41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

not bad, not bad at all

So that is where “Independence Day” got that line from.

THANK YOU for posting this, and reminding us.

—–

As I said at the “Defending the American Dream” summit – We need him now!!

Best President since Theodore Roosevelt.
I never to war with Him as CIC because he made America strong enough that the Punk Nations of the World, including the USSR, were damned afraid of the consequences.

Looking back on 3 Wars, 4 ‘peace keeping’ missions, recall from retirement after 28 years in boots for another 32 months, Iraq and the Stans twice, I can say that I miss Reagan and have despised every Democrat or RINO that ever sent Me in Harms Way without the intent to Win One and go Home in Victory and not be subject to re-deployment because half assed diplomacy failed.

The current Pretender-Elect is poised to make the Carter Administration look good.
I am retired and “The One” cannot do anything but tax me or raise my blood pressure every time he plays spin the tail on the donkey with Foreign or Domestic Policy.

God Bless Ronald Reagan. God Forgive America for not finding a Leader that has His Principles and Values in these times.

Just my honest un-biased take on it.

Back in the 80s – the old cold war warriors – Reagan and Thatcher – were more effective at ensuring their countries didn’t get bogged down in wars than either Bush or Blair.

Gaffa: Are we bogged down in Iraq?

@GaffaUK: Let’s see….

sanctions were eroding (the countries who opposed going to war- France, Germany, Russia, China all circumventing the sanctions and selling weapons and equipment to Saddam), Saddam owed those countries billions, humanitarian groups blaming us for the sanctions, Oil-for-Food program implemented to alleviate the suffering yet Saddam’s coffers grow richer from the scam while his people continue to suffer- and we’re still blamed for the suffering due to sanctions; sanctions that “humanitarians” say was working (and only saying it as an argument to justify not going to war- the very sanctions they lamented over!). Sanctions were not working, due to the first reason I listed and with corrupt UN and French officials working behind the scenes with Saddam to have sanctions lifted. After which, as the Duelfer Report indicates, Saddam could reconstitute his dormant wmd programs at a moment’s notice.

Reagan and Thatcher were effective and did what needed to be done.

Bush #43 and Blair were effective, and did what needed to be done.

@Mike

Yep Mike – I think we were bogged down in Iraq. After 5 difficult years which I think showed up a painful lack of planning or direction, I think finally it’s getting better and the light at the end of the tunnel is showing where the troops can be pulled out within the next year or two…maybe longer. As you know, I would rather those troop numbers and effort had been focused on Afganistan and Al Queda. The Taliban are still about and there is so much to do in Afghanistan after 7 years. I don’t believe Reagan or Thatcher would of tried to fight two wars with two very different enemies and causes or tried to pretend it’s the same war.

The effort was focused on al Qaeda in Iraq as well as cleaning up after the years of Hussein’s threatening beligerance toward the no fly zones, return of POWs, repaying Kuwait, where exactly did the UN categorized wmd go, etc., mentioned in 1441 and also in the Iraq War Resolution that the majority in this country supported.

Gaffa, you have missed many of our hosts best Iraq/al Qaeda postings. They have all done excellent, indepth research, peruse the archives.

Gaffa: You would have thrown Winston Churchill out of office with the first defeat at Dunkirk.

Thank goodness you are not a Member of Parliament.

We’ve had repeated votes in the U.S. Congress which are the equivalent of a “no confidence” motion in the U.K. Bush has won them all.

“I don’t believe Reagan or Thatcher would of tried to fight two wars with two very different enemies and causes or tried to pretend it’s the same war.” (Gaffa)

???
They are the same enemies. It is the same war on terrorism. Do you live on this planet or what? I guess you have your head deep down in the sand. Watch out, when your head is in the sand it is your butts that gets kick.

So the US is going to fight ALL terrorists around the world irrespective of what they are fighting for and who they are fighting? Shame the US didn’t pull it head out of the sand when the UK was fighting Irish terrorists.

Gaffa,

We are not talking about Irish terrorists that was attacking UK, we are talking about islamic terrorists who attacks the whole world.

“… irrespective of what they are fighting for and who they are fighting” (Gaffa)

What are you talking about? Islamic terrorists are fighting every infidel of the World and this is the ONLY fight they are fighting. The want a Califate. They want to install Sharia law all over the planet. It is a religious war. You should know that, you live in UK, an arabic country now.

