Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Austin Bay :: Townhall.com Columnist
Exploiting Al-Qaida's Weaknesses
by Austin Bay
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


In February 2004, Iraqi and coalition intelligence intercepted a message to al-Qaida's "senior leaders." Written by al-Qaida's Iraqi commander, the now-deceased Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the letter outlined al-Qaida's last ditch "surge" plan for defeating democracy in Iraq and avoiding what it saw as a looming, devastating defeat for its totalitarian theology.

Zarqawi's letter lamented al-Qaida's "failure to enlist support" in Iraq and "to scare the Americans into leaving." After Iraqis run their own government, Zarqawi wrote, "the sons of this land will be the authority. ... This is the democracy. We will have no pretexts."

Fearing an American and Iraqi strategic victory (creating a democracy defending itself against terrorists), Zarqawi saw only one strategic option: exploit Iraq's Shia-Sunni religious divide by slaughtering Iraqi Shia civilians. The Shia would respond to al-Qaida's terror attacks by igniting a "sectarian war." He believed the religious war would "rally the Sunni Arabs" to al-Qaida. This war against Shiites, he wrote, "must start soon -- at "zero hour" -- before the Americans hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis."

The February 2006 attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra brought Iraq to the precipice of Zarqawi's sectarian war, but even that failed to produce the apocalyptic schism al-Qaida desired. Credit Iraq's people and its new government with not buckling in 2006, as Shia-Sunni strife escalated.

This week, Reuters reported an Iraqi government claim that Zarqawi's successor, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, had died in a battle with "Sunni Arab insurgent groups over al-Qaida's indiscriminate killing of civilians and its imposition of an austere brand of Islam in the areas where it holds sway." At the moment, that report remains unconfirmed. However, for the last 24 months, conflict between al-Qaida and Iraqi Sunnis has become more open and deadly.

The coalition and the Iraqi government have tried to exploit divisions within the terrorist groups. Al-Qaida's method of exploitation is mass murder of civilians. The Iraqi government employs incorporative politics.

This is tactical and operational exploitation, and though its successes are incremental, they are still successes. However, defeating al-Qaida's totalitarian ideology requires a strategic approach, as well. At the moment, the poisoned minds in Washington won't admit it, but the democracy project in Iraq is part of that strategic approach. Zarqawi understood that democracy robs the terrorists of their breeding grounds.

Al-Qaida presents an ideological challenge. Understanding al-Qaida's origins is essential to understanding its appeal and how to defeat it.

Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower" provides the most readable narrative history on the origins of al-Qaida, especially his discussion of Egypt's Sayid Qutb, the modern father of jihadist violence. When I reviewed the book last year, I wrote: "Al-Qaida's dark genius ... has been to connect the Muslim world's angry, humiliated and isolated young men with a utopian fantasy preaching the virtue of violence. That utopian fantasy seeks to explain and then redress roughly 800 years of Muslim decline."

How to defeat the ideology, with its fantasy narrative? Recently, Dale Eikmeier published an essay in the U.S. Army War College's Parameters Magazine. The essay, titled "Qutbism: An Ideology of Islamic Fascism," suggests "five lines of operation" for attacking Qutbism, which he calls al-Qaida's "ideological center of gravity."

First: Attack the message -- an ideological offensive by moderate Muslims. Eikmeier says Yemeni Judge Hamoud al-Hitar has a particularly effective theological counter to Qutbism.

Second: Attack the Messenger -- "Many of Qutbism's proponents are individuals with questionable religious credentials."

Third and fourth: Attack Islamo-fascism's supporting institutions, and support mainstream Islamic institutions -- mirror images. Attack al-Qaida's educational, financial, and informational structures. Support those of Muslim moderates.

Fifth: Inoculation. Eikmeier says this requires education regarding the Qutbists' "anti-human rights and religiously intolerant agenda." Eikmeier says the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the U.S. Bill of Rights are the alternatives.

Which takes us back to democracy, doesn't it?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Austin Bay Austin Bay is author of three novels. His third novel, The Wrong Side of Brightness, was published by Putnam/Jove in June 2003. He has also co-authored four non-fiction books, to include A Quick and Dirty Guide to War: Third Edition (with James Dunnigan, Morrow, 1996).
 
Be the first to read Austin Bay's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Libs
The Libs and Al-Qaida have the same goal, America losing in Iraq. They have painted themselves into a corner. We as a nation will be fighting Radical islam for the next fifty years by proving OBL right."America will not take casualties. They will run."

hate to tell you this sloo
But Bush's actions in Iraq have been like manna from heaven for AQ. Every single foriegn policy analyst agrees that AQ was on the ropes after the Afghanistan invasion. Now, thanks to the bungling in Iraq it has become a worldwide franchise. If anyone has been painted into a corner it is in fact the US military due the incompetent conduct of the Iraq war by this administration. I suppose it gives you comfort to constantly rail against liberals, but please note that this administration has had a free hand in its' conduct of the war for 4 years.

By the way, I am one liberal who is against a timed withdrawl in Iraq.

hate to tell you this sloo
bryce, If you think Iraq made al-Qaida a world wide franchise I would say you don't really know what your talking about. al-Qaida was world wide long before Iraq was liberated, going back to the Clinton years they were in Kenya (remember the bombings in Kenya), Yemen (The USS Cole), the al-Qaida meetings in Kuala Lumpur (to finalise the 9-11 attacks), Abu Sayyaf in South East Asia. I could go on and on if you like.

What?
Exploit their what? You mean the democrats? LOL!!

Perhaps I wasn't precise enough
The attacks to which you refer were all carried out by a chapters of Iraq who had strong connections to their commands. At present AQ is a logo adopted by groups with no operational or monetary connection to the original AQ and its' central command. That is not just me talking, that is the assessment of the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, The Cato Institute, the Council of Foriegn Relations, not to mention the US State Dept. report this week which states that terrorist attackes have increased 25% worldwide between 2006 and 2007.

Believe me, I know what I'm talking about, and so do the experts.











Valin, how could I forget
the CIA

Hate to tell you this bryce
but your liberal theme song is falling on deaf ears on this conservative website. We conservatives don't come here to get more of the same tune. You can't imagine how sick we are of hearing it. I think it is an excellent article! Let our soldiers finish the job and come home proud instead of dishonored. To minimize the importance of their being there is just more blaa blaa blaa to us. All you do is strengthen our opinions. Good job, Austin Bay. Don't pay attention to the liberals' ratings. This is just a sign of how well you are doing.

Appeal to authority
Is one of the classic logical fallacies. These are the same authorities that failed us in preventing the 9/11 attacks, and the scores of others that preceded it.

I was never so disgusted as when I read that the NIE told the President that AQ was planning an attack on us, something that had been happening for decades and was totally useless as a basis for action.

Trust me, those who are reasonably intelligent and capable of independent thought find your reasoning interesting only from a clinical perspective.

Bryce
You know, wars cannot be run by politicians. You're right, Bryce...But had we gone balls the the wall instead of trying to appease and be "diplomatically" politically correct,(ie, no bombing Mosques, don't shoot till you see the whites of their eyes and lest we forget, until you've already run over an IED and gotten your legs blown off)we would be in a much better position to leave behind a stable Iraqi Country.
So once again,blame Bush. But where would we be if he hadn't done anything? Still listening to the left...damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
The democrats are using the soldiers as pawns for power and that in itself is traitorous. You can mark my words...There will be an attack on this Country right after the elections, and then what will be done? When will the left start paying attention to the fact that they are throwing this Country away? The answer is never. And again, traitorous to ignore the sacrifices of others in the race for power.

Great Logic...
...operating above. Had the US been able to take the 'kid gloves' off then they would have left a stable Iraq? Inflicting even more carnage on the population will make them want to embrace 'democracy' even more fervently than they do? It's this blinkered approach to foreign policy that has led this administration to create the single biggest foreign policy disaster of modern times.
Also anyone who believes that Iraq hasn't been a blessing for radical Islam is seriously deluded.

If Iraq is broken...
...how does it get fixed? Run away? What does the progressive position that Bush was a boob for committing US forces to Iraq buy the US today? How does Iraq get fixed? Run away? The only Democratic Party answer to Iraq is to leave.

Wait, the Democratic Pary can get detailed on Iraq when it comes to a withdrawal time table but that is as far as they can go with any detailed planning on Iraq.

And so we are all deluded here! What does that buy us?






It's not Al Qaida, stupid.
Austin is correct that Al Qaida in Iraq hasn't done very well recruiting locals. They are responsible for a small fraction of the violence there. Distroying AQ in Iraq would be a good thing, but not a great thing.

