Fascinating. An entire post consisting of nothing but fingers in the ears and singing "LA LA LA I can't hear you!" The Washington Post article is not an "anecdotal viewpoint". It is direct evidence of the effect the Democrats (and their allies in the media) have been having. Now maybe you can't fathom how it can possibly happen that when a political opposition with tons of momentum spends the better part of its time sniping at and generally doing everything it can to undermine its country's war effort, the war effort gets undermined, but your own personal incredulity does not constitute evidence of anything. And personal incredulity is the only thing you've brought to the table. There's no other way to describe this than pure, utter denial.

Here was my original claim:



You said that wasn't true and cited an article that says (among other things):



What am I missing? Your article supports my viewpoint. How did the democrats create the situation as it stands in Iraq now? Even your own article states that the fear of us leaving is a factor and includes a preamble of "true or not" - meaning that point is arguable.

So, I have my fingers out of my ears. Explain to me how my original statement is wrong and how the violence that has increased monthly since the beginning of the war is the democrat party's fault.

Read it again.


The "true or not" refers to the Sunni perception that Iran is in control of Baghdad, not to the observation that most Sunnis believe our commitment is in question.


The answer to the question I asked you. Who in Washington has been most responsible for giving the Sunnites this impression about our commitment?

Well not really. Only in the minds of the Pelosi crowd who are now hearing better – we hope!

ALEXANDRIA, Va., Feb. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In the wake of the
U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote
of no confidence in the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, a new
national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS)
shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected
leaders on this issue.
The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan,
cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or
minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a
Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.
"The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they
understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they
can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory," said Neil
Newhouse, a partner in POS. "The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not
where the majority of Americans are."
- By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that
"Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to
withdraw troops from Iraq."

- By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these
two statements: "I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping
the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and
provide security" and "the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on
terrorism."

- Also, by a 56 percent - 43 percent margin, voters agreed that "even if
they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind
the President in Iraq because we are at war."

- While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq
will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory
in Iraq ("creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the
threat of terrorism at home") is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent
say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.

- By a wide 74 percent - 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the
notion that "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S.
leaves, I just want the troops brought home."

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....1316&EDATE=



What in gods name is “Bush policy” If we lose it is because we give up and go home, because we don’t have the stomach for the war. Hopefully we can prevent the Dems from securing defeat – will not be easy as they see our defeat as their key to the White House in 08 IMO.

Can I ask what might be a silly question?

Who conducted that poll? I don't ask that because I dismiss polls I don't like, I ask because you link to a right-wing blog, and it links to a poll which justifies everything the far right wants to hear: execpt that it never says anywhere who conducted the poll. I find that odd.

Odder still, is how this anonymous poll is completely contradicted by what is unquestionably the most accurate and universally accepted (by both sides) polling agency in the world: gallup:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=1633&pg=1

This pretty much reflects the opinion of the American people, and frankly, if there was any doubt, the numbers are almost identical to Zogby and CNN polls, slightly worse for Bush/Republicans in the CNN polls.

As for your anonymous poll which contradicts all that... well... put it this way Ted, if the situations were reversed, and somebodt here posted an anomymous, sourceless poll posted by a left-wing blog which contradicted every major polling agency in the country to oppose one of your points, would YOU accept it at face value? Or would you laugh yourself to tears?

----------------------
EDIT TO ADD: Ah, I see you edited your poll to include the name of the pollster: Public Opinion Strategies, Thank you. Sadly, it turns out that Public Opinion Strategies (POS) is not a polling agency. It is a Republican political and Public affairs agency, it doesn't even pretend to be anything other than a Republican company, dedicated to getting republicans elected. headlines on its webpage include: PUBLIC OPINION STRATEGIES MOURNS REPUBLICAN LOSSES. You know what? I'll trust Gallup. Even YOU can't slander it's reliability nor its independence.
-----------------------



This is quickly becoming the mantra of the far right: "if we lose its because the Democrats make us lose". Its a nice slogan, very catchy, but absurd. It ignores the fact that the Republicans have been VERY bust losing this war for several years now. It ignores the steadily deteriorating situation for years, the slow collapse and steady losing of this war, this republican conceived, planned and executed war, long before control of the senate was lost. Heck, the president even got his troops surge, and when THAT fails, he can hardly complain his efforts were blocked by anyone.

Blaming this loss on the Demnocrats IF they decide to pull out is like blaming a football loss on the referee because he blew the end game whistle when you were losing by 80 points. yes, he ended the game, and yes, had the game not ended you could have kept playing, but you were losing every moment up to the whistle, and nothing about that was going to change. This is already the second longest war in US history. pretending any of this is the fault of anybody but the party in power during the entire war is just desperation.

I KNEW you would blow it off so I reposted it as above with the original method etc. DO you see it.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....1316&EDATE=

\

So this makes the Survey invalid??? Sadly I disagree. As you know the questions asked and the way they are phrased makes a difference. Theses questions are different in that regard and that is the primary difference.

Are you saying the poll is “rigged” - if so how?

Of course you knew I would blow it off, anybody would blow an anonymous poll posted by a right wing blogger off. If it were left wing, YOU would have blown it off, and blown loudly. And you know it.





Ted, if I posted a poll conducted by the Democratic party, which completely contradicted the unanimous polls done by every major independent polling agency in the US, including Gallup, What (I ask myself, already knowing the answer) would your response be?

Of course the survey is invalid. Its a Republican party political agency dedicated to getting republicans elected that did a poll that happens to favour republican sentiment. I posted the gallup poll completely contradicting it, and nobody but nobody can or ever has managed to find fault with gallup or their independence. Don't ptretend indignance please, unless you can Honestly and geuninely tell me that you would accept as face value a democratic party agency or openly left-wing policy group's poll if the situation were reversed.

