinton’s skirt.

    Simply put, Obama has just shown courage where others have shown nothing but denial and cowardice:

    1) Osama, al Qaeda, and the Taliban are in northwest Pakistan… and have been since 2002. Recall Tora Bora is but 3 miles from the Paki border.

    2) Musharraf has done nothing about it.

    3) At no small political risk, Obama has launched the long-overdue debate and separated himself from a field of chickenhawks and chickenDOVES; what to do about Pakistan, the world’s largest terrorist haven.

    The right’s position, as usual, is intellectually honest. The same group of people who support and continue to support the misguided and morally reckless invasion and occupation of Iraq are all of a sudden aghast at an endorsement of common sense military force because it happens to be advocated by a Democrat.

    Obama said “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” Wow, is he crazy? They support Bush’s ill-fated “surge” but not the killing of terrorists. Why?

    Because a Democrat said it. They’ve taken this opportunity to claim Obama wants to invade Pakistan, but he didn’t say that. He said he wanted to kill terrorists. Why is the right against killing terrorists? Just because George W. Bush has repeatedly let Osama Bin Laden slip through our hands (like at Tora Bora), that’s no reason to get huffy when a Democratic candidate refuses to follow in those footsteps.

  34. I have no problem with Barack Obama’s stance on pursuing al Qaeda in Pakistan or to the ends of the earth – this is not a matter of unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation, it is tracking down a dangerous murderous sect that has implications for all of humanity – to compare what Barack has said to what Bush has done in Iraq is apples and lava lamps, Bush took power and abused it for personal and political gain, there is nothing in the character of Obama to suggest that he would do the same – we had quite enough of hand wringing with regards to going after our sworn enemy, it is way past time to get back to the real fight, and to reenlist the global community in that effort.

  35. The “lefties” have always agreed that actually fighting terrorism was a good plan. It was the Bush team that steered the minds of all of you lemmings into believing two impossibilities – that Al-Qaeda was Osama Bin Laden and Osama Bin Laden was Al-Qaeda and that the new safe-haven for Al-Qaeda was Iraq. Oops! WRONG!

    Al-Qaeda members love George Bush:

  36. It makes sense to actually go after the terrorists that want to go after us. I don’t hear alot of protesting against our troops in Afghanistan. The problem was going in to Iraq for reasons that turned out to be a lie and then attracting terroist elements into Iraq. We did not go into Iraq to clean up the terrorists. If we have clear evidence that their are terrorist camps in Pakistan, why shouldn’t we attack in some way, nobody is talking about putting troops in on the ground. Where is Osama – I thought it was pretty clear that he is in Pakistan. We should have spent all the time and attention given to Iraq in Afghanistan and we wouldn’t have all these camps in Pakistan. Just another fall-out from the wonderkids. Bush/Cheney.

  37. It is amusing to see Obama being charged with being naive. When did chasing the actual terrorists who attacked us become naive? Yet, invading a country that did not attack us would launch a wave of reform througout the Middle East is not naive?

    For all the talk of “attacking an ally” – Pakistan is an ally because we pay them to act like one. And even then, they don’t do a very good job at that. While Musharaff hesitates to attack known Al Qaeda and Taliban hideouts in Waziristan, He shows no hesitation in bombing the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, which has no terrorists, but plenty of natural gas that he wants to sell and plenty of objecting Baloch tribesmen who are in the way.

    Pakistan is not the Shah’s Iran – whatever power the Islamists have in the country is because Musharaff blocked the secular parties from challenging him. Why should the U>S. reward Musharaff for destabilizing the country.

  38. It’s not September 2001, its 2007 and Bush and Pakistan have made NO progress in disrupting al Qaeda’s planning, training or implementation for terrorism around the globe. In fact, intelligence says al Qaeda is larger, stronger and more determined as a result of Bush’s folly in Iraq and Pakistan’s hands-off policy. Obama is trying to look at the problems we face and think ambitiously and realistically about what the U.S. can do to thwart burgeoning international terrorism. Going after al Qaeda, which is flourishing in Pakistan, is one logical step.

  39. jpqjswObama has shown pandering, not courage. Invade Pakistan and Musharraf just might be assasinated, turning Pakistan over to radical Jihadists, except with the nuclear weapons they desire.

    What I find curious is how the left has cried continually about fighting only under the UN. And now that Obama has pandered by tough talk, the left is ready to run with it.

    Just so long as Iraq is a failure, right boys?

    Al Qaeda is everywhere, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Britain, Spain, Germany, Bosnia, Indonesia, you name it.

    Bin Laden may be dead, he may not be. Capturing him will make us an even larger target. Killing him makes him a martyr, if the world is told about it. Regardless, his death or capture will not stop terrorism.