The real Al Qaida is in Pakistan. The group in Iraq took the name AQ because they admire BinLaden. They are not a branch of the real AQ.

The real violence in Iraq (most of it) is caused by Sunni resistence cells and Shiite militias, neither related to AQ in Pakistan or in Iraq.

If Austin Bay were interested in learning about Iraq, he could read, for example, http://juancole.com . Instead, he chooses to get his news from Richard Perle and the neocons. These are the WMD -- embrace us with flowers -- the war will pay for itself -- weeks rather than months . . . .

If you stub your toe...
If you libs stub your toe in the morning getting out of bed, is that Bush's fault too? Or is that Rumsfeld/Cheney/Rice/Neocon Boogeyman causing your toe to hurt? I ask, because God knows, it's not YOUR fault, right? Just like it couldn't possibly be the fault of the animals indiscriminately killing folks in Iraq and elsewhere, according to you. Just like the libs blamed the gun at Va Tech, not the freak who pulled the trigger, so they also continue to blame Bush for Iraq's troubles, not the actual people who are making the conscious decision to shun the new democratic process and take violence to the streets. It is their fault, libs. And the sooner we face that and stop blaming our President (even though we all voted for the war--Check the congressional record), the sooner we may be able to beat back the forces of barbarism.
Many of us are just so, so tired of the lib blame America first crowd. You must be miserable people.

Nee
"The democrats are using the soldiers as pawns for power and that in itself is traitorous. You can mark my words...There will be an attack on this Country right after the elections, and then what will be done?" This is simply not true. If anyone is using the troops it is this tainted president who continally hides behind audiences of troops who must not by law disparge him. But watch their faces....
There may well be an attack on this country after elections? The reason we have not been attacked to date is because Bush's tactics are providing aid and comfort to the terrorists while disarming our country. Why attack? Disarming? yes that is what it is called when military units are deprived of equipment and traing effectively eliminating them as a fighting force.

blame
Blame does nothing for us now. If we leave now what happens? Do they all play nice because there is no oppsition? Doubtful. If we stay the tratiors destroy us, if we leave extreamists destroy us. Catch 22. Presidents are human they make mistakes, making the best choice from all of the intel and ramafications that we do not have. I know that I could not run a country so I give all presidents the same respect. Yet some do not, they think that is is all games that you play. Their goal is to gain power and destroy others in power, No respect. Let the President do what he was elected for, Run the country Including the Military. let the law makers make laws and the judges uphold the laws not create new ones. Respect where you are. Work with respect and intergrety not fear and lothing.
DBD

shempy larue
"..they also continue to blame Bush for Iraq's troubles, not the actual people who are making the conscious decision to shun the new democratic process and take violence to the streets. It is their fault, libs." Wrong to paraphrase C. Powell: "we break it we own it". Bush owns Iraq and the responsibility for the outcome. I know you folks have problems with accepting responsibility but perhaps it is time.

DBD
Great advice --- for sheep

LiberalGoodman
You may want to know that Bin Laden's son has been a guest of the Revolutionary Guard since late 2001. He was sighted a dozen times last summer in Lebanon with various Hezbollah military formations. The late Al Zarqawi, a Jordanian, was the guest of Saddam on at least 10 different occaisons since 1997; he even had surgery in one of Bagdhad's hospitals. Al Qaida by Sept 2001 had cells in Indonesia, the Philipines, Thailand, Toronto, Hamburg, Mannheim, Frankfurt, Berlin, Madrid,Naples, London, Manchester, and Copenhagen, and of course, Florida and New York.

Despite the lecturing of the Left and the MSM, Al Qaida has been able to forge alliances with almost all sects of Islam. From Saudi Wannabists, to Shias in Iran, and Sunnis in Bagdhad. Bin Laden may not have the control he once did (we don't even know if he's alive), but the eschatology and mission of Al Qaida hasn't changed. If anything, it appears both Dammascus and Terhan have taken over control of at least the Western half of the cells.

We are facing now a full feldged proxy war with Syria and Iran on one side, and us on another. It is pure folly to fantasize that the Iraqi war created Al Qaida. Al Qaida had well run and organized cell operating in Iraq even before we invaded. Read George Tenet's new book -he even admits to it.


Al-Queda's greatest strength
is the libdolt appeasers with advanced BDS. Everything bad that has ever happened in the entire world is George W. Bush's fault. Whew, that lets me off the hook!

Get your head out of the sand and realize what the h@11 is going on. Listen to the enemy, they are quite plain about Iraq being the most important battle in the war against us. Bush may have made a mistake and maybe not, there were no good options left by the time he was elected and even less options after 9-11. As all of the intelligence including the unintelligent Tenet knew that we would eventually have to attack Iraq. Bush never said that they were an "imminent threat", he said we can not afford to wait until the threat is imminent!!

Yes, it is a tough long fight we are in for, but the alternative is convert to radical Islam or die!!

Rich
"Get your head out of the sand and realize what the h@11 is going on. Listen to the enemy, they are quite plain about Iraq being the most important battle in the war against us." Oh you belive them? Come on everything Bush has done in Iraq has aided not hurt the terrorists.
"Yes, it is a tough long fight we are in for, but the alternative is convert to radical Islam or die!!" is all you have to offer fear itself?

Hal, dillweed
BS!! Killing them and concentrating their efforts in Iraq is not aiding them, you and your weasel "useful idiots" are aiding them much more with all your talk of surrender. That is the biggest draw for future recruits, defeat of the US in Iraq. Are you really that stupid!!

dillweed, it that your demeanor as well as your IQ??

Democrats Plan
The Democrat's plan for Iraq seems to be, we stop fighting in Baghdad and set up small bases to go out and fight Al Qeada when they show up. How exactly are we to determine when the violence inside Baghdad is AQ inspired or sectarian? Additionally, if we do not have enough forces in Baghdad now (which is why we need the surge), how are we going to have enough troops after a draw down?
In effect, the Democrat's plan is still one of withdrawal no matter what. If we have reduced forces trying to figure out where and when we can fight, we will take many more losses than we are now or we will not engage the enemy at all. Either scenario is a defeat!
Therefore the ultimate choice really boils down to, either fight to win or get out. There is no such thing as a halfway measure in any kind of fight, either on a battlefield or a football field.
A great part of the current impasse in our politics is the continued partisanship that has displaced all sense of leadership in Washington. The two parties, in their continual quest for control have manipulated the election process to assure themselves a virtual lock on power. We as the rightful heirs of this nation, need to re-establish our authority and exercise our responsibility over the governance of this great nation. Unless and until we re-assert those positions, the country will continue a downward slide in respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people.
In this next election, it is imperative that we begin to break this lock on power by not electing either a Democrat OR Republican to the Presidency! Such a result will only allow these elites to further their own personal goals at the expense of the only true source of freedom in the history of the world, The United States of America and her great people!
I urge you to visit my website, joeolivaforpresident.org to see how we can turn this situation around before it is too late. The challenges to America will not go away no matter what happens in Iraq, but we can lose our freedoms very easily if we allow these incompetent politicians to continue unabated in their partisan battles! Check it out, I think you will see a difference. Thanks, Joe

Dillwieed
Al Qaida was in Iraq long before we were there. Whether fighting against the Kurds from Iranian bases, or training from bases in the Anbar province, Al Qaida's network was far more extensive than our $40 billion dollar a year CIA will ever admit. Al Zarqawi, the late leader of AQ in Iraq resided in various Iraqi residences since 1997.

AQ benefitted from Sunni, Shia, and Wannabist money and aid. Interesting how you ignore Syrian and Iranian part in all of this. Iran's Hezbollah is currently enjoying the company of Osama Bin Laden's oldest son. Of course, the CIA and our anointed "experts" say it is impossbile for any kind of joint cooperation between AQ, the Sunni, the Shia, and the Wannabist radicals. The experts also said back in 1935 that there was no way the Nazis and the Communists would ever forge an alliance.

I suppose there is some hope...
... Apparently we are having some success in aligning some of the indigenous Iraqi militias to fight against Al Qaeda. If indeed al Masri is dead it will probably be due to one of these native Sunni militias, not US troops.

Al Qaeda DOES have some weaknesses and its appeals to endless violence to produce and maintain a theocratic state does not have universal appeal to all Muslims. Austin Bay is correct to point this out. Petraeus is correct to be exploiting this in Anbar province.

The Bush administration is wrong not to be exploiting this on every front. We need to be working diplomatically with every state in the ME from Egypt to Iran to align them against Al Qaeda and see they have a bigger stake than we do in stamping it out.

