January 23, 2007
Frank Rich : "Lying Like it's 2003"
This article by Frank Rich seems to be getting a lot of publicity. It's all the buzz in the commiesphere. Excerpt:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
This White House gang is so practiced in lying with a straight face that it never thinks twice about recycling its greatest hits. Hours after Mr. Cheney’s Fox interview, President Bush was on “60 Minutes,†claiming that before the war “everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction†and that “the minute we found out†the W.M.D. didn’t exist he “was the first to say so.†Everybody, of course, was not wrong on W.M.D., starting with the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq. Nor was Mr. Bush the first to come clean once the truth became apparent after the invasion. On May 29, 2003 — two days after a secret Defense Intelligence Agency-sponsored mission found no biological weapons in trailers captured by American forces — Mr. Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.â€Now, as anyone who's read my writing knows, I'm no big fan of President Bush. Five years after September 11, I think we're further BEHIND in the War Against Being Scared than we were when we started. I don't think the President or any of his top advisers have the first damn clue as to how to stem the tide of Islamism. Like I said, I'm not a big fan of Mr. Bush.
Though I think President Bush is not particularly up to the challenges our modern world presents, I don't think he's a liar. Starting with the supposed "lies" identified in the above excerpt, it was the consensus of the world intelligence communities prior to the invasion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. No, not everyone agreed with that general consensus--but I doubt many people took Bush's words to mean "every single human being in the world" agreed Saddam had WMDs. I'll concede that Bush should've chosen his words more carefully on the second point. Anti-Bush folks were jumping on the "See? no WMDs!" bandwagon very early on in the invasion. It would've been pretty much impossible for Bush to get the jump on them. It makes him guilty of engaging in hyperbole and being sloppy with language discussing established facts. Does that rise to the level of being a "liar?"
These days, the left throws around the words "liar," "racist" and "fascist" at the drop of a hat. Using them all the time may get them temporary thrills and a little publicity, but there's a price to pay. Those words lose their power when they're overused, and the lefties are doing their best to wear them out.
Posted by: Ragnar at
12:06 PM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
Post contains 447 words, total size 3 kb.
1
hyperbole ?? Does it exist on on the left side of the political spectrum?
Can you think of any words that may have been overused by the ultra right? i.e. treason, traitor, sedition.
Ragnar when the President said theat we were "absolutely winning" well I hope he was lying. Because if he actually believed it our national situation would be even worse than it is. The situation in Iraq is bad.
Can you think of any words that may have been overused by the ultra right? i.e. treason, traitor, sedition.
Ragnar when the President said theat we were "absolutely winning" well I hope he was lying. Because if he actually believed it our national situation would be even worse than it is. The situation in Iraq is bad.
Posted by: John Ryan at January 23, 2007 01:40 PM (1dOeJ)
2
George Bush is a not a premeditated liar ... he's worse: a willingly deluded fool.
You want a liar, you've got to turn to Cheney.
You want a liar, you've got to turn to Cheney.
Posted by: Gleep! at January 23, 2007 01:45 PM (Zlbra)
3
"further BEHIND" - I guess that explains all those terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11.
John Ryan: words like traitor and seditionist can't be overused on someone like you because they're the simple truth; you are a traitor and a seditionist, as well as a coward.
John Ryan: words like traitor and seditionist can't be overused on someone like you because they're the simple truth; you are a traitor and a seditionist, as well as a coward.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2007 01:48 PM (p52Ne)
4
Bluto--It took nearly a decade to plan and pull 9/11 off. Why so certain the current "War on Terrorism" is a success?
Posted by: Gleep! at January 23, 2007 01:53 PM (Zlbra)
5
Glorp: how many plots have been foiled in the past year? How many terrorist attacks besides 9/11 did the Clintonistas allow through their incompetence?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2007 02:20 PM (p52Ne)
6
How many plots have been foiled in the past year? How many terrorist attacks besides 9/11 did the Clintonistas allow through their incompetence?
Is that an answer? OK, you must know or you wouldn't have asked the question ... how many? And how does that number stack up against any other year .... say 1995 or '97 or 2000?
To make the flimsy claim that there is a connection between this current foolishness and the lack of domestic attacks is strained at best, laugable at worst.
If there were an attack tomorrow, it would again be possible to blame it on the "Clinonistas" or the Bush I administration I suppose. But by your logic, if we are to thank the current Bush for our safety, due to the war, I should be able to blame him entirely for anything that happens in the years ahead. I like that.
How many plots have been foiled in the past year? How many terrorist attacks besides 9/11 did the Clintonistas allow through their incompetence?
Is that an answer? OK, you must know or you wouldn't have asked the question ... how many? And how does that number stack up against any other year .... say 1995 or '97 or 2000?
To make the flimsy claim that there is a connection between this current foolishness and the lack of domestic attacks is strained at best, laugable at worst.
If there were an attack tomorrow, it would again be possible to blame it on the "Clinonistas" or the Bush I administration I suppose. But by your logic, if we are to thank the current Bush for our safety, due to the war, I should be able to blame him entirely for anything that happens in the years ahead. I like that.