I didn’t realize Irish terrorists were threatening the global community and the U.S. in particular with a message of “convert or die”.

@GaffaUK:

Yep Mike – I think we were bogged down in Iraq.

According to Lawrence Wright who wrote the definitive geneology of al Qaeda, al Qaeda was equally bogged down in Iraq. And they’ve since lost credibility in the eyes of many Muslims, thanks to their performance in Iraq.

After 5 difficult years which I think showed up a painful lack of planning or direction,

It takes an average 4-5 years for a student to graduate from college; 3 years to train an officer in the Iraqi security force. What were your expections for in 5 years time for a country subjugated under 35 years of Saddam?

I think finally it’s getting better and the light at the end of the tunnel is showing where the troops can be pulled out within the next year or two…maybe longer.

Thanks to George “Stay the Course” Bush.

As you know, I would rather those troop numbers and effort had been focused on Afganistan and Al Queda.

Please tell me specifically which troops were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. I only know of the 5th Special Forces Group sent to battle al-Qaeda fighters who fled the battlefield in Afghanistan to lick their wounds in northern Iraq- a part controlled by Saddam, not his Kurdish enemies.

The Taliban are still about and there is so much to do in Afghanistan after 7 years.

Do you hold NATO accountable at all? And do you think democracy can also flourish there in just half a generation’s time?

I don’t believe Reagan or Thatcher would of tried to fight two wars with two very different enemies and causes or tried to pretend it’s the same war.

It’s all interconnected, as pointed out by Craig….hence “GWoT” and why Iraq is connected to it.

@GaffaUK:

Is that what you think the US is doing? We aren’t physically, on the ground fighting terrorists all over the world, many areas known and unknown yes, for good reason, but we are also working with our allies through the banking system, and *back and forth* intel to thwart attacks. Bringing liquids on board airlines ring a bell Gaffa? What is it with you? Do you prefer that those that want to kill, disrupt our lives, ruin our economies in one fell swoop be allowed to continue on their merry way? Have you forgotten you own subway attack? Don’t you want to depend on your government and any ally that is willing to work to prevent attacks such as those that yours, ours and other countries have suffered?

Gaffa must have been to Blair, what the Obots were to Bush… lol

Listen I’m all for the war on Al-Qaeda. Which pretty much covers plots on airplanes etc etc.

I happen to believe that Al-Qaeda and Saddam’s regime weren’t close buddies before 9/11. I believe there are more links to Al-Qaeda to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and even UK. I don’t believe Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. I believe there are a lot of religious and tribal differences that we should be exploiting.

War on Terror is vague. Is it just islamist terrorists? Why do countries like the UK and Spain etc have to deal with terrorism over the last few decades with little interest or help from the US but when US gets hit then suddenly it’s a war on terror. Whether a child gets killed by a bomb in Londonderry, Manchester, Baghdad or New York – it’s still terrorism.

btw I’m in Australia at the moment. And no the UK isn’t an Arabic country. About 3 per cent are muslim and they are not all suicide bombers. In parliament there are about 4 or 5 muslim MPs and they are underrepresented. And as I have said before – Gordon Brown isn’t a muslim – but you guys reckon Obama is – so who’s being ruled by Muslims?

I didn’t say troops were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. However the numbers going to Iraq far outstretched those going to Afghanistan. Imagine if they were used to completely defeat the Taliban and bring Pakistan into line and catch Bin Laden. Iraq was a side show.

@GaffaUK:

Listen I’m all for the war on Al-Qaeda. Which pretty much covers plots on airplanes etc etc.

Well that’s refreshing to know. My impression from your comments is that you’re all for the narrow “law enforcement” approach to dealing with al-Qaeda.

I happen to believe that Al-Qaeda and Saddam’s regime weren’t close buddies before 9/11.

Did President Bush ever say they were? Do you deny that there weren’t ties? Were you misled (not by President Bush) into the belief that this was ever only a war with bin Laden, Zawahiri and their merry band of al-Qaeda operatives? Or did Bush make crystal clear from the get-go that this was larger than one terror group?

I believe there are more links to Al-Qaeda to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and even UK. I don’t believe Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. I believe there are a lot of religious and tribal differences that we should be exploiting.

President Bush didn’t push for war in Iraq by saying Saddam was directly involved in 9/11.

War on Terror is vague.