    Al Qaeda is but one terrorist group, not the entire terrorist network.

    I’m surprised the left is so willing to fight now in Pakistan, where the surrounding land is so hostile to us, but familiar to those who have been there some time.

    The left claims Al Qaeda flooded into Iraq following our Troops, but now want us to believe it was never in Iraq, so no need to fight there, effectively handing the country over to Iran, Syria and Al Qaeda, should we have a precipitous withdrawal, as theleft desires.

    Finally, since we are dealing with young men (maybe) here who support fighting Pakistan, I’m assuming each will run right out and enlist in the USMC to fight in Palistan, correct?

    Pardon me if I don’t hold my breath on that.

  40. “And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” President Bush to Joint Session of Congress September 20, 2001.

  41. From the December 15, 2006 issue of Newsweek Magazine, article titled Bin Laden’s Iraq Plans:

    “Osama bin Laden’s men officially broke some bad news to emissaries from Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan’s ousted fundamentalist regime. Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.”

    All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said. Why? Because the terror chieftain and his top lieutenants see a great opportunity for killing Americans and their allies in Iraq and neighboring countries such as Turkey, according to Taliban sources who complain that their own movement will suffer… Bin Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the ‘American crusaders…‘”

    An article in an October 2005 Washington Post about an intercepted letter from al Zawahiri said, “U.S. officials say they were struck by the letter’s emphasis on the centrality of Iraq to al-Qaeda’s long-term mission.” It must have been left “US Officials as the rest of us have been saying this all along.

    Maybe the left’s demand for NATO to take over in Afghanistan was a mistake? Seems that European nations can’t deal with what has been going on.

    But of course, that would mean that Obama must be considering UNILATERAL actions, what Bush is accused of and condemned for.

    If we are to fight terrorists where terrorists are, seems the terrorists would best know where they are.

  42. The Indian government has been screaming into the deaf ears of the west about Pakistan’s role in terrorism since 1980. However the western world chose to disregard the facts. Now we all are paying a heavy price and continue to do so.

    If Obama becomes president & remembers his political promises, he will be wise & form a military alliance with India(Who is the only democratic superpower in the region) and together both countries can flush out the terrorists. More power to Obama!

  43. I’m astonished. Here’s the anti-war leftists desiring attacking a soveriegn nation, while demanding we abandon another.

    Unbelievable, they want to start another war just to force defeat in the current one.

    After all the denigration of the fighting coming from the Obamaists, I wonder who he thinks he will find to stand with him?

  44. Look again. Most of the “anti-war left” opposes Obama’s speech. So this is not a right-left matter. It’s the moderates who are asking why Bush will not go after bin Ladem and Zawahiri while allowing a reconsituted al Qaeda to exist in Pakistan.

    We went into Afghanistan with full support and then pulled the punch at Tora Bora. The al Qaeda leadership and a significant contingent of al Qaeda is in Pakistan. Them is the facts and the right has never been able to explain why.

    Obama wants to kill terrorists in Pakistan. Invading only if necessary. Why don’t you want to kill terrorists in Pakistan. Why have you done a 180 and give Osama and Zawahiri a pass? As long as they are alive, their propaganda value alone is huge.

    Simply put, so much for Bush’s war on terror. Not only has the Iraq occupation failed, but so has the war on terror and bloviating righties do not want to do anything about the Pakistan problem. Why?

    Other righties on this blog have remained strangely silent.

  45. For years, we have given President Musharraf hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, while deferring to his cautious judgment on how to take out high-level al Qaeda targets – including, most likely, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Here is the result:

    * Bin Laden and Zawahiri – two men with direct responsibility for 9/11– remain at large.
    * Al Qaeda has trained and deployed hundreds of fighters worldwide from its sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.
    * Afghanistan is far less secure because the Taliban can strike across the border, and then return to safety in Pakistan.

    By any measure, this strategy has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us defer to Musharraf in perpetuity. Barack Obama wants to turn the page. If Musharraf is willing to go after the terrorists and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base of operations, Obama would give him all of the support he needs. But Obama made clear that as President, if he had actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan – and the Pakistanis continued to refuse to act against terrorists known to be behind attacks on American civilians – then he will use highly targeted force to do so.

    Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era that moves beyond the conventional wisdom that has brought us over-reliance on an unreliable dictator in Pakistan and an occupation of Iraq.

  46. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday(August 2,2007) the Bush administration is waging a “phony war” on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.

    A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.

    “None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war,” the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives….

    “We were in charge for six years,” he said, referring to the period between 2001 and early 2007, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. “I don’t think you can look and say that was a great success.”

