A short little tome: So much for 9-11, how about 9-11-2011?

[Chuckiechan]

Is anyone wondering what kind of future we are shaping if we abandon Iraq?

http://www.americanprowler.org/dsp_a...p?art_id=10332

[MTAtech]

I love this line from the opinion piece:

If Republicans lose the House, America will turn inward, losing any focus on what we should do to win the war.

as if the war presently has focus. Our leaders are making it up as they go along with nothing to guide them but their own arrogance. The war that was doubted to last six months by Don Rumsfeld and Cheney declared was in its last throws a year and half ago, is escalating.

We've muddled the whole adventure from the beginning. Conservatives contend that Iraq is a key to the war on terror but we know that Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorist until we made it one.

It's fascinating that people who believe that government shouldn't interfere with the delicate balance of the economy have no fear about medaling with a foreign country's political system.

As it stands, Iraq is spiraling worse as time goes on while the Taliban retake Afghanistan. Our involvement in this sectarian civil war certainly hasn't made matters better. Continuing on the same failed policy, expecting different results, is the definition of insanity.

[The Real Bingo]

Conservatives contend that Iraq is a key to the war on terror but we know that Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorist until we made it one.

Maybe that was the point. Bring down Saddam, who the terrorists love, which will lead to them insurging and trying to fight us. Isn't it easier for them to come to us than for us to look for 'em? Kind of like "build it and they will come"...except in this scenario it's "re-build it and they will insurge".

[MTAtech]

Maybe that was the point. Bring down Saddam, who the terrorists love, which will lead to them insurging and trying to fight us. Isn't it easier for them to come to us than for us to look for 'em? Kind of like "build it and they will come"...except in this scenario it's "re-build it and they will insurge".

I guess you didn't brush up on your reading of the Senate Intelligence Committee report last week. The committee concluded that there was distain between Saddam and al Qaeda. Thus, the terrorists didn't love him and the feeling was mutual.

The other logical failure in your argument is that terrorists can only do one thing at a time. I would have hoped that the London bombings and the plot to hijack and destroy airlines recently would have been proof enough that that theory is wrong.

[Chuckiechan]

Typical liberal... nitpick the article, divert attention away from the content. The major point is:

We must always remember what happened five years ago today, and since. But any politician who wants to be taken seriously must explain how he will study history, not rewrite it, and use what he learns to steer America toward 9-11-11.

I don't believe Al Quaeda is mentioned.

Forget the little stuff, just what do the Democrats plan to do in the big picture? Just how and where do they want to steer America? Without a plan they are the same old Democrats - bitch and moan, but provide no solutions.

[Disley]

Why dont you hide in your cellar and hope the terrorists don't get you, while the rest of us laugh at them, for the useless jerks they are.
Two hits in 5 years, it'll take 5000 years to 'Destroy Civilisation' at this rate.
George Bush is doing it much faster.

[MTAtech]

Forget the little stuff, just what do the Democrats plan to do in the big picture? Just how and where do they want to steer America? Without a plan they are the same old Democrats - bitch and moan, but provide no solutions.

We know the Republican plan, tell us that we are safer and at the same time convince us how frightened we should be.

There were two pieces in the paper this morning worth noting, as they are germane to this discussion. The first is part of the New York Times editorial, "President Bush’s Reality."

Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror until the Bush administration decided to invade it. The president now admits that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11 (although he claimed last night that the invasion was necessary because Iraq posed a “risk”). But he has failed to offer the country a new, realistic reason for being there.

Establishing democracy at the heart of the Middle East no longer qualifies, desirable as that would be. Where Mr. Bush sees an infant secular Iraqi government, most of the world sees a collection of ethnic and religious factional leaders, armed with private militias, presiding over growing strife between Shiites and Sunnis. Warning that American withdrawal would “embolden” the enemy is far from an argument as long as there is constant evidence that American presence is creating a fearful backlash throughout the Muslim world that empowers the fanatics far more than it frightens them.
...
It’s hard to figure out how to build consensus when the men in charge embrace a series of myths. Vice President Dick Cheney suggested last weekend that the White House is even more delusional than Mr. Bush’s rhetoric suggests. The vice president volunteered to NBC’s Tim Russert that not only was the Iraq invasion the right thing to do, “if we had it to do over again, we’d do exactly the same thing.”

It is a breathtaking thought. If we could return to Sept. 12, 2001, knowing all we have seen since, Mr. Cheney and the president would march right out and “do exactly the same thing” all over again. It will be hard to hear the phrase “lessons of Sept. 11” again without contemplating that statement.