Kind of. But it’s more PC than the more inflaming yet accurate “War on Islamic terror” and similar phrases. For a short while Bush did use Islamic-fascists or Islamo-fascists; but as it happened, the PC-police can ‘t seem to understand that he’s not condemning the whole religion but attacking terrorists who have one trait in common that binds them: They’re Islamic. And they draw their inspiration and ideology from the Koran and Islamic works that promote terrorism.

Is it just islamist terrorists? Why do countries like the UK and Spain etc have to deal with terrorism over the last few decades with little interest or help from the US but when US gets hit then suddenly it’s a war on terror. Whether a child gets killed by a bomb in Londonderry, Manchester, Baghdad or New York – it’s still terrorism.

Wasn’t this already addressed?

Countries have dealt with domestic terrorism for decades. It took an event on the scale of 9/11 on our shores to wake us up to the gravity of the threat from terrorists who have long been threatening us and carrying out terror attacks with weak responses from the U.S. And they threaten all of us. The IRA is domestic to your shores. You deal with it. I thought the world hated the U.S. acting as global police?

btw I’m in Australia at the moment. And no the UK isn’t an Arabic country. About 3 per cent are muslim and they are not all suicide bombers. In parliament there are about 4 or 5 muslim MPs and they are underrepresented. And as I have said before – Gordon Brown isn’t a muslim – but you guys reckon Obama is – so who’s being ruled by Muslims?

No, I don’t believe Obama is a Muslim. Nor would I see anything wrong with it if he were. What I have a problem with, aren’t peaceful Muslims, but the apologists and the fundamentalists, and most especially the ones who answer the call to jihad. Muslim apologists are part of the problem, making excuses for their violent brethren and not seeking reformation of their faith in the diametrically opposite direction to the wahhabis. Patriots like Sgt. Abdelhalim are part of the solution:

I didn’t say troops were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. However the numbers going to Iraq far outstretched those going to Afghanistan. Imagine if they were used to completely defeat the Taliban and bring Pakistan into line and catch Bin Laden. Iraq was a side show.

What was important about the troop surge was in how they were employed. And in 2007, it was the right decision to make. It’s a moot point to argue that because we shouldn’t have been in Iraq in the first place, we should never have sent in 30,000 to bring security to a spiralling situation there. The reality was, we are there now, so we have a responsibility.

Iraq is vastly more important than Afghanistan geo-politically-speaking, no offense to the Afghan people intended. And yes, a large part of that has to do with Iraqi oil. Not stealing it, but securing the world’s second largest oil reserves from falling into the hands of hostile regimes and terrorist sponsors. Can you not understand this? Zawahiri could.

@Wordsmith

I believe Bush has on occasion linked Saddam to 9/11 and that many Americans today believe that Saddam was behind the plot. I’m sure there are ties between Saddam’s evil regime and Al Qaeda but the ones I seen printed in blogs are so vague – something like this guy who knows this guy met that guy who knows this guy in Vienna once. I’m saying the ties are tenous at best – whereas the finger of blame lies squarely at Al Qaeda who were operating in Afganistan. It would more logical to take out Pakistan next than Iraq. Anyway I’m sure Saddam like those Palestinians were more than happy with 9/11 – I just believe their input was insignificant and has been blown out of proportional and politically distorted. Al Qaeda and Saddam were enemies before 9/11.

When people around that Bush has declared a war on Terror they interpret this as a war on all terrorists. And I don’t think we have fully dealt with other terrorism yet. The IRA got funding and weapons from the US, NORAID was allowed to legally to operate in the US. That makes it international. After 9/11 – do you think Blair should of said the problem was domestic to the US – you deal with it? lol – no. I wasn’t asking for the US to send troops into Northern Ireland – it would of be nice however if the US wasn’t so obviously complacent about terrorism until it got hit by themselves.

I dislike the Koran and what it teaches. And I dislike the Bible – as it has some pretty violent messages. I don’t like any Islamic fundamentalists who preach hate and act violently. I hope they all die in their own bombs.

As for oil – yes I agree – that’s one of the key things which underpins the Iraq invasion. Funny how people mention about UN Resolutions, and how Saddam gassed the Kurds (and what did the West do in 1988 when that happened?) but at the end of the day – the GWOT was a convenient cover for the Neo-Cons to get their hands on Iraq. I just think it made a bigger mess in the middle east – the focus and total troop deployment should of been on Afganistan – the job was started there first and instead the US and NATO have dropped the ball. The US has wasted billions, costs lives, got itself in more debt – meanwhile Iran is rubbing it’s hands in glee that you took out it’s enemy – and China is getting closer to being a superpower.