    Atlanta Constitution 8/3/07

  47. Who really cares what “FORMER” Speaker Gingrich says? Odd how you all pick and choose, thinking you have support.

    Odder, but not unexpected, leftwingedwacko, you fail to quote Gingrich in entirety. “The only people who have been taking this seriously are the combat military.”

    Seems to me that he sees Democrats and Republicans not taking it seriously. But, when you rely on the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, about as far left as the New York Slimes, you can’t expect to hear honest reporting.

    Gingrich wants to be POTUS and doesn’t stand a chance.

    How about that Zogby poll placing the publics approval of the Democrat Congress on their handling of Iraq at 3%? Lowest in history!

    Just who was that Democrat caught on tape saying that a positive report in Petraeus’s report in September on Iraq could harm the Democrat party?

    Incidentally, cheerleading yourself is so tacky.

  48. You seemed to care when Gingrich suited your purposes. There is no more of an outcast than a conservative who has seen the light or heaven forbid changed his mind.

    I wish this Administration did take this war seriously like the combat troops.

    BTW bin Laden, Zawahiri and a reconstituted al Qaeda are still in Pakistan. Who needs to get serious again?

  49. Careful leftwingedwacko. You anti-war leftists are painting yourselves into a warmongering corner.

    Just when did I care what Gingrich said? I’ve said all along he couldn’t be elected to POTUS.

    What I find funny, downright hilarious, is it has been you lefty’s condemning Gingrich because he has no Military Experience. Now, you use him like Miltary Service doesn’t matter, again.

    Did Obama somehow forget that Pakistan’s embattled leader, Musharraf, is an ally in the War on Terror? What a guy, that Obama. Abandon a fight against terrorists just as positive results are showing and plan on attacking another ally.

    If you can’t figure it out, while capturing or killing (preferrably killing) bin Laden and Zawahiri would be a fantastic morale booster for us, it won’t stop terror.

    We’re in a generation-long battle against terrorism, against Al Qaeda-inspired terrorism, and this is a battle for which we can give no quarter. It’s a battle that’s got to be fought in military, diplomatic, intelligence, security, policing and ideological terms.”

    No, that wasn’t Bush, it was British PM Gordon Brown, who the left was expecting to leave Bush high and dry.

    What you, Obama and other leftists can’t seem to comprehend is what is going on in the background, untold to the public and the prying eyes of leftist propagandists like the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation and the New York Slimes. There is a lot being done we never hear about because we, like even Obama at this time, are not entitled to know nor do we have the need to know.

    That’s how WW2 was won, back when Democrats wanted to win wars and keep America free.

  50. “And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” President Bush to Joint Session of Congress September 20, 2001.

  51. Lew would simply wave at Osama Bin Laden from the invisible barrier that separates Afghanistan from Pakistan, while Pakistani forces refuse to effectively pursue the leadership of the group we’ve supposedly been at war with for nearly 6 years.

    Obama would be willing to use US forces against Al Qaeda forces in parts of Pakistan that Mushareff is not willing to effectively patrol or police. This is a far cry from(are you listening lew) invading Iraq because we either A) thought they may do something bad in the future, or B) thought they might be hiding terrorists in regions of the country they couldn’t get to. In the case of Afghanistan, we gave the Taliban the ultimatum of turning over Bin Laden, or facing regime change…they chose the latter.

    In this case, Obama is not calling for regime change, or even war with Pakistan. He is simply saying, either you effectively help us, or move so we can do the jobs ourselves. Of course, if we take this position, we should be prepared to go to war with Pakistan, but does anyone really think Musharraf would engage in warfare with us, knowing full well the outcome? After all, he is not some ideologue or religious zealot, rather, just another dictator looking to keep his piece of the pie.

    Ultimately, there is a significant difference between a unilateral pre-emptive strike against a group of lawless terrorists in another country; and that of a unilateral invasion and war with a State and their military.

  52. Hard Cheese said…
    “And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” President Bush to Joint Session of Congress September 20, 2001.

    04 August, 2007 17:15

    Klatu said: Exactly Socialist Breath. And good for President Bush

  53. Who knows, It may have been beneficial for fearless but incompetent leader to know the difference between Sunni and Shiite before the Iraq invasion.
    C’est la vie.

    After Lew’s clumsy waffling on al Qaeda and the War on Terror, one should be skeptical and suspicious of his previous Iraq mutterings. Or weren’t we already?

  54. No matter how many names you post under, you are still wrong. There is no waffling on Al Qaeda from me. I said you don’t know what is being done, your side wants to sit down and discuss matters with them, until Obama said he would attack an ally to get them, which would escalate this even more and lose more allies than we already have.