Posted by: Gleep! at January 23, 2007 02:42 PM (Zlbra)
7
Only an imbecile could fail to see the connection between shifting the battlefield to the Middle East from Manhattan. Only an idiot would fail to understand that keeping terrorists busy with trying to stay alive leaves them less time to plan mischief. Are you an imbecile, an idiot, or just being your usual disingenuous self, Glorp?
You can blame your allies in the MSM and the DNC if we are attacked again. They're the ones seeking to stop virtually all measures aimed at making life difficult for al Qaeda and their pals. The NYT even published a helpful diagram showing our enemies exactly where to shoot our soldiers in order to enuser a "kill."
An alert Border Guard foiled the Milennium bomber's plans; of course the Ninth Circus Court of Fools is intent on freeing him, nonetheless. As for recently foiled attacks coming as a direct result of the Administration's emphasis on counter-terrorism, the planned multiple airliner liquid explosive plot comes to mind...
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2007 02:51 PM (p52Ne)
8
Only an imbecile could fail to see the connection between shifting the battlefield to the Middle East from Manhattan.
Only a certified fool would make such a connection.The action in Iraq has generated hatred of the US to the point where 9/11 will look middling in comparison. As time and patience are the terrorist's primary weapons, we havent' moved the battlefield anywhere; we've temporarily shifted its front and made the war it is now part of worse. You'll be discovering that in the years to come.
Only an idiot would fail to understand that keeping terrorists busy
with trying to stay alive leaves them less time to plan mischief.
Only a moron would think we're keeping terrorists busy by depleting our ability to defend ourselves both here and abroad and by limiting--if not negating -- our ability to influence world events into the foreseeable future.
We could have chosen a path that would actually have aided us in combating terrorism while reinforcing our standing in the Mideast and the rest of the world. But instead, the actions of idiots and morons won the day.
Only a certified fool would make such a connection.The action in Iraq has generated hatred of the US to the point where 9/11 will look middling in comparison. As time and patience are the terrorist's primary weapons, we havent' moved the battlefield anywhere; we've temporarily shifted its front and made the war it is now part of worse. You'll be discovering that in the years to come.
Only an idiot would fail to understand that keeping terrorists busy
with trying to stay alive leaves them less time to plan mischief.
Only a moron would think we're keeping terrorists busy by depleting our ability to defend ourselves both here and abroad and by limiting--if not negating -- our ability to influence world events into the foreseeable future.
We could have chosen a path that would actually have aided us in combating terrorism while reinforcing our standing in the Mideast and the rest of the world. But instead, the actions of idiots and morons won the day.
Posted by: Gleep! at January 23, 2007 03:13 PM (Zlbra)
9
Bluto -
The War Against Being Scared might very well be scored according to how many bombs blow up on U.S. soil and/or how many people those bombs kill. I'm not particularly that concerned about winning the War Against Being Scared. I think people should be scared--or at least reasonably concerned.
If and when we ever begin fighting a real War Against the Spread of Islamism (the true threat to our future,) it won't be scored according to how many civilians die--at least not in my book. Wars are not generally scored according to how many civilian casualities occur. Wars are generally scored according to how many tactical objectives are accomplished by the opposing sides.
We have avoided another dramatic attack on U.S. soil. You apparently attribute the lack of another dramatic attack on U.S. soil to a great job being done by the Department of Homeland Security rather than a lack of interest on the part of our enemies. That ascribes a much higher level of performance (and frankly, clairvoyance) to the DHS than can possibly be called for. There's almost no evidence to support the position and it frankly defies logic.
Take solace in safety all you like, but it's not a proxy for long-term tactical success against our enemies.
The War Against Being Scared might very well be scored according to how many bombs blow up on U.S. soil and/or how many people those bombs kill. I'm not particularly that concerned about winning the War Against Being Scared. I think people should be scared--or at least reasonably concerned.
If and when we ever begin fighting a real War Against the Spread of Islamism (the true threat to our future,) it won't be scored according to how many civilians die--at least not in my book. Wars are not generally scored according to how many civilian casualities occur. Wars are generally scored according to how many tactical objectives are accomplished by the opposing sides.
We have avoided another dramatic attack on U.S. soil. You apparently attribute the lack of another dramatic attack on U.S. soil to a great job being done by the Department of Homeland Security rather than a lack of interest on the part of our enemies. That ascribes a much higher level of performance (and frankly, clairvoyance) to the DHS than can possibly be called for. There's almost no evidence to support the position and it frankly defies logic.
Take solace in safety all you like, but it's not a proxy for long-term tactical success against our enemies.
Posted by: Ragnar the Skankophile at January 23, 2007 03:18 PM (c/4ax)
10
If he is not a liar that means that all the US intelligence system, the CIA, the NSA, the high tech satellites, the human resources and the billions of dollars invested in it are useless and worthless.
If he is not a liar he is failure.
Failed about everything :
Catching Bin Laden
Building a coalition of allies
Finding WMDs
Establishing Democracy in Iraq and the middle east
Managing Katarina
Containing North Korea
Making the US and the world more secure...
