I’m sure it’s not the way they hoped the news would be reported, but US and Iraqi forces captured one of the leaders of the insurgency who has been using Iranian armor-piercing EFP (explosively formed projectiles) to kill Americans. Looks like he’s a member of Iran’s Special Forces (or at the very least working with them).
On that same day, Iranian diplomats confirmed that their President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is personally coming to Baghdad. That’ll be quite the scene given the bad blood leftover from the Iran/Iraq war and the 1-2million people who died in it. One way or the other, by force or by diplomacy, Iran will have to stop killing Americans and Iraqis inside Iraq.
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
“One way or the other, by force or by diplomacy, Iran will have to stop killing Americans and Iraqis inside Iraq.”
No one in the West has the will or the fortitude to stop it, so unfortunately, it will continue.
Perhaps there is stil time to ‘dis-invite’ hitler, jr. He seems to be racking up the dis-invites like no world ‘leader’ has before.
bronze, a big part of me agrees there, but at least some very special people are willing to do so, and are doing so…in Iraq (as the first link in the OP shows).
While there is still SOME bad blood between Iran and Iraq, both now look at that war as being primarily having a prime mover of Saddam, although at that time Saddam was ourally and bff (best friend forever). On the Iraqi side most of the casualties were Shia conscripts, cannon fodder that Saddam was happy to be rid of
Very true John, but let’s not ignore that he’s going to Sunni Baghdad, and it’s gonna be interesting to see him at the monument to the unknowns.
What’s the big surprise? Iran has been the biggest winner our of the occupation of Iraq, with a Shia ledership in Baghdat that is closely aligned with the Iranian government. And Iraq now has a constitution that declares Islamic law paramount, just like Iran’s.
Why shouldn’t the Iranian government send its president ot Baghdad to celebrate this victory and alliance?
“Why shouldn’t the Iranian government send its president ot Baghdad to celebrate this victory and alliance?” They have already sent him to the United States to thank the American leftists for their overwhelming support and the same knowledge that the American leftists sent to Hanoi: that America can never win as long as the American left supports our enemies.
BAM! Pagar hits it out of the park!
“that America can never win as long as the American left supports our enemies.”
What do “American Leftists” have to do with an Iraqi constitution that enshrines Islam law as supreme? Especially since American Conservatives were the ones who celebrated this same Constitution,when it was adopted, as clear evidence we were “turning the corner in Iraq”?
What do American Leftists have to do with an Iraqi central government, composed mostly of Shia Muslims, many of whom spent the past decades in Iran and ally themselves with their co-religionists in the Iranian government?
Or are we seeing the standard Conservative alibi for everything in play, again?
What does an Iranian madman (who has sworn to destroy Israel and the US) have to do with the the leftists the US? Why did they feel compelled to invite him here to gloat over how he plans to destroy us?
Why do American leftists feel that Iraqis would decide to completely abandon a religion that has always been part of their lives, based on the demonstated support of the American leftists for any one willing to destroy them and their country and us and our country.
Why are American leftists who are still all aglow from having had the leader of Iran, the leftist most involved in plans to destroy America, here: now trying to convince us that the Iranian that they glorified here in the US, should not have allowed Iraqis who’s lives were endanger in Iraq because of Saddam to live i n his country? The American leftist position on this makes no sense. They claim to be opposed to the Iranian madman they have supported thru out his effort to defeat America.
I see that my reply to pagar’s post was deleted. Even though I was not personallya busive. I just asked, again, how he managed to hold “American Leftists” accountable for the alliance and close bonds between the Shia government of Iraq and the Shia govenrment of Ian.
Because of the “American Leftists” repeated efforts to insure that every possible ally of the US is made aware that the “American Leftists” will pull the plug on any nation that dares look to the US for support. No national leader could have missed the stories from the “American Leftists” betrayal of South Vietnam; millions killed by the North Vietnamese after their capture of Saigon.
No national leader could have have missed the implications of the ranking Democrat Senator on the Senate Intelligence Committee flying to Syria as soon as he got the intelligence briefings he needed : Link
“ROCKEFELLER: No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.”
Every nation that is not strong enough to defend them selves has to plan how to survive when the “American Leftists” pull the plug on them.
Your reply does not make any sense.
The Iranian government is the big winner in Iraq because the current government is composed mostly of Shia who spent their exile years in iran (except for theones who spent those years in London and Washington, lobbying the Neoconervatives of the American Enterprise institute).
Now that the Bush Administration has removed the Sunni government of Iraq, the two Shia governments are free to stay allied.
Please explain again exactly how that is all the “American leftist’s” fault when the Shia President of Iran goes to his good friend, the Shia President of Iraq to plan their future together.
“The Iranian government is the big winner in Iraq because” I can repeat i a 100 times in a 100 different ways but it always boils down to the same message. The “American leftists” have shown themselves able to destroy nations such as Vietnam who had no other protectors. Therefore, nations that should be firmly allied with the US are forced to hedge their bets by also trying to avoid being destroyed when the “American leftists” force the US to abandon them.
I do share the frustration of positions that don’t make sense, IMO, no leftist position on anything makes sense.
