Gay Patriot Header Image

“America Is Not At War…”

americaisatthemall.jpg

With non-stop Anna Nicole news dominating the cable networks, and with Democrats trying to circumvent the Constitution by playing Commanders-in-Chief, this photo says it all.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

55 Comments

  1. […] Original post by GayPatriot […]

    Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » “America Is Not At War…” — February 26, 2007 @ 10:27 am - February 26, 2007

  2. America is at the mall.

    Why that should be surprising is beyond me. After all, who do you think said the following just this past December?

    I encourage you all to go shopping more.

    Oh yeah, it was Dear Leader. Either we’re in an existential war on which the fate of the Republic rests or we’re not. If it’s the latter, then I suppose going shopping as Bush suggests is appropriate. If it’s the former, then we really ought to have the entire nation mobilized for the war don’t you think?

    Comment by Ian — February 26, 2007 @ 11:08 am - February 26, 2007

  3. Commentators on both the left and the right have noticed that this struggle has not been presented to the American people as something which requires sacrifice or even, really, attention. We are told to shop, feel safer, not question the decisions of the military or civilian leadership, and stay the course/hunker down/expect a long struggle before we win, with the definition of winning somewhat nebulous. None of these things leads to a populace engaged with or committed to the actions of our military.

    Comment by torrentprime — February 26, 2007 @ 1:57 pm - February 26, 2007

  4. Ian and torrent, actually I think what does a greater disservice to that lofty goal you now seem to embrace… namely, better American resolve to the win the WOT-Iraq… was the constant harping by those on the FarLeft to undercut that resolve for political gain. You have the Congress, your BlameAmericaFirstCrowd are solidly in control of the Democrat Party… what more proof is there to be offered.

    I think your concern about the American people being sent mixed messages is hollow and transparent. Just another chance to engage in BushHatred. And you did it with speed… almost as fast the release of those DailyKos talking points for today.

    Good going, Ian and torrent. You guys are definitely at the mall.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 26, 2007 @ 2:39 pm - February 26, 2007

  5. Ian and torrentprime, the joy of you leftists is that you don’t even read your own sources.

    I quote, from yours:

    This war on terror is the calling of a new generation; it is the calling of our generation. Success is essential to securing a future of peace for our children and grandchildren. And securing this peace for the future is going to require a sustained commitment from the American people and our military.

    Next up:

    I’m not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in Iraq, except that it’s going to require difficult choices and additional sacrifices, because the enemy is merciless and violent.

    Of course, neither Ian or torrentprime wants the US populace to believe that, because it would lead to more support for the military — and upset their Democrat masters’ plan to take political power by sabotaging the US military and ensuring that our soldiers fail in Iraq.

    Meanwhile, to what Bush actually said:

    As we work with Congress in the coming year to chart a new course in Iraq and strengthen our military to meet the challenges of the 21st century, we must also work together to achieve important goals for the American people here at home. This work begins with keeping our economy growing.

    Or, in other words, by shopping, Americans are helping our economy grow, which helps us meet our domestic goals AND support our military.

    What Ian and torrentprime are doing is an attempt to argue that it’s not a “real war” unless we’re having World War II-style rationing, callups, etc. What that ignores is that, during World War II, our population was miniscule in comparison, our economy was vastly smaller, and our armed forces were basically starting from scratch in terms of people and equipment. The reason we don’t have to do the same thing now is a combination of both an increase in size AND a vast increase in military efficiency and effectiveness. Compare a current aircraft carrier, fighter, submarine, or infantryman to their World War II counterparts, and the difference is night and day.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 26, 2007 @ 3:22 pm - February 26, 2007

  6. Commentators on both the left and the right have noticed that this struggle has not been presented to the American people as something which requires sacrifice or even, really, attention.

    Hmm, Sacrifice. Would that maybe entail sacrificing the privacy rights of terrorists, so that we can monitor their behavior more effectively? Does sacrifice include setting aside partisanship so we can be a united front toward the enemy? Could we sacrifice some of our political correctness so that we can honestly discuss the threat without allegations of racism? Could we sacrifice a tiny bit of our privacy and convenience and let the police conduct random backpack searches on the subway?

    Or, is “sacrifice” just code for “let’s confiscate money from people we think have too much.”

    Comment by V the K — February 26, 2007 @ 3:24 pm - February 26, 2007

  7. #6 – The latter. (Code for “let’s confiscate money from people we think have too much.”)

    Both leading Democrats, and Left commentors on this blog, have made clear that by “sacrifice” they intend “tax increases”. And possibly, as per Democrat Charles Rangel, a return of the draft as well.

    Comment by Calarato — February 26, 2007 @ 3:27 pm - February 26, 2007

  8. That saddens me soooooo much. I wish we could make all soldiers understand that only a handful really think that way.

    Comment by Greta — February 26, 2007 @ 3:42 pm - February 26, 2007

  9. Hopefully this will make all of you laugh, even though it scares the bejezuz out of me.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

    –Chet

    Comment by Chet — February 26, 2007 @ 4:11 pm - February 26, 2007

  10. Agreed. In fact, if Ian and torrentprime think “sacrifice” is so important, why haven’t they enlisted to go fight jihadists in Afghanistan — which they claim they want to do?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 26, 2007 @ 4:11 pm - February 26, 2007

  11. …if Ian and torrentprime think “sacrifice” is so important, why haven’t they enlisted to go fight jihadists in Afghanistan — which they claim they want to do?

    Heh. I’ll be happy to send them a care package! 🙂

    Thanks Bruce.

    Seriously, how long does anyone think our ElimiDate public would have stayed focused on the war effort if Bush had asked them to engage in – let’s face it – unnecessary sacrifices for the war?

    It’s not really needed. It’s not as though we are in a ‘guns OR butter’ situation where the sacrifices of Joe Sixpack are desperately needed to fund the war effort. What we need is moral support, and the best thing the Shrub could have done was to make sure people WEREN’T too inconvenienced by the war.

    Lord knows some folks whine enough as it is :p

    Waah! LCpl So-and-so has to fulfill his contract, just like it says in bold print when he signed up and took four years of pay and benefits! DANG, who’d a thunk it! That Uncle Sam shore is a tricky feller!

    Aieeeee! PFC Jiminez is expected to follow orders! OH THE HUMANITY!