    One thing you miss out on is that you have shown other countries that we won’t stand beside them after we instigate them to join the fight.

    Obama isn’t only naive, he is pandering in a dangerous area he knows absolutely nothing about!

  55. You are correct. I do not know what is being done. However, I do know what is not being done and that is the capture of bin Laden, Zawhiri, and the defeat of al Qaeda in Pakistan.

  56. Please explain what that accomplishes. Say, for sake of argument, that we go along with the left’s new chicken hawk, Obama, and divert all of our efforts into Pakistan. Will that end terrorism?

    Oh, and since you lefties claim that all of us on the right who support the war and those that never served are chicken hawks, doesn’t that relegate Obama to the same status since he now advocates attacking another country and he never served either?

    My friend, you have no idea what is or isn’t happening. Just because everything isn’t spread all over the lamestream media doesn’t mean there isn’t activity in an area.

    But please, explain in detail, what diverting all of our resources to attacking Pakistan will accomplish.

  57. Pakistan made a pact with the devil and his name is Osama bin Laden. They provide him sanctuary and with safe haven to run and operate his terrorist organization so long that he doesn’t incite his followers to overthrow the government.

    Any efforts by the Pakistani government to capture and kill OBL are perfunctory at best and do not reflect a serious intent or effort to bring this criminal to justice. Something must be done about Al Qaeda in Pakistan soon. Iraq is a distraction and the magnitude and scope of this distraction will not be fully appreciated, understood and felt until this country is attacked again on its own soil and thousands upon thousands of Americans die as a result. As history has proven countless of times before, “you reap what you sow.” 9/11 would never had occurred if the Bush and Clinton administrations had adequately addressed the threat of radical Islamic extremism in the early ’90s. We gave OBL a free pass then and we are doing it again now. And rest assured that because we are making the same mistakes now that the outcome will be no different.

    Something is seriously wrong with this country. We invade a sovereign country like Iraq under the auspices and guise of the existence, stockpiling and warehousing of dangerous WMDs but truthfully do so only to overthrow a dictator, start a civil war, secure a country’s oil and fulfill a personal vendetta by the Bush family against Sadaam Hussein. Now we are stalling on capturing and killing OBL in Pakistan because it keeps the ruse alive, prolongs the conflict and justifies our continued occupation of Iraq, all the while oil trades at over $70 a barrel, American corporations are getting filthy rich, thousand of American troops are dying in Iraq and the threat to American civilians on American soil has never been geater.

    Wyh is the Right afraid of Barrack Obama?

  58. Barack Obama words of common sense about attacking al-Qaeda at their home base shows leadership. No parcing of words, no hedging. Pundits and his adversaries that spin his words are not going to fool the public, no more than Bush’s style of confrontation is fooling Americans any longer.

    Welcome being forthright — where travesty and divisiveness have been staples of both parties to the American public for too many years.

    Barack Obama is a grass-roots candidate who will change the dynamics of politics, whereas the true voting rights of American citizens will be the safeguard against imperialism fomented by both parties who have been miopic to the peril of America’s future.

  59. An old technique of Lew. When he is losing the argument he attempts to divert the focus. He has to do it because no righties have come to his defense here.

    I would bet dollars to donuts that Lew did not even read or watch Obama’s speech.

    Obama’s policy is to focus the fight to those who attacked us. He was opposed to the Iraq war, and he felt that it diverted our focus from dealing with Al Queda and the growing radicalizing of Muslim youth. He feels that the military cannot win this struggle…that we have to fight the terrorist on idealogy and on a socio-economic level…an aspect that the Bush administration has ignored.

  60. I was suprised by the reaction to the Obama’s foreign policy speech. I heard it and thought it was right on point and was puzzled by the response of the media. I particularly connected with being tired of getting color coded fear from the current administration and the need for more diplomacy and aid but we are not going to sit by while supposed allies harbor terrorists that we know have actually killed thousands of Americans (and they aren’t in Iraq).

    Frankly, he is making me a believer.

  61. Still self cheerleading, huh?

    Perhaps the chickenhawks of the left now should read what Pakistan said about coming in to their country.

    Don’t forget, son, Zawahiri and Bin Laden both have said they want to make Baghdad the capital of their new Radical Muslim Caliphate.

    So, let’s follow Obama and just hand them some of the richest oil fields in the world to hold us hostage to and give them Pakistan’s nuclear weapons after he is embarrasingly kicked out of there by those returning from Iraq.

    His actions would result in Musharraf being overthrown or assassinated and guess who steps in next?