Steve’s absolutely right that the United States should not invade Iraq, and I will not vote for President Bush this fall if he orders an invasion.
[/partisan blinders off]
That’s odd Steve. When I was in Iraq in 2007, I worked with a lot of Sunnis in the Iraqi Government and Ministry of Defense.
But then if you rely on the media and Democrats for your world view, I can see how you might think otherwise. I’ll give you a free lefitst pass for that.
Re: ““The Iranian government is the big winner in Iraq because” I can repeat i a 100 times in a 100 different ways but it always boils down to the same message. The “American leftists” have shown themselves able to destroy nations such as Vietnam who had no other protectors. Therefore, nations that should be firmly allied with the US are forced to hedge their bets by also trying to avoid being destroyed when the “American leftists” force the US to abandon them.”
In case you hadn’t noticed, Iraq has more than 100,000 American soldiers, and almost as many mercenaries in there protecting it. and John McCain promising they will be ther for 100 years.
Additionally President Bush has promised to sign agreements that lock America in for at least a decade, constructing $1 billion bases.
So, why is the Shia leader of Iraq, who President Bush backs 100% signing agreements then with the Shia president of Iran?
Some how, your saying that this is all “American leftists” fault does not make sense. And, were it not for the Conservative policy of 100% loyalty to all other Conservatives, no matter what, other posters here would point out how little sense your conclusion is.
And the number of supposed mercs comes from WHAT source???
The “John McCain promising they will be ther for 100 years” has been disproven how many times?
And somehow it is bad that the US signs defense treaties with former enemies???? Or should they remain enemies?
“So, why is the Shia leader of Iraq, who President Bush backs 100% signing agreements then with the Shia president of Iran?”
IMO, it appears that someone on the left is upset, because the leader of Iraq might have done something that makes Pres Bush look bad. I would think that would actually make the left happy. Am I missing something?
Steve, the US forces in Iraq are there as part of a UN-mandated international force, and opposing them is specifically prohibited by UN resolution and the UN charter.
Re: “And somehow it is bad that the US signs defense treaties with former enemies???? Or should they remain enemies?”
I don’t believe that is bad. I did not comment personally one way or the other regarding that event.
However I was commenting on the fact that the Shia government of Iraq was signing friendship agreements with the Shia government of Iran: The one Conservatives right here post continual comments about being a threat to the United States. This is the [Iraqi] government that the Bush Administration unconidtionally backs, with no conditions and no pressure to actually govern the country.
But pagar declares that this government’s signing hosting a state reception for the president of Iran, and singing a friednship agreement with him is all the fault of “American leftists”.
And every single Conservative here apparently agrees with that assesment.
And I assert that such a belief has no basis in fact and is nothing more than further evidence of irrational hatred and and irrational beliefs of American Conservatives.
Considering what Pager, my parents, and others like them went through in dealing with the American Left, I can fully understand why he is a tad miffed. Considering that the Islamofascists (or as Micheal Moore calls them “minutemen”) and the American Left have the same talking points and that after the same islamofascists reacted with jubilation and several renewed rocket/mortar attacks after the Democrat’s “non-binding” vote in the House almost 1 yr ago (after which I spent 4 months in Physical therapy for a busted shoulder thank you for nothing Mrs Pelosie and Mr. Murtha) I can also relate.
After seeing the “anti-war” left protest with multitudes of signs which declare they “support our troops when they shoot their officers” and signs/screamfests in support of the terrorists and “our mutineers”, I CAN assert that such a belief HAS a basis in fact and is a product of irrational hatred and irrational beliefs of American leftists.
And Iraq has conditions they must meet. But since the President and Congressional leaders (of both parties) are wisely not going to reveal classified information on the “eaches” of the points as it gives Iran and AQ clues as to what they must do to thwart our efforts, I will not either.
Rant on Steve. It’s moot. It does nothing. Bush will be gone, and no matter who is elected…the war will end dependent upon conditions on the ground NOT the drummed up rantings of those gullible enough to have their fears and/or sense of political alienation played upon by propagandists like the Maple Syrup King of Vermont, the Reverend Hillary Clinton, or a political Messiah from Illinois.
Thousands of American troops have been under fire, from enemies of America, who have been lead by such American leftists as Jane Fonda, Walter Cronkite, Ramsey Clark, John Kerry and their American leftists supporters. There is no way of determining how many names of the Americans I served with in Vietnam, or the Americans who have died in such God forsaken places as the Marine Barracks in Beirut, The Cole battleship attacks, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and other places have been carved in stone, because American leftists support for our enemies. American leftists supporting our enemies is real personal with me. Every single military member on either side knows that the cheapest way to avoid deaths on your side, is to get any/every member of your enemy off the battle field as soon as possible. That is what the left is trying to do, and it’s not just our leftists, it’s the ones from England, Netherlands, France, Germany, Australia, Canada
and other countries.
Turning to domestic policies, We have a million or more inconvenient, innocent children killed every year for the past 35 years because of the American left.
We have seen a 5 year old child, Mother dead from the struggle to get him to America to escape slavery, pulled from his bed at the point of a weapon, to be handed back to an evil Castro, by the American Left.
