Al-Qaida is alive and doing well on the border of Pakistan, with terror chiefs Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri once again back in operational control of their worldwide network, the New York Times reported.
While we’ve been bogged down in Iraq, al-Qaida has steadily regrouped. What a breathtaking failure of policy.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
100 Comments
Predictable, too. Too predictable.
Sadly it was foreseeable, a failure in a right war is a worst loss then a failure in a wrong war.Don’t get me wrong, we need to win both as one was right and just while the other is we broke it and now it is our responsible to fix it. But a Vietnam end to Iraq is live able, to fail and lose the ground gained in Afghanistan only shows we are a sad country. And I do so hate it when the real bad guys win!
You know, the abandonment of going after bin Laden and Al Qaeda didn’t start with the invasion of Iraq. It started days after 9-11.
The first diversion of attention from Bin laden and Al Qaeda came with an utterly loony concept called “the war on terrorism.” By changing the focus from Al Qaeda to an amorphous, undefined enemy (and deliberately tapping into people’s vague prejudices and fears), the administration handed itself the authority to declare “a new kind of war”–
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010927-secdef.html
–against nobody in particular, with its own freshly-drawn rules, presumed outside the scope of U.S. or international law. This was precisely intended.
Yeah, we attacked Afghanistan ,and conveniently overthrew the Taliban–not that I shed any tears on that one, but it had nothing to do with getting Al Qaeda. The American people would not have stood for at least some cursory attempts to snare bin Laden. But then what?
“Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
. . .but the “war,” of course, continued. . . .
Randy, it’s OK. We know you ‘hate America.’
CF ‘hates America,’ too, what with his unwavering conviction that the Bush Administration has failed, decisively, in the battle against Islamist extremism that REALLY mattered–in Afghanistan and on the border with Pakistan.
Rage is right: the battle of Afghanistan was lost, years ago, by a feckless and bullying “Administration” that had its eyes on Iraq already in 2000.
Some years ago I had a nephew of Afghani President Hamid Karzai as a student. Before a shot was ever fired by the U.S. in Iraq, my student made it clear that his uncle had received little of the promised assistance and aid to bring Afghanistan back from its status as a failed state.
So now Al Qaeda is back, the U.S. having spent close to a trillion dollars to make Baghdad look like post-Katrina New Orleans.
Osama read George Bush like a book.
CF,
I must disagree…
Osama played GW like a puppet…
Well, I suppose that had Clinton been successful in hitting bin Laden when bombing Afghanistan in 98, after the Embassy attacks, none of this would be relevant today, now would it.
If Bush failed in Afghanistan, Clinton failed there first.
And what were Clinton’s reasons for removing Saddam from power and replacing him with a democratic government?
Anyone remember?
Tony,
A sock puppet, that is.
GSheridan,
You, by contrast, are more reminiscent of a ventriloquist doll with an anti-Clinton knee jerk.
So what George Bush failed to do, after saying he would do, isn’t his fault. It’s really Bill Clinton’s fault.
Logic cries out, GSheridan, and begs you to stop torturing it.
CF – I’m just reminding you of the history of the situation there, and the man both were after.
Neither succeeded.
That bears remembering. Why are you so loath to broach history?
But I ask again, do you remember why Clinton advocated removing Saddam and replacing him with a democratic Government?
Oh come on, CF – you know you have to expect the standard “It’s all Clinton’s fault” mantra out of them. Never mind that Bush has had SIX years to figure out what the hell is going on, and he still can’t even buy a clue…. It’s all Clinton’s fault, don’t you know? Yep, that BJ just blew EVERYTHING, didn’t it???
But GSheridan
Do YOU remember why Clinton was FORCED to stop his campaign? Do you remember “Wag the Dog?”
Clinton was basically blackmailed into stopping his attacks because of his impeachment.
I agree that Clinton should have never let up and gotten Not-BinGotten but DA SHRUB swore on the graves of the 9/11 victims that he could catch the ones responsible. Here we are years later and nearly 1 trillion dollars (in Iraq) later, with nothing to show.