    Chickenhawk Obama doesn’t have a clue what he is asking for. All he knows is the Democrat party playbook of divert attention from Iraq and retreat there as fast as possible.

    But again, I haven’t seen you declare your readiness to enlist and follow General chickenhawk, should he pull it off. Hell, I’ll even drive you to the Marine recruiters myself, if he wins, so long as you volunteer for his Pakistan invasion.

  62. It is August 6, 2007, the sixth anniverary of the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing. “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” and we know what Bush did with that.

    Where do we stand on this Sixth anniversary?

    1. Bin Laden and Zawahiri are alive and well in Pakistan
    2. Al Qaeda is alive and well in Pakistan and the NIE says it is stronger than ever
    3. The Taliban holds hostages in Afghanistan
    4. The poppy crop flourishes in Afghanistan
    5. And of course there is Iraq.

    So this is what progress looks like. Painful facts, but true.

  63. September 2001

    Q Do you want bin Laden dead?

    A THE PRESIDENT: I want justice. There’s an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, “Wanted: Dead or Alive.”

    August 2007

    Q Do we have bin Laden dead?
    Q Doe we have bin Laden alive?
    Q Do we have justice?

  64. 1. Bin Laden and Zawahiri are alive and well in Pakistan

    While it is well known Zawahiri is alive and well, somewhere, Bin Laden hasn’t been seen for a long time. It is believed they may be in Pakistan, but no one has hard intelligence of such.

    2. Al Qaeda is alive and well in Pakistan and the NIE says it is stronger than ever

    Al Qaeda is alive and well nearly everywhere, along with several other loosely affiliated or imitation terrorist groups. Al Qaeda operatives have all stated it is the goal of Al Qaeda to have establish a Caliphate similar to that of the Taliban with Baghdad and the capital.

    Under demands from leftists, Afghanistan came under NATO Forces, much like they demand for Iraq. Didn’t work too well, did it?

    3. The Taliban holds hostages in Afghanistan

    Uh, isn’t that we are fighting them?

    4. The poppy crop flourishes in Afghanistan

    And your street price hasn’t fallen, has it?

    Incidentally, the Taliban is totally opposed to the Poppy Crop. Are you advocating they return to power?

    5. And of course there is Iraq.

    As well as Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea.

    Try reading the articles I linked to, unless you can’t handle how wrong you are.

    Apparently the Sheiks swearing allegiance to Iraqi Forces in helping fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, over their Qu’Ran, totally escapes you as to the serious implications of that.

    Pakistan’s Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible. “I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution in the fight on terrorism,” he said.

    Afghan President Hamid Karzai said just today that he and Pakistan’s President Musharraf would discuss how to tackle the problem of lawlessness and extremist hideouts along Pakistan’s border area with Afghanistan.

    Just last week, Britain issued it’s support of Musharraf in the fight against terror, as he battles to assert his authority following a row over his chief justice and his army’s assault on a mosque complex in Islamabad run by radical Islamists.

    Obama’s pandering hasn’t helped anything, just showed the hypocrisy of the so called anti-WAR left.

  65. Well lew you have left the battlefield and moved on. Since you were the first to leave you are considered the defeated. You can avoid al Qaeda and its leadership in Pakistan all you want, just like Bush, but the problem remains.

  66. Coddling a military dictator whose failures led our intelligence agencies to conclude that a new safe haven for Al Quaida has been created is not in our interests.

    The moderate majority in Pakistan oppose the unelected dictator as much as they do the extremists. Deciding that Musharaf is our best hope is completely undermined by the conclusions of the NIE, and relying on the unelected strongman is an outdated status-quo realpolitik that has been a failure which breeds resentment without achieving our goals. We must at some point recognize that democracy can be trusted, and pressure the coup leader to respect his fellow countrymen and women enough to create a government that represents their voices.

    Obama’s statement has triggered a debate that has goaded Bush to refocus on those who actually attacked us on 9/11, and put pressure on Musharaf to deal with his failures. Obama never mentioned invasion… an MSM creation used to attack him unfairly.

  67. Leftwingedwacko, how is it I have moved on and mine was the last statement? Maybe all those assumed names has effected your ability to comprehend.

    Cheesey, War makes strange bedfellows. Look how Roosevelt coddled up to Stalin to defeat Hitler. In war, you take who you have and Musharraf is on our side.

    Whether you realize it or not, it is better to focus on who intends to attack us next. Like you lefties have been saying for a long time now, those that attacked us died in the airplanes. Or, did you forget your own stance just a few years ago?

    Show hard intelligence that they are were they are believed to be and something will be done. Obama hasn’t goaded anyone into anything, he’s just irritated an ally.