Their non-selective minds have also defined terrorism as one lump of goop, failing to make distinctions between different acts of terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic and a crime. Terrorism can’t be eliminated no more than robbery can be eliminated. We should be concerned only with terrorism threats directed against our country. Sectarian strife that uses terrorism violence for unrelated political motives or terrorism used by national separatists isn't our problem and we shouldn't be distracted.

The next piece this AM is an op-ed from John Tierney's column, "Osama’s Spin Lessons."

They [Al Qaeda] hid in caves and proclaimed themselves champions.

America, meanwhile, accentuated the negative. Instead of declaring victory against terrorists after routing the Taliban and sending bin Laden into hiding, it invaded Iraq, reinvigorating Al Qaeda with a new tool for recruiting. Instead of putting the terrorist risk in perspective, Bush (with the full cooperation of Democrats and the press) set an impossible standard for making America safe.

“We’re on the offense against the terrorists on every battlefront,” Bush said last week, “and we’ll accept nothing less than complete victory.”
When you define victory that way, when you treat one attack from a disorganized band of fanatics as a menace to civilization, you’ve doomed yourself to defeat and caused more damage than they could. You can’t completely stop terrorism, but you can scare people into giving up liberties, wasting huge sums of money and sacrificing more lives than would be lost in a terrorist attack.

Take it from bin Laden, who bragged in 2004 that it was “easy to provoke and bait this administration.”

“All that we have to do,” he said, “is to send two mujahedeen to the farthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written Al Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses.”

The Democratic position is much more systematic than the Republican plan to invade everyone. The Democratic plan is to assess threats and plug the holes in those threats. Port security is a major terrorist threat that has gotten little more than lip service in the last five years. Nuclear proliferation is another major threat that the Bush militarism only encourages small nations to seek nuclear weapons because they fear that the U.S. might invade them.

But as John Tierney alludes to, the Republicans have set the political stage to focus on terrorism as a single overriding concern. It's difficult to believe them, however, when it doesn't seem important when compared to tax-cuts.

[Chuckiechan]

In your efforts to hyjack the thread, you fail to address the fact that Al Quaeda and Islamic facism will consider a Democrat sweep a victory for their cause.

Why do you disagree?

[mad1]

I guess you didn't brush up on your reading of the Senate Intelligence Committee report last week. The committee concluded that there was distain between Saddam and al Qaeda. Thus, the terrorists didn't love him and the feeling was mutual.
.

From the United States Senate Committe on Intelligence "Postwar findings on Iraq's WMD's programs and links to Terrorism and how they compare with Prewar Assesments.
"(U) In September of 2002 version of the Iraqi Suppport for Terrorism,the CIA
assessed that:
There is no question that Iraq continues to be a safe haven,transit point, or operational base for groups and indivisuals who direct violence towardss the United States ,Israel and other Allies."

"(U) In the Janruary 2003 version stated:
A variety of reporting indicates that senior Al-Qa'ida leaders and Iraqi officials have discussed safehaven in Iraq. It is not clear whether the Iraqi regime made a new offer of safehaven to Al-Qa'ida after 11 September 2001,but... more that a dozen Al-Qa'ida affilaited extremists converged on Baghdad in the spring and summer of 2002. These operatives found a secure operating environment there."
http://intelligence.senate.gov/


This reports states that there is(or was) a disdain between Al-Qa'ida and Iraq. That I believe was possible but realizing that both parties has a common enemy has led parties to come together in thier common hatred for the United States.

Now lets see if we can get back to the topic for this thread?

[MTAtech]

In your efforts to hyjack the thread, you fail to address the fact that Al Quaeda and Islamic facism will consider a Democrat sweep a victory for their cause.

Why do you disagree?

First, in reference to 'hyjacking the thread,' the title is "tome: So much for 9-11, how about 9-11-2011" and then you go off and ask in the very first post, "Is anyone wondering what kind of future we are shaping if we abandon Iraq?" - a topic that has nothing to do with 9/11.

My posts discuss both terrorism, a topic germane to 9/11 and Iraq, related to your topic.

Second, with regard to "fail[ure] to address the fact that Al Quaeda and Islamic facism will consider a Democrat sweep a victory for their cause," I didn't realize that I had address Republican talking points - points so proposterous they aren't worth considering. Under the Republican leadership the groups that hate us have grown stronger and the allies that we need to help us uncover plots have grown more suspicious of us. One of our supposed allies, Pakistan, has all but said that al Qaeda can stay in the country as long as they don't commit offenses in Pakistan; Five years after 9/11, the man that Presidente Bush declared we'd get 'dead or alive' is a free man with the U.S. quitely reducing resources to catch him. Oh, yea, our good ally,Pakistan, is unwilling to pursue him too.