With a guy like this you would have lost WW2.
If he is not a liar he is failure.
Failed about everything :
Catching Bin Laden
Building a coalition of allies
Finding WMDs
Establishing Democracy in Iraq and the middle east
Managing Katarina
Containing North Korea
Making the US and the world more secure...
With a guy like this you would have lost WW2.
Posted by: Michel Meyer at January 23, 2007 03:20 PM (7vp3N)
11
Gleep! sez:
"...by your logic, if we are to thank the current Bush for our safety, due to the war, I should be able to blame him entirely for anything that happens in the years ahead."
Much as I hate to agree with the lefty, that's a valid point.
"...by your logic, if we are to thank the current Bush for our safety, due to the war, I should be able to blame him entirely for anything that happens in the years ahead."
Much as I hate to agree with the lefty, that's a valid point.
Posted by: Ragnar the Skankophile at January 23, 2007 03:28 PM (c/4ax)
12
It's an idiotic point typical of the brand of so-called "logic" common to DailyKos.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2007 03:35 PM (p52Ne)
13
Michel -
Bush deserves some criticism for not catching Bin Laden and for the Katrina mess, but most of the rest of the items on your list are unfair. The jury's still out on Middle East democracy, for example, and I give Bush some credit for at least trying it. (I'm also willing to give him criticism for fucking it up so badly.)
Unlike WWII, most of the tools we have at our disposal are not effective against the threat. We've had great military success in Iraq, for example, but military success will not win this struggle for us. It's a tool, but it's not the primary tool.
Bush deserves some criticism for not catching Bin Laden and for the Katrina mess, but most of the rest of the items on your list are unfair. The jury's still out on Middle East democracy, for example, and I give Bush some credit for at least trying it. (I'm also willing to give him criticism for fucking it up so badly.)
Unlike WWII, most of the tools we have at our disposal are not effective against the threat. We've had great military success in Iraq, for example, but military success will not win this struggle for us. It's a tool, but it's not the primary tool.
Posted by: Ragnar the Skankophile at January 23, 2007 03:35 PM (c/4ax)
14
If Pakistan's government (and nukes) fall into the hands of the mullahs in a couple years, can we criticize Bush for letting that happen? If Iraq collapses into another stateless, lawless region, can we criticize Bush for that? If a nuke goes off in Manhattan in '08, can we criticize Bush for that? Or does Bush get all the credit and none of the blame?
Posted by: Ragnar the Skankophile at January 23, 2007 03:40 PM (c/4ax)
15
Ragnar: the lack of attacks is a symptom of success, and impossible to separate from the greater War on Terror. I understand your need to be seen as fashionably cynical, and your anger that Republican party leadership elections didn't go exactly as you had hoped. I also understand that you have a regrettable tendency to burn bridges while halfway across them.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2007 03:41 PM (p52Ne)
Posted by: Gleep! at January 23, 2007 03:41 PM (Zlbra)
17
"If Pakistan's government (and nukes) fall into the hands of the mullahs in a couple years, can we criticize Bush for letting that happen? If Iraq collapses into another stateless, lawless region, can we criticize Bush for that? If a nuke goes off in Manhattan in '08, can we criticize Bush for that? Or does Bush get all the credit and none of the blame?" - most of my blame will go to people who have enabled these things if they occur to further their political goals. Bush will get the blame for failing to be underhanded enough as a politician to see it through.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2007 03:43 PM (p52Ne)
18
I understand your need to be seen as fashionably cynical ...
I fail in this case to see how fashionable and healthy cynicisim differ--especially to those who have eyes they are actually willing to use.
I fail in this case to see how fashionable and healthy cynicisim differ--especially to those who have eyes they are actually willing to use.
Posted by: Gleep! at January 23, 2007 03:43 PM (Zlbra)
19
Glorp!: you fail to see it, because, as has been established to my satisfaction, you are an idiot. Cynicism put on for its own sake is not really cynicism, it's simply pandering.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2007 03:48 PM (p52Ne)
20
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. And when you can win an argument based on its merits, let us all know.
Posted by: Gleep! at January 23, 2007 04:11 PM (Zlbra)
21
Bluto sez:
"I also understand that you have a regrettable tendency to burn bridges while halfway across them."
Luckily for all involved, that regrettable tendency takes a distant second to my regrettable tendency to post pictures of "ugly skanks."
I'm frankly disappointed that you suspect my professed lack of confidence in George W. Bush is anything less than totally sincere. I assure you that it is.
"I also understand that you have a regrettable tendency to burn bridges while halfway across them."
Luckily for all involved, that regrettable tendency takes a distant second to my regrettable tendency to post pictures of "ugly skanks."
I'm frankly disappointed that you suspect my professed lack of confidence in George W. Bush is anything less than totally sincere. I assure you that it is.
Posted by: Ragnar the Skankophile at January 23, 2007 04:20 PM (c/4ax)
22
...is totally sincere, that is.