    Comment by Cassandra — February 26, 2007 @ 4:27 pm - February 26, 2007

  12. At one point, 44% of the American public thought that there were Iraqis on the planes on 9/11. Almost 2/3 of them thought there was a direct link between Hussein and bin Laden (enemies of each other, one a Sunni, and one a Shiite Wahabiist) (maybe because Dick Cheney lied on Meet the Press and said that Atta had met with Iraqi leaders in the Czech Republic). And NOW, even after all of the dissimulation that got us into this mess, Americans are being led to believe that we need to invade IRAN because of its support of a Shi’a militias AND, as some members of this very board (Calarato) have claimed, BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT AL QAEDA.

    Meanwhile, as the NYT reported yesterday, Al Qaeda has successfully regrouped in PAKISTAN, and has resolidified its ties with the TALIBAN in Afghanistan (the narcostate we created while being distracted with Iraq).

    Yes, I’d say that Americans are at the mall — indeed.

    –Chet

    Comment by Chet — February 26, 2007 @ 4:48 pm - February 26, 2007

  13. I was going to stop and comment, but I don’t want to miss the bus — I’m going to the mall.

    Comment by Ogre — February 26, 2007 @ 4:53 pm - February 26, 2007

  14. #7 – How else do you pay for a long war?

    This war has incurred massive amount of debt and huge undetermined future payouts to veterans and Iraqis. Yet repubs have waged this war on a credit card so the rest of the country can “go to the mall” and not be bothered by the war.

    Comment by keogh — February 26, 2007 @ 5:24 pm - February 26, 2007

  15. I don’t know why the complaints about this. The Bush White House has thrived on American dis-interest and apathy towards these topics. It’s better that Americans pay attention to our malls, cell phones, American Idol, etc. Better that than actually have them paying attention to how big business and the Republican are actually destroying this country more than any terrorist ever could.

    Comment by Kevin — February 26, 2007 @ 6:11 pm - February 26, 2007

  16. Re: the Iran – al Qaeda connections… I should just put up a Web page, so I don’t have to keep repeating the stuff – just because some tiny, ultra-dogmatic left-liberal brain is blown by the thought that Shia and Sunni terrorists could ever help each other.

    Matt gives several articles here at #86 and I finish at #89. (Note Chet being unable to refute any of it.)

    I’m most concerned about what they have found recently. A lot of conservative blogs have covered, in different forms, the fact that Iranian agents are in Iraq helping all of the factions of the so-called (but actually foreign-fomented) “civil war”. The White House has done some intelligence releases in this area. The most important recent stuff, so far this year:

    (1) They captured high-ranking Iranian agents and documents in Baghdad at the end of December 2006 that confirm Iran’s assistance to al Qaeda in Iraq (and Shia factions as well, of course).

    (2) Recently, al Qaeda in Iraq has begun using Russian-made Strela missiles, which military experts suspect Iran of supplying.

    Comment by Calarato — February 26, 2007 @ 7:29 pm - February 26, 2007

  17. From the second article:

    “During the Baghdad and Irbil raids, the U.S. detained seven members of Iran’s Qods Force (Iranian special forces) and captured documentation which proved Iran was supporting both the Sunni and Shia insurgent and death squads, as well as Al_Qaeda and Ansar al-Sunnah. Mines, which are killing U.S. troops, have been traced back directly to Iran, while weapons shipments have been interdicted while transiting the [Iran-Iraq] border.”

    Comment by Calarato — February 26, 2007 @ 7:41 pm - February 26, 2007

  18. P.S. Roggio is a military journalist who has actually BEEN to Iraq, embedded with military units, most recently last fall.

    He knows way more about this stuff than the New York Times or any “green zone” journalists. He has been first (and right) on several things; for example, he was the first to point out al Qaeda – Afghanistan’s regeneration in the last year or two in Pakistani safe havens, which the New York Times FINALLY picked up on this past weekend.

    Comment by Calarato — February 26, 2007 @ 7:45 pm - February 26, 2007

  19. Final P.S. – And that Iran has been helping Shia militias, should be “a given” for even the slowest, most dogmatically-minded left-liberal.

    They announced another big discovery today (Iranian weapons caches and bomb factories in Baghdad) in that area: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/26/D8NHMIB81.html

    Comment by Calarato — February 26, 2007 @ 7:54 pm - February 26, 2007

  20. Wow — that was a lot Calarato. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

    Funny how nothing in the Iraq Study group’s findings — which were bipartisan and based on *official* intelligence and not just speculation and inference from the beaters of the war drums– mentions a connection between Iran and al Qaeda. There’s a big difference between intelligence and speculation/inference. Of course people who are determined to go to war with Iran do not need any convincing. Just as with Iraq, they will believe any piece of information which confirms their desire, even if it comes from suspect, non-official sources like Chalabi, or in this case, pro-war military officials who aren’t really specialists in intelligence gathering.

    Meanwhile al Qaeda continues to reorganize and grow in Pakistan and Afghanistan — but let’s go to the mall and think long and hard about Iran and Brittney Spears’ latest hairdo.

    –Chet

    Comment by Chet — February 26, 2007 @ 8:47 pm - February 26, 2007

  21. #10:

    why haven’t they enlisted to go fight jihadists in Afghanistan

    Since YOU have been the ones arguing that the “WOT” is a “war” upon which the fate of the Republic rests, shouldn’t YOU be the ones enlisting?

    Comment by Ian — February 26, 2007 @ 9:00 pm - February 26, 2007

  22. #14

    How else do you pay for a long war?

    By promoting an expanding economy which increases tax revenues without increases in tax rates.

    This war has incurred massive amount of debt

    The most recent estimate I’ve seen for the cost of the Iraq war is around $360 billion. Since 2003, when the war started, the federal government has spent a total of about $10 trillion dollars. I don’t consider 4% of federal spending as massive.

    Comment by John in IL — February 26, 2007 @ 10:47 pm - February 26, 2007

  23. Wow — that was a lot Calarato. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

    Not at all – that’s your gig.

    In fact, Chet, I didn’t even write it for you. I wrote it for others. Consider that.

    Also: It’s only stuff I already gave in the other thread, which you simply didn’t bother to read. (Nor to refute… as you have not refuted it here either; a sneer is no sense a refutation.)

    Funny how nothing in the Iraq Study group’s findings — which were bipartisan and based on *official* intelligence and not just speculation and inference from the beaters of the war drums– mentions a connection between Iran and al Qaeda.

    And once again, Chet shows he doesn’t read.

    The stuff I cited would be *THIS YEAR* stuff, i.e., stuff developing AFTER the ISG.