Gaffa, get some education on Iraq and Osama bin Laden

The big lie
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001294.html

Melanie Philips agrees with me – Saddam wasn’t behind 9/11. I agree there are ties – but again nothing solid.

I would love to see all the files and connections that links to Iran and islamic terrorism. Why doesn’t the US invade Iran. They got oil too.

If only they could invade a country to give a good pretext for going in.

Since I haven’t been following this thread, just who believes Saddam was behind 911, Gaffa? Certainly not Bush admin…. so your “I believe” is just a pipe dream. I suggest if you are going to accuse Bush of words he has not said… and in fact has reiterated the opposite… you start providing some links instead of lip service. Only the media and those working on political expediency have spread those mistruths.

The US doesn’t attempt regime change in Iran because the population there… growing youth who is western friendly… are ripe to do it themselves. Unlike Iraq, where the populus was helpless against Saddam and despot admin, it’s easier to encourage and aid Iran for regime change from without. Since their economy is going down the toilet, and Ahmadinejad is getting more unpopular, the natives will only get more restless. At some point, the old guard is going to die off, and the youth will take control.

If you say Bush must take responsibility for the way the Iraq liberation unfolded (your comment #21 on the Bush Thankathon Begins thread), you cannot separate the SOFA and withdrawal that runs to his credit… and Iraq’s general success as a fledgling Arab democracy as well. If they fail after that, that onus is on Obama.

I’m rather tired of hearing about Obama’s dedication to bringing an end to the Iraq war. Look around…. withdrawal already being done. Check. SOFA. Check. Sorry Obama…. “mission not yet accomplished”, but on track without you and your vehement calls for withdrawal when violence was at it’s height. It was not time to withdraw in 2006. It is time to withdraw in late 2008 and 2009. But even Obama… like a broken clock… can be right once or twice a day. Pick a position to withdraw, and eventually the time will be right to do so. And that time is under Bush’s watch… not his. And it’s with no thanks to Obama and the Dem Congressional leadership.

It’s not time to be talking about ending a war that’s already ending. It’s time to be reiterating support for a new ME democracy.

Gaffa, take a walk. You did not read the full article. Come back when you will have read it. You are annoying, take a break.

“As I have noted on innumerable occasions, none of this evidence is cast-iron. But there is so much of it, it is simply not credible that Saddam had no links with al Qaeda, even if he was not personally involved in 9/11. And as for his links with other terror outfits, this is indisputable. Saddam’s Iraq was the principal training ground for Islamic terrorism.” Mélanie Phillips.

lol – I did read it – just as fast reader. I’ve seen that stuff before and I agree there are ties. But I don’t agree there is much as compared to other Islamic countries like Iran and Libya.

Plus do you really believe Iraq was the PRINCIPAL training ground for Islamic terrorism?

If you had to choose of the following – which would you say is the PRINCIPAL training ground for Islamic terrorism?

1. Afghanistan: Al-Qaeda training camps before 9/11
2. Gaza & the West Bank (Hamas etc)
3. Iraq – under Saddam
4. Iran
5. Lebanon
6. Libya
7. Pakistan
8. Saudi Arabia (Wahhabism faith)
9. Syria
10. Sudan

Gaffa: You’re becoming a Johnny One Note. We won in Iraq get over it. I’m SURE you have been cheering us on from the sidelines all along right?

You’re becoming obsessive.

I’ve explained the reason Iraq is the strategic centerpiece in our war on terror (call it whatever you like) countless times. I suggest you go back and reread all those prior comments as I don’t have the patience to repeat myself yet again.

Mata: Gaffa confuses Sarah Palin with Tina Fey and is willing to believe and pass on whatever moonbattery he comes across that supports his so transparent prejudices. So don’t expect him to come down to earth with your outlay of hard fact.

@Mike’s America:

A friend of mine does that all the time. Whenever Sarah Palin is brought up in conversation, she giggles and says in a silly ditsy woman voice “I can see Russia from my house!”. I no longer talk politics with her after she claimed to be informed, yet can only spew stuff related to a candidate that is shown on SNL.