Posted by: Ragnar the Skankophile at January 23, 2007 04:21 PM (c/4ax)
23
I was talking more about your failure to understand the reasons for fighting the Islamists on their home turf, making your post read more like a KosKidz diary than a Jawa Report entry.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2007 04:27 PM (p52Ne)
24
"...most of my blame will go to people who have enabled these things if they occur to further their political goals."
I seem to recall a time when the President had a sign on his desk that said "The buck stops here." I don't think it's there anymore, but the President doesn't really need to pass the buck if others are willing to pass it for him.
"...your anger that Republican party leadership elections didn't go exactly as you had hoped."
"Anger?" Not really. Disappointment? Most definitely. I suspect you and others will be sharing my disappointment when the Democrats retain the House and Senate in '08. Even more so if the Dems take the White House. But hey, don't rock the boat, right? Whatever happens, don't rock the boat. Someday, maybe even in our lifetimes, the Democrats will come across as looking worse than mediocre, and unprincipled Republican mediocrity will be looking pretty damn good to the voters by comparison. Until that day, I suppose it's best to wander aimlessly, struggle for "unity," sing Kumbaya with the plutocrats and keep our impolite sentiments to ourselves.
I guess that strategy works for some folks. Me? Not so much.
I seem to recall a time when the President had a sign on his desk that said "The buck stops here." I don't think it's there anymore, but the President doesn't really need to pass the buck if others are willing to pass it for him.
"...your anger that Republican party leadership elections didn't go exactly as you had hoped."
"Anger?" Not really. Disappointment? Most definitely. I suspect you and others will be sharing my disappointment when the Democrats retain the House and Senate in '08. Even more so if the Dems take the White House. But hey, don't rock the boat, right? Whatever happens, don't rock the boat. Someday, maybe even in our lifetimes, the Democrats will come across as looking worse than mediocre, and unprincipled Republican mediocrity will be looking pretty damn good to the voters by comparison. Until that day, I suppose it's best to wander aimlessly, struggle for "unity," sing Kumbaya with the plutocrats and keep our impolite sentiments to ourselves.
I guess that strategy works for some folks. Me? Not so much.
Posted by: Ragnar the Skankophile at January 23, 2007 04:40 PM (c/4ax)
25
Such a long post and yet totally non-responsive to the point. Could you string together a few more non sequiturs?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2007 04:49 PM (p52Ne)
26
"Only an imbecile could fail to see the connection..."
Can we dispense with the perjoratives?
"I was talking more about your failure to understand the reasons for fighting the Islamists on their home turf, making your post read more like a KosKidz diary than a Jawa Report entry."
I'm open to "fighting the Islamists on their home turf."
Problem is, the Islamists' "home turf" is Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. I haven't yet seen the plans to fight them there.
As to the point under discussion, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how occupying Iraq moved the ball forward in a tactical sense as regards the Saudis, Persians and Pakistanis. I am all ears. Is the idea to spread democracy to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, so the Islamic majorities of those nations can elect their own governments? Is that what we're trying to do here? I've asked the promoters of the Iraq campaign (it's technically not a "war," btw) time and time again to explain to me how this investment moves the ball forward. I'm still waiting for an answer.
Can we dispense with the perjoratives?
"I was talking more about your failure to understand the reasons for fighting the Islamists on their home turf, making your post read more like a KosKidz diary than a Jawa Report entry."
I'm open to "fighting the Islamists on their home turf."
Problem is, the Islamists' "home turf" is Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. I haven't yet seen the plans to fight them there.
As to the point under discussion, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how occupying Iraq moved the ball forward in a tactical sense as regards the Saudis, Persians and Pakistanis. I am all ears. Is the idea to spread democracy to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, so the Islamic majorities of those nations can elect their own governments? Is that what we're trying to do here? I've asked the promoters of the Iraq campaign (it's technically not a "war," btw) time and time again to explain to me how this investment moves the ball forward. I'm still waiting for an answer.
Posted by: Ragnar the Skankophile at January 23, 2007 05:05 PM (c/4ax)
27
No we can't. Pejoratives are appropriate here. You see the lies spread by our domestic enemies in the Press and the DNC when we prosecute a campaign against terrorists in Iraq (coincidentally, opening a second front to keep jihadis from massing against our troops in Afghanistan) and then blithely demand we attack Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not only sovereign nations, but nominative allies. Yeah, that's gonna happen.
You fail to acknowledge, or perhaps even to understand, that tens of thousands of Islamists have died in Iraq; people who would be happy to attack our civilians if our soldiers weren't keeping them busy - over there.
Pejoratives aren't just appropriate here, they're essential.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2007 05:28 PM (p52Ne)
Posted by: Gleep! at January 23, 2007 06:03 PM (Zlbra)
29
So now being "open" to an option is the same as "demanding" it? Surely you can put together an argument without mischaracterizing my position.
Ok, so now we can't attack "sovereign nations?" When did that rule go into effect? And we can't attack "allies?" I suppose we shouldn't attack them so long as we remain "allies," but changing an "ally" into a "former ally" is as easy as holding a press conference. So I don't see either one of those "hurdles" as being particularly tall. What else ya got?
