Powered by TypePad

« Getting Ready For Sampson | Main | A Miracle »

March 30, 2007

Comments

sylvia

streched = stretched. My spelling is not really as bad as it looks, honest.

Pofarmer

"Death - the final stability"

Never failed.

Enlightened

Here's some - not to be feared, mother and father terrorists -

Suicide bombers kill 130 in Iraq
Fri Mar 30, 2007

By Ahmed Rasheed

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) - Suicide bombers killed nearly 130 people in a crowded market in a Shi’ite district of Baghdad and a mainly Shi’ite town on Thursday, one of the bloodiest days in Iraq in months.

Rick Ballard

"Bush and Cheney have on many occasions accussed Democrats of aiding Al Qaeda and terrorism in general."

Not often enough. I am unaware of any reason why empirical truths should be not be restated until they sink in.

The Copperhead Democrats are al Queada's best allies in the entire world.

PeterUK

"It's been reported here that Britain sees Afghanistan as more salvageable then Iraq. There's also more support in Britain for troop redeployments to Afghanistan then supporting the US presence in Iraq."

You have to understand sferris that neither campaigns are the subject of interest here,we are used to wars.
Just now there is more anger over the Iranian hostage taking,so if redeployment to Afghanistan were to be by way of Iran,there wouldn't be much complaint.

sylvia

"Suicide bombers killed nearly 130 people in a crowded market in a Shi’ite district "

Is this the same "Shiite crowded market" we are always hearing about? Like pratically every other day? They need to start searching people before they go in there already.

Other Tom

Odd that Pete includes the following item in his listing:

"03/30/07 WaPo: Iran May Skip Talks on Iraq If U.S. Keeps Six Detainees"

Does he suggest that the detainees should, in fact, be released? One could certainly infer such a suggestion.

topsecretk9

Via Hot AirUnilateral: Pelosi to meet with Assad next week in Syria...so she can extend her message of praise to the Iranian's and flip the brits the bird!

Enlightened

Oh yeah, Nancy whined to GWB that Cheney laid it on a little thick.

Anyone see Cheney's apology?

TMF

If Bush or Cheney noted that the Dems policies are favored by Al Qaeda and other terrorists, they only did so because it was true.

Havent you heard, Sferass?

The Dems are calling for withdrawal from Iraq. The terrorists are calling for withdrawal from Iraq.

Bin Laden (before he died, RIP) used to repeat Dem talking points-almost verbatim!

Enlightened

TS9 - Guess who Madame Speaker is taking on her junket to the ME?

via Sweetness/Light:

Beirut - U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi is expected to visit Beirut next week as part of a tour to the Middle East that includes Syria, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia…

The congressional delegation that accompanies the Speaker includes:

Congressman, Democrat Keith Ellison from Minnesota- US ’s first Muslim congressman.
Congressman, Democrat Nick Rahall from West Virginia, is of Lebanese descent
Congressman, Democrat Tom Lantos from California who is Jewish is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Congressman, Democrat Henry Waxman from California who is also Jewish
Congressman, Republican David Hobson from Ohio

Waxman? Ellison?........

PeterUK

"Rosie O'Donnell proclaming that there was nothing to fear from the terrorists, because "they are mothers and fathers."

Even though Rosie o'Dummy is neither.You couldn't make this stuff up.
Is she not concerned about the sapphic stranglers?

Other Tom

Ferris, TMF did not assert that any congressman had applied such a label to anyone in the administration. However, as you well know, such labelling is a matter of routine on the left-wing blogs, including the Daily Kos and FireDogLake. And if you do not think that recent Democratic inititiatives have been of enormous aid to Al Qaeda and other terrorists, you are deluding yourself. They are, indeed, very welcome to the terrorists. You may think that the initiatives are a good thing, but don't for one minute try to tell any serious person that they are not viewed similarly by the terrorists. Thirty years ago a Democratic congress thought it was a good thing to cut off all funds to the South Vietnamese government. Perhaps it was; perhaps it wasn't. But no one can claim that it was not welcomed by the NVA and the communist government in Hanoi, or that it did not lead directly to the takeover of South Vietnam. Support whatever policies you like, but don't kid yourself or us about the benefits they confer upon our enemies.