    Then again, maybe we shouldn’t be counting on NATO to help us out, like ya’ll want to see in Iraq.

    As for seeking the bad guys, just because the New York SLimes doesn’t run headlines about it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. For all we know, Obama is dead and his death is being kept under wraps to keep him from being a martyr.

    Anything is possible in war.

  68. I endorse the US policy of sucking up to Al Qaeda’s support base of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, while attacking or threatening to attack countries that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda (Iraq, Iran) Bush did not betray America after the initial victory in Afghanistan, when he then decided to ignore Al Qaeda following its retreat into Pakistan and attacked Iraq instead.

  69. What type off short term memory does the right possess? Do you remember this?
    NEW YORK (CNN) — President Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader’s location.

    “Absolutely,” Bush said.

    Then you think Pakistan is such a good ally that this comes out from the very leader of this “ally” country:
    PRAGUE, September 22, 2006 (RFE/RL) — Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf has accused Washington of threatening to bomb his country “back to the Stone Age” after the terrorist attacks of September 2001 unless Islamabad cooperated fully with the U.S. campaign against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Musharraf made the remarks on an American news program just hours before today’s talks at the White House with U.S. President George W. Bush.

    Is our “ally” not telling the truth? It’s funny what makes strange bedfellows in this administration. Before sept 11th…they were basically called a rogue state by this administration.

  70. It is truly saddening to see so many who are so ill informed. The entire speech is up at his website. It was intelligent, comprehensive and showed a deep understanding of terrorism’s real causes and solutions.

    The media, and Obama’s opponents, took a few lines, mischaracterized the entire speech, and a public who can apparently only deal with sound-bite information is once again duped.

    I suppose those who are concentrating on this spin job would be very happy if we had REAL intelligence that those who attacked us were about to attack again, and a president, ANY president, just allowed that to happen.

    If a country harboring terrorists about to attack us..let alone a professed ally, did not allow–in fact insist–on us attacking to stop it if they could not, then I seriously question the value of that ally. And any president deserving of the title would too.

    Everything in Obama’s speech is exactly what we need in a leader. In case everyone’s forgotten, his judgement against the war..which was very unpopular at the time, bore out to a tee. This man is anything but naive or irresponsible, but keep lapping up the spin and you’ll get the same results as the last presidential election.

  71. George W Bush has been leading the “al Qaeda” consciousness revival, despite the risk of ridicule for failing to eliminate it after squandering hundreds of billions of dollars and shedding hundreds of thousands of gallons of other people’s blood in its name.

    Bush has been deliberately conflating the real al Qaeda based in Pakistan with a sectarian crew called “al Qaeda in Iraq” (AQI). Every time AQI strikes, Bush calls it an al Qaeda strike. The fiction he is encouraging is this: the US really is fighting Osama in Iraq.

    Tony Snow said “when somebody tries to argue that al Qaeda in Iraq is not a key part of the problem, it creates a basis for saying, well, you need to go someplace else”.

    So the Administration has admitted it: people have got to be told that the US is fighting Osama in Iraq (where he is not), or they might expect him to be fought in Pakistan (where he is).

    It’s clear that the Bushies have no intention of fighting the real al Qaeda management team, who are official guests of the nation of Pakistan and will not be going away any time soon. We’ll be stuck with Osama & Co. for some time to come, that’s for sure.

  72. Cheesey = It’s funny what makes strange bedfellows in this administration. Before sept 11th…they were basically called a rogue state by this administration.

    AFTER 9/11, Musharraf saw the error of his ways and joined in with opposing the Taliban.

    Tanglewood = showed a deep understanding of terrorism’s real causes and solutions.

    Real causes, huh? Did he happen to mention the deep wealthy pockets of Al Qaeda leadership? No, just how we keep oppressing terrorists and leave them no options. The left cannot admit that the real reason is a radical ideology that believe they have been granted rule of the earth by God.

    Great “solution,” too. Abandon a struggling ally, giving it away to the wealthy terrorists, who have stated they desire that to be the center of their new Caliphate and boast to the world that he would attack another ally if said ally doesn’t do as he says. All this after announcing he would sit down and negotiate with other despots who support those terrorists.

    Iago, we first must stand up Iraqi’s so we have their help, along with the Afghani’s. After all the bellyaching of unilateral actions, I’m amazed that the left takes on the chickenhawk moniker by backing a unilateral attack into the most inhospitable terrain imaginable.

    Obama and other leftists have not figured out yet that this isn’t a Nintendo game to be won in a few minutes. It is a multi-faceted war entailing combat, negotiation, education, rebuilding and much more.