There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. Can any of us even contemplate that number of people? I'm not sure I can. Can any of us really get our brains around what a huge freaking number that is? In digits, that's 1,300,000,000, or 1.3 THOUSAND MILLION.
The twenty percent or so that are considered "radical Islamists" constitute approximately 260 million of that population. Out of all of these hundreds of millions of Islamists, do you really believe that the global Islamist movement couldn't spare a handful of terrorists to blow some shit up in the U.S.? I'm not gonna resort to calling you names for holding on to that idea, but it really doesn't make much sense.
As to whether "tens of thousands of Islamists have died in Iraq," it's probably closer to hundreds of thousands. So what? Does that number sound big to you? One percent of the total Muslim population is 13 million. In the time we've been fighting in Iraq and killed off a few hundred thousand at best, the world's Muslim population has grown by millions. Unless you're ready to break out the nukes, you just can't win this struggle by killing them all. They are multiplying faster than we could possibly kill them without resorting to what could only be described as mass genocide. Given this, what difference does it make how many tens (or hundreds) of thousands we've killed?
Ok, so now we can't attack "sovereign nations?" When did that rule go into effect? And we can't attack "allies?" I suppose we shouldn't attack them so long as we remain "allies," but changing an "ally" into a "former ally" is as easy as holding a press conference. So I don't see either one of those "hurdles" as being particularly tall. What else ya got?
There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. Can any of us even contemplate that number of people? I'm not sure I can. Can any of us really get our brains around what a huge freaking number that is? In digits, that's 1,300,000,000, or 1.3 THOUSAND MILLION.
The twenty percent or so that are considered "radical Islamists" constitute approximately 260 million of that population. Out of all of these hundreds of millions of Islamists, do you really believe that the global Islamist movement couldn't spare a handful of terrorists to blow some shit up in the U.S.? I'm not gonna resort to calling you names for holding on to that idea, but it really doesn't make much sense.
As to whether "tens of thousands of Islamists have died in Iraq," it's probably closer to hundreds of thousands. So what? Does that number sound big to you? One percent of the total Muslim population is 13 million. In the time we've been fighting in Iraq and killed off a few hundred thousand at best, the world's Muslim population has grown by millions. Unless you're ready to break out the nukes, you just can't win this struggle by killing them all. They are multiplying faster than we could possibly kill them without resorting to what could only be described as mass genocide. Given this, what difference does it make how many tens (or hundreds) of thousands we've killed?
Posted by: Ragnar the Skankophile at January 23, 2007 06:17 PM (c/4ax)
30
The "consensus" of world intelligence means nothing as it relied heavily on American intelligence. Bush also ordered his officers not to admit there was an insurgency in Iraq many months after he was formally informed as much, until it became too obvious to deny.
Then he treated the insurgency as if it was dominated by Al Qaeda
when it has always been majority native Sunni. And to believe Cheney's unprecedented multitude of visits didn't pressure agents to
rewrite reports which had initially exonerated Saddam is to
also beleive his prediction, pre-war, that Iraq would be pacified
and a new government stabilized by end 2003.
Then he treated the insurgency as if it was dominated by Al Qaeda
when it has always been majority native Sunni. And to believe Cheney's unprecedented multitude of visits didn't pressure agents to
rewrite reports which had initially exonerated Saddam is to
also beleive his prediction, pre-war, that Iraq would be pacified
and a new government stabilized by end 2003.
Posted by: Ken Hoop at January 23, 2007 06:36 PM (EPkr9)
31
Ragnar: the MSM/DNC has done its best to undermine a war against an acknowledged murderous tyrant, and you want to go to war openly against the entire world of Islam. Brilliant. Warm up the nukes, because nobody's going to authorize any troops for that particular adventure.
It takes more than a "radical Islamist" to make a terrorist or jihadi fighter. The overwhelming majority will just talk. A tiny percentage will actually risk or seek death. The ones willing to do that are doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan. The leaders who planned 9/11 are dead or hiding in caves.
You might look at your allies in this little pissing contest and wonder why you're being supported by lefties who are rooting for the other side. Birds of a feather?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 23, 2007 07:57 PM (p52Ne)
32
"you want to go to war openly against the entire world of Islam."
Please read my comments again--more carefully this time.
"A tiny percentage [of radical Islamists] will actually risk or seek death."
How "tiny" of a percentage? Is it really only 0.08% (200K out of 260M) of the radical Islamists who are willing to do more than "talk" when Allah is prepared to hand over eternal life? I'm just not buying it. Even then, you think Osama would rather blow up a fruit market in Baghdad than a stock market in Manhattan? If not, then why is he sending basically ALL of his resources to Iraq and Afghanistan? Wouldn't it make sense to peel off a few more & send 'em to New York to blow shit up? How do you explain this?
"The ones willing to do that are doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Again, what leads you to believe that all (or even the vast majority) of the radical Islamists open to violent jihad are already in Iraq or Afghanistan?
"The leaders who planned 9/11 are dead or hiding in caves."
...or strolling through their villages in Waziristan, hanging out in Islamabad, London, Munich, etc., producing network-quality video messages and broadcasting them to the world. These facts, while all true, are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
"You might look at your allies in this little pissing contest and wonder why you're being supported by lefties who are rooting for the other side. Birds of a feather?"