    And the stuff Matt cited came, in part, from the 9-11 Commission. If the ISG couldn’t bring themselves to quote (or agree with) the 9-11 Commission – that underscores their silliness.

    And they were so silly. They seriously believed that Iran wants stability in Iraq! LOL 🙂 (Should be disproven a priori, by elementary political logic… And continues to be disproven by new facts about Iranian involvement in Iran every day, such as the new announcement I already cited #19.)

    Christopher Hitchens (a Left writer, incidentally – just a smart and honest one) had the best take on the ISG. He said it was supposed to represent the “realist” school of American foreign policy. (Which is a joke right there, due to its extreme naivete on Iran etc… but I digress.) And that, whenever one hears about the “realist” school advocating this or that, one’s understanding of the underlying politics will invariably be advanced if one mentally substitutes, for “realist”, “the American friends of the Saudi royal family.” They don’t exactly want Iraqi democracy to come off, either.

    But I expect I’ve probably lost you now, Chettie. Buh-bye.

    Comment by Calarato — February 26, 2007 @ 11:52 pm - February 26, 2007

  24. sorry, should say “Iranian involvement in IraQ”…

    Comment by Calarato — February 26, 2007 @ 11:55 pm - February 26, 2007

  25. The story in my #19 cite now blessed by the New York Times; click here. (Again, still addressing the Shia side of Iran’s involvement in Iraq, something that even the slowest, most dogmatic lefty must concede.)

    Comment by Calarato — February 27, 2007 @ 1:03 am - February 27, 2007

  26. Since YOU have been the ones arguing that the “WOT” is a “war” upon which the fate of the Republic rests, shouldn’t YOU be the ones enlisting?

    Nice try, Ian, but that’s YOUR schtick.

    I merely am pointing out that, since you insist that everyone who supports the war should enlist, you are being hypocritical by not doing so yourself, since you insist you want to fight “jihadists”.

    And John, the interesting thing is this; leftists like keogh whine about spending $360 billion on a preventative war, but given that the estimated cost of 9/11 was, according to a study commissioned by the state of New York, approximately $639 billion dollars…..doesn’t it make sense to spend half in advance, rather than waiting to pay double afterwards?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 27, 2007 @ 1:50 am - February 27, 2007

  27. This war has incurred massive amount of debt

    Actually, even *with* the war, spending on defense is still extremely low in historical terms even compared to peacetime defense spending in previous decades. Facts are troublesome things, aren’t they?

    As a percentage of federal spending, Defense (again, even when we’re at war) is far from the largest, or even the fastest-growing piece of the federal pie. Health and Human services and SSecurity are the largest (i.e., entitlements) with growth rates of 9 and 5%. Defense is over 100 billion lower than SocSec and growing at 6%.

    Education (which is SUPPOSED to be funded by LOCAL tax dollars!) is next and growing by 30%.

    In 1956 Defense spending was 57% of the federal budget and SocSec and other entitlements were about 20%.

    Today, those percentages (when we’re at WAR) are reversed.

    Yeah. The war is really generating an intolerable amount of debt….

    Comment by Cassandra — February 27, 2007 @ 7:18 am - February 27, 2007

  28. Someone posed an interesting hypothetical on Bill Bennett’s show this morning. Suppose President Hillary Clinton sent 100,000 U.S. troops down to Venezuela to help Hugo Chavez spread his Glorious Workers’ Revolution throughout South America.

    Under such a circumstance, how could you support the troops, but oppose the mission?

    Comment by V the K — February 27, 2007 @ 7:39 am - February 27, 2007

  29. What a joke this site is. I come here to read how pathetic the right is with their blame=game for the Left.

    Lest we forget, we attacked a soverign nation who had nothing to do with 9/11. We’ve spent billions of dollars and have paid the price with thousands of lost lives for this misadventure.

    Bushco is criminal and needs to be charged and tried for their crimes.

    Comment by rightiswrong — February 27, 2007 @ 9:53 am - February 27, 2007

  30. NDXXX at #5, I think we need to change the metaphor used to describe what’s at stake in this WOT-Iraq, WOT-Afghanistan, et al. I think we’re doing a disservice to the public debate about the WOT by comparing it to WWII –although many apt comparisons and lessons can be gathered. As with the VN War, too.

    I think we ought to compare it to the Cold War… where limited protracted wars occur, where credible intelligence service and hidden operations are vital, where the conflict is waged over a long period of time on various fronts, where political domestic leaders downplay or play-up the threat based on their partisan concerns and prevailing public opinion, where allies come/go depending on THEIR natl interests as defined by their elected leaders, and where ideological and cultural values are threatened and we are really seeking to destroy of system of belief… like the one represented by the Soviets (and by us to them) and radical Islam (and by us to them). And where funding levels have reached Cold War proportions. http://www.hellblazer.com/archives/2004/05/defense_spendin.html

    I think one of the things that the FarLeft tries to do with the notion that this isn’t a just war —or as some even here refer to it as a “vanity war” of “DearLeader” and “BushCo”— is to discredit the rationale/reasons for engaging in the WOT or WOT-Iraq. And as Calarato can attest, try over and over and over to discredit the reasons for going to war.

    Like the Soviet Union, the radical Islam movement aims to conquer the Western world. If one doubts this, there is no basis for even having a dialogue about the WOT, supporting the troops or the mission, or why patriotism in the face of an enemy is a critical requirement for any nation engaged in war.

    Frankly, I wonder if those on the FarLeft doubt Western Civilization is even at risk. And I wonder, from their actions, if they think our culture is worth saving… that it is inherently BETTER than the one espoused by radical Islam. That’s where the BlameAmericaFirst mentality gets a proper beating… “Maybe we can appease radical Islam and live harmoniously together as one happy family”… so they think, just like we did after the Cold War. Like the bumber sticker, “N Whirled Peas”.

    Politics and partisanship was heated in VN War; it divided our country because questioning the mission became fair game for partisan gain. But it was also heated in WWII, the entry into WWI, over the value of the Spanish-American War, whether Lincoln needed to invade the South in the War of Northern Aggression, all the way back to our Revolutionary Era War and the continental wars which preceded it.

    The one thing that is lacking in the WOT is the resolve to win and that the FarLeft will capitalize on it for partisan gain. Has it ever been different?