The war has created a training camp and recruiting ground for Al Qaeda in Iraq as long as the US is perceived as an occupier by the Iraqi people. The democrats are correct to work toward reduction of the American presence in Iraq as quickly as possible. Stability in that country is an antidote to the chaos Al Qaeda promotes, and stability is only possible when the internal civil war we ignited ends.

Thats why a blank check for an open ended occupation in support of the Maliki government is wrong. So the dems are correct in opposing that. However, simply ending American presence without a sensible redeployment plan that is supported by Iraq and its neighbors is wrong too.

The democrats and the administration are going to have to come to some compromise and work together to avoid a precipitous withdrawal. There have to be reasonable benchmarks for the Iraqi government and Bush has to negotiate with neighboring countries to lay the ground work for withdrawal. The democrats have to give Bush some breathing room to pull this off.

Unfortunately the Bush administration is pig headed and unwilling to see the wisdom in this approach compromise (since it would amount to admitting that it has completely mishandled this war). We are going to have to hope that Pelosi and Reid can force the president into accepting a compromise on benchmarks and congressional oversight until the end of his term. This may prevent him from making a bad situation worse until the 2008 election and we get a democrat in the white house who can clean up the mess Bush has created.

Rich
What color kool aid are you drinking? Let's just take very recent history. The Saudi terror plot suspects were sent to Iraq for training. We are providing a playground for them their our red flag so to speak.

JPK
You sound like Dick Cheney now? Is it really you Dick?

Libs are just so predictable...
...given any topic, they will tell you "every expert agrees" in a thoroughly dishonest attempt to end debate. They're always wrong, but they say it anyway.

Bryce wrote, just like a good leftist, "Bush's actions in Iraq have been like manna from heaven for AQ. Every single foriegn policy analyst agrees that AQ was on the ropes after the Afghanistan invasion."

Magnus Ransdorp, world-renowned terrorism expert from the Swedish National Defense College, disagrees. So did the now-deceased leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarkawi. But let's not let little facts like al Qaeda's leader crying desperately for help get in a way of a partisan snit, shall we?

By the way: I don't really know Bryce's politics, and even if he IS a liberal Democrat, one of their favorite tactics is to scoff "What a fool you are, I'm no liberal." So I do expect him to deny being any brand of leftist. I don't care; he's engaging in one of the favorite tactics, and spouting one of their favorite unsupportable talking points, so I draw the inference. QED...

When your enemy changes strategy...
...it's usually because their previous strategy was not working.

So this is a pretty good test of our press coverage in Iraq. About a year and a half ago, our enemy in Iraq, al Qaeda, dramatically switched its tactics from attacking US forces directly to attacking Sunni Muslims to spark a sectarian war. They did it, frankly, because they were getting their asxes soundly thrashed trying to attack US troops. Our kill ratios were between 10- and 15-to-1. Terrorism experts reported that worldwide, at least 40% of al Qaeda's recruits had been killed.

Did you have any notion that our troops were thrashing al Qaeda so soundly in Iraq, and worldwide?

If you did not, you must now -- in order to be intellectually honest -- answer the question "Why not?"

Koolaid Hal??
What are you smoking??

Timeline for you, Al-Queda attacks have been happening for at least 15 years! That is several years before even the first Gulf war with Iraq.

Our being in Iraq is not "making them mad at us", nitwit, they already hate us and they hate stupid liberal wussies the most. They also know that you are their best friends in the efforts to destroy us. Why were they dancing in the streets after the '06 elections?? Because they know that if we quit in Iraq, they have won and will win it all because if we can't stop them there, no one will ever stop them anywhere!!

Mr Buck, ssdd
You wrote: "if you warpublicans are willing to blame Clinton for WTC '93 and the USS Cole - how does Bush get off for 9/11 and the failure and loss of Iraq?"

A) We don't blame Clinton for WTC 93 and USS Cole; we blame radical Islamic terrorists for those. We blame Clinton for letting his domestic PR foibles direct his foreign policy initiatives, and doing nothing effective against terrorism.

B) Why would you want to blame Bush for 9/11? That was planned and executed by radical Islamic terrorists. The eagerness of the Left to blame the President for the acts of radicals is proof positive of their deranged state of mind toward him.

C) Iraq is not a failure, nor a loss. We're actually winning militarily and politically; we're having some difficulty on the public relations front, thanks to your cooperation with al Qaeda.

You also wrote: "when the Commander in Chief sends 3000 puls soldiers to their death because he didn't realize the ramifications of invading Iraq - he gets the blame."

Not quite accurate. When the Commander in Chief initiates a policy the success of which would cause the Democrats serious political damage, he gets the blame -- whether the policy succeeds or not.

The illusion that the Iraq war is a failure is, so far, the Democrats' greatest demagogic success of the 21st century. It's a lie, but even some Republicans are giving it lip service.

dilweed
you lost all credibility with this statement "(and make Cheney even more rich)" Radical Islam is a threat to western and eastern societies, just look at both Europe as well as the Phillipenes and Thialand. Most of the conflicts have their root in centuries long past, the idea that poverty causes radicalism holds water however it is part of a vicious cycle, who wants to invest in an area where your capital might be the target of an angry radical. If we withdraw prematurely it will be a huge victory for Al Queda and other radicals,one only has to look at the propaganda boom that was recieved after the soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan(although they leave out the magic bullet,stinger missles from the great satan,that allowed them to turn the tide against the soviets).

all for spec ops
as well as assasination of leaders of radical movements like nasrallah, However the pool of special operators is finite, they are a very rare breed of warrior, tough and smart(very on both counts),I have heard calls to just increase the number of special forces,I am afraid that the bar may be lowered.
do we really need military bases in the middle east? how else can we generate energy? Well for now at least we do, personally I am all for a "manhattan project" style collaboration of government and industry to find alternate types of energy, although for national security reasons as opposed to global warming. that is one thing I think could be a unifying point for our nation.
what can we do better to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinian peoples. As far as that goes after reading alot,Both sides, about the ideas, I don't think that can be accomplished as long as one side wants to annihilate the other there is not much room for any type of peaceful co-exisitence.

ch47 jockey
You left out the propaganda boon the Soviets got when we were thrown out of Vietnam. It is not all gloom and doom. Iraq can heal and quite honestly I think Al Q will probably not be very welcome there. By the why hi

hey Hal
had to leave abruptly last night, The better half wanted to know if I was going to sleep at my office :),or if I was out fishing.

ch47
"what can we do better to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinian peoples. As far as that goes after reading alot,Both sides, about the ideas, I don't think that can be accomplished as long as one side wants to annihilate the other there is not much room for any type of peaceful co-exisitence." Ah but Iran, Syria and the US are supporting all the parties. They can reach agreement.

Hey 47
Mine asked if I was sleeping in the office LOL I think we left at the same time

Hal Donahue and Presidential Visits
When Presidents Reagan and George HW Bush visited bases I was stationed at, there was a rush on tickets just like today with GWB.

When Clinton and Carter were president and came to visit, the show became a mandatory event because no self-respecting soldier wanted to go.

What you said about the soldier's faces around GWB is a lie. And a bad one at that.

Hal
going to be around for a while? I am thinking of heading out and hitting a stream for a bit, it is such a pretty day here and I just tied a few new flies, although they look like something out of jurassic park.

Mr. Buck
You know, your posts just have a dash too much of BDS in them.

FDR send troops to their death in the Phillipines in 41/42 by no reinforcing them (Europe first doctrine.)

And using your logic, FDR was responsible for Pearl Harbor and about 2,000 deaths since our intelligence was a wee bit faulty.

How many Marines died on Guadalcanal who did not have to because FDR was sending everything to Europe when OUR main threat was the Japanese! The Marines called Guadalcanal, Operation Shoestring...

Speaking of slashing the budget, Truman bears the brunt of the battle deaths in Korea, especially those in Task Force Smith since HE slashed the military's budget and HE relaxed training standards in the Occupation Force in Japan.

Gotta blame JFK some of the deaths in Vietnam since HE expanded it in October 1963. Of course LBJ managed to get 50,000 killed in his own right and then the libs cut and run when Nixon was busy snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.

How many Iranians did Carter get killed when he failed to back the Shah and allowed a religious nutcase to take over? Not to mention leaving us with Iran as a problem today.

I myself wonder how Velcro-Fly Bubba can sleep at night knowing that he got American Rangers killed in Somalia for no reason AND let 1,000,000 Rwandans die.

All-in-all, I'd say that the casualty rates stack up against the libsquirts and 3,000 KIA in four years under Bush is far far better than 3,000+ killed about every three MONTHS under LBJ's tutelage.