Nice.
Please read my comments again--more carefully this time.
"A tiny percentage [of radical Islamists] will actually risk or seek death."
How "tiny" of a percentage? Is it really only 0.08% (200K out of 260M) of the radical Islamists who are willing to do more than "talk" when Allah is prepared to hand over eternal life? I'm just not buying it. Even then, you think Osama would rather blow up a fruit market in Baghdad than a stock market in Manhattan? If not, then why is he sending basically ALL of his resources to Iraq and Afghanistan? Wouldn't it make sense to peel off a few more & send 'em to New York to blow shit up? How do you explain this?
"The ones willing to do that are doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Again, what leads you to believe that all (or even the vast majority) of the radical Islamists open to violent jihad are already in Iraq or Afghanistan?
"The leaders who planned 9/11 are dead or hiding in caves."
...or strolling through their villages in Waziristan, hanging out in Islamabad, London, Munich, etc., producing network-quality video messages and broadcasting them to the world. These facts, while all true, are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
"You might look at your allies in this little pissing contest and wonder why you're being supported by lefties who are rooting for the other side. Birds of a feather?"
Nice.
Posted by: Ragnar the Skankophile at January 23, 2007 08:45 PM (c/4ax)
33
Creep/John Lyin'/Skagnar/Michael Liar/Ken Poop:
Frank Rich is a lying, mother-fucking, cock-sucking, ass-bandit and he will continue to screw over his own country in the pursuit of Dhimmiecrat power. This is an indisputable fact.
Why are you turds attempting to defend him? Why do you hate your own country so much?
Iraqis are better off now since the genocidal, rape addicted, homo-hating, slave owning, racist, tyrannical, uber shitmonger Saddam Hussein was deposed.
You assholes resent any American victory, and will work overtime to stymie any American success.
Bottom line: You leftist vermin want the terrorists to triumph in Iraq. Any protestations or distortions to the contrary will fall on deaf ears in this forum.
Do you dorks really think you're intelligent enough to snow your betters? Silly rabids. lies are for kids.
Frank Rich is a lying, mother-fucking, cock-sucking, ass-bandit and he will continue to screw over his own country in the pursuit of Dhimmiecrat power. This is an indisputable fact.
Why are you turds attempting to defend him? Why do you hate your own country so much?
Iraqis are better off now since the genocidal, rape addicted, homo-hating, slave owning, racist, tyrannical, uber shitmonger Saddam Hussein was deposed.
You assholes resent any American victory, and will work overtime to stymie any American success.
Bottom line: You leftist vermin want the terrorists to triumph in Iraq. Any protestations or distortions to the contrary will fall on deaf ears in this forum.
Do you dorks really think you're intelligent enough to snow your betters? Silly rabids. lies are for kids.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 23, 2007 10:43 PM (abVz3)
34
Jeff Sez :"Skagnar...turd[]...asshole[]...You leftist vermin want the terrorists to triumph in Iraq. Any protestations or distortions to the contrary will fall on deaf ears in this forum."
Jeff - You often have valuable contributions to make in the comments, and for that, I thank you. And I am, indeed, an asshole. That said, the above comment could only have been made by a fucking moron. If you really think I fit into the category of "leftist vermin," you're a fucking moron.
"Do you dorks really think you're intelligent enough to snow your betters?"
For the record, I don't try to "snow" anyone. "Intelligent enough?" Cute.
Hey, if you're looking to start something with me, just keep it comin'. You won't enjoy it, but you go right on ahead.
Jeff - You often have valuable contributions to make in the comments, and for that, I thank you. And I am, indeed, an asshole. That said, the above comment could only have been made by a fucking moron. If you really think I fit into the category of "leftist vermin," you're a fucking moron.
"Do you dorks really think you're intelligent enough to snow your betters?"
For the record, I don't try to "snow" anyone. "Intelligent enough?" Cute.
Hey, if you're looking to start something with me, just keep it comin'. You won't enjoy it, but you go right on ahead.
Posted by: Ragnar the Linkwhore at January 24, 2007 12:44 AM (z7IeK)
35
"Skagnar," someone else wrote that comment with my computer, but you are wrong about the mission in Iraq.
Going after Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan before Iraq would have been politically impossible for President Bush. Iraq had precedents that those other countries did not. Saddam had been violating the treaty terms imposed by America after the Gulf War and a whole slew of UN resolutions. He had also tried to assassinate the elder George Bush. Iraq is strategically located. Putting American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has effectively surrounded Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. (We have troops in Turkmenistan, Israel and Turkey are allies, and the U.S. Navy owns the Persian Gulf.)
The leftist and international opposition to overthrowing Saddam was brutal. The opposition to overthrowing the house of Saud, the Iranian mullahs, or a force for regional stability like Musharraf would have been far more brutal.
Saudi Arabia is an ostensible ally and the world's leading oil producer. A premature invasion of that country would be disastrous for the U.S. economy. It would adversely affect the entire world.