SanJoseLawyer

See the extended essay, "Houses of Straw", by the always insightful Victor Davis Hanson, at National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com)in which he notes the fecklessness of the British/European Union response to Iran's hostage taking, and résumés the myths that underpin the Europeans' approach to "conflict resolution." It is well worth reading the entire essay.

It is no surprise that these myths are the much the same as the rationales that underpin the Dems' positions - if you can even call incoherent, self contradictory, unreal, unprincipled and hypocritical mush a position. The real world, specifically human nature, renders the EU (and Dem) approach worthless. As Hanson says:

"But even the European Union could not quite change human nature, and thus could not outlaw the entirely human business of war. There were older laws at play — laws so much more deeply rooted than the latest generation’s faddish notions of conflict resolution. Like Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance, which would work only against the liberal British, and never against a Hitler or a Stalin, so too the Europeans’ moral posturing seemed to affect only the Americans, who singularly valued the respect of such civilized moralists."

Indeed.

Gandhi could undermine the British because British leaders, understandably tired after WW II and fundamentally doubting their strength and resolve, could no longer justify to themselves and their populace the continuation of their empire in India. But Gandhi would have had zero impact on Stalin, or Hitler - or, today, Ahmadinejad - because fanatic despots do not admit to doubts, and do not need to account for their actions - short of war, invasion, or revolution, at least.

And do these British/EU rationalizations sound familiar? "this is understandable payback for the arrest of Iranian agents inside Iraq; this is what happens when you ally with the United States; this is what happens when the United States ceases talking with Iran."

Rely only on "talking with Iran," and "soft" power, and your country ends up with 15 of its service men and women (or an entire embassy, as the USA did under Carter) taken by the Iranians. Ultimately, following the soft power/dialogue approach, we will all end up with a nuclear bomb wielding fanatic who defines success as blowing up himself, Israel, and a good part of the rest of this planet.

cathyf
Alberto Gonzales kept saying he wasn't involved in any discussions about the firing of U.S. attorneys, but according to his former chief of staff yesterday, he was -- several times over.
Alberto Gonzales said that he was not involved in picking which USA's to fire. According to his former chief of staff, he only discussed the firings a half-dozen or so times over a year-long period. The people who were involved in picking which USA's to fire discussed the firings hundreds or thousands of times over the same period.

So, suppose somebody with a master's degree is health administration rose to be the head of a hospital. Obviously this hospital administor has surgeons who work for him. I'll bet if you subpeonaed one of those surgeons, he would tell you that he talked about surgery "several times" with his boss over a year-long period. Does that mean that the hospital administrator is lying when he says he's not a surgeon? Would you prove it to us by letting the hospital administrator operate on you?

sferris

It's an understatement to say the war in Iraq hasn't turned out the way we wanted it to. It has led to killing on a scale that is comparable to, if not worse, then under Saddam. This is not the optimistic prediction made by Administration officials who pushed us to go to war. It was however predicted by those who advocated against going in. The same people who were correct about the outcome of the war in Iraq have for the most part been shut out of the discussion about how to get out.

sylvia

If Rosie happened to get her own self blown up in some crowded marketplace by some terrorist, and loses some arm or leg, I wonder if she would be as forgiving to terrorists later. She can be forgiving all she wants now, because she doesn't have much to fear in her real life. So she discounts the fear mostly because it doesn't directly apply to her. She doesn't bother to conceive of what it is like for others who have to live in reality with that fear.

Enlightened

Woah - Hey did you guys see Patterico post about Sampson scheming to lie to Congress?

He thinks this e-mail points to his deception.

http://patterico.com/wp/wp-content/images/good-faith.JPG

Enlightened

Kyle Sampson made conflicting statements about Gonzales's involvement.

He started with: I talked to him every day
He ended with: I kept him generally aware

PeterUK

"It was however predicted by those who advocated against going in. The same people who were correct about the outcome of the war in Iraq have for the most part been shut out of the discussion about how to get out."

Time for the list of Democrats who supported the war and though Saddam had WMD.

MikeS

"It was however predicted by those who advocated against going in. The same people who were correct about the outcome of the war in Iraq have for the most part been shut out of the discussion about how to get out."