We have seen a totally helpless woman, charged with no crime, pulled from her loving parents arms, put under armed guard to prevent food or water from being given to her; take 13 days to die-her death celebrated as some great victory by the American left.
I can go on and on with leftist policies which IMO, cause needless death and suffering for all of us, but it would simply rehash things already known. I believe that what I have shown provides ample reason to state my beliefs, and justifies them.
Re: “Considering what Pager, my parents, and others like them went through in dealing with the American Left, I can fully understand why he is a tad miffed.”
I was not commenting on his attitude. Just the irratinoality of his reasoning. Having heard “let it go” from Conservatives so often regarding their past misdeeds, I am surprised that you, a loyal Conservative, use generation-old grudges as justification for the fanatical hatred that pagar has displayed (a hatred that Conservatives here incessently attribute to me).
Re: “the American Left have the same talking points and that after the same islamofascists reacted with jubilation and several renewed rocket/mortar attacks after the Democrat’s “non-binding” vote in the House almost 1 yr ago (after which I spent 4 months in Physical therapy for a busted shoulder thank you for nothing Mrs Pelosie and Mr. Murtha) ”
If you are attributing the mortar attack as the direct responsiblity of Speaker Pelosi for her words and actions, can I blame the entire Iraqi civil war on President Bush’s daring Iraqi insurgents to kill Americans with his “Bring it on!” boast in 2003? (Your answer will, of course, be “no”, since that would be holding a Conservative to the same standards you impose on others).
Re: “After seeing the “anti-war” left protest with multitudes of signs which declare they “support our troops when they shoot their officers” and signs/screamfests in support of the terrorists and “our mutineers”, I CAN assert that such a belief HAS a basis in fact and is a product of irrational hatred and irrational beliefs of American leftists.”
If you are holding us all accountable for these few demonstrations, can I hold you responsible when your thought-leader Ann Coulter calls for the assasination of Democratic politicians? (Your answer will be, “of course not” because then YOU would be held up to the same standards you are imposing on me.
Re: “And Iraq has conditions they must meet.”
They are conditions with no deadlines, as President Bush and Conservatives everywhere have amply demonstrated. Which means they are no conditions at all.
Re: “Turning to domestic policies, We have a million or more inconvenient, innocent children killed every year for the past 35 years because of the American left. ”
That is completely off topic. Had I made such a post, I would be threatened with having my posts deleted. Of course pagar, being a loyal Conservative, will have no such standard applied.
Re: “We have seen a 5 year old child, Mother dead from the struggle to get him to America to escape slavery, pulled from his bed at the point of a weapon, to be handed back to an evil Castro, by the American Left.”
Another off topic. Will pagar be held accountable? Of course not.
Re: “We have seen a totally helpless woman, charged with no crime, pulled from her loving parents arms, put under armed guard to prevent food or water from being given to her; take 13 days to die-her death celebrated as some great victory by the American left.”
Third off-topic. Any consequence? Nope! Free passes all around!
The fact that Conservatives will not hold one of their own to sthe standards they apply to others is Standard Operating Procedures that Conseervatives apply to their own every single time, without exception. As amply demonstrated right here and now.
Um, Steve is complaining about a lack of accountability, free passes, and topic shift? Yeah, pot meet kettle
Steve,
Where to start with your post…….
On the ONE point you feel so threatened and full of “help help, I’m being repressed” on: Pager, Steve gets terribly upset (even almost to the point of miffed) when you bring up the multi-billion dollar a year Abortion Industry/lobby and it was not part of the topic so please be nicer to Steve’s persecution complex.
BTW Steve, you may have missed that I have responded to other commenters about over the top remarks from conservatives. But you seem to miss those in your cries of “persecution” in between your bouts of projectionism and spoon fed propaganda.
Now to be fair, which is not a requirement in reality last time I checked, Steve, You are also off topic AGAIN with your repeated cries of persecution and ‘woes to Steve’.
As for the rest of your post.
First, Pager is not fanatical. I could more easily attribute fanaticism to you and your daily “conservatives this that and the next” tired and predictable screeds. Second, This is a generation-old “grudge” because it continues on from the same people (Clark, Fonda, Kerry, etc) on the left today. Now they act even more in the open and receive more media adoration. Nothing has changed except that the funding for these “anti-war” groups no longer comes from the USSR, but from Move-on and Soros. Third, where have your heard “let it go” from anyone here? I have never heard it. All I see and hear is conservatives being blamed for everything under the sun. Hillary Clinton lets info out on Obama and conservatives are blamed for it. Newt Gingrich’s cell is illegally recorded and “wither on the vine” is twisted to not mean the reformation of a corrupt tax system, but conservatives wanting old people to starve. The only “let it go” I see here is you stating to the effect “let it go” for leftist “anti-war” protester’s words/actions/influence and deeds of leftist leaders in their recent past.
So on this I call “Steve projectionism” again.
Absolutely my answer will be NO on this. First, since you have thrown out some outrageous numbers I asked for proof on and a debunked McCain quote above, please source the quote and the entire speech. Second, most of the “insurgents” were not Iraqi, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. Those that were Iraqi were either Saddam’s thugs or Iranian backed Shia. The terrorists do not quote our President, the DO quote our congressmen and women in their jubilations. Go to MEMRI and see for yourself. I also attribute much of the insurgencies early, though ultimately futile ‘successes’ to the US State Dept’s actions and policies along with the repeated backstabbing from the left.