How do you defend that GS?
GSheridan,
Wendy and Tony got it.
But more to the point, I ain’t gonna play your disingenuous little game. Tell us what YOU think.
‘Just reminding you of the history.’ Good one, GSheridan, and Tony contributes a bit of relevant history as well.
Here’s another bit: the House Republicans voted to stop funding for American troops in Kosovo.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/bosnia/dec95/nbos110.htm
Just a bit of ‘context’ in which you can pose your question, GSheridan, about what Bill Clinton did and didn’t do with respect to Osama Bin Laden.
Wendy, there are two different ways of looking at an issue.
We can pull out the immediate situation and hold it under a microscope, looking ONLY at that little piece of the puzzle, or….we can look at the issue as it fits into the bigger puzzle.
With the latter method, we have a clearer assessment of the event, and other pieces of the puzzle, and therefore can judge it (more)indiscriminately.
But with the first method, we will always be like the blind men who each grabbed ‘hold different parts of the elephant. None could accurately describe the creature, hence none of them really understood the nature of the beast.
Anytime we enter into a discussion of the Iraq war of today, without including all the events of the past century that led up to it – we do ourselves, and our integrity, a great disservice.
This was on the Opnion Line:
“If the troops have done an excellent job in Iraq, so have the leaders, including the commander in chief.”
GSheridan,
Patronize much?
I will be interested to hear your retelling of the history of the post-colonial Mideast. Have at it. How did we get to where we are today?
CF – am I to understand that you don’t want to discuss why Clinton advocated removing Saddam and implementing a democratic government in Iraq?
You sure are doing a lot of sidestepping here.
GS:BILL CLINTON!!BILL CLINTON!!
That’s quite an argument there.
We should have stayed in Afghan where the 9/11 plot was hatched.Afghan=goodIraq=bad
I told ya’ so. HA!
In other words, Tracy, the Ostrich Syndrome has you in its clutches.
lol
CF, don’t let GS lead you into some BS discussion of her choice.Her idealogue buddies are wrong, so she tries to mis-direct the whole damned thread.Damned lib media.It’s all Bill’s fault.
Sound familiar?
SherriBaby–
Clinton advocated regime change in Iraq. Every sentient being advocated regime change in Iraq, just like we advocate regime change in the White House and Bush’s approvals are about to Nixon levels.
But that doesn’t mean you support overthrowing the gov’t in a full-scale military invasion and occupation.
Two very different things.
As far as Al Qaeda goes, killing Bin Laden probably would not have stopped 9-11. He’s their money man–he’s not their field general.
Clinton’s action or inaction on Al Qaeda is wholly irrelevant. What’s relevant is whether invading Iraq helps stop terror or whether it fuels it.
Fuels it.
Wishing Bush isn’t the Worst. President. Ever. doesn’t make it so.
He is.
We’ve been over and over Bill Clinton’s presidency.Blaming him for GW’s blunders is not a valid point.You’re wrong.Now proceed with your ostrich crap, etc.
Yes, Clinton failed to get OBL. HE HAS SAID SO HIMSELF! But, he was also hapmered by hostile Republicans and a hostile media screaming ‘wag the dog’. He didn’t jusr decide to go elsewhere like the current occupant of the White House. And at least he has acknowledged his failures; also unlike the current occupant.
The one good thing about Iraq is that it’s so bad that even the ORANGE ALERT! American Idolized Anna Nicole Smith is dead!American public can see the clear results of Worst. President. Ever.
US democracy is a slow moving giant when it comes to stopping a truly horrible administration, but the wrath of the people once they are so moved is terrible to behold.
You sowed it, RePukes. Now you get to reap it.
The Great Repudiation of everything you believe and stand for has begun.
The one good thing about Iraq is that it’s so bad that even the ORANGE ALERT! American Idolized Anna Nicole Smith is dead!American public can see the clear results of Worst. President. Ever.