    Herb Meyer was one of the more thoughtful guys in the RR Admin… he’s been thinking about the analogy for a while. More Meyer here> http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/how_to_think_about_the_war.html

    Cold War2, WWIII, jihad? I’d opt for the Cold War metaphor.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 27, 2007 @ 9:56 am - February 27, 2007

  31. right is wrong, please see paragraph #4 above.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 27, 2007 @ 10:00 am - February 27, 2007

  32. Calarato — The Iraq study group is “silly?” This underscores the point I already made: for those who love war and bloodshed, facts, evidence, and real intelligence findings aren’t needed. And information which sheds doubt on your position is simply dismissed as “silly.”

    And I never said Iran doesn’t support Shi’a factions (which is all the NYT article you cited says). The Quds in Iran DOES support Shi’a factions, and they have since the very beginning of the war with Iraq. So why is the Bush administration making a big deal out of this NOW? Ask yourself that question, Calarato. Why now? Why declare war on a country where a religiously oriented military faction (not even really a part of Iran’s official government) has supported Shi’a factions in Iraq, resulting at most in the death of 170 American troops. So why now, Calarato? Maybe because your thirst for blood hasn’t yet been sated?

    And — meanwhile — the real enemy is regrouping in Pakistan. Very smart of us, indeed, to go after Iran now.

    –Chet

    p.s. Christopher Hitchens is no longer a lefty. He’s a drunken fame-chaser. But since he’s pro-war, I’m not surprised to see that you read and cite him.

    Comment by Chet — February 27, 2007 @ 10:17 am - February 27, 2007

  33. Why declare war on a country where a religiously oriented military faction (not even really a part of Iran’s official government) has supported Shi’a factions in Iraq, resulting at most in the death of 170 American troops.

    Evidently you’re not reading the newspapers, Chet, there’s plenty of reason.

    What Ahmadinejad is banking on is that, now that Democrats and leftists like yourself control Congress, the United States will revert to an appeasement and pandering regime, scared to death of doing anything, as it was while bin Laden was openly organizing terrorist activities in Afghanistan under the protection and patronage of the Taliban.

    And that’s also, Chet, why we simply don’t buy your rhetoric about the “real enemy”; we know full well that you had no concerns about the Taliban or al-Qaeda before, and if you don’t care about other terrorist groups and activities like Iran is currently sponsoring, it seems odd that you would care about them now.

    Compare strategies. The Bush administration wants to use US military power to fight terrorists wherever they are and is willing to use it against regimes that sponsor them. Conversely, the Democrat and leftist ranks like yourself only want to fight a tiny group of terrorists in one location and do nothing about the countries that sponsor them.

    What this boils down to is taking meaningful and real action against terrorists and the countries that support them — versus wasting a few cruise missiles on evacuated camps.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 27, 2007 @ 12:47 pm - February 27, 2007

  34. NDXXX, you nailed it.

    Chet writes: “p.s. Christopher Hitchens is no longer a lefty. He’s a drunken fame-chaser. But since he’s pro-war, I’m not surprised to see that you read and cite him.”

    I wonder if you really have to lay down in the gutter every day, Chet, to have that spiteful a perception. Or is there a gene in the GayLeftBorg that helps you sleaze your way through life?

    Or does being betrayed by Hillary-the-Godess really piss you off so much that your bitterness bubbles over at the slightess provocation?

    I think the answers are probably “Affirmative” to both queries.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 27, 2007 @ 2:36 pm - February 27, 2007

  35. North Dallas — Well, you obviously don’t know much about me, although you’re pretty good at making predictable accusations against “leftists.” I fully supported the war in Afghanistan, even in opposition to some of my more liberal friends. If Bush were to take action against Pakistan, I’d support that, too. Shi’a militias in Iraq are not terrorists — you can’t throw that label on just anyone who tries to kill a US soldier. If someone invaded our country the way we invaded Iraq, wouldn’t you want to kill them, NDT? Would that make YOU a terrorist?

    Your comment about Ahmadinejad is strikingly simplistic. He’s banking on “leftists” in Congress to become appeasement monkies? Yeah, okay. I’m certain he’s sending Pelosi flowers as we speak. I don’t know about Ahmadinejad, but I can guarantee you that NOTHING would make Osama bin Laden happier than to see us attack Iran. For one thing, it would further delegitimize the United States in the rest of the world’s eyes, as if we need anymore help in that arena. Secondly, it will radicalize the population of Iran, many of whom are not anti-American, and the majority of whom now want Ahmadinejad out of office. Just as people in Iraq have started to see “jihad” as a viable weapon to use against their occupiers, average, normal, level-headed Iranians will be radicalized too by our aggression. We’ll create MORE terrorism and MORE anti-American sentiment: good strategy! And then, finally, nothing makes al Qaeda happier than to see the US squandering billions and trillions of dollars fighting wars that have nothing to do with them or 9/11. Osama himself said that he’d bankrupted the Soviet Union when they invaded Afghanistan, and that he’s happy to be doing the same thing to us now.

    Stretch our military as thinly as possible. Waste money and lives. And give the enemy more PR fodder for their ideological campaign. Yep — sounds like a brilliant strategy to me.

    I nominate YOU, NDT, to be the next secretary of offense.

    –Chet

    P.S. The article you linked does not support your argument. It only proves that Iran is seeking nuclear power — we haven’t bombed N. Korea for that yet, have we?

    Comment by Chet — February 27, 2007 @ 2:58 pm - February 27, 2007

  36. NDT, a couple things just for the record:

    1) You’re wasting your breath. (W/Chet; though I agree it’s worth addressing third party readers.)

    2) I don’t want to declare war on Iran.

    I may have seen Chet suggest before that I do. If so, that’s false. (His special combination of cluelessness and arrogance at work yet again, possibly.)

    Dealing with Iran’s nuclear program (by bombing or assassination as last resorts), and capturing / killing the hundreds of Iranian malefactors currently within the geographic boundaries of Iraq, should suffice. Neither requires ground invasion of Iran, nor Congressional declaration of war. So again: I, for one, don’t want either.

    Comment by Calarato — February 27, 2007 @ 3:07 pm - February 27, 2007

  37. Calarato–

    Stop obsessing over me, okay?

    –Chet

    Comment by Chet — February 27, 2007 @ 4:24 pm - February 27, 2007

  38. Ah, the persecution complex! LOL 🙂 And the inability to realize when I’m addressing someone else.

    Comment by Calarato — February 27, 2007 @ 5:04 pm - February 27, 2007

  39. It was a joke, Cal. Laugh a little.

    –Chet

    Comment by Chet — February 27, 2007 @ 5:23 pm - February 27, 2007

  40. Chet, it’s always interesting to me how the Left flips over Bush’s declaration before the WOT-Iraq that the Iraqi people would welcome us into Baghdad, toss rose petals at our feet and praise Allah that America saved them from Saddam. Which Bush didn’t, of course, but that doesn’t stop the Left from claiming so.