This is followed by more of your self-pity which makes me want to say “yes, I do give a ‘conservative pass’ to everyone else just to piss you off”. You make “points” in the fashion of “so how long ago did you stop beating your wife” and wonder why people get exasperated with your inanity!
“FEW demonstrations”??!!?? You do not get out much do you? They may be the same groups paying people to protest, but they go on and on. Considering Howard Dean showed up at a few Move-on/ANSWER protests, along with other Democratic leaders and groups showing up in them, what exactly are the rest of us supposed to think about the power and influence these “few” have over the rest of the left? Websites like zombietime.com have multiple photo and video records of what these protesters are stating and who is supporting them.
Also, I was not aware I had a “thought-leader” nor was I aware Ann Coulter was it. Thank you. I will report back to my nearest university for ‘re-education’ in proper leftist “thought”. I have heard a few snippets of her quotes, but I also heard her rebuttals to the soundbytes. Considering your falling for the “100 years war” BS and highly dubious “mercenary” numbers in Iraq, I have to wonder who your “thought-leaders” are and how brainwashed you have become. Now I will have to go read everything Ann Coulter said for the past few years as I do not read her columns. If she said it, then she was wrong. I prefer to let the left scream about “making conservatives pay” and other open threats they make. I believe I even stated that in a rebuttal to a passing right-wing poster here a couple of times.
Al-Zawahiri: Democrats have failed to bring any substantial change to America’s Iraq policy [AP]
Al-Qaeda’s deputy leader has described the US plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq as a gamble that is bound to fail. In an audio tape posted on the internet on Tuesday, Ayman al-Zawahiri also criticised the Democratic Party for not changing US policies. “[Bush’s] addiction to gambling … motivates him to continue to place losing bets until he goes completely bankrupt,” he said. “Were the Americans to leave [Bush] alone, he would continue to send their forces to Iraq until the Mujahideen kill the last one of their soldiers.”
Terrorists LOVE Democrats, support them, encourage them, and cannot succeed without the far left’s rhetoric. People like Steve give them their excuses to kill-pure and simple
Re: “On the ONE point you feel so threatened and full of “help help, I’m being repressed” on: Pager, Steve gets terribly upset (even almost to the point of miffed) when you bring up the multi-billion dollar a year Abortion Industry/lobby and it was not part of the topic so please be nicer to Steve’s persecution complex.”
That is a flat out lie. I made no such complaint about the position pagar took. Only that it was off-topic, something verboten to non-Conservatives on this site.
Re: “Al-Zawahiri: Democrats have failed to bring any substantial change to America’s Iraq policy [AP]”
Flat out wrong. Had Democrats not taken control of Congress in 2006 we would still have Donald Rumsfeld running the Iraqi occupation into the ground, and thousands more would be dying and we would be hearing, still, that “we are turning the corner in Iraq”.
Now we are “only” at the level of violence of 2005 (and nowhere near the levels when President Bush dared insurgents to kill American, a challenge to which they responded quite well).
Re:”Second, most of the “insurgents” were not Iraqi, as has been demonstrated repeatedly.”
Flat out lie.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0927/p01s03-woiq.html
from the September 27, 2005 edition
Iraq’s foreign fighters: few but deadly
A new report says foreigners make up 4 to 10 percent of Iraq’s 30,000 insurgents.
By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
CAIRO – Much of the US effort in Iraq in recent months has been aimed at stopping the inflow of foreign jihadis. US warplanes have blown up bridges to deny insurgent infiltration routes, troops have occupied small towns thought to be crossing points for foreigners into bigger cities, and spy drones continuously buzz the Syrian border.
Even if the US can seal Iraq’s borders, stopping the flow of foreign fighters would do little to eliminate most of the country’s insurgents. Only 4 to 10 percent of the country’s combatants are foreign fighters, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies released last week. But while they are a minority, says the report, they are a potent segment largely from Algeria and Syria.
Re: “I also attribute much of the insurgencies early, though ultimately futile ‘successes’ to the US State Dept’s actions and policies along with the repeated backstabbing from the left.”
How could that be when the occupation was managed by the DoD, under Donald Rumsfeld?
Re: “This is followed by more of your self-pity which makes me want to say “yes, I do give a ‘conservative pass’ to everyone else just to piss you off”. ”
I have never seen you, or any other Conservative here say one word of criticism of Ann Coulter, and her comments about killing those with whom she disagrees: Other than your post right now.
Re: “Zombietime”.
I had never heard of this site before you plugged it in your post. Since thise is where you get all your information about those with whom you disagree, I can predict that you will love Ann Coulter’s stuff.