There are now precedents that make a forced regime change in Iran more viable than it was in 2003.
Pakistan has never been a greater threat than Iraq, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
The entire Muslime world is a breeding ground for terrorists, not just the 3 countries you mentioned. Genocide is not an option at this time, so removing the regimes that are capable of producing the worst terrorism was Bush's best option. Afghanistan was first because the Taliban tried to harbor Bin Loser. Iraq was second because of precedent, tactical location and the most powerful military in the muslime world.
I believe that Iran and Syria re next in line for regime change.
Iraq is now the focus of jihadi terrorism, so fighting them over there has its benefits.
I don't believe there are 1.3 billion muslimes in the world. The source of that figure is suspect, because it was provided by the muslime world itself. I find it hard to believe that the figure of 800 million muslimes quoted before 911 miraculously grew to 1.3 billion the day after.
Going after Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan before Iraq would have been politically impossible for President Bush. Iraq had precedents that those other countries did not. Saddam had been violating the treaty terms imposed by America after the Gulf War and a whole slew of UN resolutions. He had also tried to assassinate the elder George Bush. Iraq is strategically located. Putting American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has effectively surrounded Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. (We have troops in Turkmenistan, Israel and Turkey are allies, and the U.S. Navy owns the Persian Gulf.)
The leftist and international opposition to overthrowing Saddam was brutal. The opposition to overthrowing the house of Saud, the Iranian mullahs, or a force for regional stability like Musharraf would have been far more brutal.
Saudi Arabia is an ostensible ally and the world's leading oil producer. A premature invasion of that country would be disastrous for the U.S. economy. It would adversely affect the entire world.
There are now precedents that make a forced regime change in Iran more viable than it was in 2003.
Pakistan has never been a greater threat than Iraq, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
The entire Muslime world is a breeding ground for terrorists, not just the 3 countries you mentioned. Genocide is not an option at this time, so removing the regimes that are capable of producing the worst terrorism was Bush's best option. Afghanistan was first because the Taliban tried to harbor Bin Loser. Iraq was second because of precedent, tactical location and the most powerful military in the muslime world.
I believe that Iran and Syria re next in line for regime change.
Iraq is now the focus of jihadi terrorism, so fighting them over there has its benefits.
I don't believe there are 1.3 billion muslimes in the world. The source of that figure is suspect, because it was provided by the muslime world itself. I find it hard to believe that the figure of 800 million muslimes quoted before 911 miraculously grew to 1.3 billion the day after.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 24, 2007 07:10 AM (abVz3)
36
For the record, Jeff, you didn't identify one single thing I said that was "wrong" about the Iraq action. You said I was "wrong" and then broke into a filibuster on the subject largely disconnected from anything I've said in this discussion. What have I said that was wrong about the Iraq action?
I'll ask you the same questions I've asked of every other booster of the Iraq action, and for which I am STILL waiting on an answer:
1. What is the particular problem this action was intended to solve? Are we trying to stop terrorism? Are we trying to stop the spread of Wahabism? Are we trying to contain the Shias? All of the above? What, specifically, was the U.S. trying to do by deposing Saddam?
2. How does the invasion of Iraq serve the purposes you identified in the answer to question 1?
I'll ask you the same questions I've asked of every other booster of the Iraq action, and for which I am STILL waiting on an answer:
1. What is the particular problem this action was intended to solve? Are we trying to stop terrorism? Are we trying to stop the spread of Wahabism? Are we trying to contain the Shias? All of the above? What, specifically, was the U.S. trying to do by deposing Saddam?
2. How does the invasion of Iraq serve the purposes you identified in the answer to question 1?
Posted by: The All-Seeing Pirate Ragnar at January 24, 2007 11:29 AM (/5Hx9)
37
"
With a guy like this you would have lost WW2." No if you recall the president with the Charisma died before the end of WWII. What would have made us lose WWII would have been if a large group of Americans failed in their duty to support the nation during that war. Just like the left did in Vietnam, Just like they are doing now.
No, the loss does not go to Bush it goes to the traitors. The liberal wing of the Democratic party. The ones who call head chopping terrorists criminal thugswho stand against every value the left ever had, freedom fighters . Fools. The sad part is that in Jan 2009 it is likely that it will be my duty to support their war plan. I'd like to reciprocate really, but my duty as a loyal citizen says I'll have to support my nation against it's enemy.
With a guy like this you would have lost WW2." No if you recall the president with the Charisma died before the end of WWII. What would have made us lose WWII would have been if a large group of Americans failed in their duty to support the nation during that war. Just like the left did in Vietnam, Just like they are doing now.
No, the loss does not go to Bush it goes to the traitors. The liberal wing of the Democratic party. The ones who call head chopping terrorists criminal thugswho stand against every value the left ever had, freedom fighters . Fools. The sad part is that in Jan 2009 it is likely that it will be my duty to support their war plan. I'd like to reciprocate really, but my duty as a loyal citizen says I'll have to support my nation against it's enemy.
Posted by: Howie at January 24, 2007 01:38 PM (2cR/Y)
38
Ragnar:
You wrote:
"I'm open to "fighting the Islamists on their home turf." (Referring to Bluto's statement that america is fighting the islamists in Iraq.)