Not true at all. In fact the people you refer to are the only people who are discussing how to get out. The rest of us are discussing how to win.

PeterUK

"He started with: I talked to him every day
He ended with: I kept him generally aware"

This could be true,He could have spoken to Gonzales everyday,but not about the firing of the Attorneys

PeterUK

Afghanistan - looks like Spring is Sprung

Enlightened

I guess this is what the left prefers the state of Iraq to be in, with Saddam still in power, and in a position to obtain/provide WMD.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/12/02/hrdossierenglish.pdf

Enlightened

The left prefers that Saddam stayed in power to continue his murderous regime.

Come on Pete, why aren't you out here posting your man Saddams Human Rights Violations?

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm

Joe Gloor

Afghanistan - looks like Spring is Sprung countdown:
How long until some left-wing jack-in-the-pants asks where Bin Laden is?

cathyf
I don't know of a single instance of a Congressman who has labeled anyone in the Administration a "mass murderers, war criminals, liars, and publically hoping they die of cancer and/or are assassinated by jihadists."
Dick Durbin (D, IL) Compares U.S. Troops to Nazi's, Soviets, & Pol Pot
PeterUK

Why won't the left condemn the terrorist use of poison gas?

Lady Sara

Sylvia: I haven't looked at the "Miracle" thread yet, so I'm not sure what you are referring to about someone being sick. I would like to remind everyone, however, that Captain Ed's wife is undergoing a kidney transplant today and the Captain is live-blogging from the hospital.

sferris

How to win? The truth is, we are not going to win in Iraq. When Iraqis get tired of killing each other and reach a political accommodation the civil war will subside. Civil wars typically last for more than 9 years. We're not going to police the civil war in Iraq much longer. We will start pulling troops out in two years when Bush leaves office. That is a political fact. The biggest supporter of the war is McCain. His diminishing support and increasingly foolish statement about how the surge is working has a lot to do with his drop in the polls. The next President is going to pull American troops out of Iraq.

Joe Gloor

PeterUK - Shush - poison gas is a WMD and they don't have any...

Great Banana

How to win? The truth is, we are not going to win in Iraq.

The truth is, even if you thought we could win, you would not want us to.

PeterUK

"How to win? The truth is, we are not going to win in Iraq"

You know this how?

"Civil wars typically last for more than 9 years."

The English Civil War 1642-49.

"The next President is going to pull American troops out of Iraq."

Handing Iraq over to a nuclear armed Iran.

Michael Smith

sferris said:

It has led to killing on a scale that is comparable to, if not worse, then under Saddam. This is not the optimistic prediction made by Administration officials who pushed us to go to war. It was however predicted by those who advocated against going in.

sferris, I have a question: Would the people who correctly predicted all of our current difficulties in Iraq include the following?


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein."
John Kerry - (D-MA) - December 14, 2001

"It would be naive to the point of great danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will misjudge, provoke and stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much promised it."
John Kerry - (D-MA) October 9, 2002

"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if the enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."
John Kerry (D-MA) September 6, 2002


"Saddam Hussein could not be left to his own devices based on everything we learned about him for seven and a half years while we were inspecting in Iraq. People have forgotten that for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction. We were destroying weapons of mass destruction. We were, the United States of America, together with Ambassador Butler and the United Nations."
John Kerry (D-MA)2003 CBS Face the Nation

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal and murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. And we all know the litany of his offenses. The reason I think we need to really think about him is because he presents a particularly grievous threat through the consistency with which he is prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate a former American President. He miscalculated his own military strength and he miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose and destroy its weapons programs. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it's not new. Since the end of the Persian Gulf War we've known this."
John Kerry (D-MA) January 23, 2003 Georgetown University

"Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations agree to limit or give up? Why is Saddam attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit the potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten to provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and decieve inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned, airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all of those things because he wants to live by the international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he's a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him."
John Kerry (D-MA) October 9, 2002 On the Senate Floor

sylvia

"look for him to appear as a spokesman for gingko-bilboa"

Just an fyi. I'm not one to criticize spelling, as mine can be terrible, but out of curiousity I looked up "bilboa", and saw it spelled both ways, but I think on the whole there are more authoritative sources that spell it the other way. Ex:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba; '銀杏' in Chinese), frequently misspelled as "Gingko", and also known as the Maidenhair Tree, is a unique tree with no close living relatives.