Re: “Al-Qaeda’s deputy leader has described the US plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq as a gamble that is bound to fail. ”
Since al Qaeda is safe in Pakistan and Afghanistan, while the Bush Administratio is bleeding America in Iraq, I would say that this is a pretty accurate overall assesment. Exactly how is President Bush going to keep his promise to get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” in Iraq? Or are Conservatives required to pretend he never made that promise to America? Or that President Bush never said this only seven months after the September 11 attacks:
http://www.depresident.com/bushisms.asp
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
– George W. Bush, 3/13/2002
The state of the “search” for bin laden
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7185592/
LONDON – Pakistani and American officials said Tuesday the hunt for top al-Qaida and Taliban leaders would continue, but acknowledged the trail was cold.
In cae you want to pretend that President Bush never made the “Dead or Alive” promise:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/14/bush-binladen.htm
Re: “Absolutely my answer will be NO on this. First, since you have thrown out some outrageous numbers I asked for proof on and a debunked McCain quote above, please source the quote and the entire speech.”
http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2003%2FALLPOLITICS%2F07%2F02%2Fsprj.nitop.bush%2F
There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there [Iraq}. My answer is, bring ’em on.”
George W. Bush
July 3, 2003.
(That’s all I have time for now. But I predict another Conservative stream of venom, along with complete pretence that the information I posted does not exist.)
Half truths are not truths Steve. re: “That’s all I have time for now. But I predict another Conservative stream of venom, along with complete pretence that the information I posted does not exist.” You consistently argue moot points using half truths, half quotes, and distracted facts rather than hold your own political leanings accountable. My favorite in that long list of BS (and it is just bs) was the part about Al Queda only being a small portion of the insurgency. I like that one because the fact is that yeah, Al Queda was never very high in numbers, but the EFFECTS of the insurgency were largely from that small portion of insurgents who are Al Queda; a fact that is stated flat out in the article’s heading, but ignored so that you could pretend the insurgency was only about the number of people killing while ignoring the number of people killed…most of whom died from suicide attacks, and almost all suicide attacks coming from Al Queda.
Oh, I also LOVED the Bushisms quote and link. That was GREAT! Very pertinent-not. Another example of ignoring the whole truth of what was said. It’s like when you just so carefully slipped in that part earlier about how Al Queda is safe in Afghanistan-hardly. They’re hunted hard there.
Half truths ain’t truths Steve, and you will never see a truth if you close your mind to the big picture, the whole story; the whole truth. That truth remains that if America was united in conviction to fight Islamic Holy Warriors wherever, whenever, and however possible, then the political excuses and motivations they use would be rendered useless. They’d be reduced to regular ole killers instead of the faux religious zealots killing for political objectives.
‘course, I fall victim to my own condemnation here a bit by making a discussion about a fact that is moot for six months from now, you will vote for a President who will continue the war in Iraq indefinitely depending on conditions on the ground, and if it’s a Democrat who is elected-either Clinton or Obama-the left will (as you yourself have done) claim that their mere election brought success rather than anything they actually did. That’s actually rational since they’ve done nothing.
So obviously I did not make Steve happy by telling Pager to remain on topic…. I will have to find time to feel bad about that.
And if you want venom Steve, look in a mirror as you type.
From your own “political humor” link:
And yes we are plenty tough to deal with the threats even with all the lawfare out there against us. AQ made Iraq its choice of battle and lost and they even admitted it this year. I am very happy to have had my part in giving them that loss, as I have also helped give them loss after loss in Afghanistan less directly. I do believe our President was referring to Bin Laden’s assertions that the US would run after a few casualties as we did in Somalia. I suggest you research Bin Laden’s mid 1990s fatwa against America where he states such.
All Zombietime does is post pictures and videos of the “anti-war” groups. If this bothers you, join the list of leftists and Islamists who want to shut that site down.
As for the rest of Steve’s usual non-responses, Scott said it very well.
Sorry that my post to Pager was not enough for your feelings. What should we do oh all knowing lord and hater of “conservatives” since this is obviously your website?
Re: “Oh, I also LOVED the Bushisms quote and link. That was GREAT! Very pertinent-not. Another example of ignoring the whole truth of what was said.”
OK.
What DID George W. Bush mean when he promised to get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive”, and later said that getting bin Laden was “not a priority”?
Re: “It’s like when you just so carefully slipped in that part earlier about how Al Queda is safe in Afghanistan-hardly. They’re hunted hard there.”
Not to any great success, I see.
While George W. Bush took his eye off the ball, this is what happened:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-11-us-terror-threat_N.htm?csp=34
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that al-Qaeda has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001.
A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the document — titled “al-Qaeda better positioned to strike the West” — called it a stark appraisal. The analysis will be part of a broader meeting at the White House on Thursday about an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.
Of course, no Conservative will ever be permitted to hold President Bush accountable for this result, will they?
Regarding John McCain’s “100 years” quote. How do you square that with the declaration by The Bush Administration, to which John McCain has pledged total loyalty on Iraq, that we are not building permanent bases in Iraq?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6077932230652381401&q=mccain+100+years+war&total=64&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/25/content_7491073.htm
Re: ” I like that one because the fact is that yeah, Al Queda was never very high in numbers, but the EFFECTS of the insurgency were largely from that small portion of insurgents who are Al Queda;”
Can YOU document that from any source other than a White House opinion piece? You are apparently trying to make the point that the insurgency would not have happened at all, were it not for al Qaeda. Is that your assertion? That, for example, had the Bush Administratin not permitted al Qaeda to get away in Afghanistan that the occupation wold have been concluede in the “six months or less” that Donald Rumsfeld predicted?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm
What could have happened to bin Laden and Al Qaeda
The situation inDecember 2002
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/12/10/ret.afghan.attacks/
What did happen
The situation four months later
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16?language=printer
There would have been no al Qaeda to “start trouble” (as Conservatives insist there would have been no civil war in Iraq weree it not for al Qaeda) had President Bush completed his primise (“dead or alive”). So, instead we got “don’t care”.