Not worth arguing about. I agree that the Republicans would ask different questions and therefore get different answers. I have problems with polls in general and this is why. They are not reliable indicators of public sentiment and as I have said before I am not in favor of running the country on polls – are you?

According to this article, a GOP pollster says your study is bogus. The questions were clearly misleading and one question was puposefully made confusing.

A cursory glance of some of the questions looks like you would have asked, Ted: e.g. "What would you rather have, your house set on fire by Muslims, or succeed in Iraq?". Of course you'll choose the latter if those are the only 2 choices.

As I said that is the problem with all polls no matter who does them.

Here are some statements from the Gallop folks which says that the opinions are split – NOT overwhelmingly against the war and ready to pull out as many here maintain.


1. Most Americans support the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but there is only limited support for an immediate withdrawal (there is also only limited support for increased troop levels).
2. Americans are divided on whether the United States should institute a timetable for withdrawal, or stay until it has achieved all its goals. When asked, Americans seem to prefer keeping troops for only about another year, but they expect troops to be there longer than that.
3. In general, public support for the war is generally divided; however, since the summer of 2005, opponents have tended to outnumber supporters.
AND:

Most Americans believe the United States can win the war in Iraq, but less than half believe it will.

Also if we look at questions we see that they are IMO and others too brief:

Queastion: As you may know, the Bush administration has begun to significantly increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to help stabilize the situation there. Do you favor or oppose this?
Favor Oppose No opinion
2007 Feb 9-11 38% 60 2


Now if all were asked the same question but ALSO told that NOT doing so will almost certainly mean we lose and that chaos will ensue in Iraq and this could potentially have dire consequences for the US and our economy (price of oil etc.) _ IMO the result would be different.

Well I cannot speak for others, but those reflect EXACTLY what I have ben saying for ages now, I'm not sure how you could use them to support your points. They reflect the will of the nation to end this war with a phased withdrawal, which is what I have been advocating for about 2 years, and you have summarily rejected a dozen times.




(Boggle)

Yes, if you add all those invented, entirely ted's-opinion clauses after the question I'm sure the results WOULD change.

Say, why not ask the question stating that if they DON'T pull out, the US will spend hundreds of billions more dollars and tens of thousands of American casualties and achieve nothing at all except making the US less safe, encouraging terrorists and alienating the US in world opinion? I bet THEN everyone would vote to pull out!

This, i think, is why you are not a pollster Ted; Polls are meant to get real answers and gauge public opinion, not to get the answers you personally want to hear. Thats why everyone trusts gallup, because thats what they do.

Can't be the Democrats because, you know, they voted for the war and so are responsible for making that decision. At least that's what some Republicans love to use when knocking down arguments against the war.

So when it's time to place blame for failed policy, the other face turns and the finger points at the Democrats for bringing up anything negative about the war. Which really isn't a war but a project in nation-building, which was a big no-no while Democrats held the White House.

This whole thing has gotten so confusing. A British prince heads out to Iraq as it's announced that the Brits are leaving Iraq. Makes me wonder what's going on with that, maybe get the young prince some PR points for later on down the road. Better hurry too.

Meanwhile, it doesn't really matter now who was voting for what before jumping into this thing. It doesn't matter who did what to screw this thing up, although I might suggest that the Democrats in Washington, DC, had zero influence on who screwed this thing up. All the protesters around the globe had zero influence. To the people with the controls, those other guys didn't exist. I've tried to keep my yap shut about this thing once it got underway, with varying levels of success. I had really hoped that my instincts were wrong, that this thing would indeed be a slam-dunk and we'd all be better off than we were, but alas, they were right on the money.

But now that the fickle finger of blame is out, I'm grabbing it and pointing it right back atcha. Well, not you personally, but the Bush administration. It's over there, more to the right.

If there's cost to this failure, then there's cost to this failure. Failure is part of the road to success, and now we know what doesn't work. Hopefully people will be skeptical about things like reports of WMDs and calls to liberate people who, by gosh, end up resenting the service. Forget about building democracy around the globe. That'll happen if people really want it, which might be doubtful as we don't seem to want it either.

We're a republic. We use the Electoral College to select presidents. Yep, I remember that heated debate, actually a set of them, from the year 2000.

See? Donkeys can have good memories too.

.


Only one (big) difference. I want to win the war and phased withdrawal. For you it is lost and we should start leaving now. Notice that even in the Gallop poll the people of this country want to win.

.


Ya right. We can just leave and face no consequences. Well V a lot of people say otherwise not just Ted. So the “clauses” would be valid and I still contend this would elicit a different result. The bottom line is – ask simpleminded questions and get answers that are same.

WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain took a shot at Democrats who say the United States must bring some troops home within four to six months, warning, "If we walk away from Iraq, we'll be back, possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region."
"I believe these individuals," McCain said, "...have a responsibility to tell us what they believe are the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq."McCain, R-Ariz., a leading presidential contender for 2008, defended President Bush's Iraq plan on Friday as a difficult but necessary move, parting company with lawmakers fiercely resisting the military build up, saying, "I believe that together these moves will give the Iraqis and Americans the best chance of success,"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16595735/

You know, AM, you really should consider a career in politics, if you don't have one already. You have a gift for evasion that few can aspire to.

What I asked was a very simple question. Who has been giving the Sunnites the impression that we won't be sticking around for very long, and that therefore it would be unwise of them to depend on us instead of al-Qa'ida? Nobody seems to want to give a straight answer to that question. Understandable, since it strikes at the heart of the whole mythology that's being built up, which is that Democrats have been innocent as can be for anything that has gone wrong, because opposition parties, no matter how shrill and intemperate their rhetoric, can never, ever have any effect whatsoever on the morale of their own side in a war, and on the morale of the enemy, and therefore are completely and utterly innocent of anything that might go badly in a war. It's a total fantasy that a 10-year-old can see through, and now we see direct evidence of it's falseness.