Enlightened

Once again folks for the mental midgets -

War in Iraq, over.

War against terror, main theater in Iraq - ongoing.

Civil war in Iraq - No.

Terrorists killing Iraqi's - Yes.

Liberal Democrats want the United States to stop fighting the war on Terror. They want the terrorists to be able to carry on their war unencumbered. Instead of supporting US troops engaged in fighting terrorism, they prefer to fund peanuts, shrimp, spinach and other earmarks they lied and said they would stop when elected.

Why can't the liberals comprehend that 4 wars have commenced since 9/11?

9/11 - Terrorists declared war against the US on US soil.

2001 - US declares war on terror (supported by NATO) - Ongoing

2001 - US declared war on Afghanistan and won - Taliban overthrown

2003 - US declared war on Iraq - and won - Saddam overthrown


Joe Gloor

sferris "The next President is going to pull American troops out of Iraq."
That depends. If a Democrat runs on a 'pull out of Iraq' platform - say Obama (he is very clean) and wins, then I'd say the next President would increase the number of troops on the ground there.
But I'm only basing that on the Democrat Standard Operating Procedure of not doing what they say they'll do when campaigning.

MikeS

Is sfeces the al Qaeda rep on this blog?

PeterUK

Michael Smith,
Very timely.

Joe Gloor

MikeS Is sfeces the al Qaeda rep on this blog?
No, but his talking points are the same as theirs.

hit and run

Joe:
Obama (he is very clean)


Well, and Obama thinks that Edwards is "kind of good looking" and "kind of cute".

Joe Gloor

That's just the ticket for the Democrats to run with, Mr. Clean and Mr. Queen.

cathyf

Enlightened, you are granting them one of their most important Big Lies. The lie that George Bush chose this war, and if he can be defeated, the war will magically go away. This war was already going on in 1996, when the formal declaration of war against us was made.

As others have pointed out, "War on Terror" is kind of weird nomenclature -- terrorism is a tactic used by our enemies, not an enemy. It does have the advantage of fitting the fundamental American attitude towards Muslims -- we don't give a s*** what they believe as long as they leave us alone. But it's still weird to have a war on a tactic of war. I don't have a better suggestion... Maybe "War of Insurrection Against the Global Caliphate"?

Enlightened

Well, see that's the Libs problem. If they are pulling US troops out of Iraq - they must then tell the World that they have ended the War on Terror.

So all Americans must keep in mind that the terrorists and their compatriots that attacked the US on our soil, and continues to do so on foreign soil, will no longer be engaged by the US.

Since our immigration is a mess, and ICE sucks, and no fence is going to keep out everyone, and we are going to be serving up amnesty pretty soon - it won't be much of a problem for the terrorists to infiltrate the US - again.

And thanks to the liberal Democrats - US citizens and/or military won't be allowed to fight them because we ended the War on Terror.

So things are looking up. Good, sound, solid Democratic Leadership. I hope Cindy Sheehan gets elected as the next Goodwill Ambassador. She has absolute moral authority.

PeterUK

H&R,
"Not that there is anything wrong with that"

Enlightened

Cathyf -

Ok, right. So actually the timeline is:

1996 - War by Terror declared by Bin Laden Fatwa

1996 - 2000 - Clinton Administration talks big, does nothing about BL Fatwa

2001 - Terrorists answering BL call to Fatwa - murder 3000 humans on American soil

2001 - US declares War on Terrorists - ongoing

2002 - US dclares War on Afghanistan - Won. Taliban overthrown

2003 - US declares War on Iraq - Won. - Saddam overthrown

sferris

Your correct in stating the British Civil Wars last for seven years. More recent civil wars for the most part have lasted longer. A good analogy to the Iraq war may be the Algerian Civil War between the Algerian government and various Islamist rebel groups began in 1991 and and ended in 2002 with the defeat of the Armed Islamic Grou. Fighting still continues in Algeria today. Civil wars in Lebanon, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Angola, and Cambodia lasted for more than a decade. The Iraq civil war is more complicated then most of these civil wars, with the possible exception of Lebanon, and therefore it will probably last longer.