    And then they defend Iranian radical Islamic terrorists by saying that most of Iran’s populace love us, they want to be rid of that mean President and don’t really like the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei… they LOVE us. Or is that, they LOVE the U.S.? I’m trying to understand your sudden fondness for tea-leaf readings of closed societies.

    Kind of strange the Left can read the minds of Iranians. They can’t even get American minds right.

    Oh wait, it isn’t mind reading talents… the Left read about the Iranian love for the US and their collective wish to turn-out the radical Islamic terrorists in the LA Times. Ahh, that’s it. Silly ol’ me.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 27, 2007 @ 5:42 pm - February 27, 2007

  41. #39 – Check again, I did laugh.

    #27 – Cassandra, I’ve been meaning to say: awesome comments and awesome blog! Thanks for coming here. You’ve picked up a new reader.

    #0 – Folks – This article (click here) may be the bottom-line reason America is at the mall.

    First of all: Matt, I think you recommended it. (I can’t find the thread or comment anymore.) Thanks!

    Next: The article starts with a challenging thesis. In my words: The Islamists have wanted supremacy for 14 centuries. It’s all through the Koran. (And no folks, Christian supremacy is NOT in the Bible to the same degree.) That’s the kind of war they’ve got us in. It’s way deeper and older than we have admitted. For the Islamists, it’s an all-out, civilizational, glad-to-die, epic, eternal (if need be) conflict. The only way we can win, is if we (as a society or civilization) are, in principle, prepared to win at all costs. If we aren’t, the Islamists will win in the end, so why don’t we just all convert to Islam now?

    So, are we prepared? No.

    – Half of our body politic, the Blame America First crowd (let’s say), is obsessed with magnifying our civilization’s tiny remaining flaws. It can’t even decide that our civilization is worth preserving. Commentors seriously say things like, “Iran has only killed a couple hundred of our soldiers” like we shouldn’t react, for example.

    – The other half, the President Bush crowd (let’s say), believes we are worth defending – at any cost, if need be. But this half either doesn’t know, or won’t admit, the full, historical gravity of the threat we face; the scope of the measures we will ultimately need; the rivers of blood that probably must be shed, in this or future conflicts, before Islamism is finally crippled as an historical force.

    So even the fighters among us are in denial. At our (the people’s) behest, our politicians offer us a choice between denial-ish, and denial-er-er.

    And that, I think, is why America is at the mall.

    P.S. You read it here first: Over the next 1-10 years, increasing numbers of American and European radicals will openly convert to Islam.

    Comment by Calarato — February 27, 2007 @ 6:26 pm - February 27, 2007

  42. If someone invaded our country the way we invaded Iraq, wouldn’t you want to kill them, NDT? Would that make YOU a terrorist?

    Let’s see…..if the United States was ruled by a brutal, tyrannical dictator who had terrorized, brutalized, disenfranchised, oppressed, and outright murdered people of my religious faith, my ardor for “my country” would have been so much that I would have immediately taken to shooting at the people who removed him and thus allowed my people, who had been unfairly oppressed for decades, to assume freedoms and political power.

    Yeah, right.

    But what if I, rather than being grateful that this tyrannical idiot was finally gone, decided this was a splendid opportunity to use my family name, my own weapons and armed thugs to impose myself in yon departed dictator’s place — and started kidnapping, imprisoning, shooting, and torturing people who disagreed, and their families too?

    THEN I think we can safely say that the line has been crossed into terrorism. And that’s what the Democrat-supported leftist clerics like al-Sadr are doing.

    Your comment about Ahmadinejad is strikingly simplistic. He’s banking on “leftists” in Congress to become appeasement monkies? Yeah, okay. I’m certain he’s sending Pelosi flowers as we speak.

    I quote:

    “We are not worried about a military attack, and we are completely ready to defend our country. If they want, we can make the Persian Gulf the tomb of the United States of America,” said Hamidreza Taraghi, political director of the conservative Islamic Coalition Party.

    “But the United States doesn’t want to do this because they cannot right now. They are weak,” he said. “They don’t have enough power to start another war. Lots of American politicians are against starting another war, and everybody knows this.”

    And finally, Chet, what I find amusing about your rant about how invading Iran will cause all these awful things to happen…..is that I can replace “Iran” with “Afghanistan” and watch your justifications flip 180 degrees.

    But I’m also not naive enough to believe them, because, you see, that’s theoretical. You and your fellow leftists are very good at insisting you would fight jihadism if only it were in a different place; however, when it comes down to actually fighting or opposing those who support it, as Calarato has demonstrated that Iran is doing, you come up with myriad excuses for why we shouldn’t do it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 27, 2007 @ 6:50 pm - February 27, 2007

  43. Hey Matt,

    There’s certainly a sizable portion of Iran that most certainly does not love the US. That might be for irrational/religious reasons, or it might be because of our history in the region (e.g., the way we used our CIA to oust Mossadeq just because he kicked the Brits out of Iran’s oil fields). 1953 was the year that happened, and you can read about it in the book I recommended in another conversation you and I had about Iran. Most Americans are unaware of these events, but I assure you that Iranians are not.

    Still, there is also a sizable proportion of the Iranian population that is secular, and who do not like neither the Ayatollah nor Abdimini… (I can never spell his name). Iran has the largest (per capita) population of young people in the world, and they also have a sizable population of people who, while they might not agree with US policies in their region, are not jihadists-plain-and-simple. Of course if we bomb the heck out of them like we did Iraq, they might become far less level headed.

    As far as the “throwing flowers at our soldiers” comment, you are right — Bush did not say that. Cheney did, and Rumsfeld did. And they were clearly wrong.

    And then, finally, I think you should remember that it is not simply “leftists” who oppose invading Iran; it’s most of the American public. Most of the American public no longer trusts the Bush Administration’s arguments about these things. These aren’t “leftist” people (most Americans, in fact, identify neither with the left nor right); they’re just average people who don’t like being lied to.

    –Chet

    Comment by Chet — February 27, 2007 @ 8:54 pm - February 27, 2007

  44. NDT — How many times did you use the word “leftist” in that post?

    (1) The people of Iran have the right to vote. When they vote next time, Mr. A will be gone if current polls are any indication.