It is like al Qaeda set a trap and the Bushies jumped straight into it. Worse, the Bushies are so arrogant that haven't learned a damn thing from their failures. VP Cheney said, “if we had it to do over again, we’d do exactly the same thing.”
The reality is that one party Republican rule was supposed to be a brilliant showcase of how well policy could be formulated and the government run that nobody would ever want to go back to voting for Democrats. The reality is that one party Republican rule has proven to be the definition of mismanagement, corruption and lack of planning. Since the Republicans can't run on their record, their only option is to denigrate the patriotism of Democrats. Yea right, all the terrorists in the world are Democrats and would be emboldened by a Democratic victory - as if they are holding back their punches now.

[Chuckiechan]

It is like al Qaeda set a trap and the Bushies jumped straight into it.

And what if anything would the Democrats have done about it?

You and others like you have allowed your hatred of Bush and all things republican to blind you to the very real threats against the country. That is a very real problem for everyone.

[MTAtech]

And what if anything would the Democrats have done about it?
.

Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

[Chuckiechan]

Suppose Saddam shot down a US pilot what would he have done?
Also, the world's intelligence agencies were in agreement that Iraq had WMD's.
And Clinton had a stated goal of removing Saddam.

So Saddam would still be in power, correct?

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...ww2010.i.sep26

[BBA]

All this is speculation.

The democrats are only touting 'get out of Iraq' for politics.

Remember Clinton and his 'the boys will be home for Christmas' speach, he meant christmas 4 years later.

Reality is if they get elected, they will keep military in Iraq even longer than republicans, they are not totally stupid, they are just still playing to the stupid crowd because it used to work to get them elected (thank God that erra is over)

What you don't remember all the democrats (except 1 loser) voted to GO TO WAR in Iraq in the first place. They don't change their minds....they only change their campaign slogans.

Democrat extremists are all blind and being played as fools. The good thing is the dem's are pandering to the wrong crowd...because the crowd they are pandering to is a minority of the US population. (thankfully so)

[BBA]

Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

Thats because he was too busy workin on Internet v.2 right?

[mad1]

The Democrats current political viewpoint towards the war on terror is that the Bush Administration has over exaggerated the seriousness of the situation. Now if a situation where to take place on American soil the Democrats would flip stating that not enough is being done to protect America.

I am not a Democrat hater or a Republican lover, when I go into the voting booth I vote for what issues are most important to my family. After completion of voting I tally the votes for each party, the majority lately have gone to the Republican party, to see which party address more of the issues that are of importance to me.

[mad1]

Thats because he was too busy workin on Internet v.2 right?

[MTAtech]

In your efforts to hyjack the thread, you fail to address the fact that Al Quaeda and Islamic facism will consider a Democrat sweep a victory for their cause.

More on this...

Fascism, almost always identified with former Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, was in fact coined by Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile. The classical definition of fascism and the one Gentile had in mind when he conjured up the concept was this,

"A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

…the current administration has taken a leap of liberty to try and summon an image of a stateless, decentralized faction with little or no corporate component as the entity of the "face of new fascism." It is not difficult to see how this inaccurate portrayal of the Al Qaeda network lacks the fundamental elements, statehood and corporatism, to be a genuine working model of fascism. This fairytale fascism, purported by U.S. administration hacks, even lacks the modern euphemistic designation of "business leadership." Al Qaeda is not a business, but an example of religious zealousness run amuck among a narrow-band of extremists.

The irony of course, is that the very same U.S. leaders that cry out fascism has re-taken root -- in a new form in Al Qaeda and terrorists -- fail to see that they have become, by classical definition and actions, a very authentic model of Giovanni Gentile's fascism. "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right.... together with belligerent nationalism", pertinently paints a precise mural of the current U.S. administration that has nearly wrestled away almost all people-powered-politics. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_frank_j__060913_defining_fascism_2c_th.htm

[Chuckiechan]

And what substitute for "facism" pops out of the Democrat word machine?

Is this the crux of your problem? We are hurting the self esteem of non-radical Muslims? They hate us and want to kill us because we call them facists?

What were they when they attacked us? Just merely "criminals"? Are they trying to defeat the fledgling demoracy in Iraq becase they are "traditionalists"? The murder hostages because they are following "the word"?

Pleeeze...

[BBA]

Chuckie...we all know they are only murdering hostages so that Germany will release more terrorists from prisons.