And what's the response? Fingers in the ears, and "LA LA LA I can't hear you!"

Who gave the Sunni's the impression that we won't be sticking around for very long...?

Yeah, I don't think you can try to spin this to a domestic party political argument Blackstone. The fact is, ever since the USA left Vietnam there has been a global percpetion that despite all the guns, bombs and general aggressive posturing, Americans are fundamentally weak and this perception has nothing to do with the democrat party or the MSM. Those are seen as mere examples of a far greater blight which afflicts the USA. It has as much to do with the perception of Soviet advisors and Communist revolutionaries back in the 1950's as anything else. Even then the argument went, Americans can't fight dirty wars. They pointed to the Second World War as an example and to Korea and in the end to Vietnam. In all cases, Americans prefered to let others do their fighting for them and when the fight was actually carried home to the American heart, it cried desist and fled. This is what I'm talking about.

In the post Vietnam period, this established idea was further reinforced by Iran, Beirut and Somalia and in the Arab world it is a common perception that Americans do not have the stomach for a long drawn out bloody war. Its why hostages are beheaded, why so many in the Arab world copy such things onto CD rom and sell them in markets as entertainment.

Its also an argument that is echoed in popular literature. Frank Herberts 'Dune' series repeats the point that people hardened by harsh conditions make for better warriors than those who live comfortable lives for they are already preconditioned to hardship and have less to lose. For this reason many people in the Muslim world participate in flagellistic rituals, teach children to learn how to cut open a sheeps throat and watch said CD roms as entertainment/indoctrination. I don't mean because they are Herbert fans (though who knows? Bin Laden is said to be an Asimov fan) but that they deliberately foster a hardened attitude that the western nations long since gave up.

You can't blame this on the democrat party. Its a cultural thing that goes far beyond them. The only advantage the western world enjoys over this contradicting perception is the pleasure principle which is able to corrupt almost any culture it encounters but as a consequence provokes the sort of orthodox backlash that gives rise to the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and their ilk.

1 ~ Yes
2 ~ YES
3 ~ Absolutely, the price would go up.
4 ~ About 2 months after we leave Iraq. Look folks, if nothing else, believe the TERRORISTS. THEY say that Iraq is the Front line with the west. If you believe NOTHING else, believe them. They want us OBLITERATED. Why? Because that is what Islam TELLS them to do! They will not stop, they will not be pacified or bought. They will not go back home to Baklava and coffee in the Hooka shop. Their life's GOALS involve killing infidels in as great a number as they can. WE are the infidels. Not because of Israel, not because of the fact we buy BILLIONS of dollars of their "Product" Oil and support their economies. But because we do not pray to Mecca 5 times a day. This is a RELIGIOUS war, and those of you trying to force God out of the every day lives of everyone, beware, you are the enemy as well, and the Islamofacist will take you out too! This is not a semantic game. It is NOT about which party is going to control congress or the white house. Its about CONVERTING you or KILLING you. Along with your whole family, and or enslaving you, literally, that is an option, kill you or make you a slave. The fact that Terrorists Vote Democratic speaks for itself. Any political party that espouses a cut and run policy as the Democrats have, both now and in Viet Nam, is NOT looking out for the best interests of either this Nation OR her peoples.




EXCELENT Post!!!!!!!!!

While I agree with you to a certain point in that Americans especially nowadays only support wars until the going gets tough, I disagree with the notion that "Americans can't fight dirty wars". Hell the very nation of the US was founded on fighting the most powerful military in the world at the time against a rag tag army of farmers and cooks.

Exactly and every time we buckle and run it reinforces this idea. The results of which are sure to come back to haunt us. In fact IMO this is the real cause of 9/11. Bin Laden thought he could kill us by the thousands and we would not have what it takes to root out him and his organization in Afghanistan. After all look at how badly the Soviets failed there.

And I have seen some of the CD circulated indoctrination films. Little kids with AK-47s saying they can’t wait to kill American men women and children with them.

The irony here is that IMO they are essentially VERY wrong. Sure the American people can be timid about casualties but we have some of the (if not the best) “warriors” in our military. Our Special Forces are mush like Herbert’s tough warriors – and we have the best equipment to make them especially deadly. IMO the problem today is the “war on terror” is not well defined enough to keep the American people focused of it and what has to be done to win. We have not "mobilized" for this war.

But if/when we are hit again at home this could change dramatically and as the Japanese General Yamamoto said “"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

I most certainly can. The things you described don't just happen in some disembodied vacuum. Someone has to give concrete voice to them. In this conflict, that someone has been without question the Democratic Party. Ted is absolutely correct when he says that the soldiers in the field aren't wimps about this. So is it the American people, then? How has the war affected our lives? Not in any meaningful way. The only "suffering" that the vast majority of us ever get from this war is listening to the constant barrage of sniping against it from the Democratic Party and from the rest of the Left, amplified by the ever-so-helpful media. There's no way you can spin it away from them.

Okay, so now were talking about something else again. The mechanics of the American psyché as opposed to who gave the Sunni's the impression that the USA won't be sticking around for very long.

I'm sure that there is a grain of truth in what you say in that the Democratic Party has a far higher proportion of pacifists than the Republican party, but I very much doubt that the bulk of the American people belong to the Democratic Party. Rather I think, and have been informed numerous times, that the unpopularity of the various wars American has participated in is mostly due to the poor results as these conflicts drag on with no end in site. Vietnam for example was a decade of apparent stalemate, Korea was a stale mate, Somalia and Beirut solved nothing. These conflicts did not end simply because the Democratic Party didn't have the backbone to keep fighting. They ended for various reasons, not least because a stalemate had been reached. Essentially what you are saying is that defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory by the Democratic Party. I disagree with this because it implies that if only the Americans had more grit they would have succeeded in Somalia, Beirut and Vietnam. If only the Americans had the strength of will needed they could win inI raq also. But then we have to ask, the grit to do what? What lengths are you prepared to go to as a people to ensure success? The Germans once thought that having the will to do what it took would ensure success but they were wrong.