"Problem is, the Islamists' 'home turf' is Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. I haven't yet seen the plans to fight them there.
As to the point under discussion, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how occupying Iraq moved the ball forward in a tactical sense as regards the Saudis, Persians and Pakistanis."
You then wrote this to me:
"For the record, Jeff, you didn't identify one single thing I said that was "wrong" about the Iraq action."
I identified several things. Fighting the terrorists over there (Iraq,) has it's benefits. The entire muslim world is rife with terrorist organizations, from Morrocco to the Philippines--not just Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. (Pakistan isn't nearly as bad as Lebanon, Syria, Yemen or beleaugered Israel.) Whether you regard Iraq as the terrorists' home turf or not, that is were they are focusing their battle against the West, and they consider all of the Middle East and Northern Africa as their home turf. Hell, they consider Spain, the Mediterranean, India and a host of other areas their home turf.
You will not see any plans to fight terrorism in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. Any such contingency plans are national security secrets for obvious reasons. Are you saying you don't believe there are any such contingency plans?
I explained "how occupying Iraq moved the ball forward in a tactical sense as regards the Saudis, Persians and Pakistanis." Iran and Saudi Arabia are effectively surrounded by American forces. So is Syria. Pakistan is also between an American rock and an Indian hard place, but I don't see an invasion of that country occurring while Musharraf is in charge. An aerial asault after he's gone, yeah.
"2) What is the particular problem this action was intended to solve? Are we trying to stop terrorism? Are we trying to stop the spread of Wahabism? Are we trying to contain the Shias? All of the above? What, specifically, was the U.S. trying to do by deposing Saddam?"
I already wrote that deposing Saddam was meant to rid the area of a dangerous regime, and why Iraq was second on the list after Afghanistan. President Bush is trying to change the character of the Middle East from one of imblacable xenophobia and aggression, to one that's far less extremist.
"2) How does the invasion of Iraq serve the purposes you identified in the answer to question 1?"
See my answer to question #1. Also, Iraq has become a killing field for terrorists who would otherwise be occupied elsewhere.
The campaign in Iraq is far from perfect, but it's obvious that the Middle East cannot be left to fester under its own devices any longer. Jihadis will continue to attack the West no matter what we do, so the fight must be taken to them. Afghanistan and Iraq were the most logical and tactically sound starting points.
You wrote:
"I'm open to "fighting the Islamists on their home turf." (Referring to Bluto's statement that america is fighting the islamists in Iraq.)
"Problem is, the Islamists' 'home turf' is Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. I haven't yet seen the plans to fight them there.
As to the point under discussion, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how occupying Iraq moved the ball forward in a tactical sense as regards the Saudis, Persians and Pakistanis."
You then wrote this to me:
"For the record, Jeff, you didn't identify one single thing I said that was "wrong" about the Iraq action."
I identified several things. Fighting the terrorists over there (Iraq,) has it's benefits. The entire muslim world is rife with terrorist organizations, from Morrocco to the Philippines--not just Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. (Pakistan isn't nearly as bad as Lebanon, Syria, Yemen or beleaugered Israel.) Whether you regard Iraq as the terrorists' home turf or not, that is were they are focusing their battle against the West, and they consider all of the Middle East and Northern Africa as their home turf. Hell, they consider Spain, the Mediterranean, India and a host of other areas their home turf.
You will not see any plans to fight terrorism in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. Any such contingency plans are national security secrets for obvious reasons. Are you saying you don't believe there are any such contingency plans?
I explained "how occupying Iraq moved the ball forward in a tactical sense as regards the Saudis, Persians and Pakistanis." Iran and Saudi Arabia are effectively surrounded by American forces. So is Syria. Pakistan is also between an American rock and an Indian hard place, but I don't see an invasion of that country occurring while Musharraf is in charge. An aerial asault after he's gone, yeah.
"2) What is the particular problem this action was intended to solve? Are we trying to stop terrorism? Are we trying to stop the spread of Wahabism? Are we trying to contain the Shias? All of the above? What, specifically, was the U.S. trying to do by deposing Saddam?"
I already wrote that deposing Saddam was meant to rid the area of a dangerous regime, and why Iraq was second on the list after Afghanistan. President Bush is trying to change the character of the Middle East from one of imblacable xenophobia and aggression, to one that's far less extremist.
"2) How does the invasion of Iraq serve the purposes you identified in the answer to question 1?"
See my answer to question #1. Also, Iraq has become a killing field for terrorists who would otherwise be occupied elsewhere.
The campaign in Iraq is far from perfect, but it's obvious that the Middle East cannot be left to fester under its own devices any longer. Jihadis will continue to attack the West no matter what we do, so the fight must be taken to them. Afghanistan and Iraq were the most logical and tactically sound starting points.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 25, 2007 12:52 AM (Dt3sl)
66kb generated in CPU 0.9902, elapsed 1.7616 seconds.
34 queries taking 1.6517 seconds, 193 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 1.6517 seconds, 193 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