    (2) You do live in a country with a ruthless tyrannical leader. His name is Bush and the people he has terrorized are the people of Iraq.

    (3) The reason I was in favor of attacking Afghanistan and am now in favor of military actions against Pakistan is that THAT’S WHERE THE AL QAEDA LEADERSHIP WAS/IS LOCATED. Osama bin Laden is not in Iran. And I’d prefer to not waste any more of my tax dollars on military diversions that put money in the pockets of Halliburton, Bechtel, and the Carlysle Group.

    (4) I wasn’t aware that Cal demonstrated anything.

    –Chet

    Comment by Chet — February 27, 2007 @ 9:59 pm - February 27, 2007

  45. Chet (#44) – You cannot be serious.

    Are you also one of those people today who is sorry that VP Cheney wasn’t killed by the Taliban?

    You really need to figure out which side of this war you are on, bro.

    Comment by GayPatriot — February 27, 2007 @ 10:46 pm - February 27, 2007

  46. Gaypatriot — Now that’s a leap….I criticize Cheney for lying to the American public, and you claim I want him dead. You’ve really contributed to the discourse, “patriot.” I’ve figured out which side of this war I’m on: I want the people responsible for 9/11 dead or in prison. How Iran figures into that equation, I can’t figure out. As far as tricky Dick goes, I don’t want him dead: impeached maybe, brought before the Hague for war crimes, definitely, but dead from a suicide bomber, no.

    Maybe YOU need to figure out which side of the war You are on.

    –Chet

    Comment by Chet — February 28, 2007 @ 12:24 am - February 28, 2007

  47. According to Iraqis on-scene in Baghdad,

    the street is very impressed by the [surge] operation and receiving much cooperation from the people… Shiites love the Americans and want them stay to help the Iraqi security stand on its feet…

    Another blogger had a separate instance of that attitude from Iraqis a few days ago.

    Yup, that Bush is sure a “tyrant” involved in “terrorizing” the people of Iraq. So much worse than Saddam who only bulldozed Iraqi bodies into mass graves.

    Oh I’m sorry, we just visited V’s “Crazy Opposite Land”, where words mean the opposite of their plain meaning.

    Moving back to English, here’s a quick refresher on the meaning of “terrorist”:

    – Military or government, targeting other military / government: Honorable combatants.
    – Military or government, targeting civilians as such: War criminals.
    – Pretend civilians, targeting military / government: Irregulars / bandits.
    – Pretend civilians, targeting civilians: Terrorists.

    Clear now?

    Comment by Calarato — February 28, 2007 @ 12:31 am - February 28, 2007

  48. The people of Iran have the right to vote. When they vote next time, Mr. A will be gone if current polls are any indication.

    Current polls are reflective of the fact that the Bush administration has acted swiftly and decisively in response to Mad Jihad’s rhetoric, putting immediate economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran and making it clear that the military option is quite readily available.

    However, given that Pelosi and Murtha are in the process of trying to make any type of action against Iran illegal, I wouldn’t bet on that pressure continuing. Ahmadinejad may be an ideologue, but he’s very pragmatic; he knows there’s no need for him to act against the United States if he can successfully stoke the irrational hatreds of Congressional Democrats to make sure the United States emasculates itself. And when it does, he can step forward and tell his people that he stared down the “Great Satan” — which should nicely catapult him forward in the polls.

    And then, once insane Democrats like yourself have made it illegal to deploy any more troops, as Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, and your leadership have made clear they plan to do, he’ll simply release his forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq to do their dirty work, secure in the knowledge that you, Chet, have made it impossible for the US to do anything about it.

    You do live in a country with a ruthless tyrannical leader. His name is Bush and the people he has terrorized are the people of Iraq.

    Who of course were living an idyllic and happy life under Saddam Hussein, right?

    There’s a reason you haven’t seen many exposes of what life was truly like under Saddam Hussein for Iraqis, Chet; the Democrats’ antiwar rhetoric wouldn’t make any sense if Saddam’s foibles like putting people into plastic shredders and imprisoning and torturing infants and toddler-age children because their parents were political dissidents were widely known.

    The reason I was in favor of attacking Afghanistan and am now in favor of military actions against Pakistan is that THAT’S WHERE THE AL QAEDA LEADERSHIP WAS/IS LOCATED.

    Then feel free to go tell our NATO “allies”, who are supposedly in charge of Afghanistan’s security, but who have been a) outright refusing to send troops and b) demanding that any troops they send be put only in noncombat roles, to get off their asses; the United States already has over 20,000 troops there.

    The mistake the Bush administration made was in forgetting that the bulk of countries in NATO have been run by the equivalent of Congressional Democrats for decades — and, as a result, have the military readiness and logistical capability of a Girl Scout troop with a 1981 Oldsmobile diesel station wagon.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 28, 2007 @ 2:00 am - February 28, 2007

  49. I have mixed thoughts on seeing any lefty claim they favor “military actions against Afghanistan”.

    My main one is, ‘If only it were true’. I mean, we should do it – sooner or later, in one form or another. But so many Democrat partisans have preened (some on this blog) about favoring a troop increase in Iraq. As late as 12/2006, even Harry Reid was still calling for it. Until the minute “HE” said OK, you’re right after all, when they all did a 180 flip. I suspect the same would happen here.

    Other thoughts I have would ask, “Is it legal?” and “Shouldn’t we give Pakistan more of a chance to deal with this problem in their territory?”

    Remember, the legal situations with both Afghanistan and Iraq were quite different. Both were under U.N. resolutions – in the case of Iraq, a twelve year series of resolutions – essentially voiding their sovereignty and authorizing Coalition intervention. Pakistan isn’t.

    Comment by Calarato — February 28, 2007 @ 12:41 pm - February 28, 2007

  50. Sorry, “I have mixed thoughts on seeing any lefty claim they favor military actions against PAKISTAN.

    The subject of the above is PAKISTAN. – What is it with me and the wild typos, this AM?

    Comment by Calarato — February 28, 2007 @ 12:42 pm - February 28, 2007

  51. “And then, once insane Democrats like yourself have made it illegal to deploy any more troops, as Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, and your leadership have made clear they plan to do, he’ll simply release his forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq to do their dirty work, secure in the knowledge that you, Chet, have made it impossible for the US to do anything about it.”