And not one single Conservative will hold Geroge W. Bush even mildly accountable for this result. Not one.
Steve,
I wish I could drag you into the briefings which refute you, but all I can say is your links are dated and maybe something after the Pakistanis began their offensive in those high mountains might clear you up.
And just to piss you off, I will not hold our President accountable for capturing a man given to us on a silver platter 10 years ago. He is not an all knowing military genius like you and the left wing.
I am with Scott. I am not going to vote Bush for President this year. You convinced me Steve.
Your sneering sarcasm becomes you well.
And, of course, were we all as smart and knowing as you, we would all worship at your feet and support the Republican Party, 100% of the time, like all good Conservatives.
Of course everything is going perfectly. Just as you, “in the know” folks tell those of us who are not as worthy as you are. Just as we were told for years (and are still being told), “We are turning the corner in Iraq”.
Re: “I am with Scott. I am not going to vote Bush for President this year. You convinced me Steve.”
But you will vote loyally Republican, just as you did when George W. Bush WAS on the ticket.
Becaused you are worthy of the “secret briefings” that, were we of a character you deemed worthy, we could see and immediatly marvel at the wonderful leadership we have had in the occupation of Iraq all these years.
Re: “And just to piss you off, I will not hold our President accountable for capturing a man given to us on a silver platter 10 years ago. ”
That’s a lie that the NewsMax and FoxNews teams have bee promulgating for years, in order to relieve George W. Bush of any accountability whatsoever, as always.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/
REad this book and you will know that the Bush Administration was negotiating with the Taliban, over oil of course, right up until the attacks.
But then, you are privy to all those secret briefing that, were someone as modest as myself to see, would completely make me agree with VP Dick Cheney that Donald Rumsfeld was “the greatest Secretary ofDefense in History”. So you must be aware of the Bush Administrations free pass to the very same Taliban that was harboring Osama binladen during these negotiations. But, of course, you do not place even the slightest responsiblity on George w. Bush for this, do yo?
You must be joking. “Forbidden Truth?”….sigh, poor poor Steve. So lost in your quest to do the bidding of your masters you have lost all ability of any cognitive reasoning.
That book was written by two French men who had to apologize in the Economist, The Times of London, and The Financial Times, for its many lies and mistakes.
Corn notes the many lies and shoddy work of the book you hold so dear:
The authors have lost every libel action filed against them and Mr. Brisard’s congressional testimony had to be retracted. Hell, the man even lied about working at the United Nations.
And this is the kind of stuff you buy into?
Why am I not surprised, it actually speaks volumes about your character.
As for Clinton and bin-Laden….lets listen to Billy in his own words:
The 9/11 Commission told us that they couldn’t find any evidence to support the claim that Sudan offered up Osama, but Bill admitted there was an offer but felt legally constrained to do anything. The Commission even admitted they never watched the video of Clintons statements in 2002 but came to their conclusion anyway…..sure thing.
Curt: Perhaps we need to revisit our moonbat tolerance policy again. When I think of all the hours that have been wasted in the vain attempt to illuminate Philly Steve, I realize we all could have posted much more positive information reaching a wider audience than just this self absorbed mentally deranged sufferer of Bush Syndrome.
I had a similar experience recently in a community association issue I am involved in. After my spending hours responding with thoroughness and consideration to what were clearly a set of prepared talking points, he began insulting my veracity. After that, I just told him that I intended to defeat his position using very colorful language which I won’t repeat here.
If Philly Steve can’t learn to behave himself, perhaps we should give him a shove. He’s clearly a legend in his own mind and despite the fact that our first rate team here has him outclassed in every respect he will never be able to see that truth.
Yeah, but he does provide us with an example of the typical DummiesU aficionado. I also have to agree with Word that it brings out the best in a lot of you guys as you destroy him with facts, which he sidesteps and changes the subject. It’s actually quite amusing….
Steve,
Again, your arrogance is only outshown by your ignorance and beholding to your “thought leaders” spoon fed propaganda. Your tired and predictable “two minutes hate” on all things you think are conservative has really become quacking in the true sense of the word. Though I am happy that my not bowing to your ignorance and arrogance gets you so wound up as it penetrates your medication and bring out your true brainwashed self.
BTW, my absentee ballot was thrown out in 2000 and 2004 just like many of the military votes, so technically, I never voted. In 2006, I was able to actually vote in my district as I was not deployed that moment. Also, YES I will NEVER vote for your socialist masters and as the only viable alternative, if if they are “Democrat Lite” at times, the Republican Party will get my vote. They will not get it out of loyalty as your masters tell you, but out of disgust at what the socialist Democratic party is and seems destined to stay. So, in a sense, it is a protest vote against arrogant, ignorant people like you and your leftist totalitarian masters, not a vote for a center-right McCain.