US democracy is a slow moving giant when it comes to stopping a truly horrible administration, but the wrath of the people once they are so moved is terrible to behold.
You sowed it, RePukes. Now you get to reap it.
The Great Repudiation of everything you believe and stand for has begun.
Chuckle…. Man, that must have been some strong coffee the Capn had this morning.
Visions of grandeur can be a sign of losing it though.
hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee heeheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh
(deep breath)
hohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
OMG, I am ROLLING on the floor laughing at gee sherri trying to blame Clinton because bush blew iraq AND Afghanistan.
Sorry dear. Blaming Clinton for this preznit’s mistakes is SO pre-November 2006…
Here is a clue little girl. Citing Clinton for bush’s mistakes will only get you HOWLS of laughter here. Not credibility, which you so desperately need.
…and as was mentioned above, every human on the planet would have LOVED to have seen the iraqi’s depose saddam and install a democracy of their choosing.
But as the Cap said, marching to bagdad and declaring mission accomplished, then baby sitting a civil war is a totally different thing.
Blood and treasure and all for oil. No wonder little miss fossil fuels thinks dick and george’s excellent adventure was worth it all.
Even in spectacular failure, she is still experiencing “shock and awe” for bush.
I “heart” george much?
…waiting for one of the bushblowers to start the “stabbed in the back” meme in 3-2-1…..
Obviously unbeknownst to you, farmie, the Iraq War did not happen in a vacuum.
Had that history not been in place, Iraq would not have been the target it was.
Now then, don’t you have some hash to sling in your greasy spoon?
Is gee sherri using nathan’s favorite term? CONTEXT?
Ok, you want history, let’s go back to the US destroying their government and installing the shah which led to the rise of the ayatollah komeni? Why stop with Clinton?
hehehehehehehehehehhehehehehehehheh
I dont have any gourmet delights to dish out in my casual but upscale restaurant to get out this morning. But thanks for asking.
Dont you have to check on your planet raping portfolio? Or maybe some illegals to hire in your “construction” business? hehehehehehehehehehehehehheheheheh
Just how many outhouses ARE needed in central kansas?
Ok, we want to play, blame the other president, lets go back to Bush, episode 1, hell, go back even further to when WE ARMED Saddam to fight against Iran…
So, yea, u Bush lovers want to play the blame game, how many republican president fubared the situation vs democratic presidents?
GS hang in there. It doesn’t take much to make KSfrmgl hysterical. SHe would be better served by becoming historical. When we try to change history by refuting it after the fact then we are looking throught rose colored glasses. I heard an interview with Hilary Clinton yesterday tapen in 2002 where she said she didn’t trust the White Houses intelligence when she voted on the war. She got her private info from Madeline Albright. The prez, GWB, used that same info and went to Iraq. All these “I voted for it before I voted against it” sheeple will lead this nation into decline if they are allowed to have complete control.
The ‘casual, but upscale’ joint must be doing a brisk business this fine AM, since the sole cook has been spent most of her time here.
lol
Well, off to rape the planet….
toodles
GS, regulars here know we are only open on the weekends.
Any other insults you wanna sling today? I feel up to it!
Be interesting to see what the revisionist thinking and memory will be 10 years from now if there is success in Iraq. Never seen so many poeple willing to bet on a horse to lose.
” When we try to change history by refuting it after the fact then we are looking throught rose colored glasses.”
No shit germie.
Still waiting on that historical discussion about how the US overthrew the Iranian government to install their puppet Shah, and how that led to the rise of the militant religious leaders like the ayatollah.
Ok, your turn. Let’s talk history!
What kind of greasy spoon is only open on the weekends? Sheesh.
Upscale? Yeah, right.
AND you pay your help under the table.
What part of the word, “illegal” don’t you seem to understand?
Hmmmm…?