PeterUK

Scott,
"Civil wars in Lebanon, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Angola, and Cambodia"

All those were fueled by external powers,are you saying that so is Iraq?

Joe Gloor

sferris it's funny you should mention Algeria since azaghal posted this in Quick Hits (March 30, 2007 at 03:38 PM)
OpinionJournal has an important article by Arthur Herman on counterinsurgency. The article compares the Iraq situation--both military and political--with the Vietnam conflict and, above all, with the Algerian conflict, in which the successful strategy for defeating insurgencies was formulated.

I was particularly struck by his description of the French political opposition: "an intellectual and cultural insurgency at home, led by the French left and the media."

sferris

Any document dumps scheduled for today?

PeterUK

My Scott,that was a quick change of subject.

TMF

"Any document dumps scheduled for today? "

Dont know.

You should ask Sandy Burglar about that.

cathyf

Interesting point about modern civil wars becoming longer. I would claim that this is precisely because of the armchair critics -- or more to the point, that anyone cares what the dilettantes think.

Of course one tenet of the just war theory is that a war fought without the intention of winning is immoral.

sferris

Iraq insurgency is partly fueled by the US presence/occupation of Iraq - no country wants to be occupied. Algeria wasn't occupied at the time of it's civil war with the Islamists. The most obvious difference between the Iraq, Algerian, and Vietnam wars is the fact there are more groups fighting amongst each other in Iraq. This make a political accommodation much harder to achieve. Algerian civil wars last 11 years, which is probably at the low end of the estimate for the Iraq civil wars to end.

sferris

Contemporary civil wars:

Afghan Civil War, 1992-2001, armed conflicts persist
Algerian Civil War, 1991-2002, conflicts persist
Angolan Civil War, 1974-1989, 1995-1997, 1998-2002
Burundi Civil War, 1988-1991, 1993-2005
Cabindan Civil War, Angola, 1975-2006
Cambodia, 1978-1993, 1997-1998
Casamance Conflict, Senegal, 1990-present
Colombian armed conflict, 1964-present
Congo Civil War, 1996-1997, 1998-2003
Côte d'Ivoire Civil War, 1999-2000, 2002-present
Darfur Conflict, Sudan, 2003-present
East Timor/Indonesia, 1975-1999
Georgian Civil War, Abkhazia, South Ossetia in Georgia, 1988-present
Guatemalan Civil War, 1960-1996
Guinea-Bissau Civil War, 1998-1999
Haiti Rebellion, 2004
Iraq Civil War, 2003(?)-present
Kashmir Conflict, 1989-present
Kurdistan, Kurdish Democratic Party, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, 1961-1970, 1988-2003
Liberian Civil War, 1989-1996, 1999-2003
Nepalese Civil War, 1996-2006
Northern Irish civil war, 1969-1998
Rwandan Civil War, 1990-1994
Sierra Leone Civil War, 1991-2002
Somali Civil War, 1991-present
Sri Lankan Civil War, 1983-present
Sudanese Civil War, 1955-1972, 1983-2005
Tajikistan Civil War, 1992-1997
Ugandan Civil War, 1987-present
Yemen Civil War, 1979-1989, 1994, 2000s
Yugoslav Wars, 1991-1995, Breakup – Slovenia – Croatia – Bosnia (1st NATO intervention) – Kosovo (2nd NATO intervention) – Preševo valley - Macedonia -- Kosovo War 1996-1999

Enlightened

Now, whose mess were we cleaning up in Vietnam? Those other lovers of cutting and running?

All together now _ _ _ _ _ _

PeterUK

Scott,
"Iraq insurgency is partly fueled by the US presence/occupation of Iraq - no country wants to be occupied."

There seems to be a rather odd omission here,no mention of the major player and arms supplier Iran and its hand rag Syria.
Why is that Scott?

PeterUK

Scott,
Many don't count as civil wars,this one for example Northern Irish civil war, 1969-1998.
Now stop cutting and pasting and tell us what you actually know.

TMF

"Iraq insurgency is partly fueled by the US presence/occupation of Iraq "

Is that why the insurgents keep blowing up outdoor market places filled with people?"