Poor Steve. You can tell he’s getting nervous about the forthcoming 2008 election where he and other poser-liberals (people who pretend to be open-minded but are far from it) will finally have to cast votes that themselves will authorize the continuation of the UN-mandated war in Iraq. Accountability is his new paranoia word.
“What DID George W. Bush mean when he promised to get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive”, and later said that getting bin Laden was “not a priority”?” Really? He “PROMISED”? I remember him saying that he didn’t care how Bin Laden is brought to justice, even preferred him dead, but I don’t remember a “promise.” Could that be another exaggeration to perpetuate a false political dogma on Steve’s part?
re: the idea that President Bush “permitted” Al Queda to escape Afghanistan…I gotta say, you’re tenacious-albeit completely contrary to the idea of being open-minded or even truthful, and here’s why:
1) your position that Al Queda escaped Afghanistan is contrary to your position that Al Queda is in Afghanistan. That’s either an example of distorting historical fact to perpetuate your political naiveté or an accidental acknowledgment that the Afghan/Pakistan border (which varies in location depending on who’s map you use) is so porus that even the combined forces of the United States, Afghan, Pakistan, and all of NATO cannot seal the historically unsealable border (again, a border which really doesn’t exist).
2) the link you gave is from 2007-not mid November 2001 when Bin Laden left Afghanistan and entered Pakistan
3) Al Queda en masse did not escape Afghanistan in 2001 or 2002. Only a few hundred did, and by far most of the “Arab Afghans” in Afghanistan in 2001/2002 were killed.
4) there is a popular misconception that the US could have sent in thousands of troops and sealed the border (which, as I’ve already said doesn’t even exist consistently on maps today let alone in 2001). This misconception-typical of Steve’s consistent ignorance or political half-truth-distortion- is proved false not only by the above mentioned facts, but by a little thing called Operation Anaconda. Anaconda was an operation designed to specifically address the alleged failure to surround and trap Al Queda fighters in Afghanistan. It used thousands of American troops deployed directly into the “rat lines” by which Al Queda was moving in and out of Pakistan. Operation Anaconda killed hundreds-perhaps thousands more of the “Arab Afghans,” but it didn’t prevent some from escaping, and as we’ve seen, all that matters to those interested in distorting history to further their political agenda is for a few to survive and escape.
5) I love it when you cite books then ignore the real sources on the subject. Aside from the 4 bestsellers written by the CIA and special ops people who were actually in Afghanistan in 2001/02, let’s keep it simple and point to Philip Smucker’s, Al Queda’s Great Escape. Those 5 books completely prove my points that President Bush didn’t “permit” Al Queda to escape. More could have been done, but not much without invading Pakistan and since India/Pakistan were on the verge of nuclear war in 2001/02, and since Pakistan was on the verge of collapse in 2001 due to popular protest against the US presence in Afghanistan…this really isn’t a political option (let alone a much better military one as proven by Operation Anaconda).
btw, America held President Bush accountable in 2004, and decided that even though he wasn’t very popular (less than 50% approval rating), he was a better choice than the indecisive nimrod that the Democrats chose. That’s how the system of checks and balances works-by voting.
Accountability: the Democratic Party’s worst nightmare.
You were right about the book. I apologize for bringing it up. I only read a synopsis and displayed incredibly poor judgement in using it as an example, for which I was justly raked over the coals.
However I stand by my assertion that, given the situation at the time, Bill Clinton tried, but failed to capture a man who, neither he, nor any Conservative, knew to be the monsterous threat he was.
We do know that, after everyone knew what a monster Osama bin Laden was, that the Bush Administration allowed him, along with most of the al Qaeda leadership, to get away when they ere cornered in Afghansitan: A blunder that we are apying for, with lives and teasure, to this day. And that, while every single Conservative hates Bill Clinton for not “getting” bin Laden in th 1990’s, not one single Conservative wille ver hold George w. Bush even slightly accountable for letting bin laden get away in 2001. Not one. They wil l parse words, ally the Bush team “fine print” and let us know that nothing was actually “promised”… only “guidelines”.
If were were looking at a “President Gore” with bin Laden on the loose more than six years after the September 11 attacks, FoxNews would have a counter at the bottom of every broadcast declaring “Number of Days Osama has been free since 9/11” displayed in prominent type. You know that and so do I. But not one single Conservative will ever hold Geroge W. Bush similarly accountable. Or even accountable at all. Ever.
Its quite telling that you didn’t even read Scott’s comment that completely refuted your assertion the Bush “let” Osama to get away. Quite telling.
Sigh….So his declaration of war, the Cole, the Kenyan bombings, Khobar Towers, WTC I didn’t tell Clinton that he was a “monstrous threat?” His own words prove you wrong:
You don’t become “obsessed” with one man and use your countries resources to get that man unless you know the man is a “monstrous threat.”
Do you even know anything about the subject matter at hand or do just go around the web finding a few links…reading a synopsis on the material, and then use it?