    What Obama should have done is if he had anything to say about Musharraf, he should have met with Musharraf and Bush and expressed it privately, not to the entire world. All he is doing is alienating an ally we desperately need at this time.

    Finally, if he was really serious about sending Troops into Pakistan against the Pakistani’s wishes to get Bin Laden, provided he is still alive, it would do better to send in a squad of Navy Seals backed by hardened Pakistanis loyal to Musharraf.

    Even then, terrorism doesn’t end. Get used to it. Democrat or Republican in power. Surrender and cut and run from Iraq. The terrorists have no intention of stopping. They are in it for the long term, regardless of what we do.

    Three decades of attacks against American interests during both Democrat and Republican administrations and Congressional Power. When is enough enough before the left pulls their head back out into the sunlight and sees what has been happening around them?

  73. Lew you really need to read or watch Obama’s speech before spouting off. You obviously haven’t since you constantly mischaracterize what he said. Typical Right Wing Big Lie? I think so.

  74. iago, you can obfuscate all you wish, he said what he said. That he said it over international airwaves makes it all that much worse.

    Or, don’t you and he realize that everything said publicly is heard by our enemies as well?

    Put any spin on it you desire, he said what he said. Maybe that is why the Pakistani government isn’t too happy with him over it.

    Will you deny he also said he would sit down with leaders of other dictatorial nations opposed to our way of life, while saying he would send Troops into Pakistan, whether the Pakistani government liked it or not?

    In May 2005, December 2005 and OCtober 2006, hellfire missles from Predator Drones were fired into Al Qaeda Strongholds inside Pakistan. Care to tell us all Obama’s reaction to that? Was he supportive, condemning or silent?

    Or, of you prefer, tell us how Obama first said Iran was a threat to us all and nothing should be taken off the table with them, then turned around and said he questioned the intelligence that Iran was arming Iraqi insurgents and there is no justification for attacking Iran, something the Bush administration has neither asked for or suggested, yet.

  75. “We used to be a serious country. When we got attacked at Pearl Harbor, we took on Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. We beat all three in less than four years. We’re about to enter the seventh year of this phony war against … [terrorist groups], and we’re losing.”
    Newt Gingrich

  76. “Phony war” – was used to describe the six-month period in 1939-40 when Churchill’s predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, sat passively as the Wehrmacht gathered its strength for the coming blitzkrieg. Bush sits passively as al Qaeda gathers its strength in Pakistan.

  77. Hopefully the next president can lead us to victory in the War On Terror. But he or she will have their hands full with cleaning up after the loss in Iraq.

  78. leftwingedwacko, in WW2 we had the luxury of fighting a uniformed Military of another country. We are not fighting a country this time.

    Pakistan is taking measures against Al Qaeda in their ountry, which is far more than I can say for the American left in America. Ya’ll do everything possible to interfer, undermine and prevent the Bush administration for tackling potential Al Qaeda operatives within our own coutnry, while calling for a unilateral invasion of an ally, the same basic thing you have been condemning Bush for since he invaded Iraq.

    iago, Iraq will only be lost if you and your cohorts once again cause us to abandon a struggling Democracy before we should.

    God help us if that happens again.

  79. I am not sure we lost the war Iago. War is about one side destroying the other side’s ability to govern, function and exist. We have done that – Iraq as a functioning country has ceased to exist.
    What was lost was the “peace process” – the Bush team love affair with shock and awe overtook their ability, if there was any, to think and reflect on consequences, and prevented any serious planning for the aftermath of shock and awe.

    What we, as a country lost, was the abilty to be seen as a power for justice, peace and freedom. The shock and awe of Iraq is now being used in the US to degrade our civil liberties, we are all in shock and awe each time someone from the Bush team speaks, and thus present to the world as a whole a new view of the US. The view that says we are afraid, we are childish and we are lashing out.

    I do not see this as a return to Viet Nam – I see it as a new type of loss – a loss of faith in ourselves as a country, and a loss of faith in our government, and most importantly a willingness to turn our lives over to the rich who have indeed won this war. To win this war – in Iraq and at home – we must recognize who the enemy is – and not focus on just their representatives.

  80. There is no “war” to win or lose just a situation that keeps getting worse.

    The Democrats and the left have nothing to do with the collapse of the puppet government constructed by the administration with the backing of a Republican Congress or the sectarian hobgoblins that Saddam’s removal released on to the streets of Baghdad and Mosul.

    This a Republican SNAFU that will be left to the Democrats to solve.

  81. As Reagan would say to Carter, “there you go again” lew about the big lie “invasion”

    Any blogger or commenter that claims that Senator Obama stated in his foreign policy speech that he advocates invading the country of Pakistan is either…

    A)…making claims based on never having read the actual words and ideas delivered by Senator Obama in his foreign policy speech.