    This is a nice fantasy, NDT. It must take quite a lot of time and effort to come up with this. The problem in Iraq is not Shi’a militias (not to be confused with terrorists). Read page 20 of the Iraq Study group’s report (I know you don’t like bipartisan knowledge based on actual, not phantasmagoric, intelligence, but give it a try). Al Qaeda in Iraq is being supported by SUNNI insurgents, not the Shi’a or their Iranian supporters. At best, the weapons given to the Shi’a by the Quds in Iran (not to be confused with the Iranian government) account for about 170 US soldier deaths/injuries. Now, NDT, I gave you an ACTUAL reference based on REAL intelligence gathering, not the spin game you and other conservatives are playing to feed your hunger for and love of war. Hopefully you’ll read it.

    “There’s a reason you haven’t seen many exposes of what life was” truly like under Saddam Hussein for Iraqis, Chet; the Democrats’ antiwar rhetoric wouldn’t make any sense if Saddam’s foibles like putting people into plastic shredders and imprisoning and torturing infants and toddler-age children because their parents were political dissidents were widely known.”

    I’ve seen all of the exposes on Saddam’s brutality. It would be nice, wouldn’t it NDT, if the American CIA had not helped such a brutal man to power so he could fight the Shah of Iran for us, wouldn’t it. But then, who needs a morally consistent foreign policy, right? Don’t pretend to be offended by Hussein’s brutality NOW, NDT. Where were you in the 1980s, when we supported his brutal regime? And, by the way, a study released around a year ago by Johns Hopkins University estimates that our “liberation” of Iraq has cost about 100,000 innocent lives. You have blood on your hands for supporting this war, NDT. You are no less brutal than Saddam Hussein, and neither is President Bunny Pants.

    “Then feel free to go tell our NATO “allies”, who are supposedly in charge of Afghanistan’s security, but who have been a) outright refusing to send troops and b) demanding that any troops they send be put only in noncombat roles, to get off their asses; the United States already has over 20,000 troops there.”

    I bet they’d be more likely to support us if our country’s name had any legitimacy left. But we don’t. And we’d be winning the war in Afghanistan (rather than turning it into the nice little nacrostate it’s become), if the 140,000 troops we have deployed in Iraq were in Afghanistan where they belong. NDT, did you know that, per capita, MORE American troops die in Afghanistan than in Iraq? Mull that one over for a while.

    Anyway, you can continue playing the blame game with the Democrats all you want. They’ve only had power for a short little while. This war is a mess that belongs solely to you and to your favorite political party. If you really want to figure out who’s to fault for this catastrophe, I suggest purchasing a mirror.

    –Chet

    Comment by Chet — February 28, 2007 @ 5:56 pm - February 28, 2007

  52. LOL….ah, but Chet, you see, here’s the problem; leftists like you insist that attacking Iran would be bad because they would unleash more terrorist attacks against the United States in both Iraq, Afghanistan, and US interests elsewhere……….but then you insist that Iran has no links to terrorists.

    Furthermore, you are arguing that Shi’a militias have nothing to do with the fighting in Iraq and that it is all al-Qaeda insurgents….but then insist that our troops need to be withdrawn because it’s a “civil war” between Sunni and Shi’a.

    What it also makes clear is that you support withdrawing our troops from an area where you admit al-Qaeda terrorists are all over — but insist it’s so they can chase al-Qaeda terrorists elsewhere.

    I say we fight them where they’re at — and the answer to that is Iraq.

    It would be nice, wouldn’t it NDT, if the American CIA had not helped such a brutal man to power so he could fight the Shah of Iran for us, wouldn’t it.

    That’s a very interesting timeline, Chet, especially since the Shah of Iran was overthrown in January of 1979; Saddam assumed absolute power in Iraq in July of 1979, and did not attack Iran until September of 1980.

    In addition, what were you doing in the 1980s? Were you protesting Saddam’s brutal regime and demanding his removal? If so, then why did you instantly and suddenly reverse yourself to your current position that OPPOSED any such thing?

    And finally, Chet, while you claim 100,000 have died during the war, you ignore the fact that, according to the UN, 500,000 children alone starved to death under your “peace” — not to mention the imprisonment, torture, and deaths of additional hundreds of thousands of Shi’a, Kurds, Marsh Arabs, political dissidents, and their families.

    If given the choice between removing Saddam and having 100,000 Iraqis die versus perpetuating him in power and having 500,000 Iraqis die, the answer seems obvious. But for a leftist like you, Chet, stuck in denial over Saddam’s brutality, you didn’t care how many brown-skinned people he erased as long as you didn’t hear about it.

    And again, when the onus is put on you to explain why our “allies” won’t fight in Afghanistan, you whine and spin about how they’re right and it really isn’t necessary for them to do so…..but then demand that the bulk of US troops be deployed there because it IS necessary.

    Again, theoretical war. If Afghanistan weren’t there, you’d be arguing they should be sent to Darfur. It’s not a matter of where they’re needed; you’re simply wanting them somewhere else than where they are, and if they were sent to Afghanistan, you’d be whining they should be somewhere else instead. It’s all about contradiction and being anti-Bush, not military necessity.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2007 @ 4:03 am - March 1, 2007

  53. NDT–

    Your posts in quotes. Mine with –>

    “LOL….ah, but Chet, you see, here’s the problem; leftists like you insist that attacking Iran would be bad because they would unleash more terrorist attacks against the United States in both Iraq, Afghanistan, and US interests elsewhere……….but then you insist that Iran has no links to terrorists.”

    Shi’as, the ones being supplied with bombs by the Quds in Iran, are NOT al-Qaeda. Al Qaeda is being supported by mostly Sunni insurgents in Iraq. And of course there are ties between Iraqi factions and al Qaeda NOW, but there weren’t before we invaded. We drew al Qaeda into Iraq; they weren’t there before. I suppose that you think this is a good thing, “fighting them there instead of here,” but this is irrational; it’s simply not fair to use the rest of the world as a theater for fighting our battles.

    “Furthermore, you are arguing that Shi’a militias have nothing to do with the fighting in Iraq and that it is all al-Qaeda insurgents….but then insist that our troops need to be withdrawn because it’s a “civil war” between Sunni and Shi’a.”

    –> It’s both a civil war, AND a new training ground for al Qaeda. And I think we should leave for neither of the reasons you mentioned. I think we should leave because (1) I value the lives of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis more than you do, and (2) because this war is illegal, wrong, and a catastrophe.

    “What it also makes clear is that you support withdrawing our troops from an area where you admit al-Qaeda terrorists are all over — but insist it’s so they can chase al-Qaeda terrorists elsewhere.”

    –>Al Qaeda is a decentralized network of criminals. They might be in Iraq, but to destroy them one must go after their leadership. Also, there’s a difference between al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the members of al Qaeda (including bin Laden) who planned and carried out the attack on our country. Rather than going after them, like we should have, we have done exactly what they wanted us to do: we’ve drawn ourselves into a ridiculous, expensive, and unwinnable war. Strategic attacks on al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan would be far more beneficial, less expensive, and (be sure to look this word up, NDT) JUST.

    “I say we fight them where they’re at — and the answer to that is Iraq.”

    Why are they there? And the al Qaeda thugs in Iraq would disappear quite quickly if their leadership were taken out. The reason they will never be taken out is that OUR WAR WITH IRAQ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM. Also, it’s morally suspect of you to suggest that it’s a just and defensible thing to simply use the rest of the world as our war-on-terrorism playground.

    “That’s a very interesting timeline, Chet, especially since the Shah of Iran was overthrown in January of 1979; Saddam assumed absolute power in Iraq in July of 1979, and did not attack Iran until September of 1980.”

    Sorry, not the Shah. My bad. The Shad fled after the Iranian revolution, and Saddam was enlisted by our government to help fight the latter. In fact, Donald Rumsfeld himself visited Iraq and Saddam Hussein on the very day that Saddam used mustard gas (supplied by whom, I wonder) for the first time. Nice little history we’re building for ourselves. And by the way, I was wrong about the Shah, but the stuff about the CIA and Mossadeq (democratically elected) is absolutely true. If we wanted a western-style democracy in Iran, then we shouldn’t have f-ed it up when they had one just because they wanted us and the Brits out of their oil supply. Every conflict has a history, NDT, including this one.

    “In addition, what were you doing in the 1980s? Were you protesting Saddam’s brutal regime and demanding his removal? If so, then why did you instantly and suddenly reverse yourself to your current position that OPPOSED any such thing?”

    In the 1980s I was 10 years old. If I had been an adult then, privy to news and reading, I would have protested our support of Hussein. Why didn’t YOU, Mr. Morals?

    “And finally, Chet, while you claim 100,000 have died during the war, you ignore the fact that, according to the UN, 500,000 children alone starved to death under your “peace” — not to mention the imprisonment, torture, and deaths of additional hundreds of thousands of Shi’a, Kurds, Marsh Arabs, political dissidents, and their families.”

    –> Oh, NDT, you DO have a heart. A hypocritical heart, incapable of making basic moral judgments and distinctions, but a heart nonetheless. The difference, NDT, is that those 500,000 people were not murdered with bombs that my tax dollars pay for. You care about innocent Iraqis……warms the cockles of my heart.

    “stuck in denial over Saddam’s brutality”

    –> On the contrary, I admitted he was a brutal leader….no question. But WHY DID YOU LET YOUR REPUBLICAN LED GOVERNMENT PUT HIM IN POWER AND SUPPORT HIM DURING THE 1980S????????????? If you oppose his brutality NOW, where were YOU then? Your position is not morally consistent. And where are your morals NOW, when the US’s “friend” in the region is Musharaf — someone who took power by military coup? And how do you stand on the Saudis, and the economic suffering they perpetuate every day in their country, with our full support. You see, NDT, our foreign policy has NOTHING to do with opposing brutal dictators. It also has nothing to do with terrorism. It has to do with pursuing America’s economic interest, and protecting that economic interest. This used to be called Imperialism. The moral reasons are brought out afterward to give people like you something to believe in and be churchy about.

    :Again, theoretical war. If Afghanistan weren’t there, you’d be arguing they should be sent to Darfur. It’s not a matter of where they’re needed; you’re simply wanting them somewhere else than where they are, and if they were sent to Afghanistan, you’d be whining they should be somewhere else instead. It’s all about contradiction and being anti-Bush, not military necessity.”

    –> NDT — as this string suggests, you are the one with a morally inconsistent and indefensible view of foreign policy — not me. I want to kill Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al Qaeda. Unfortunately our military is too strung out across the globe now to do that. Al qaeda will win this war with us, just as they beat the Soviets with the exact same strategy when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

    –Chet

    Comment by Chet — March 1, 2007 @ 3:04 pm - March 1, 2007

  54. Chet, you keep digging yourself in deeper.

    In regards to fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq:

    I suppose that you think this is a good thing, “fighting them there instead of here,” but this is irrational; it’s simply not fair to use the rest of the world as a theater for fighting our battles.

    However, just a bit later:

    Strategic attacks on al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan would be far more beneficial, less expensive, and (be sure to look this word up, NDT) JUST.

    That’s using Afghanistan and Pakistan “as a theater for fighting our battles”.

    And as for your insistence that al-Qaeda would collapse if its leadership were killed or captured, the whole point and structure around al-Qaeda is to limit its vulnerabilities by making it LESS dependent on a formal chain of command. That’s why its members are taught to operate independently, to blend in, to assimilate and go under cover. The leadership serves only as a rallying point.

    What leftists like you don’t realize, Chet, is that, because of that decentralization, killing Osama bin Laden does exactly squat in terms of putting an end to al-Qaeda. Finding and killing al-Qaeda members where they are at does.

    Finally, as for citing the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan, please take the time to educate yourself; the reason al-Qaeda members were able to defeat the enormous number of Soviet troops is because we, the UK, and Saudi Arabia gave them an enormous amount of money, weaponry, and expertise. Had we not done so, the Soviets would have prevailed by sheer numbers eventually.

    That is why the Bush administration, which understands these lessons, is prioritizing choking off supplies to them from the countries that are doing it — Iran and Syria. However, the terrorists are counterattacking with their most potent weapon — manipulating ignorant leftists like yourself who irrationally hate the Bush administration and will do anything as long as it’s anti-bush — to make it illegal to stop countries like Iran and Syria from supplying terrorist groups who are using those supplies to kill our soldiers.

    But what else should we expect? After all, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and Howard Dean endorse and support people like Cindy Sheehan, who OPENLY sends hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and supplies to “freedom fighters”, as she calls them, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2007 @ 1:42 pm - March 2, 2007

  55. America Is At The Mall…

    Gay Patriot posted this photo. I think it is accurate, as well as thought-provoking. What do you think?…

    Trackback by Bob's Blog — March 3, 2007 @ 7:38 pm - March 3, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.