Hard Thought
I said watch the faces around the president. That cannot be a lie plain and simple. Clinton was the worst president in our history but this guy makes him look good. By the way Bush at best now only has a slim margin of support in the military

47
Enjoy as soon as I get done quibbling with an editor I am off for a run. I should be around later. Good luck with them

Gunny
gave up on Mr. Buck I think he discounts any opposing view without thought.

GunnyG
ah come on we both know there were and will be screw ups. As soldiers all we ever asked was pleased do not sell us cheaply. I think that the point is that Bush sold them cheaply. You may disagree but many of us do not.

Hard Thought
BINGO!

When that idiot Carter came to visit us overseas, we were MARCHED over and forced to attend! No one was showing up! haha.

When Ronnie came to see us at Pendleton, it wa an overflowing event and we were cheering our brains out when we walked through our crowds and shook hands.

Same with Bush 41.

I was on The Rock when Bubba and Hitlary came over. The mood on base was foul and we were forced to attend his jibberish. I myself implemented RHIP and found some work to keep me from listening to the bum.

Hal
Ever read Kipling?

"You take the King's shilling, you do the King's bidding."

I knew what a soldier's risk was the day I signed on the dotted line. Your casual disregard of the events I mentioned is unsettling at best. No real military person would blow off something like the task Force Smith debacle like it was a "screw-up."


A VOA for Islam
I've been advocating for sometime now, the idea of opening up an office at CIA and call it the Voice of Islam. It would be similar to the old cold war VOA broadcasts in that it would advocate a different view of Islam. Basically, Islam minus the military crap and the forced conversion of others, and the abuse of women.

There was a recent meeting of moderate Islamists who met in Florida advocating a Vatican II style of Islamic reform.

In addition, the average Muslim in Turkey, Iraq and Iran is urbanized and Western. Everybody wants to be free. Even Muslims.

The great irony is that 60% of Pakistan feels the same way. It's only a small percentage of nutcases that are stopping progress in the Islamic World. Problem is, they got the propaganda machine, the media, the guns and the torture chambers to keep their people in line.

Countering Jihadi propaganda with anti-jihadi, moderate, arab and persian-born speakers would go a long way to helping win this global fight.

We need to fight Islam with Islam. Then democracy will take hold. But it will be an Islamic style of democracy. Perhaps something like what currently exists in Turkey, or Iraqi Kurdistan.

Is the CIA listening? Probably not.

Required Reading (for libs)
The Looming Tower should be required reading for every member of congress (and you libs on this site as well)!! It wouldn't change the lib's strategy, but at least they might be able to make a coherent argument and actually sound like they know what their talking about.

GunnyG
You failed to mention the marines and French in Beirut why was that? Shall we drag up the Indianapolis or Omaha Beach?
"You take the King's shilling, you do the King's bidding." Of course but as you pointed out there are ways to do it and ways to do it. Bush 1 was one of us Reagan was special.

Hal and Dillweed
Hal, Your non-respone to questions posted indicate to me that you have no rebuttals other than your oneliners.

Dillweed: Since Iranian and Al Qaida co-operation predated 9/11 by about 5 years, and Al Qaida and Iraqi co-operation predated 9/11 by about 4 years, it is safe to assume that there was a world-wide dimension to goverment sponsored terrorism that occured regardless of European and US actions. This clearly dispels the fiction that we ever had Saddam "contained". As a matter of fact, this fallacy was essientially laid to rest by the former DCI himself, George Tenet.

Here is a question for you both. What if we withdraw our forces to Kurdistan and Kuwait? What if Iraq not only goes into civil war, but the Iranians send in 2 or 3 infantry Corps to the southern and eastern provinces of Iraq? Do we go to war against Iran? To we let the Iranians annex those areas? The West needs Iranian oil more than Iran needs the West. They get most of thier food and refined gas from the Russians. Do you really think after sending 120,000 of the 135,000 soldiers home, that the Americans will really want to go back into Iraq in such emergency conditions? Do you think that Europe will go along with us? Do you know what will happen to the Democratic Majority if a regional war flares up as a consequence of our withdrawl?

Can the Democrats ever put national security ahead of thier own selfish political designs?


Hal
Beirut was a terrorist act that exposed poor doctrine which was corrected almost immediately.

Omaha Beach and the Indianapolis were acts of war.

The absolute ignorance of Bubba of the rising global terrorist threat that culminated on 9/11 left a lot of blood on his hands as well as the Dhimmicrat Party who supported him.

Bubba, like OJ, is still looking for the killers of the sailors on the USS Cole on gold courses across the land.

Patriot11c
Re: Is the CIA listening? Probably not.

Of course they are! According to the libs, they're listening to everyone, everywhere at all times.

GunnyG
They were all mistakes. If you blame Clinton then you have to blame Bush too. Ashcroft was worried about the barebreast of justice and downgraded counterterrorism. Bush was asleep at the switch. Near as I can tell watching the lead up was that the big mistake was location. All the warnings pointed to attacks with mass casualities overseas not at home. If I recall the R's opposed everything Clinton did against terrorism.

does jpk deserve answers?
I still think he is dick cheney sure sounds like him

apoplectic
doesn't NSA still have that job? LMAO

Good ideas if moderate Islam existed...
...it doesn't.

From a Marine that was on the graound in Iraq:

"In every operation we've participated in, the sound of Islamic prayer has provided the soundtrack. Mosques are everywhere and five times daily, including dawn and sunset, the musical chant of Islamic prayer rings out from the towers. During our terrible fight on the 8th, the sound was there. And the next morning prayer noise provided an eerie melodic counterpoint to the artillery barrage that reduced the compounds. Marines listen to the prayers with suspicion. After all, it was Islamic fundamentalists that sparked the war on terror by smashing 767s into the Trade Towers. And I have never been convinced that those were the actions of "extremists" and not in character with the true teachings of Islam."

Marine BRIAN TAYLOR

apoplectic
Right you are.

Steve
"Good ideas if moderate Islam existed...And I have never been convinced that those were the actions of "extremists" and not in character with the true teachings of Islam." That makes as much sense as saying the IRA bombers were average Catholics.

Hal
the reason they opposed him was that he kept treating it like it was a law enforcement problem. Then when he ran out of Somalia like a raped ape, he merely confirmed to OBL that we were indeed a paper tiger.

Throughout Bubba's reign we were attacked. Khobar Towers, 2 Embassies, USS Cole, WTC pt1, and I can go ON AND ON!

Unlike you and the othe liberals, I post LINKS that BACK ME UP.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

Observe the years of Bubba's reign and just look at the ones involving Americans. Quite a lot of them.

Bush took the fight to the enemy and it pizzes you libs off because it makes Klintoon look like the idiot he is. You know it and I know it.

BTW, have we been attacked lately? Maybe it's because A-Q and the otehr vermin are too busy dying by the bushel in Iraq. Something ELSE tht makes you libs mad as h*ll. Too bad Klintoon lacked the guts for anything other than killing Americans at Waco.

Moderate Islamists
Jihadis are true adherents to Islam. moderates are Sufis in Islam. They exist. They are the minority voices in Islam. And most of these moderates live in the US and in Europe.

They are too afraid to speak up. However the secularlists in islam are still hanging in there.
They have gotten bold enough to put together a conference to further secularize Islam and dump the idea of Jihadism as a military aim.

If the west was smart they would tap into this movement and broadcast its next conference to the entire Islamic world. Believe it or no, there are many in the mideast that are tired of the Jihadis and would like to simply live out their Sufi vision of Islam and get along with the west.

http://www.secularislam.org


GunnyG
"Bush took the fight to the enemy and it pizzes you libs off because it makes Klintoon look like the idiot he is. You know it and I know it."

Personally I could care less about Clinton. Yes Bush took the fight to the enemy then let the enemy go and attacked Iraq. The reason that we have not been attacked is because Bush is doing exactly what the terrorists want. Why attack us?


FACTS
Edited post:

I am a Citizen of the United States of America. I am not your enemy.

There are people in this world that want to kill us. A foundation of perceived success in their minds is not an inconsequential, academic conversation or prideful political position; it is, undeniably, a rallying cry to keep killing.