Michael: The problem is that so many of our friends on the left, who claim to be informed, see things on Saturday Night Live or the Daily Show and confuse that presentation with facts.

Worse than that, the lies and smears about Sarah Palin are reported by the mainstream “news” media even as unfounded speculation and later when these smears are discovered their is no correction that carries the same weight in reporting as the smear.

No wonder folks like Gaffa are misled.

If I were him I would be mad at the people who have lied to him so brazenly and laughed while he took it hook, line and sinker.

@GaffaUK:

Melanie Philips agrees with me – Saddam wasn’t behind 9/11. I agree there are ties – but again nothing solid.

Then you and Melanie Philips are in alignment with President Bush.

Everything else covered already by others, and my further response to you on the same topic, in the other thread.

@Mike – my question wasn’t which country was the US strategic centerpiece in the Middle East. That was Iraq.

I’ll repost it for you.

Who agrees with Melanie Philips that believe Iraq was the PRINCIPAL training ground for Islamic terrorism?

If you had to choose of the following – which would you say is the PRINCIPAL training ground for Islamic terrorism?

1. Afghanistan: Al-Qaeda training camps before 9/11
2. Gaza & the West Bank (Hamas etc)
3. Iraq – under Saddam
4. Iran
5. Lebanon
6. Libya
7. Pakistan
8. Saudi Arabia (Wahhabism faith)
9. Syria
10. Sudan

Come on give me a number…it’s not hard

Gaffa: You’re getting your clock cleaned and it’s time to recalibrate. It’s getting harder for me to defend you if you keep repeating yourself.

Mike – when have I ever asked before whether people agreed with Melanie Philips’ statement that ‘Iraq was the PRINCIPAL training ground for Islamic terrorism?’ beyond this thread?

And why do you have so much trouble answering the question? You should be a politician as you seem to like dodging the most simple questions like a slipperly fish. lol

GaffaUK, You will never get Mike to go on the record, instead he will ridicule you or dismiss the question. He finds it easier to cast stones than to take a position that he knows will lead to truly evaluating the actions of Pres Bush.

I know – I’m happy to answer any direct question he asks but he prefers to evade the simpliest of questions I ask.

I guess he thinks its a trap that if he or Craig admits that in this one quote from Melanie Philips that Iraq can’t be considered the PRINCIPLE training ground for terrorism then somehow this tiny crack will lead to the whole house of cards about the reasons to go to Iraq will sudden fall. They won’t.

The whole Middle East is a training ground for Islamic fundamentalists as far as I’m concerned and Saddam played his part too. However I would put countries like Afganistan and Iran higher than Iraq when it comes to principle training ground.

I mean it took forever for him to ‘almost’ agree that Saddam was unlikely to have operational WMDs immediately before the Iraq War because he didn’t use them.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/hiltonhead/1433210260321264094/

But apparently that’s a moot point. I guess WMD was only a small little detail…lol
Still better apparently to evade and name call. *sigh*

blast: You’re a verbose pompous ass. Don’t give Gaffa any bad ideas.

Gaffa: The purpose of your question is to undermine any justification for the liberation of Iraq. Sorry, I’m not playing your game. Perhaps Blast will.

Gaffa, if your are mad at Blair because of Iraq, go tell him. But your verbal diarrhoea on US and Iraq does not interest me and it doesn’t seem to interest no one else except maybe Blast.

Mike A,

mike a: “blast: You’re a verbose pompous ass. Don’t give Gaffa any bad ideas.”

Oh, Tisk tisk Mikey. I guess you can dish things out but can’t take it. GaffaUK is right in his comment. You played that same game with me on the whole national debt issue.

mike a: Bush was blamed for every hangover from the Clinton years…

I asked how long that hangover should be measured and how long the Bush hangover should be measured…

mike a: I usually only answer questions which interest me.

You tend to only answer someone questioning you with insults. You are truly desperate.

…and since you brought my ass into this… you can kiss it.

Blast: I have even less interest in one of your pointless distractions than I do for Gaffa’s.

You really are a legend in your own mind aren’t you?

Thus far, I haven’t seen anyone else stepping forward to validate your hyperinflated sense of self worth.

THIS COMMENT WAS DELETED BY THE SITE MODERATOR. THE WRITER IS AN ASS.

Touchy huh… you can’t take it huh Mike. Maybe you should stop being such a dick. You started this and can’t take it huh.