GSheridan wrote,
“CF – am I to understand that you don’t want to discuss why Clinton advocated removing Saddam and implementing a democratic government in Iraq?
You sure are doing a lot of sidestepping here.”
Your characterization of Clinton’s posture toward Saddam Hussein is factually misleading. The verbs you use, “removing” and “implementing,” contravene the express language of 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (), passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
The act states that “it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” The “support” was to be rendered to internal Iraqi groups, identified by the President, as the vanguard of democratization in Iraq.
To say that the President Clinton hoped to foster regime change is one thing: to say that that he advocated ‘removing’ Saddam Hussein and ‘implementing’ a democratic regime, which connotes the United States as the actor in place of indigenous, Iraqi democratic movements, is something entirely different. Specifically, it isn’t what the Congress intended or what Bill Clinton signed on to.
For you to now claim this was his intention misrepresents the ‘context’ as well as the facts. I’d call you a historical revisionist, GSheridan, except that what you’re trying to manipulate isn’t merely an interpretation, but the facts of the case.
Just to be clear, I’m calling you a liar, GSheridan. You’re obviously pretty smart, so it should be amusing to watch you try to weasel out of the trap you’ve set yourself with your own words.
DIRECT HIT…
Nice shot CF…
So typical, when you get your ass kicked on substance, you go for the lame personal attack. And attempt to divert the thread from the subject of the abysmal failure the repukes created in iraq. I’m not biting.
Here is a little clue for you, little miss fossil fuels. The regulars here know about my restaurant and what we serve. Not that it has any relevance to this thread.
YOU, my dear, would really hate my place. It would be a horrible experience for you to dine in my restaurant. Clearly, it would be beneath your royal highness to dine there.
You should definately stay away and NEVER darken the door way of my place.
…and I see that being a restauranteur is an occupation you have no respect for. Only SOME entrepreneurs count, and owning a restaurant doesnt.
hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
button up dear. Your elitist insecurity and arrogance are showing.
Geez and Gsheri says I live here?
She’s been posting since dawn!
She really should get out and supervise her illegal workers.
And dhe started OFF THE BAT the old bat with the re-direct.
Lady if you wanna play history we have been f**cking with the whole world for about the last 60 years. USUALLY it is to benefit the bottom line of money grubbing bastards like yourself. We’re now reaping what we’ve sewn.
But it’s ok honey. No one will ask you to sacrifice a thing. But guess what? My kid has no interest in going off to fight your war.
Hell if they come to chop your head off I’ll hold the basket.
ksfarmgrrl,
Indeed. The first thought that popped into CF’s head after reading Sweet Polly Purebred’s comments was “no class.”
GS -
Well, if that is the way you want to play it…
I am not saying that Clinton’s time in the White House had no effect on where we are today. Far from it in fact. You miss my point, which was that Bush has had ample time in which to also effect a difference – the difference is that Clinton didn’t put our country in a no win hole the way Bush has, all so he could make some money and get revenge…
But you want to play your double standards game – that’s great… So how about, as CF suggests, we go back and look at what ALL previous presidents have done that have affected this situation – oh wait, that would mean dragging your precious republican presidents through the mud… Heaven forbid that while you are busy accusing other people of not gathering all the information, you should actually look at things of RELEVANCE to your claims – like, how the heck did Saddam get out of control in the first place? oh right, because we (THE US – under a republican president…) ARMED him because we wanted Iran defeated. Too bad Saddam didn’t get that it was ONLY Iran we wanted him to fight… Oh but wait, to go back further, we would not have had to support Saddam, had we not gone in and disrupted Iran’s leadership, thereby forcing a civil war of sorts there!!! GEE – HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF???? I know you just hate it when you are wrong, GS, but the fact is, to quote my FAVORITE cliche – “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”
The New York Times reports on intel info from anonymous sources who offer no evidence, and you folks swallow it like a hungry perch swallowing a bare hook. Amazing.
I’m not saying the reports are wrong, it’s just a hoot to watch how some of you people blindly accept anything the Times puts out as credible and relevent.