Take the U.S. out of the equation...take Israel out of the equation. Do some research and you will find that you are dealing with an imperialistic, murderous "group" that possesses and ideology, which, by its very criteria does not allow for true amicable negotiations. According to them, You, Your freedom, and Your Understanding of Peace are deemed reprehensible and are simply in their way. Freedom itself is in their way. By "group," I do not mean an organized hierarchical corporate structure, with defined and delimited rules of affiliation or pedigree; anyone who believes that Al Quaeda "members" must have a formal lineage truly have no understanding of Al Quaeda's history. Adhering to the ideological and combative, jihadist intentions of Al Quada is all that is needed. (IGNORANCE OF THIS LEADS TO THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SADDAM'S RELATIONSHIP TO AL QUAEDA AND PRESENT ARGUMENTS AGAINST ZARGAWI'S RELATIONSHIP TO AL QUAEDA)

Regarding our situation in Iraq, I wholeheartedly know that the citizenry is well aware of the repercussions of attempting self defense, with the belief that they have back-up support from a mightier force, only to be abandoned and subject to slaughter. What would you do? Would you stand up to your oppressor, knowing full well that your support is leaving and your enemy is planning a slaughter? Please, let me dissuade the counter-argument of an absurd illimitable occupation; we simply should not broadcast timelines. (IT MAY VERY WELL BE THE CASE THAT OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE SUCH DELIBERATIONS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, WITH FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL ASPECTS OF INTELLIGENCE, COMPLETE CHECKS AND BALANCES, AND RIGOROUS, UNPOLITICIZED ARGUMENTATION). Certainly, maintaining our open-society is an important factor and we, as a country, must be very careful about who we send to be our representatives (If you don't trust your representatives to speak on your behalf, then you should: 1) better acquaint yourself with our Federal Republic 2)Choose representatives you trust, which may not be the popular-beauty pageant winner). The enemy must believe that our resolve and our alliance with this fledgling Democratic government is unending and unshakeable.

The United States' embassies, installations and buildings were not targeted for self-defense; they were targeted for symbolic reasons. They wanted to show that we could bleed.

The reality is that the enemy has historically proven themselves to be emboldened when they believe they are succeeding and, conversely, they crumble at an astonishing rate when they believe they are losing, especially when there is a reason to believe (or at the very least "perceive") that there is dissension or betrayal within their own ranks. But, this is not happening to them at this time, is it? It is happening to us, by the very leaders that the naive masses chose to supposedly lead this nation.

We are at war.

Alarmists and luke warm, conciliatory commentators and politicians in this nation and throughout the world must stop giving credence to any notion that the enemy is some insurmountable, undefeatable foe. The enemy is simply trying to hold on. Consider that the enemy’s goal and definition of success is simply to not be completely destroyed. That is not success; it's waiting for the truly righteous to stop short of completely obliterating them. So, to those that are throwing defeatist language around for political purposes, they must realize that they are acting like cheerleaders for the enemy.

I am bewildered at the thought that a non-national, non-military, ill-equipped group of criminals could “defeat” the phenomenally powerful and resourceful United States of America.

I beg you, the President and both houses of Congress to painstakingly read the entire work of Sun Tzu’s, “The Art of War.” Our enemy is using it to the letter as the playbook for combat strategy and our democrat congress members are dancing at the ball with them, step-by-step, to Sun Tzu’s song of defeat.

I can only think that ultra-liberals will say we deserved it when the other mega power nations (like Russia) ramp up a delusional, International fervor for the belief that we are the threat to the global community. The democrat party begs the position of divisiveness, vulnerability, and capitulation on behalf of our federal Republic and our national polity. They are making us appear ripe for the picking and unable to withstand a concerted and protracted onslaught. This is dangerous!


I AM A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS CHARACTERIZATION!



Please see:

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html#02
SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR
THE OLDEST MILITARY TREATISE IN THE WORLD
Translated from the Chinese
By LIONEL GILES, M.A. (1910)


-Truth

Mr. Buck you are WRONG!
Bush chopped a LOT of brush in Texas during his first eight months

dillweed
"no it's because he ignored the good advice of his advisors, much of which was watered down by the time it got to him."

Now I know that Bubba was a draft dodger but in the military, we're taught that the Commanding Officer is responsible for everything that happens under his command. It's how you libsquirts are judging Bush.

So The Impeached One is even MORE guilty of malfesance and imcompetence by letting the terrorist threat grow on his watch.

Drop the lib double standard, although I know it's hard for moonbats to think logically.

Bush is disarming the US
There is no other way to say it. Our units do not have their equipment and have little training. They are not combat ready and the Bush budget doesn't contain funds to rebuild them. That is disarmament

GunnyG
Look at that ref you gave me terrorism isn't new and we successfully more or less contained them throughout our history. There was never a question of IF we would be hit; it was a question of WHEN. When turned out to be 8 months into the Bush era. Ok done now let's deal with it not whine about whose fault it was.
"Now I know that Bubba was a draft dodger but in the military, we're taught that the Commanding Officer is responsible for everything that happens under his command." really? chicken hawk Bush has accepted zero responsibility for anything

well folks
Off for a bit. You all be well and enjoy the day

Change of Command
Bush inherited the same intelligence mechanisms and the same players that Clinton had. He also inherited that wall of seperation between CIA and FBI that Jamie Gorelic created.

And lets not forget that big ego in a small job...Richard Clarke...aka...the answer man...who didn't do squat for the incomming NS director.

The Klintons had 8 years to prepare for 9-11. They had tons of clues and several opportunities to kill Bin Laden. Yet they continued to treat the global terrorisim problem as a "law enforcement problem".

The Klintons were good at wagging the dog, but not much at anything else.

Bush is the only president who finally took the war to the bad guys, and we have been killing them ever since.

The result has been the loss of 3000+ of our finest young people, and 17,000+ wounded.

Their sacrifice has prevented another 9-11 and has allowed the US to fight the war in Jihadi country instead of in my country.

The reports that I'm getting back from those inside the wire indicate that we are winning.

We, however are not countering Jihadi propaganda.
This needs to change.

The Jihadis will never beat us on the battleground. Much like the VietCong in 1968, they loose every battle, when they fight us in the open.

The only thing that the Jihadis got going for them is the same thing that the Vietcong had in 1968: The backing of the MSM and the US Dhimicratic Congress.

We can win this war, if we let our troops do what they do best and without the stupid ROIs....and without Generals Michael Ware, NP or Hairy Reed.

Good posts BTW GunnyG.

Dillweed
You never answered the question. Do you think a future President or Congress will have the guts to ask the people to refight the war in Iraq -this time against Iran?

You libs keep pounding the Murtha message of "over the horizon" redeployment. My question is will you be willing to refight the war, say in 3 years if strategic necessity dictates it (ie an Iranian or Syrian incursion)? Do you think the American people after buying Sen. Reid's mantra of "We lost" will ever wish to revisit Iraq ever again?

The reason you won't answer the question is because you see where the Withdraw Now! option will lead. Once we leave it is for good. There is no balcony for future operations. And for the Dems, they cannot even envision the strategic catastrophe that awaits them if they fail.

Hal
Chickenhawk?

Hmm. Here all along I thought that Bush had served in the TANG and flew a high-speed interceptor that killed more than a few pilots in its day.

I guess Bubba's touring the USSR in 1970 with Hitlary was more important than serving the USA.

BTW, when you libsquirts slander Bush's TANG service, you slam the service of the very troops that you say you support!

I'm examining the twisted liberal mind in an essay on my blog tomorrow. Mind if I use you as a subject?

patriot11C
Thanks for the kudos and you're right, the former hippie love children, now in the Senate and Congress, are playing armchair general and Bush is letting them.

He should have been in the bully pulpit dogging their world from day one. He should have demanded that Sandy Burgular do HARD TIME for stealing and destroying classified material and he should have jailed anyone who violated ANY rules regarding national security.

dillweed
"not all libs are Democrats."

No, REALLY? Here all along I was under the impression that guys like Guilaini, Arnold, Bloomberg, McVain, and Bush were staunch Reaganites. How silly of me.

Got any other pearls of wisdom we, the patriotic posters of TH, are in dire need of?

Posters here can mine the past
all they want, but the fact remains that every serious foriegn affairs analyst agrees that Bush's actions have resulted in a profusion of terrorist groups. Again that's not just me talking, that's the latest NIE, a compilition of the opinions of all 16 US intelligence agencies.

bryce
So what is your point? Are the islamists using Iraq as a propaganda tool to recruit more radicals to their cause? Absolutely!! Will running away stop that? Absolutely not. They will still use the same propaganda, but they will also add "See, we told you America was weak and could be defeated". They will also use it as "proof" that Allah is with them because they are on the correct path. The way to reverse that is to succeed in creating a free and democratic Iraq. It will not only remove their propaganda tool, but can also be used as a counter to their propaganda.

Dillweed Again
You seem to be out of lockstep with Murtha, Pelosi, Biden, Obama, Reid, and Hillary.

The are all in favor of withdrawing from Iraq, but keeping a ready-force "in the area" (only 2 options: Kuwait and Kurdistan) in the event that a)civil unrest necessitates our involvement or b)or foreign nation (ie Iran) intervenes.

Are you saying the leadersip of the Democratic Caucus is lieing? Or are you just mis-informed as usual?