Ted's contention about the American military also misses the point because it is not the armed forces who cry off, it is the general public.

The Sunni's, like the rest of the Middle East have access to history books. They can see the pattern that betrays the soft core of the American/Western psyché well enough (for I believe Europe suffers from the same problem of conscience) and they base their perceptions of victory upon that. They do not 'suffer' from this morality for they do not belong to the Judeo Christian morality which pervades western culture.

Israel has been fighting a similar war for about sixty years now. They cant pull out but we can. See, the terrorists have to come to us to attack, we can stop this really easily, save for porous borders, but we can. We actually had the Intel on the 9-11 people before they did what they did, I don’t know why such was not acted upon.

Overall I would say it would be really difficult to fit being a terrorist, or a spy into a "normal" or typical American life. We see the advances intelligence makes at combating terrorism everyday. This can grow and become even more potent if we want it to.

No, the American people I doubt will accept a forever war. We played to there strengths from our weakness. Israel stayed in Lebanon for decades, just to pull out and what occurred? Do you think we can actually occupy and sustain the entire breadth of the middle east, or world populations of Muslims for that matter?

We will not carpet bomb Muslim cities anytime soon, because radical Islam is not Islam in total, no more then the KKK makes up white Americans in total.

With all our power, in a stupor we invaded in a well, dumb fashion, pushed for by politicians of course.

To me this is not the right avenue to combat terrorism, for what it is really. The closest we ever got to being able to attack terrorism head on was in Afghanistan, and for some reason we really did not give it our all there, but in Iraq, for lack of connections to terrorism or even wmd's we have to for some reason. I still think bushco simply cant allow the idea they are not omnipotent beings come to light really.

9-11 could have united the world against terrorists and radical Islam. We simply squandered this opportunity.

And now, after four years of what seems to be nothing but a meat grinder in all reality, its instantly the democrats fault because they pointed our various errors if not disinformation and corrupt use of government? I simply don’t get it but it does not help me view various republican sects of like minded groups that play only for there party no matter the cost in reality.

Ooh. A distaff version of lordhelmet?

This tripe that if we don't win in Iraq the terrorists will follow us home didn't sell during last year's election and it isn't selling now. Neither did the repellent lie the President and other Republicans tried to scare Americans with that if they voted Democratic, the terrorists would come to kill them. The politics of fear and division is a failed strategy, but apparently a few die-hards still want to push this propaganda.

If you could provide the slightest bit of proof Danae of some of your outrageous claims, it might be easier to take them seriously. "The fact that Terrorists Vote Democratic speaks for itself." That is so over the top that it defies logic and common sense. Name-calling and scare tactics seems to be the only thing left the Right is good at seeing their skill at winning general elections seems to have diminished.

Dissing Democrats as advocates as "cut-and-run" types comes off as less than something worth worrying about as it comes from a Republicans who sent American troops into battle without the proper equipment, without a clear goal or exit strategy. Even more distressing are the appalling and disgusting conditions our wounded soldiers have had to face at Walter Reed hospital. Despite all the right-wing media bashing, major props should go to The Washington Post (registration required) for their series of articles about this national scandal.

The right has found a niche in criticizing the press and condemning Democrats. What they haven't spent much time on is finding a way to get us out of Iraq. Then again, what conservative chickenhawks like William Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and George Bush are most skilled in is staying out of wars themselves while starting them for others to die in.



There are over 26,831 American families that have had their lives affected in a meaningful way. They are the wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and families of the 3,154 soldiers killed and the 23,677 wounded in George W. Bush and the Republican Party's war.

The American people are suffering from being sold a bill of goods by a lying Chief Executive and his neo-conservative cabal. The American people are suffering as the war drags on while their leaders ignore any strategy that is counter to their continued occupation of Iraq. The American people are suffering from an obstructionist Republican Party that refuses to debate or defend their decision to put American troops in harm's way based upon falsified and erroneous information.

There's no way you can spin the blame for the fiasco that is Iraq from Bush and the Republican Party. There's no way they can wash the blood of thousands of Americans and Iraqis off their hands.

Nighttimer;

Wake up and smell the Poodoo. READ what the TERRORISTS write. Read what comes out of the Mid east newspapers. Watch what comes out of Al-Jazerra. Now after getting yourself an education, come back and tell me that these ANIMALS are NOT out to get us. You can not, not with out telling bald faced lies so obvious as to be utterly unlaughable.

This is what just blows my mind on a repeated basis. There are SO MANY AMERICANS that are listening to the absolute bull puckey that is being broadcast by the Main stream Media and NOT actually LOOKING at what the Enemy is sayin in THEIR press! It is UTTERLY astounding in its STUPIDITY! I am not saying that terrorists are coming to America, THEY ARE. I am not saying that a HUGE number of Muslims are out to kill Americans, THEY ARE! It does NOT take a degree in Farsi to read it, the sites are translated by software for US TO READ! Still the American left IGNORES the danger, just as they did all through the 90's. What? You think that we made our point?? Now they will leave us alone? You just refuse to get it, either out of hubris or ego or just plain stubbornness, I don't know. What I do know is that they are raising a generation of children trained to spout Jihad against America. Brainwashed from infancy that they greatest good they can do on earth for God and their families is to die killing Americans. You think I am kidding? You think I am just so far RIGHT that I have lost it? So be it. I STRONGLY suggest you go buy a Prayer rug, cause that is going to be the choice you are ultimately handed, your life or Islam. Oops I forgot, if you are really really lucky you get to be a Slave, that is a viable option in Islam you see....