Anonymous sources like…John Negroponte? As the story says, John Negroponte “told Congress last month that “Al Qaeda’s core elements are resilient” and that the organization was “cultivating stronger operational connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders’ secure hide-out in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.”
I certainly have my problems with the Gray Lady. But watching Heckler second guess as to what’s “credible and relevant,” sounds, well, very “fair and balanced” to me.
Considering the information blackout to which we’ve been subjected by the White House, as well as the outright lies they’ve spent the last seven years peddling, it actually is quite sad how greedily we have to scramble for the news crumbs.
And I will agree on this point: no more printing of material from anonymous sources within the “Administration.” If the members of the “Administration” aren’t confident enough in their information to give it under their own names, then no news outlet has any business printing.
This word of this “Administration” is worth nothing. So too is the word of news outlets that uncritically print “Administration” lies and spin.
GS has a chip on it’s shoulder.Coupled with an inflated self image.
Aggressive stupidity.
Yeah, CF, and I think it was the repukes who had been swallowing the bushit hook, line and sinker before. Hell, they are still doing that NOW!
And they want to complain about us believing the NYT more than bushco?
Well, perhaps if bushco had not squandered their credibility with such a pattern of blatent lies it could shame his father….
…we MIGHT be willing to take the preznit’s word on something. Anything.
But, if wishes were horses we’d all ride, too. The lies are out there, the trust is gone, and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men, cant put humpty together again.
BUSH LIED BUSH LIED etc. etc. etc.
That’s so pathetic and weak you guys come on. Keep on singing.
“Aggressive stupidity”
hee hee hee hee hee hee heee
Yes Tracy, I believe that is the companion tract to “willful ignorance”.
heheheheheheheheehhehhehehehehehee
All hail the KING o’ snark!
“BUSH LIED BUSH LIED etc. etc. etc.
That’s so pathetic and weak”
Yeah heckie, it was pathetic and weak enough to put democrats in charge of both the house and senate.
I’ll take a weak position like that anyday.
Now if you REALLY wanna talk weak and pathetic? “Bill Clinton did it!” is about as weak and pathetic as it gets!
KFG
What did Bill Clinton do?
Oh that’s right, NOTHING.
Heckler,
What did George Bush do? Oh, that’s right, everything WRONG.
We’re infinitely more screwed now, in 2007, then we were in 2001 when Clinton left office. Immeasurably.
Heckler – “The New York Times reports on intel info from anonymous sources who offer no evidence, and you folks swallow it like a hungry perch swallowing a bare hook. Amazing.”
How about Curveball and all those other wonderfully “reliable” (sic) sources the Bushies relied upon to make their case for war?
Someone (maybe me) should post this immediately upon any mention of Clinton and Iraq. But here goes….
Clinton advocated regime change in Iraq because Saddam had refused to allow inspectors to prove that he did not have a WMD program. Based on Saddam’s refusal to allow the inspectors in, Clinton assumed that Saddam had reinstituted a WMD program.
During the early portion of Bush’ adminstration, Saddam had allowed the inspectors back in and they were well on their way to proving that Saddam did not have WMD or a program to start same.
The inspector left Iraq on the eve of the Bush invasion and flew to Cyprus to avoid being caught in the initial bombing.
To claim that Clinton had the same policy that GWB had is completely disingenuous.
Under Clinton, Saddam refused inspections.
Under Bush the inspections had resumed and they proved that Saddam was a paper tiger.
Heckler?
“I’m not saying the reports are wrong, it’s just a hoot to watch how some of you people blindly accept anything the Times puts out as credible and relevent.”
You mean as opposed to bringing us anything that refutes the Times report?
IS there anything to refute this new bit of bush brung bad news?
Hey talk to GSheridan. She’s the one who started waving her arms and screaming Bill Clinton! SHE must think there is something to the report.
WSclark
I little problem with your little timeline fantasy.