Guess alot of Americans are buying their taboulleh there

Michael Smith

sferris:

I assume that the following is the sort of overly-optimistic predictions about what the US would face in Iraq that you claim Bush used to push us into the war:

Once (Hussein) is gone, expectations are high that coalition forces will remain in large numbers to stabilize Iraq and support a civilian administration. That presence will be necessary for several years, given the vacuum there, which a divided Iraqi opposition will have trouble filling and which some new Iraqi military strongman must not fill. Various experts have testified that as many as 75,000 troops may be necessary, at a cost of up to $ 20 billion a year. That does not include the cost of the war itself, or the effort to rebuild Iraq.

What?!? A measly $ 20 billion a year and a mere 75,000 troops? What utter nonsense to feed to the country. BusHilter was lying through his teeth as usual -- everyone knew it would take at least 400,000 troops and cost hundreds of billions.

This pro-war propaganda came from an op-ed in the Washington Post on December 20, 2002, written by Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel, both notorious neocon warmongerers and staunch Bush supporters.

You can see the whole thing here: http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=189649&&

Pofarmer

This war was already going on in 1996

Nah, you've got to go back to at least 1979 for the beginning of the current phase of this long war.

sferret.

Do you realize you're basically condemning 1,000,000 people to death?

Joe Gloor

TMF

M. Smith

When the going gets tough, the tough bails out and runs for Presidnet apparently

PeterUK

TMF,
Exactly,"And if you can't bomb with the one you hate,bomb the one you're with"

cathyf

italactico!

sferris

My point is contemporary civil wars typically last a decade. Iraq has factors that are more likely to extend this period. Among the factors are: diverse ethnic groups with competing interests; diverse religious groups; outside insurgents; occupying army; criminals groups; and other foreign interference. You can take all the contemporary civil wars wrap them up into and you have the Iraq civil war.

PeterUK

Still can't bring yourself to say IRAN,can you Scott,why?

BTW,
A bit more from Azaghal's post.

"And Algeria, like Vietnam, was a humanitarian disaster. Those who cooperated with the regime, would help the French and so on, were slaughtered or driven into the sea, and this is what we’re going to face in Iraq without a doubt, if we don’t turn this game around. Not Iraq, that’s being turned around. Turn around the game here in the United States."

You see Scott you are part of the problem,

Syl

sferris

Among the factors are:

You forgot al Qaeda, you dipshit!

Suicide bombers in markets = al Qaeda, you jerk!

We ANd the Iraqi people AND the Iraqi army AND now even most of the INSURGENT groups in Iraq are fighting al Qaeda!

I find it very telling that the lefty trolls DON'T EVEN MENTION AL QAEDA IN IRAQ.

sferris

PeterUK, it's interesting the Northern Ireland Civil Wars are not classified as a civil war. To be honest, I'm not sure why. It's worth loking into further.

Lady Sara

Syl: They don't mention al Qaeda because their handlers have told them that al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq and that has been the talking point since they made up the canard that GWB said Saddam had something to do with 9/11. The fact that al Qaeda was in Iraq and already building training camps there pre-9/11 and that Saddam gave many al Qaeda and al Qaeda associates a safe haven, and the fact that Saddam was actively financing terrorism and brutal suicide bombings of Israel and had factories producing the suicide vests seems to have entirely escaped the attention of the talking points writers.

Joe Gloor

Syl - Shush - there aren't any Al Quaeda in Iraq and there never was.

PeterUK

Syl,
I find it telling that the left accept that Iraq,a country which they insisted was secular,has an influx of fanatical suicide bombers.The hallmark of al Qaeda and Hezbolah.No mention of the Iranian al Qods
For some reason Scott has airbrushed them out.

Joe Gloor

And don't let Lady Sara's facts get in the way of your thought processes.

Enlightened

Oh who cares about the War on Terror anyway -

Karl Rove's Powerpoint slides are much more important.

And Day Three - Diane Feinstein Culture of Ultimate Corruption still not carried by the darling MSM.

sferris

Al Quaeda are insurgents, they're also Sunnis:

MOSUL, Iraq, March 29 (Reuters) - Policemen who took part in the reprisal shootings of scores of men in northwest Iraq this week were arrested but then freed again to prevent unrest, the provincial governor said on Thursday.