I take from your answer that personally you haven't the slightest problem with Iran invading Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. For that matter, I don't suppose you have a problem with Iran sending a nuke or 2 to Tel Aviv or Paris.

Big Sigh, re: NIE report
Correlation does not equal causation.

However, the fact that Bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa commands that Western Civilians and Military personnel be attacked...wherever we are found, and there are those individuals and groups that both adhere to this dictate and are executing it really shows a reasonable cause and effect trend. (BTW, if you take a look at the 1998 FATWA, you'll notice a rallying cry around Iraq; Bin Laden speaks of the symbolic and strategic value of this country.)

Bush, on the other hand, stipulated that he would relentlessly fight to protect the homeland and this would be a long, arduous task; this too, shows a cause and effect trend.

Words, intentions and actions have consequences, whether or not they are popular, expedient, or gratifying in the immediate sense. People said they will hurt us and they are trying to do so.

It looks like they were serious.

Bryce
As for "serious foreign affairs experts", are you referring to those splendid fellows who during the 90s promised that Al Qaida was nothing more than an isolated, unsophisticated group of relgious fanatics, who if ignored would simply disappear?

Or were you referring to those exquisitely educated analysts who predicted in 1989 that the USSR's economy would overtake the US economy in performance by 1995?

Or perhaps you were referring to those urbane chaps who promised Americans in 1992 that Bill Clinton and the Democrats were the only people who could seriously put the smack down on the Chicoms after the Tiaminnen Square massacre?

It is too bad that the people I referred to above are employed at the CIA, State Dept, Pentagon, Kennedy School of Goverment, and Georgetown Univ - That is, the entire foreign policy community.

GunnyG
"Hmm. Here all along I thought that Bush had served in the TANG and flew a high-speed interceptor that killed more than a few pilots in its day." That is true even if it was called the cadillac LOL. But the rest of the story is that flight physical Bush missed when his flying status was removed - the unit was converting to F-4's. Now at the same time, I am sitting watching guys soiling their pants, puking over the rails and still launching on missions over the north when they knew with almost 100% certainty that not all of them were coming back. Sorry gunny I was being nice I really think the man is a coward.

dillweed
Is there any war ever neccesary in your eyes?

patriot11C
"The result has been the loss of 3000+ of our finest young people, and 17,000+ wounded." FYI: we are over 22,000 wounded now and 3,344 dead as of this morning. Please don't + them out. They all have names too. Every damn one of them

Supporting the troops
"Despite passing the bill five days earlier, Mr. Reid and Mrs. Pelosi waited to send the legislation to the president until yesterday, the fourth anniversary of his speech on the aircraft carrier."

Yep, Are you feeling the love troops? Imagine if they didn't "Support" you!!!!!

apoplectic
still many, many days faster than the last R congress did and with less add ons

Tanabear
It is not the Operations Branch of the CIA that advises the President and Congress on intel matters -it is the Directorate of Intelligence. They are the ones along with the myriad of other analysts who write position papers, analyse events and make forecasts. Thier ability to get intel wrong is now legendary.

It is not unusual for the Operations to run intel ops and not even the DCI is made aware. The CIA had a few case officers with the Northern Alliance through the late 90s. However, when the 5th Spec Ops people went into Afghanistan in Sept of 2001, there was not a CIA agent anywhere. Thirty year old Green Berets Staff Sergeants were on thier own. Like Iraq, the CIA had absolutely no assests on the ground in Afghanistan. It would surprise me if the CIA devoted more than an empty office, a few PCs, and a map in their search for Bin Laden.

Most of our serious HUMINT (Human Intelligence) is now being done by the men in uniform. It has been this way since 9/11. Pretty pathetic when one considers the CIA spends over $40 billion of taxpayer money.

dillweed

WWII, maybe? Would you rather be speaking Greman or Japanese?
War on terror is not?
Iraq is a battlefield in that war.
I guess you feel 9/11 is a law enforcement problem like the rest of the Libs!

!
Greman OOPs GERMAN

sloo/dillweed
Sigh everyone forgets the cold war. Is that because it was won only killing millions and no nukes were thrown around? That was hands down a fight for freedom.

sloo
9/11 was a screw up. Since this country was founded we have hunted down and destroyed terrorists. To bad we gave up and went into Iraq

Hal Donahue 5:16pm
Yes we went into Iraq. Per Marvin Cetron (founder of Forecasting International) there are 30,000 foreign fighters now in Iraq. These include AQ and their allies.

That is the equivalent of 2 full divisions of "terrorists".

Seems like we are still hunting down and destroying terrorists. Whether they were there before or after we got there would appear to me to be unimportant.

Hal Donahue
Iraq is a battlefield in that war.
Too bad you can't see it.

To all anti-war peaceniks
The only thing that pro-American interests need to know about your position is that the terrorists agree with it. It is a fact that you and the terrorists operating in Iraq want the same thing, which is the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The peaceful citizens of Iraq do not want U.S. troops to unilaterally withdraw before securing the country and eliminating the terrorist element.

Both the Islamofascists and the American left are willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent Iraqis in order to humiliate and discredit the Bush administration - the terrorists, in order to advance their agenda of securing political power in the Middle East, and the leftists in this country in order to do the same.

So the Islamofascists and the American left can be said to be unified in pursuing the same goals, means, and objectives. And all the sanctimonious posturing of the leftists posting on this blog cannot whitewash this reality.

Sandman
Well put!! The islamists also want an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the entire ME. I wonder how long before their willing accomplices here join forces with them on that adgenda??

Hal
"9/11 was a screw up. Since this country was founded we have hunted down and destroyed terrorists. To bad we gave up and went into Iraq"

If only we'd been able to find a terrorist or two to hunt down and kill in Iraq!! Well darn.. I suppose it's too late to sneak a couple of them in now to make it look good?

dillweed
no (one) would ever want to refight anything, especially not after this fiasco.

So then you must be against the Dim plan to re-deploy and "if things go bad in Iraq we can send the troops back in" (from Okinawa?)
per John Murtha's plan
(that is pretty much a quote from Murtha)

Again
dillweed...thats called "bleeding for the same real estate twice" and you're right, no one wants that.

So lets just get it done while we're already deployed and fighting the fight now!

Does anyone
know who the two Rep. Congressman who voted to over-ride the Presidents veto today are?

OR how to find out?

Even Chris Shays voted NOT to overturn.

There were also 3 non voting Repubs.

SandMan
"The peaceful citizens of Iraq do not want U.S. troops to unilaterally withdraw before securing the country and eliminating the terrorist element."

100% correct. Yet the Dems and the MSM are starting to say otherwise..."the Iraqis want us to leave" is a sentence I have heard at least a half dozen times this past week....

John Murtha
He wants toredeploy to Okinawa. He's got his head so far up his azz, from the loss of air to his brain, he probably thinks it's only a few miles away. It would take weeks if not months to get forces back in the area. His redeploy is actually retreat. Typical Lib, run from a fight, defeat is the DEM motto.

dillweed
"people matter more than profits"

One of the stupidiest saying I ever heard from an idiot who is absolutely clueless.

Here is one that is probably over your pointed head.

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Magnificus
The Dems and the MSM new talking point lie, "The Iraqis want us to leave".

GunnyG
"people matter more than profits" consider the source -Brain Dead Ralph Nader,

sloo
Nader hasn't had a complete thought in decades. I hope he throws his beanie in the ring and thus, split the libstain vote even more!

UH OH!!
"Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications."

CNN analysts and other observers said it so it has to be true (according to you libs anyway)!!! You leftist little surrender monkeys got some "splainen" to do.

It gets WORSE
"Everyone wants the troops home -- the Iraqis, the U.S., the world -- but no one wants a precipitous withdrawal that produces a civil war, a bloodbath, nor a wider war in an unstable Mideast," Shepperd said, adding that the image of the United States was important too.

"And we do not want a U.S that is perceived as having been badly defeated in the global war on terror or as an unreliable future ally or coalition partner."

This quote from GASP.... A retired General!

Gray Ghost
DOD has the number well under 10K you don't believe the military?

apoplectic
"Well put!! The islamists also want an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the entire ME. I wonder how long before their willing accomplices here join forces with them on that adgenda??" Come on no one is even suggesting that except the "real" extremists on the left and right. Cheap shot

apoplectic
Want my honest feelings about terrorists and Iraq? I am astonished that Bush and co. never planted WMDs. I am amazed that they didn't plant a terrorist or two. Let's face it - most other presidents would have D or R. Does that mean they are honest, deluded or plain incompetent?

sloo
I know Murtha, He was your and my poster child until he got a conscience. When I dealt with him at the Pentagon I loved and hated him he could be a huge pain in the azz but I NEVER doubted for a second that he held the welfare of the troops sacred. For that I thank him and as for waiving the BS flag he deserves a medal of honor.