Saddam kicked the inspectors out and only allowed them back in as we were building up to invade him. And while they were there he did everything he could to spy on them and impede them.
JR
As usual you missed the point.
Heckler,
None of which changes anything WSClark wrote about Saddam’s compliance with UNMOVIC. Here are a couple of details from the timeline:
“March 7, 2003Britain offers an amendment to the draft second resolution, setting March 17 as the deadline for Iraq to disarm. The amendment is supported by resolution cosponsors Spain and the United States.The U.N. Security Council takes up the quarterly report on UNMOVIC activities submitted on March 1, by UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix.
March 1, 2003Deadline set by Hans Blix for destruction of Iraq’s Al-Samoud II missiles and related material. Iraq begins destruction of the weapons under U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) supervision.Hans Blix submits a quarterly report on UNMOVIC activities, as mandated by Resolution 1284.”
http://vialardi.org/IRAQ/iraq_timeline.html
The inspection regime was working, and the Bush Administration, still enchanted with its ‘fantasy’ that Iraq had weapons–or, perhaps, cynically aware that it really didn’t, but not caring anyway–went to war.
“Saddam kicked the inspectors out and only allowed them back in as we were building up to invade him.”
Bullshit. Saddam agreed to allow UN Inspectors to return on September 16, 2002. If you choose to remember, that was during the time Bush was telling the world that “war was a last resort.
Inspections resumed November 27, 2002. The inspectors never reported that Saddam restricted their inspections.
The inspectors left Iraq on March 18, 2003. The invasion began the next day.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron.asp
By the way, Heck, how is that search for WMD going? Even Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld have admitted that there were no WMD or development plans for same.
WSClark,
To the contrary: to this day, Cheney still maintains the WMD existed. It just moved to Syria. Or Lebanon. Or Iran. Or somewhere.
Clinton Admin’s Record on Terrorism
Clinton Administration developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
Clinton Administration stopped the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to kill the Pope
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up Boston airport
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania
– Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
– Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
– Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively — and successfully — to stop future terrorist attacks.
–Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
-Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
-Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
-Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
-Clinton Administration increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
-Clinton Administration tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism
-Clinton Administration detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries
-Clinton Administration created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
-Of Clinton Administration’s efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: “Overall, I give them very high marks” and “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama”
-Paul Bremer, disagreed slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Clinton Administration had “correctly focused on bin Laden.
-Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, “By any measure available, Clinton Administration left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him” and was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”
CF, don’t tell anyone but I have them buried in my backyard.
KFG,When reading this thread, I thought of the Nathan “context” argument. (Can you read my mind?) Then Heckler comes out of the corner with the “liberal biased source” argument. Of course, GS gave us the reliable “Clinton did it first & he’s to blame” routine.
Time to go home folks, the above is all these “thinkers” have. Calling such tactics “Pathetic” is a little too generous, actually.
What has Bush done?
Let’s start with this, then y’all can keep the ball rolling.
In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI.
Wait: my bad. Cheney isn’t still saying that Iraq possessed WMD. Rather, he’s saying that even had we known in 2003 that it had no WMD–which we arguably did–that going to war was still the right decision.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14767199/
Face it, Wingnuts: you’ve been lied to again and again. When are you going to stop letting your good intentions be misused? And when are you going to stop defending liars with lies of your own?
Heckler I “missed the point”? Um…. You made one?
Here we are after 4 years in Iraq- does anyone belive that we are even half way through the total time we are going to be involved there???
Oh, wait! I have a retraction on the call to go home. The wingnuts haven’t started their chorus of “you libs HATE America and don’t want to see us win!” – After that one, we can home.
“you libs HATE America and don’t want to see us win!”
AKA – the last refuge of a wingnut.
Pedant,
Indeed: ’stabbed in the back’ is already being deployed. God forbid that a ‘conservative’ should ever be held responsible for screwing up foreign policy.
“Can you read my mind?”hee hee hee Steven. Better tighten down the tinfoil! :)
And Pedant,
“Actually, “you libs HATE America and don’t want to see us win!” isn’t the last refuge. It’s just the stepping stone to “the only reason we lost in Iraq is the libs!”
True enough. That is the afore mentioned “stabbed in the back” conservative meme.
jinx, CF!
If we want to go back and start laying blame, shouldn’t we go back to Bush Sr.? I really can’t imagine how anyone can lay blame on Clinton for this mess. In this instance, going back in time is just another smoke screen for Bush supporters, because they still aren’t ready to admit that they elected an idiot bully for office.
Pointing fingers in extremely ridiculous in the Middle East quagmire, truth be told.We are seeing the results of as many as 60 years of policy errors in the region.We could continue to bury our heads in the sand, truth be told. Or deal with problems that are as much the fault of Harry S. Truman, FDR as GW Bush or William Jefferson Clinton.We could also look to lay blame to Henry Ford or Karl Benz.
The Truth,
Nonsense. None of the above figures invaded and conducted a long-term occupation of Iraq except for George W. Bush. The decision to do so was his and his alone.
Ah, typical Republican type nonsense, Truthiness!
It can’t be George W Bush’s fault, so it must be, ah, some DEAD guy’s fault!
Yeah, that’s it! Lets find a DEAD guy and blame it on him!!!!
Truth be told, the core of militant Islam’s war with the United States lies with Israel as well as a number of instances in recent history.I support the stance our country has with Israel.However, GW Bush did not set this policy.Also,GW Bush did not place Saddam Hussein in power.GW Bush did not create Osama Bin Laden thru the Soviet war in Afghanistan.GW Bush did not harbor the Shah of Iran.GW Bush did not set our country on the course that has made us ultra dependent on foreign oil.
Can you think of any other reasons we are hated by Islam, truth be told?
You raise some valid points. Our unwavering support for Eretz Israel NO MATTER WHAT is a major underlying problem. Bush tried to claim that victory in Iraq would solve the Palestine situation; I have consistently claimed the opposite. Bush said “The road to Jeruselum goes through Baghdad.” Well, look at the results.
US policy over the past several years have undercut Abbas and led to the rise of Hamas. Our tacit support of Israel’s Settlemets and Outposts policies have shown that we are steadfastly opposed to our oen “road map.” The US has lost its role as moderator; we have become too closely connested to Israeli expansionism.
Since we tacitly support a ‘one state’ solution there why not call for full citizenship of ALL people in the Annexed Territories. That is called Democracy.
“What a breathtaking failure of policy.”
I wonder why the above quote from scholfield didn’t make it into the paper?
Does anyone else wonder why we haven’t seen a video or heard an audio tape from bin Laden in so long? Makes you wonder if the rumors from Saudi intelligence that he is dead are true.
If he is dead, Steven, he died from old age . . .
Peckerwood objects to Randy’s calling Iraq “a breath-taking failure”?
He’s sure we can still “win” in Iraq. Because after all, things have gone so swimmingly there for the last four years . . .
Hey, Capn’, if you read the Right Wing talking points, we are just a few months away from VICTORY in Iraq!
Yes, it is true, with the surge of 21,500, after four years we are finally going to see the enemy surrender. Plans are now underway to bring an Air Craft Carrier into the Gulf for the surrender ceremony.
Of course, George W Bush, Commander-in-Thief and young Warrior King (C. Matthews) will fly in for the ceremony via Navy fighter plane.
… and the beat goes on…
The only Bushies left are people that can’t distinguish between a “Master Mind” and a “Mindless Master”.
Out&OutLiar–
Visions of granduer . . . right, like imagining that the Republicans were so screwed that they lost both the House and the Senate despite radical gerrymandering
Oh wait, that actually happened.
Or maybe imagining a country in which George W. (Worst ever) Bush’s approval ratings have fallen below 30 percent . . . Okay, that happened too.
Here, let me help you nail your feet to the deck of this rotting carcass of a sinking ship you call “conservativism.”
Hey, I didn’t get credit for that post above.
I’m not deliberately trying to troll–some kind of technical glitch.
So now that Britain has announced they’re leaving Iraq too, can we leave as well?
England has announced a partial withdrawl from Iraq.
A partial withdrawl.
I tried that once and now I have a twenty year old son.
“we are just a few months away from VICTORY in Iraq!”
We were told that four years ago!
“You sowed it, RePukes. Now you get to reap it. The Great Repudiation of everything you believe and stand for has begun.” _CapnAmerica
Capn: I’ll have fries with my Great Repudiation.
All you Republicans were cheering like it was V-J Day when Bush landed on the deck of that Air Craft Carrier.
That was almost four years ago.
Defend that position – defend MISSION ACCOMPLISHED – defend six days, six weeks, no more than six months.
Defend Iraqi oil will pay for the war – defend no more than $50 billion – defend $100 billion and that should do it.
Defend those points or STFU.
9/11!
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
WMDS!
They tried to kill Daddy!
9/11!
BILL CLINTON!
MONICA!
BLUE DRESS!
Holy crap, that’d be the trifecta!
Uno, Britain withdraws their thin veneer of moral justification; dos, GW Bush in “Commander Codpiece II: See? Crusades, Toldya!” and the finale, aka tres:
Jedi Prez W the Something Less Than Great uses the word “nucular” whilst mid-codpiece and explaining how 21,500 additional US troops, less the Brits, will lead to vast amounts of Iraqi evildoer retreat throughOUT the region. Amen.
Woo, the blood rushes to my nether regions. Bring it on!!!
No link
But Keith Olberman is reporting that Tony Blair will shortly announce the withdrawl of British troops from Iraq.
Oh well. bush still has the Palauans.
I heard on NPR yesterday that the form the surge is taking kind of reminds one of community policing. Instead of being in large concentration of troops – the Green Zone, the troops are in smaller groups scattered aroung Baghdad. If something goes wrong they are out in the neighborhood to respond to it quicker.
The downside to this startegy is that they are more vulnerable. I can’t remember where in Iraq, but there was a coordianted attack on one of our outposts. Two suicide bombers set off their explosives and when others came running in to assess the damage, a third suicide bomber set off his ordinance. These same soldiers were also attacked by rifle fire.
The defense department knew of these risks before hand, but elected to go with the plan in hopes of the benefits being worth it.
There was an initial quieting of violence with the surging troops, that now may have been reversed according to the reporting by NPR.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7487989
Bush said their partial withdraw is proof of how well things are going! The guy has no shame!
“The Great Repudiation”
Sounds like a fitting title for a new John Prine song.
The great repudiation,It’s happening too soon,I never thought I’d see so much shit,Happening, before noon…
I knew that Bush had his head where it didn’t belong,Now the Iraq war is taking way too long..
Bush can’t save his own ass,Much less those who deserve some class,The folks of New Orleans,Are incredibly crass(for expecting anything from our gov.)
I knew that Bush had his head where it didn’t belong,Now the Iraq war is taking way too long..
C, F, and G country chords…
hee hee hee hee Steven.
Imus played “Your flag decal wont get you into heaven anymore” on today’s program.
hehehehe
For those of you who dont know…
“But your flag decal wont get you, into heaven anymore, it’s already overcrowded from your dirty little war. Now Jesus dont like killin’, no matter what the reason’s for, and yer flag decal wont get you, into heaven …any …more….”
Just as true today as it was almost forty years ago!
hahahaha, anyone know where i can download that song from???
I dont know about the download Tony as the song was first published in ‘70 or ‘71, but I highly recommmend the boxed set of Prine songs. It is old, but still very very good, and has some of his more obscure stuff as well.
Tony, take your pick:
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/audio/prine%252Bflag/1/-/1/-/-/-/1/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/417/top/-/-/0