Again, Steve contradicts himself re Tora Bora. First he says the US let Bin Laden get away, then he says Bin Laden was cornered (neither of which is historically accurate).
But I do love the absolute re-writing of history: “However I stand by my assertion that, given the situation at the time, Bill Clinton tried, but failed to capture a man who, neither he, nor any Conservative, knew to be the monsterous threat he was.”
Sorry Steve. Everyone KNEW. Bin Laden strongly and repeatedly tried to get people to acknowledge how dangerous he was, but Democrats ignored him. Conservatives and the media did not.
This is off topic but since I do not think Steve has seen the post and since he complains about alleged double standards and persecution, he needs to click on this link.
Someone posted as Steve and I noticed the email/IP/and writing style was different (a really different for the IP from Amsterdam). I noted such in the comment responses under it.
I wanted to say that so everyone knew it appears Steve did not make the statement attributed to him.
You say a lot of things I and others here consider asinine and a product of blind loyalty to the left Steve, but I do not think you said the idiotic things the IP from Amsterdam stated.
Re: “Sigh….So his declaration of war, the Cole, the Kenyan bombings, Khobar Towers, WTC I didn’t tell Clinton that he was a “monstrous threat?” His own words prove you wrong:”
And what, pray tell, was George W. Bush doing trhrough the Summer of 2001? Or does he get the automatic Conservative FREE PASS that all Republican Presidents get?
Re: “You say a lot of things I and others here consider asinine and a product of blind loyalty to the left Steve, but I do not think you said the idiotic things the IP from Amsterdam stated.”
You are correct. I did not even know this post existed (as I did not read that thread).
Thank you for sticking up for me (honest, no sarcasm).
And thank you Curt for tossing in a gratitous insult, even for a thread I have never even read, let alone posted.
Summer 2001? Let me remember…. We had uncomfirmed reports of something so we were planning on how to seal our bases from attack thinking they were the likely targets. At least that was what we in the Army were doing. This was done as an extension of what OCONUS bases did in the 1990s.
As for the Whitehouse, with the recounts, lawsuits and pettyness of congressional politics there were few appointments allowed, little in the way of transition teams, and a general stall of government. There was also the Gorrillic Wall which created blind spots between the CIA and FBI.
So while not getting a “free pass” as your two minutes hate compells you to add, our President was not able to do much in the summer of 01 with all the antics from the election and a hostile congress.
You are welcome.
What was done in the summer of 2001? “And what, pray tell, was George W. Bush doing trhrough the Summer of 2001? Or does he get the automatic Conservative FREE PASS that all Republican Presidents get?”
Lemme get this straight, on the one hand you’re alleging that no one knew what a monster Bin Laden was until 911, and on the other you’re suggesting that perhaps GWB was wrong to have incorrectly done nothing? Well, let’s straighten this out…
As I said, there was a HUGE amount of threat warning from 12/92-1/01 showing that Bin Laden and Al Queda were extremely dangerous. This is verified in multiple testimonies from the Clinton Admin era officials to bother the joint House/Senate 911 investigation and the 911 Commission. Quotes available upon request, but the fact that the Clinton Admin knew what kind of a monster UBL was during the 90’s is backed by huge amounts of fact, and claims to the contrary backed by nothing but the proven manipulative opinion of Steve. BUT…what was being done under President Bush’s watch? Lots actually. Those same bi-partisan investigations showed that the Bush Admin did in fact take the UBL/AQ threat more seriously in many ways than the Clinton Admin had from 12/00-5/01. Starting in June, the Bush Admin went on the highest terror alert the nation had ever been on to date. The FBI had almost 80 investigations going. The CIA increased the number of people looking at AQ by almost 100x. Other intel agencies and national security entities went on the lookout for a terror attack as well. The problem was the threat information was all over the place ranging from a nuclear attack, a dirty bomb attack, an attack using Iraqi WMD, hijackings, bombings, suicide bombings, assassinations, and so forth. …but, let’s be a little specific so that morons not interested in historical fact have to really look at a lot of facts and thus have more to ignore right in their face:
Now, that’s just a a few of the things that I’ve got in my database. There are a lot more (about 3-4x as much) when you figure in the diplomatic stuff, the foreign intel reporting, the specific threat alerts to various law enforcement agencies, details of the FBI and CIA investigations etc., but my guess is that someone not interested in history would have sped past all this stuff, so why bother pulling out more just to have it ignored in favor of a false history aimed at appeasing a need to blame “CONSERVATIVES” or President Bush for anything while doing anything and everything to excuse and ignore the 8 YEARS of failures on the part of President Clinton; Procrastination is not a policy?
Philly Steve wrote:
Chris reminds Philly Steve what he should already know:
You already know all this, Steve; you just don’t like listening:
Re: “As for the Whitehouse, with the recounts, lawsuits and pettyness of congressional politics there were few appointments allowed, little in the way of transition teams, and a general stall of government. There was also the Gorrillic Wall which created blind spots between the CIA and FBI.
So while not getting a “free pass” as your two minutes hate compells you to add, our President was not able to do much in the summer of 01 with all the antics from the election and a hostile congress.”
Of course.
As always it’s (almost) all someone else’s fault.