I am not MSM
But this was a drive by. I will return later. Be well.

Hal
"I am astonished that Bush and co. never planted WMDs".

Probably left them in their other pants. "Now where did I leave that yellowcake?" Considering the consensus of every intelligence agency in the world was that he had them and the fact that we did find WMD, just none produced after the ceasefire agreement, it's hardly astonishing that they didn't feel the need to plant them. Not to mention that the coverup up such a thing would be such an enormous risk (as I understand it, chemicals can somehow be traced back to the lab where they were produced).

The real deal is this...
I am growing very weary of the constant refrain from the Moonbat Left that goes...
"Bush Lied..."
AND
"There were no WMDs"
"Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until..."

I think it is time to remind the Looney Libs of a few things their heroes are on record as saying.

Oct. 9, 2002
Dem. Senator Christopher Dodd on the Senate floor said this;
"There is no question Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons. That's not in doubt. And that he seeks to acquire additional Weapons of Mass Destruction including Nuclear Weapons. That is not a debate."
BTW Dodd is now a candidate for president (VP really).

Oct. 10, 2002
Dem. Sen. John D. Rockefeller - the ranking Dem on the Senate Intelligence Committee has this to say on the floor of the Senate;
"There is unmistakeable evidence that Sadam Hussein is working aggressively to develope Nuclear Weapons."

Oct. 10, 2002
The Dem. Jr. Sen.from NY - Mrs Bill Clinton, the country's first 'self-proclaimed' "Co-president" and who is also thought by some moonbats to be "the smartest woman in the world" stood on the floor of the Senate to report this;
"If left unchecked, Sadam Hussein will CONTINUE to INCREASE his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develope Nuclear Weapons."

(take note of the phrase "Continue to Increase"...she is saying he HAS WMD!!)
BUT she went on to say;
"He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Quaeda members."

Now, would all these Dems be saying this to help Bush make the point? Or were they, especially Rockefeller, privy to information that led to these statements? Maybe it was they were just going by what the Clinton Administration had already made a point of declaring when in...
Dec. 1998 the Clinton Administration made regime change in Iraq official US policy?
OR
When in 1999 the Clinton State Dept. issued a statement that read;
"Iraq continues to plan and sponsor international terrorism...it continues to provide safe have and support to various terror groups."

Gee, that sounds like the New York Jr Senators exact words, almost.
And BTW she is now a candidate for president too.

So cut it with the "Bush lied...", and the Blame America First BS. Your own heroes thought the very same things about Iraq as the President.

Magnificus
Well put. Until these leftist moonbats can square your quotes of record with their "Bush Lied!!!" idiocy, the thinking person can only conclude that the peaceniks are either malignant anti-Americans rooting for our comeupence as a nation, or sophomoric imbeciles, lacking in any recognized attributes of mature cognizance. I for one submit they are quilty of both.

I'm with you on that
SandMan.

SandMan/Magnificus
What was all that? I could care less right now how we got here I care how we get out. Then Bush will be held accountible

Furthermore...
I would like to go on record as saying that I was opposed to the Iraq War in the first place. Not that I didn't think the entire country didn't have it coming to them, but because of tactical and strategic considerations. I believed then and now that Iran was the REAL threat, and that any action in Iraq would bleed us politically of the will to deal with them properly. Unfortunately, current developments seem to bear these concerns out.

All that being said however, once we went in to Iraq, the only acceptable outcome for the U.S. was victory. Militarily, victory was and is a slam dunk. Regardless of what the MSM says, the U.S. is winning in conventional military terms. In political terms, you can make anything you want of current events, and the Dems and MSM choose to frame events in terms of defeat for their own partisan purposes.

History will one day identify the fifth columnists in our midst who worked to arrange our defeat. Unfortunately, for those who have died and will die, the damage will already have been done.

Hal Donahue
I think we are all aware of what you want and the price you are willing to inflict on this nation in order to get what you want. Do you have anything new to add?

Power and Strategy
Firstly, Magnificus, my hat is off to you; you make me proud.


Now that GWB has soundly diffused the congressional left's extortionist, bully tactics it would be quite interesting to see them come together under Bush's leadership to properly re-focus America's efforts, along with our allies, in full solidarity.


Sun Tzu – The Art of War
Laying Plans

18. All warfare is based on deception.

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.

22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
If his forces are united, separate them.

24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

25. These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand.

If our government had planned this in-fighting as a charade to give our enemy a false sense of confidence, I will stand up and applaud. Give them an Oscar! Oh, how I want to beleive in our government and that they (D's & R's) are acting in our best interest. This would be the best and only explanation for the lunacy of proposed capitulation. :)

SandMan
"I think we are all aware of what you want and the price you are willing to inflict on this nation in order to get what you want." really please do tell me?

Truth
WTFO??????

WTFO??????
please translate.

Hal Donahue - 5th Columnist
Rooting for the downfall of America. Is such a loser that he is willing to throw in with the enemies of his own nation just for the chance of being on the winning side of something.

Don't let his Pentagon blather obscure the fact that he is an embittered anti-American, who would put political considerations before the interests of his own nation.

I have worked in the Pentagon and his kind are all too sadly a common feature of life there. more than likely, a career civilian leftist - picking up his paycheck, all the while working against the interests of his own country.

You are a pestilence.

Truth
LOL that is ok if you don't know you don't need too. Have a great evening and be well.

SandMan
and you are soooo wrong LMAO. Bush and his misdirected war in Iraq while Al Q has free rein makes sense? But thank you for telling me a bit about you. Embittered? Souinds an awful lot like you

SandMan
By the way, I use my real name. Why don't you?

Hal Donahue - you fail to persuade
That's it? Well, ok then. I guess you can't be expected to keep up a coherent argument indefinitely, what with needing to write hate letters to families of fallen soldiers and all. Hey don't forget to malign patriotic Americans while you are at it.

SandMan
"...what with needing to write hate letters to families of fallen soldiers and all." You coward. You support those who bring our dead in undercover of night without honor and you dare accuse me of that? You sir are a coward and I hope about 12 years old.

Hal Donahue - final post
Hal, I am sure it is easier to use your real name when nobody knows or cares who you are.

On the other hand, names are superfluous. Either your facts and ideas have merit or they don't - hanging a name on them does not add credibility. Unfortunately, the hour is late and you have become a bore. Adieu...Loser.

SandMan
night COWARD

Hal...
Then if Hal is your REAL name, does that make Phil your stage name? Ya know, for talk show purposes and all. How's Marlo BTW?

Hal Donahue
Not knowing me, on what grounds do you call me a coward?

I have served, and I assume you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't have laid such a craven charge. I will remain online for your response.

VETO
WTFO? ...VETO -how do those letters look? -over


I wish
How I wish that were true, unfortunately I do not believe that an entire nation can work together on this without word getting out the Middle east. And it is not the only explanation there is for the lunacy of proposed capitulation. There is such thing as stupidity, although I pray to God that the liberals are only acting stupid to deceive the enemy into thinking that we are going to withdraw.

If so then the liberals will be very smart in my eyes, but again I doubt that this is what is really going on.

Also, keep in mind that Iraq is not the only contender in this 'catastrophe' Iran has its share in it, recruiting and training insurgents. This conflict is not just between the Shiites and the Sunnis. People seem to be forgetting this little bit of information.

Magnificus
Nah I don't even know the guy. Hell wish I was a relative. How much is he worth?

Do you know the coward sandman? He accused me of writing hate letters to families of fallen soldiers.

SandMan
You accused me of what? You know nothing about me and it is your ilk picketing military funerals. You sir earned my "craven charge"

Ok Hal
Done? Maybe I'll see you next time I'm in Pennsylvania.

SandMan
anytime sandman. To make it easier for you I will be a patient at Walter Reed on the 11th of May and heavily sedated. Is that closer?

SandMan
I think ward 52 but whatever surgery is. I should be there several days at least

Night Folks
Be well!

I know the hospital Hal
But it won't wash when you toss off unfounded charges and then play the victim when you are called on it. I know you and you have no standing with me.

Locke
People seem to be forgetting ALOT OF little bitS of information. Especially the Libs.

Anything that happened between 1992 and 2000 that might have contributed in any way to the mess we're in today.

Seems like quite a few of them have forgotten 9/11 too...except for the ones who swear our own government carried out the entire attack. The Rosie O'Donnell talk show wing of the Dim Party you know.

Doesn't appear any of them have ever read a history book either or they've forgotten everything they ever learned about the Crusades, WWI, WWII, the Jimmy Carter hostage crisis...etc. Anything to do with the middle east in fact.

Some of these Libs should really donate some time to studying some of the different aspects of the region throughout time before just laying the blame for the problems of the entire ME at our (their own!!) doorstep.

I would suggest starting with the history of Messopotamia, or even the Persians but something tells me if it ain't in movie form with cLOONEY or some other Hollywierd type starring they won't bother.

BTW - about cLOONEY and his personal crusade to save Darfur...did anyone happen to see the report of one of the BIG, MOST RADICAL Imams giving his "Death To America" in a mosque in SUDAN!

And neither the Left, nor the MSM is telling us Darfur has anything to do with Al Queda...in fact the closest I heard was the other day when CBS had to use the term "ethnic Arabs" when trying to explain the "etnic cleansing of the Christians"... WOW...and all this time they've been leading everyone to believe it's just about going over there and giving out food in what they call a "humanitarian crisis"...

Joe Biden calling for "putting the military option on the table...and using it (in Darfur)" puts a whole different spin on RE-DEPLOYMENT.
What gets me is...why do we have to travel to Darfur to fight the same people we're fighting now in Iraq??? Either one can be called a humantarian crisis right now. Though if we leave Iraq that would have to be changed to "human-bloodbath"...


Unified? Or Died?
Takes a while to read thru the commentaries. Did a bit of research on Yemeni Judge Hamoud al-Hitar and found that he and his guys have had 'some' success but that a number of his 'converts' ended up shooting at our troops after their indoctrination and release. However let's not digress. The two party system in America has factionailized us to the point that we can only ‘agree to disagree’. I’m more conservative by nature, don’t care for the new American ‘chicken in every pot’ New Deal, socialize the few things that still work and call it all progress – BUT, the vehement responses here, the gigantic separation of perception and values will not be bridged until America suffers, and suffers and suffers even more. Most Americans came ‘together’ (albeit for a brief time) after 9/11. Within months however the unity gave way to ‘opinions’ (and from certain so called scholars, downright fabrications) and the warm and fuzzy, “Give ‘em Hell George” gave way to “Let’s arrest OBL and bring him to justice” type thinking. The last 25 years have seen violent attacks around the world. They are on the increase and not because we’re in Iraq but because the terrorists sense they are ‘winning the war of wills’ and are upping the ante. So the litmus test will be this: within the next five years, no matter who is President, no matter what we do militarily ‘now’ (versus what we perhaps should have been doing – put away the kid gloves), America will be struck and struck again. Our economy will falter, we will suffer either a long and virulent recession or another Great Depression and Citizens will die in greater numbers. In some cities or perhaps across the nation Martial Law will be declared to prevent those who would take advantage of overtaxed ‘services’ and we might even see our borders become almost impenetrable. I don’t want this to happen but we are a ‘weak horse’ and appear very vulnerable to our enemies who have but one goal, to Kill Us and Our Way of Life. Even if “our way of life” is so fractured and diffuse it is still the Great Satan to them and their ideology. Discussion is nice but didn’t stop Rome from Burning or Nero from Fiddling.

Dillweed
I am not incorrect.

Harry Reid, standing in fron of a banner reading Support Our Troops states "This war is lost". Hence a timetable to leave. There was no hue and cry from the Democratic Party, "Harry you're wrong!", only the silence of agreement.




TACTICS, IRAQ
IT IS A NOTED TACTIC TO GIVE CAUSE TO A CIVIL WAR, THE BALANCE OF ATTACK BY YOUR OPPONENT IS IN CONSTANT TURMOIL, THE EYES FOR INTELLIGENCE ARE NOT IN THE DEFENDERS FAVOR BUT THE ATTACKER CAN MOVE SOMEWHAT FREELY AND MAINTAIN PRESSURE TO ASSURE THE IMBALANCE.

YOU HAVE TO BECOME THE ONE ON OFFENSIVE AND YOU HAVE TO GIVE CAUSE FOR CIVIL SUPPORT AND CREATE AN AUROA OF SAFETY AND STRENGTH. IT MUST BE AGRESSIVE AND FAST, COLLATERAL DAMAGE NEEDS TO BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM AND CIVILIAN CONFRONTATION DELT WITH IN A FAIR BUT FIRM MANNER.

BEING ON THE DEFENSIVE CREATES A GHETTO LIKE GROUP OF POINTS THAT NEED BE DEFENDED AND COMMUNICATION TO MAINTAIN IS NOW VERY VITAL. IT IS MORE PROSPEROUS OVERALL TO SWEEP AND PUSH THE AGRESSOR FROM SEVERAL AREAS AT ONCE TO CUT THEIR COMMUNICATION AND BUST THEIR ABILITY TO INTIMIDATE AND OCCUPY. WINNING TAKES A LOT OF EFFORT AND WE ARE PROBABLY THE BEST TO DO SUCH A JOB.

Mr Buck
You arrogant Communists sure like to call Conservatives names.

Your simple minded idea to just wish this war away is not likely to help much.

In case you are really as uninformed as you pretend to be;
We have been forced into a war that has already been waging for over 800 years. During that time I am sure there have been many people who have wished this war would stop.
I doubt if you can find a single American who wants this war to continue.

Ossama bin Laden said Americans do not have the stomach for a long war.
Communist Woosies like you are trying to prove him right.

Mr.Buck
You say I am crazy and there is no war?
Don't cough in that position or your spincter will twitch and pinch your head off.

You say I want to make this a Holy War. THAT IS A LIE!
al-Qaeda does though.
You insinuate we are stealing Arab oil. THAT IS A LIE!
We pay far too much for it.
You Blame America for dividing Arab lands. THAT IS A LIE!
America did not have a hand in that.
You blame America for creating the State of Israel. THAT IS A LIE!
England did that.
You call me an idiot and here I am proving it by responding to your LIES!

You Communist girlymen don't have to stay in America if it offends you that much. I am sure France would welcome anyone who hates America as much as you do.
THE LIES?
I expect that from Communist slime.

Mr Buck
I am a WW2 Navy Vet and a Vet of the China Campaign.
I am a Veteran of The Siege of Shanghi.
There are probably few men left alive who have seen as much war close up and personal as I have.
What war did you fight in?

Still trolling for an answer to...
For all of the "let's get out now" folks:

Assume we pull out of Iraq, regardless of the situation on the ground, at some date certain in the very near future (before the end of the year.)

What do you honestly believe will happen next? What do you think will happen in Iraq, what do you think will happen in the surrounding countries, and what do you think will happen in the United States?

Try to imagine things at least 2 years out.

Then please tell me what you have read or learned in history that supports your opinion.

Magnificus,

I think you are absolutely right. I don't think most of these folks have ever read a history book. There are parallels to be drawn to Somalia, Vietnam, World War II, the Palestine Mandate, the Barbary Pirates, Rome and the Visigoths, etc., etc. ad nauseam. I don't see any indication of awareness of this.

To those living in 'the state of denial"
5 recommendations, and not one of them involved giving AL Qaeda the guerilla war it wants,and fighting that war on just the terms it prefers.

There is no way to overcome the REALITY that the U.S. is an army of occupation in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. As such, it can have no credibility with the population of those countries, or with Islam in general, when it "attacks the message", or the messengers.

Continuing the present strategy (or absence of one) will only allow the ideological conflict to spread, and ignite into violence elsewhere. If you think Iraq is tough, how about fighting in Pakistan, or even worse, Indonesia? If the U.S. can't afford (borrowing is NOT paying, consumers!) the fight in Iraq, how will it pay for those battles as well?

Work smarter, not harder. George Bush thinks we should be impressed by "hard work", on the contrary I am not impressed at all by an idiot trying to build a tunnel by slamming his balls repeatedly against the side of a mountain. It is "hard work" alright, but it is not going to accomplish anything.

He is "working hard" in Afghanistan, and getting a record poppy crop and a resurgent Taliban.

He is "working hard" in New Orleans, and getting a rising crime rate and no improvement in the levee system.

He is "working hard" in Iraq and getting rising body counts and and a population fleeing for the exits - 50,000 a month leaving the country, and 4 years later the infrastructure is still not as good as it was in 2001.

He is "working hard" on immigration "reform' and so far his only supporters on that are Democrats who would rather impeach him.

He is "working hard" on the economy, and all he has to show for it is a disappearing manufacturing base and the incredible shrinking dollar. Just inflation adjust the Dow against gold, silver, corn, nickel, the euro, oil - just about any REAL thing - and you will see it has spent the last 6 years CRASHING, not rising at all.

It is time to stop working hard, and start thinking hard.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.