    B)…unable to intellectually comprehend the nuanced foreign policy discussion Obama engaged in regarding the U.S. relationship with Pakistan and the presence of Al Qaeda forces within Pakistan.

    C)…purposefully engaging in candidate defamation to advance the damaging notion that Senator Obama is “weak on foreign policy”.

    D)…engaging in some combination of A), B), and C).

    Sure it’s more convenient to make arguments against straw men. However, it’s a complex enough task to effectively debate the factual, accurate policy positions of presidential candidates without having to add a layer of dishonesty to the interpretative process.

  82. I certainly don’t want us to lose, but please tell us how are we going to win. Unless you
    expect us to remain for decades *and* for a bunch of miracles, this isn’t going to happen.

    It is no doubt true that the best alternative for the Republicans is to hand the entire fiasco
    off to the Democrats, and that may be as good as it gets for the country as a whole.

  83. Despite some incremental progress under counter-insurgency measures, the basic facts of Iraq remain: no sign of a political settlement at the center, a sectarian-dominated military and police, profound corruption, continuing sectarian violence and insufficient US troops to secure the entire country. As the Iraqi parliament disbanded for the summer, a Sunni faction quit the ruling coalition.

  84. If your goal is perpetual war you do not want to win. You only want to win battles for P.R. but never the war.

    That is why Bush never defines what it is to win.
    For Truman and Kennedy containing communism was winning.
    For FDR unconditional surrender of the enemy was winning.
    For TR getting Spain out of the Western Hemisphere and off San Juan Hill was winning.

    Can you imagine how difficult it would be to win WWII if one of the goals was to convert 70 million Japanese to Christianity. Or if we demanded the Axis become one country with Germany, Italy and Austria sharing one democratic Government.

  85. For all of US efforts, the US can’t guarantee victory — only the Iraqis can.

    It is far from certain that they are capable of doing this because of deep-seated sectarian loyalties, because of a deepening crisis in the government coalition, and many related issues, all leaving American commanders “clinging to a hope that stability might be built from the bottom up

    Beyond the “clinging hope”, there is another reason why the US military chiefs do not want to give up — they feel that so much has been sacrificed already that it makes no sense to quit now referring to the 3,681 US soldiers lost so far, and the current average of two per day dead.

    But, of all the arguments for staying, this last one undoubtedly is the most dangerous and most futile. By dint of this belief, the US should have remained in the Vietnam War indefinitely since we lost 55,000 lives — and Ronald Reagan should never have pulled US forces out of Lebanon after losing several hundred US troops to a terrorist attack.

    America cannot base its national security decisions on romantic fantasies but on realities — and the truth is that the US is embedded in an intervention it should never have undertaken, caught up in a civil war that it cannot settle or stop, and, most importantly, has lost the support of the only constituency that counts — the American people.

  86. Amazing how you continue with hte same oldtired and worn out DNC talking points.

    From the beginning, Bush has stated that Victory means the Iraqis freely handling their own country. Yes, it isn’t glorious there, problems do exist. But, that too isn’t abnormal.

    One thing for sure, Obam’s public comments did not help anything and undermined the ongoing effort. Did you miss the demonstrations in Pakistan after his gaff? Have you missed the attempted assasinations on Musharraf’s life because he sided with us?

    Outrageous how the left decried faulty intelligence before, but is now willing to acceopt intelligence from the very same people as justification to bypass an ally and launch an attack within his country, which result in another Radical Islamic state, but with nuclear weapons.

    But, what can you expect from a first term Senator with absolutely no experience in the world?

  87. Some pertinent comments about this subject,

    “The truth is, if Iraq — if Al-Qaeda — establishes a base in Iraq, all of these people who talk about going into Pakistan are going to have to send your kids back to Iraq.”

    “Understand that while General Musharraf is no Thomas Jefferson, he may be the only thing that stands between us and having an Islamic fundamentalist state in that country. I think it is highly irresponsible of people who are running for the presidency and seek that office to suggest we may be willing, unilaterally, to invade a nation here that we are trying to get to be more cooperative with us in Afghanistan and elsewhere.”

    “…we’ve had some real difficult experiences with actionable intelligence — might lead to a certain action. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The last thing we want is to have Al-Qaeda-like followers in charge of Pakistan and having access to nuclear weapons. So, you can think big, but remember you shouldn’t always say everything you think if you’re running for president, because it has consequences across the world, and we don’t need that right now.”

  88. “And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” President Bush to Joint Session of Congress September 20, 2001.

Comments are closed.