Hours after truck bombs killed 85 people on Tuesday in a Shi'ite area of Tal Afar, up to 70 Sunni Arab men were shot dead in a town which only a year ago was held up by U.S. President George W. Bush as an example of progress towards peace

PeterUK

Scott,
Terrorist actions a civil war do not make.You would be surprised how unnoticeable these things are.Terrorist attacks are designed to catch the news cycle to give the impression that governments cannot prevent attacks and protect the population.
That is what is happening in Iraq,if you were losing AQ etc would have no need to perpetrate these atrocities.
Unfortunately the Democrat "Timetable" has given these terrorists the encouragement they need,without getting too "peteishly" ghoulish 130 dead people in the market bombing can be laid at the door of the Majority Party.

Joe Gloor

So sferris, what you have to ask yourself is how many more 'Sunni Arab men' would have been shot dead in reprisal had the US troops not been on hand to stop them.

Syl

sferris

Al Quaeda are insurgents, they're also Sunnis:

clarity, not confusion and conflation, PLEASE. Sheesh.

al Qaeda in Iraq are mainly foreigners. Few in numbers, only a few thousand though they claim that we had killed about 4000 of them by 2006.

Insurgent groups in Iraq, militant sunni groups, joined up with al Qaeda because AQ said they could protect them.

But it didn't work out that way when shia militias started targeting them.

Now many of the Iraqi sunni insurgent groups are FIGHTING al Qaeda.

Oh, in case you didn't know, Iraqis are NOT suicide bombers. One of Zarqawi's biggest complaints against the Iraqis.

The car bombs in markets AND the chlorine attacks are al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda--OUR enemy.

But heaven forbid you should name them. No, you call them insurgents instead as if it's all one big happy family of Iraqis against America.

I'm sure you're terrified that if you actually admit we're fighting AL QAEDA in Iraq, Americans wouldn't support your cut and run stupidity.

So you just call them all insurgents WHICH IS A DELIBERATE FALSIFICATION.

PeterUK

Scott,
"Al Quaeda are insurgents, they're also Sunnis:"

Are you completely deranged? Most of al Qaeda are not Iraqi insurgents,they are occupying terrorists,foreigners.
Do you think they too should have a timetable for withdrawal?

Enlightened

"Al Quaeda are insurgents, they're also Sunnis:"

Well then, I guess 9/11 and Iraq are linked after all.

PeterUK

Nice one, Enlightened!

Syl

PUK

Do you think [al Qaeda] too should have a timetable for withdrawal?

::grin::

Enlightened

Teamwork PUK, Teamwork.

Gary Maxwell

Big Lizards says " its sentence first, verdict later" in the matter of AG Gonzalez. Seems like appropo reference.

clarice

Oh, to be an "expert":
http://www.opinionjournal.com/

Other Tom

Ferris, does it matter to you at all that by an overwhelming majority the people of Iraq say that no civil war is occurring?

More important, is it your view that if, indeed, it is a civil war, we should abandon our participation in it because it is likely to last a long time? If so, that does not seem to me to be a strategy that bodes at all well for those who oppose the murderers. But I await your response to the question I posed in the first sentence of this paragraph. A simple "yes" or "no" will do, and any other response will become the stuff of ridicule.

PeterUK

Clarice,
I thought the Wolverine would have sent you to bed by now.She obviously additive deficiency,needs more E numbers.

sferris

I think things are worse in Iraq then is generally reported in the news. The numbers of deaths, missing, and displaced persons is probably under reported for a number of reasons. The most important being it's in the interest of the US and Iraqi governments to low-ball these figures. There is enough evidence based on both US and Iraqi published figures to question their veracity. There is also the problem of access. Journalists can't visit many of the places where killings occur. I have also wondered how many Iraqis since the US invasion are buried in unmarked graves?

Lady Sara

Islamofacists, whether called al Qaeda, Iranian Shia, Saudi Wahabis, Syrian Sunni Baathists, Hamas, Hezbollah or Republican Guard will not be done with their World War until every Infidel is either dead or converted. So I ask you, who do not believe America should be in this War, which do you prefer? Immediate Death to the Infidel? or Conversion by Automatic Weapon and Car Bomb?