Again, don't believe me, start reading Al-Jazerra, and keep in STRONG mind, these are the words of those who would KILL you and your family.

Want to debate Iraq? Let me just say this, do you REALLY think that it would have been better to wait until the sanctions had slipped utterly ( 6 months or less) and Saddam had fully restarted every program he ever wanted to, so that 10,000 of our American troops would be dead 4 years into the war? Because that is EXACTLY what you are arguing. Sun Tsu: Attack your enemy when he is weak if you wish to defeat him. Pacifism gets people DEAD and in greater numbers.

I forgot to add, Amin Al Zawahiri in a videotaped broadcast on Al-Jazerra specifically suggested that Americans vote for Democrats before the 06 Elections. Also before the 04 Elections and a few times in-between. You MIGHT just want to read those transcripts, the transcripts of Zawahiri's statements. KNOW THINE ENEMY if you wish to defeat him, I believe that is ALSO Sun Tsu.

An example of doing nothing in true Democratic fashion: WW2 American deaths: 291,557; Wounded: 670,846. THAT is the price of burying your head in the sand. You ready to pay it? Think what is happening in the Middle east is ANY different??? I have a bridge to sell ya in Portland Oregon, Its called the Fremont, but you can rename it after sending me the Money order!

"We say to them that these civilians are the ones who pay taxes to Bush and Blair, so they can equip their armies and give aid to Israel, and they are the ones who serve in their armies and security services. They are the ones who elected them, and even those who did not vote for them consider them legitimate rulers who have the right to give them orders and must be obeyed, and who also have the right to order strikes against us, killing our sons and daughters, and to wage war in their name, and to kill Muslims on their behalf. Moreover, they consider disobeying their orders a crime punishable by law." Al-Qaeda Leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on September 1, 2005. ( http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=834 )
PLEASE try to tell me this is an ADVOCASY AD for the GOP! *on pins and needles* And please do me the favor of NOT advocating for the removal of Israel off the map.

So questions for the debate

1. What will be the cost and consequences for failure in Iraq? Is Joe right? Joe is not right at all. The cost has already been payed. It is not as if anyone will cede "failure", regardless if it is reality. Worst case scenario is that Iraq will be a safe haven for international terrorists (which it most certainly was not before the invasion), but they would have existed anyway. Whether they live in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Iraq really does not mean a whole lot in the scheme of things. Best case scenario is a wider war fought between Iran and Saudi Arabia that will destabilize both volatile nations and pound out an Iraq that regional neighbors will accept as a 3 state region. I think people overlook the benefits of a good civil war. Sometimes they are needed.


2 .Could it embolden the terrorists there and elsewhere?

Staying in Iraq and building numerous permanent bases, eroding crucial international alliances through arrogance, mismanagement, deception and questionable ethics has already emboldened terrorists and volatile regions of the world. The invasion of Iraq has added exponentionally to the growth and organization of international terrorism while simultaneously weakening the ability of US to fight it. Iraq made them stronger and the US weaker in summary. The US squandered its greatest weapen....the ability to scare. Iran, N. Korea...these nations are fully aware that we lack the money, soldiers and international clout to confront them with anything other than rhetoric.

3. Could it affect the price of oil and damage our economy - and what would that cost? The US is going to have to deal with higher oil prices sooner or later. As long as we keep shaking hands with good oppressors in Saudi, Equatorial Guinea and wherever else....we will get our oil.

4. Will we then see the terrorists inside the US? As an organized insurrectionary force? ...Of course not. The war in Iraq does not impede them in any way as is. How could it? They cross the borderin Iraq at their leisure. The US does not have them trapped in Iraq. They choose to be in Iraq in order to get that chance of killing an American. Nothing we are doing in Iraq is preventing them from leaving destinations all over the world and heading to Latin America and sneaking across the Mexican border.

The best reaction would be to solidify our borders, rather than go running blindly into the woods (Iraq) and hoping they all come over and walk into your path, as if they are too stupid to realize that your home is in the rear... unprotected.

Iraq does nothing to make us safer here.

But you're not sure it's Sun Tsu, are you,Danae?

I'm sorry but all the upper case letters and exclamation marks and general hysteria don't frighten me in the least. Eventually, despite all of the fear-mongering and doom and gloom, America will likely be a target for an act of terrorism again. We can't build the walls high enough or monitor the movements of every Muslim already in the U.S. or station enough soldiers around every possible target. The cost of living in a free society means it's hard for us to protect everything and easy for our enemies to hit us somewhere we're not looking.

Living in fear is no way to live and I don't choose to spend my life worrying about a handful of radical fanatics. Yes, it is troubling that there are extremists polluting the minds of children with anti-Western hatred, but the only thing to be done about it is to conduct ourselves like the leaders of the free world and civilized society that we are. Instead of your "sky is falling" apocalyptic scenarios, I'd like to think America has learned something from the bitter lessons of 9/11 and begun to prepare itself for the next attack. The sad fact remains is we can do everything right and still fail to catch one fanatic with a dirty bomb or worse.

Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. All anyone can do is prepare for the bad things in the world and do what has to be done. Just because I'm a Democrat and a liberal doesn't mean I'm any less of a target than a conservative Republican. What you seem to have forgotten Danae is on September 11, 2001 political affilations didn't matter. All that mattered was ALL Americans were targets that day.

There is a certain group of conservatives whom having failed to realize the danger prior to 9/11 have made it their mission in life to shriek how Islamic fundamentalists are coming here on flying carpets to take away our cable television and make us all bend the knee to Allah. Where once we fear godless Communism, now it's religious fanatics from the Middle East that strike fear in our hearts.

I have a little more faith in the ability of Americans to stand up and defend their way of life. No one can take it away from them without a long and bloody fight.

You may think you've cornered the market in preparedness for the Islamofascist enemy, but I assure you that isn't the case. The problem for the agents of fear is it is not possible for the United States to wipe out every possible enemy everywhere at any time. There is a certain amount of risk that comes with being the world's only superpower. When you're the top dog everyone is trying to knock you down a peg or two.

The last time I looked Al Zawahiri was deader than fried chicken and didn't have a vote in last year's election. Nobody voted based on his endorsement of a Democratic slate. Since you haven't provided any evidence that the terrorists had ANY effect on our political system I'm going to presume you don't have any evidence to offer.

Firstly, lets ignore 'read what the terrorists write'. Should we read what the IRA writes and assume that is Ireland? Should we read what the KKK writes and assume that is America?

Secondly, for all your ranting, I have to ask if YOU have ever actually watched al-jazeera. You seem to be implying it is a loathsome anti-US 'kill all americans' jihad-fest. In fact, I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about, and have only watched exerpts from Al Qaida tapes on FOX which have been played on A-J. Frankly, the station itself is certainly pro-Middle East, generally critical of Israel, and resents Western involvement in the region, but is frankly quite reasonable on most issues, about as Biased as NewsMax is in the US. See for yourself.
http://english.aljazeera.net/

As to 'newspapers in the ME', well there are hundreds, so thats kindof an impossible statement. If you look at the main national dailies, in fact they tend to be quite reasonable (biased, but reasonable) as well, with a few execptions of course, the Saudi daily newspaper spends half the time being reasonable, and the other half launching into anti-jewish tirades, but then again Saudi is a staunch US ally, and we can't criticise them, right Danae?

You are making the classic but just as classically wrong assertion that terrorists = Islam and the Middle east, when that is blatantly obviously not true, and more than than it would be in any other region or country.




Yeah, too bad about Bush jr. After all, according to the National Intelligence Estimate of the United States, the Iraq war has fed terrorist groups around the world, mAL Qaida has regrouped and rebuilt after being ignored by Bush Jr, and has grown to be stronger now than it ever was, directly as a result of the actions of George W Bush. This is also the man who tried to disband the dedicated CIA group tasked with hunting down Bin laden, who alienated the US in the opinion of the western world and who has seriously destabilised the Middle east.

Even if all your rantings about the evil terrorists coming to America were true, the large part of the blame for that, according to US intelligence, would fall on Bush jr. Think about that.




Well, I wasn't going to say it because that would be against the rules of the board, but...



Actually, I posted a link to Al jazeera above. perhaps you could point out exactly where they are advocating genocide or attack against the US? I say this because of my deep sedded suspicion that you have never looked at nor read Al jazeera in your entire life...



I'm sorry, but this bit of chicken-Little-ism is so far removed from reality that it does not bear discussion. Sanctions removed in 6 months? Where do you get that from? have you anything at all to justify or evidence this proposterous idea?



No he didn't, that is complete fiction. Either post a link to this or retract it as made-up. He DID release a tape after the mid-term elections saying a defeat of the Republicans was because of him, and he also said that unless the US negotiated with him or Bin Laden, the elections would not change a thing. Bin Laden (Not Zawahiri) released a tape before the 04 elections in which he stated that withdrawal from Iraq was "the best way to avoid another Manhattan" and stated, "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands." Thats about as close to your inventions as it gets.

The difference of many opinions here is that some of us know simple propaganda when we see it. Most of your rant is propaganda without much substance in it. Here at AD, we want something to back your claims up.

On September 11, 2001, 19 guys with box cutters changed our entire way of life. They did not use WMD, have never used WMD, and much like most of Clinton's term where he did very little to fight terrorism, we haven't been attacked. Some of us believe that the reason we haven't been attacked is because they can't assimilate into our society like they can in the middle east. They would rather fight us there because the cowards can hide within the civilian population - something that would be much more difficult to do here.

Bush took an able and righteous war to Afghanistan that for all the talk of Americans not having a stomach for war, had around a 90% approval rating before, during, and after that war. The American people voted Republican again to give Bush the tools he needed to finish the job. Unfortunately, he made a hard right and invaded a country that had not attacked us, had never attacked us, and had never been behind any incident of international terrorism. Your soundbites will surely be the Hannityesque "Everybody thought he had WMD" quotes, but you can't find those same quotes shortly before the invasion when the inspectors had complete, unfettered access (due to 1441's wording). The inspectors could find nothing - even with the White House's - coordinates. So because of a "grave and immediate danger" that we now know doesn't necessarily mean "imminent", Bush pulled the inspectors before they finished the job and started a war.

His authorization for war was predicated on building a coalition (not that "coalition of the willing" that had no battle ready troops or money) and the inspections failing. The inspections did not fail. Iraq provided 15,000 pages of documentation to account for any WMD that they could. Clearly, there were no WMD to be found. And any forward thinking person could see this was a mistake in so many different ways, that the result we have now was inevitable.

Before you start your liberal/far left rants, I am a former Marine that cast his first vote for Reagan. I am a pro-life, small government, fiscal responsible conservative republican. But I put principles over politics. You will hear as much argument from me as any liberal on this board because the facts are what they are.

Your rant contained few - if any. This ain't freeperland. Make your case with facts.

The threat is not what you think. Bush does not have an open border policy and a policy of granting illegals amnesty - whether they are Mexican or Muslim - for nothing. He knows they can't and they won't fight us here. But as long as he has you scared of terrorists, he gets a lot of political capital.

There are three parties at work in Iraq. You have the Shiites, the Sunnis, and a tiny Al-Qaeda contingent that consists mostly of foreigners. Should we re-dploy our forces, the Shias and Sunnis will drive Al-Qaeda out of Iraq, much like what has occured in the Anbar province.


Source.


Source-Sunni opposition to Al-Qaeda


Al-Qaeda challenged in Ramadi

The "if we don't fight them there, we will face them here" rationale is simply ludicrous as the Shia and Sunni only want power in their respective realms. Only Al-Qaeda will desire to strike us over here, though if we invaded Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or Syria, we would've had the same problem. The undeniable fact is this-in the Middle East, wherever we go, there they are. if Al-Qaeda in Iraq isn't completely destroyed by tribal Iraqis sick of foreign meddling, then they will venture over to Afghanistan where our forces area. It is because of this fact that question #4 and to some extent, question #1 can be answered with a resounding "No" as Al-Qaeda internationally looks to strike us no matter where we are, Iraq has no bearing on that whatsoever. The question contains a flawed premise, that our involvement in Iraq has one iota of significance in regards to Al-Qaeda's ability to hit us.

Of course you are not worried. Those that bury their heads in the sand do so to AVOID seeing what is right infront of them so they have not a care in the world! You also have those Neocons you hate so much covering your rear end for you. Sorry, Liberals are best at trying to get everyone employed by government, raising taxes, and otherwise attempting to socialize everything. Liberals have no time for the real work of defending the nation, even if they COULD get their heads out of the sand. So in all, I have to admit that we must be doing something right if you are not worried. However that isn't to say that you shouldn't be. You should.


You really are one for assumptions. I remember 9-11. VERY WELL. I also remember who did it, who funded them, who gave them safe harbor, what Nation states gave money to their families and the families of other suicide bombers, and a dozen other things you seem to have forgotten. You are correct that the 9-11 terrorists did NOT see political affiliation on that day. Why should they have? The Democrats are the ones that made them believe that the USA would not attack them or retaliate, after the lessons learned in Kenya, tanzania, Yemen and the Cole, WTC1 in 1993, oh and let us not forget Somali; all these and the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration led them to conclude we would just roll over and take it, just as we had in the past. Frankly everything I ever needed to know about Islam I learned on 9-11. These animals will do ANYTHING and cost in human innocent life is their goal. Maybe YOU don't want to worry about it.... thats Cool. I will just ASSUME that you are one of those Liberals that prefers to think of how to make love not war. Your right, here in the USA. Thank GOD that there are people in this Nation willing to fight and die so you CAN.



I really hate to break this to you, it was Democrats that were in Power when the plans for 9-11 and several other terrorist attacks were planned and carried out. Blame YOUR party, not mine. It happened on your watch.

Well good for you, because I have not a shred of faith that a Liberal democrat will fight for anything, unless in it involves spitting on other Americans, protesting the President, destroying business in riots (Seattle) in WTO protests, and or protesting the use of Fur in anything ect. I have ZERO faith in democrats in anything. All it seems they can do is to pick at scabs and whine about the bleeding.



Well now, golly, I hate to break this to you, but Zawahiri is DEFINITELY alive. I would LOVE to see some sort of proof that he is dead however! Big mistake there Nighttimer, Not only is he alive, but he is reorganizing AQ, and he is planning on killing you. So when it comes to spouting untruths, you got me beat hands down. I provided you with EXACTLY what I said I would, the Man's OWN WORDS regarding who to vote for in the US and British elections. Sorry you don't like having the truth thrust at you, but it is what it is. Sorry you don't like my offer of proof, however, it does NOT make it any less legitimate. You have been out debated on that score as well.
Like I said, I gave you proof, the mans own words. Please tell me how you KNOW that it did NOT effect the Elections? Another assumption. You asked for proof that they wanted to influence the Elections. I gave it.

Are you sure you wouldn't be more comfortable at freerepublic.com? As much as I welcome an opposing view and spirited debate, you are wrong on your facts on so many levels, we'd have to re-open 2 dozen topics that have addressed most of your statements.

Since the first attack by Al Qaida on the world trade centers in 1993, they have managed to kill just over 3000 Americans. As horrific as that is, I would hardly call them a threat. The same open border policy that existed under Clinton has existed under Bush. There is nothing from stopping them from entering the US and attacking again. Yet they haven't attacked? Why is that? For the 8 years after the first WTC attack, they didn't attack until 9/11. And they used a method that became obsolete the moment Flight 93 became a lawn dart.

Given Al Qaida's abysmal performance in their declared "war" against us, I'm afraid of slipping in my bathtub way more than uncivilized thugs with boxcutters. Are you this afraid in every other aspect of your life where the chances of something bad happening to you are far more likely? What causes this type of fear in people like you? What makes you so afraid that you are ready to destroy anybody that is a Muslim?

Sure, okay, it's customary here to provide links to such writing. I know what OBL has been yammering about, but then he's not such a big deal any longer, according to President Bush:

OBL's on the run or dead, 2002 PC, WH.guv

Pretty amazing that that was nearly five years ago (caps, astonishers) Really easy to find too, through Google.

I'm pretty sure that Nighttimer can smell Poodoo when it's around. As for me, I stopped reading the above quoted post after glancing at the first paragraph and a quick scan of the rest. Nothing worthwhile there.

So, I'm looking forward to all the references to what the terrorists are saying and explanations on how they're registering to vote in US elections, thus bringing in the Democratic Party after all these years.

Maybe Nighttimer will let us know about his thank-you notes from AQ. I haven't gotten any, oh, the pain of being slighted

Anyway, the rule is that if you want to rant, Get Thyself A Blog (!)

Too bad you didn't answer my last post, had you done so, you would have had to aknowledge that in fact the bush Jr. administration has NOT been covering our butts for us and has in every measurable way made the US less safe than it was after 9/11. That's why the majority of the Country think he is doing such an abysmal job, and didn't you have a lengthy tirade not too long ago about how the 'majority is always right'?




Al Qaida, a once-saudi terrorist organisation led by a former Saudi Arabian citizen, funded by saudi Arabia. Terrorists made up almost entirely of Saudi citizens.



Saudi Arabia.



Saudi Arabia, then Afghanistan.



No nation gave money to their families that I am aware of. As for money to the families of other suicide bombers targeting Israel: (In order from highest to lowest): Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq. And thats with saudi Arabia giving more to fund hamas and PLO activities than every other Middle Eastern state put together.

Well, you certainly have done a good job of justifieg war against saudi arabia, but not Iraq. Are you having some difficulty with facts?



Blah, blah, blah, Clinton's responsible for everything, blah, blah.

Fine, lets assume for a moment thats true (which it isn't), and Clinton's policies led to terrorism. Please explain to me exactly how many of Clinton's policies on terror Bush jr modified, changed or scrapped in his first 8 months in office. Please liste me all the new counter-terrorism policies, military development policies, plans for making the country safe or ANY like legislation Bush jr put into place in his first 8 months in office. I remiond you that the traditional '100 days', the first 4 months of a President's term are considered to be his MOST productive and where he put forwards his important legislation. That was long over, so let us know, exactly HOW did Bush jr. use his presidency to improve the awful situation supposedly left him by Clinton?

Please be specific in your response.




Blah, blah, blah, all Muslims are terrorists, blah, blah...



Actually, if you want to be technical, you have people who are willing to send other people die. In wars unrelated to the war on terror, unrelated to Al qaida and unrelated to 9/11, and in doing so allowing the actual enemy (AQ) to return to its former strength and be more of a threat to the US than ever before.



Really? You seem to be having difficulty with facts again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6093000282.html
(warning to Rice 2 months before attack)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html
(list of Intel warnings about 9/11, all during Bush's term in office)

Then there is the whole, Bush jr taking office 8 months before 9/11. Whose watch was that then?

Oh, and if you object to spittle, you might want to mop down your own keyboard. That was one of the most vehement (and fact-free) posts I have seen here in some time.

1. What will be the cost and consequences for failure in Iraq? Is Joe right?
Iraq is already a failure and as far as I know the estimates of the cost are between 100 and 200 billion dollars. The consequence for that is that we now have less American citizens on health care and unable to get higher education because the social programs have been reduced to fight this war. The recruitment for those wanting to kill Americans has increased and the number of people wanting to fight for our country has decreased.

Joe is correct in his general assessment that Iraq is not on the brink of collapsing and it is not a paradise. It is in between. Leaving though would be a better option than a troop surge. We don't have to leave the region but we should leave the country. Allow the two warring religious factions kill each other as long as the government maintains control. Eventually the leadership will come to a compromise and decide what is best for their followers. Compromises can be made, even among absolutists like religious people.

2 .Could it embolden the terrorists there and elsewhere?
Well this isn't a very well informed question. The fighting in Iraq is primarily between Iraqi citizens and each other and with our troops. Al-Qaida in Iraq is a small part of this war and does not reflect the conflict. People seem to forget that our enemy is al-Qaida not Iraqis. Our presence in Iraq has certainly inspired more people to consider terrorist tactics when dealing with U.S. hegemony. I am tentative to answer how terrorists would respond to our failure when our own President hasn't been able to define what success even is for us at this point. We've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and toppled their government, with only minimal casualties, and this is after 4 years. The American public has decided this war is not worth the effort, not that we can't withstand hardships. Terrorists will want to kill us because of what we did during the war not because they thought they could defeat us.

3. Could it affect the price of oil and damage our economy - and what would that cost?
The U.S. gets a small percentage of its oil from Iraq. We get most of our oil from domestic product, Canada and Mexico. If Iraq were to de-stabilize it may have some effect but only because the stock market investors would panic, not because of anything tangible like an oil shortage. The government wouldn't really care because they would reap the tax benefits from oil companies making huge profits and they wouldn't lose their job because incumbents have a re-election percentage of above 90%. The only ones that would suffer would be the American citizens and since our government doesn't care about us nothing is going to happen so this is really a moot point.

4. Will we then see the terrorists inside the US?
We probably already have terrorists inside the country planning the next attack, regardless of the outcome in Iraq. I don't buy into the idea that it is better for them to kill our soldiers than it is for them to kill our citizens. I don't mind an attack on American soil. Soil, after all, is just dirt. I do not like when terrorists attack American people, soldiers and civilians alike. If we got our soldiers out of Iraq, terrorist attacks on Americans would decrease greatly. I see that part as a success not a failure.

This liberal Democrat has served his country. What about you?



"Out-debated?" By some right-wing newbie with a dozen posts to her credit?

I did make a mistake and confused the late and unlamented Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with the still alive and still up to mischief Ayman Muhammad Rabaie al-Zawahiri. My bad. But I also read the link you provided and what I did not find was word one that said, "Hey, fellow jihadists. Vote Democratic."

Reading the entire text of al-Zawahiri propaganda, I see a lot of jibber-jabber taunting Tony Blair and Dubya, but as the remarks are made in 2005 they fall after the 2004 presidential election and before the 2006 congressional elections. Where's the impact? Who the hell in America checks with Al Qaeda before going into the voting booth? Oh yeah, right-wingers scared green by terrorist bluster.



All you gave me was your interpretation of a terrorist's words and a lot of hyperbole. You have not provided a shred of proof al-Zawahiri had any impact upon the 2006 election. It's your assumption that since the voters turned out the Republicans they must have been under the influence of Al Qaeda.

Which I suppose means the majority of the American people opposed to the war in Iraq must hate America or some similar nonsense. This must be what is meant by the phrase "cognitive dissonance."