Enlightened

Ok so how does this pretzel logic work:

"Al Quaeda are insurgents, they are also Sunnis."

So the civil war in Iraq is being fought on one side by - Al Quaeda insurgents?

So for all intents and purposes, the Iraqi's fighting against these Al Quaeda Insurgents, (also Sunni's) are actually fighting the War on Terror?

And that in Liberal-speak equals - civil war?

Man that's a lot of twisting in the wind when all that needs be said is the Iraqi's are fighting against terrorism in their country, and the US is the only country with balls enough to send the majority of their troops there to help them.

Joe Gloor

sferris I think things are worse in Iraq then is generally reported in the news.

I think things are better in Iraq than is generally reported in the news.

clarice

PUK, she's off w/ a babysitter today. I cooked Indian food so dinner will be ready when she and her mom get back.(Spent the morning w/ her at hippy dippy sing and play at Venice Cal. where she quite prudently kept her distance from all the kids in tie dyed outfits.

Enlightened

Sferris - you are just talking out your ass now.


There are journalists reporting what is really going on in Iraq. There are bloggers reporting it. The MSM you so dearly love reports only the negative (see Pete if you need proof)and very few MSM report the positive steps Iraq takes every day.

The only ones misreporting are mainly the AP whom the left so dearly loves.

The unmarked graves are Saddam's doings

Anyway - you are not worth the time anymore. There are those so blind they refuse to see.

Tom Maguire

This thread will be unusualy cryptic to anyone who starts at the beginning (the mistake I made).

Pete was kind enough to remind us that there was a war on, and I glazed over by the time we got to the chickenhawk meme.

pete, go away - I am confident that fact of the ongoing Iraq war is not undercovered in various news outlets.

PeterUK

Clarice,
That kid has been here before.

Lady Sara

I think things are worse in Iraq then is generally reported in the news.

Then stop listening to the news and start reading the Milblogs and hear the words of those who have been there in the last year. Sheesh, even Brian Williams invited Imus to accompany him back to Iraq, where you can now walk around and interact with Iraqis, dine in cafes and see a building boom that is incredible.

As to Civil War, may I remind you that Bush41 was roundly criticized for not following Saddam's army all the way to Baghdad and finishing the job. As a result, emboldened Shia in the South and the Kurds in the North rebelled and the did not get the backup they expected to get from the American military. This failure on our part led directly to Saddam's massive killing spree and purge of his own people. The lack of trust the Iraqis had when we finally did come back was bassed on how we cut and ran on them the first time.

al Qaeda has played this cowardly Paper Tiger card again and again. The #1 training video for Saddam and bin Laden was "Blackhawk Down." And they know that it is the democrats who are the cowards and who they can count on to turn tail a run.

Syl

sferris

I think things are worse in Iraq than...

Changing the subject, are you? COWARD.

Lady Sara

I think things are worse in Iraq then is generally reported in the news.

Then stop listening to the news and start reading the Milblogs and hear the words of those who have been there in the last year. Sheesh, even Brian Williams invited Imus to accompany him back to Iraq, where you can now walk around and interact with Iraqis, dine in cafes and see a building boom that is incredible.

As to Civil War, may I remind you that Bush41 was roundly criticized for not following Saddam's army all the way to Baghdad and finishing the job. As a result, emboldened Shia in the South and the Kurds in the North rebelled and the did not get the backup they expected to get from the American military. This failure on our part led directly to Saddam's massive killing spree and purge of his own people. The lack of trust the Iraqis had when we finally did come back was bassed on how we cut and ran on them the first time.

al Qaeda has played this cowardly Paper Tiger card again and again. The #1 training video for Saddam and bin Laden was "Blackhawk Down." And they know that it is the democrats who are the cowards and who they can count on to turn tail a run.

PeterUK

Sorry TM,just one more.

"I have also wondered how many Iraqis since the US invasion are buried in unmarked graves?"

I have often wondered if many of the left have been genetically altered by aliens.

sferris

As an engineer and computer scientist I spend a lot of time looking at raw data. Bias is always present, you have to look carefully for it and take into consideration when doing any analysis.

To conclude "the unmarked graves are Saddam's doings" is an opinion, and has nothing to do with reality in Iraq.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame