then what’s going to happen witht he 3 factions that make up the country and are involved in civil war?

Oh. Didn’t you hear? The “civil war” was nothing more than AQ propaganda promoted by the DNC, the liberal media and, well, you.

Congratulations. You’re a useful idiot.

Besides, since when did you give a damn about the “3 factions that make up the country”? Aren’t you part of the crowd that gives them the middle finger and wants to tell them to go fcuk themselves sideways?

Libtrolls, prove me wrong.
Regards,
Peter H.

First of all, Al Qaeda declares victory. Now, will Al Qaeda just disband after declaring victory (as some apparently think) or will they use their victory as a rallying cry to recruit millions more to Global Jihad?

If anyone doubts that latter is the more likely course of events, kindly explain why.

Second, any of the Iraqis who stood with us are dead meat, probably with a few million more because of the bloodbath everyone admits will follow. Of course, no one gives a crap about this genocide except the troglodyte neocon right-wingers. So, genocide is a fair price to pay for American humiliation. We get that.

Third, in the long term, what credibility does the US have when it says we’ll fight Al Qaeda as long as it takes… after we give up four years into the fight? Why should any government ally itself with us when they know we’ll cut and run after our nose gets bloodied? Why should any government in the region cooperate with us on security matters? How does capitulation make us safer in the long term, when we will have just proven Osama bin Laden right that the US is a paper tiger with no stomach for a fight?

That’s what the lefties want, right? - peace? - that us all righty nazi troglodytes who sound the alarm so clearly do not want?

Who cares!?!?! Are going to let enemy taunts and enemy propaganda decide policy?

Gil

Given that we got 9/11 after we surrendered to AQ the first time, I would think it’s a pretty safe bet that we ought not do it again. Furthermore, if you listen to AQ, they’ll tell you exactly what they want to do and they’ll also tell you when we’re kicking their ass. That is, if you bother to listen.

However, if you just ignore it and dismiss it as a “bumper sticker”, taunts and propaganda, you won’t get it. What’s more, you’re ilk pose a clear and present danger to the security of this country.

Only those of you so blinded by partisan hatred actually believe that a drawdown in troops is a surrender. You’re using the terms “surrender” because the GOP desperately needs to label a change in strategy or presence a “surrender” in order to get you to control how you think about it.

Uh huh. And forgiving law breakers of their crimes ain’t amnesty, neo Socialist “democrats” aren’t liberals and the Congress has the power to command the movements of our soldiers in country. Got it.

You don’t actually debate facts or strategies; you simply attack your archetypal foes.

I’ve been on vacation, so maybe I missed something. I’ve not seen “facts” or “strategies” to debate. Further, I can’t help but notice that nobody seems to have the balls to answer my question of how surrendering to AQ makes us more safe. I’ve asked lots of people, including some of the heavy screamers on the Hill, and nobody seems capable of replying.

I note in passing the rise in the number of stories of military vets joining anti-war organizations (traitors, too, I assume, GPW?)

All paragons of honesty, I’m sure, TP. Like John F.You Kerry, Murtha, that one clown who was running around claiming that he witnessed slaughters in Iraq when he wasn’t even there? Oh, and how about that one guy out in CA, Thomas Young, who starred in campaign 06 ads whining about cuts to VA funding when it had actually INCREASED by $3.5 Billion.

That they served their country, I thank them. That they sustained injuries while doing so, I likewise thank them. BUT, when they come home and show off being lying, opportunistic sacks of crap, I dismiss them to the Eighth Circle, Bolgia 10.

Technically, by your standard, Napoleon never surrendered to the Russians.

He just “redeployed” over an extended period.

Next, to your evaluation of what the NIE is saying.

Hmmm. So we’re less safe than before.

AlQ is as strong as before, more enabled and more excited about killing us than ever

I suggest you might want to read the document in question.

Especially this paragraph:

We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa’ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.

So yes, we are safer.

Furthermore, what makes your statement particularly amusing is your citing al-Qa’ida in Iraq as being the most dangerous one being coupled with your support of the Democrat Party demand that we deploy troops AWAY from it.

In short, you whine that our worst enemy with the most capability to attack us is in Iraq, so you want to put troops in Okinawa. Just as before with Afghanistan, Democrats and their supporters like you don’t want to send troops to where our enemy IS; you want them deployed as far away from people who are threatening to attack us as possible.

AQI is helped in its recruiting by the American invasion and presence in Iraq.

The theory here being, of course, that al-Qa’ida would not hate us and not be able to recruit people to fight us if we weren’t in Iraq.

Funny, they had no problem whatsoever finding people to recruit and to fight against us BEFORE we were in Iraq, or before we were in Afghanistan, or during the Clinton administration, when we stayed in the corner and basically gave the world and our “allies” everything they wanted.

Problem is here, torrentprime, that Bush-hatred has not only put you in the hands of people who want to emasculate you; it’s gotten you so worked up that you’re wielding the knife on yourself.

You want us to pull our troops away from the location of what you yourself claim is the biggest threat to us.

You want us to pull out to avoid giving lunatics any more reason to hate us, despite the fact that, every other time we’ve met their demands, they simply come up with a new one and a new reason to hate us.

And you want us to care about the opinions of countries like France, who, aside from being one of the biggest beneficiaries of Saddam’s bribes and kickbacks to ignore him, is also a country in which Islamic teenagers with clubs can bring the entire country to its knees in just a matter of hours — and get away with it as the government twists itself into an orgy of self-flagellation to explain why it’s their fault.

Not interested. SO not interested.

[Funny that you would say I repeat my point over and over again. I guess in dealing with you I have to. I have made clear that difficulties remain. Your acknowledging now the military situation has improved is a bit of a shift for you. So you can claim over and over (and over and over (and over and over)) again that we're not addressing your point, but the only thing happening is that we're not agreeing with your narrow view of the situation. --GPW]

GPW, it’s also interesting to see you say that the criteria for attacking a critic of the war is not whether the criticism is right; it’s simply whether (your mind-reading assumption of) their inner purpose is noble enough for you:

Have we ever attacked them, insulted them? No, because we recognize that their criticism has been well-intended.

See, here, again, I totally forget the Bush-supporter logic I should be following: We don’t analyze criticism based on its accuracy, its impact, its validity; no no! We judge it based on our assumption and judgement of the desire of the holder of that criticism to help our cause.

[Sorry, torrent, I didn't say what you claimed I said. I was only showing that I respect some of the critics of the Administration's policy--and explaining why I respect certain critics. Not offering criteria for why I would recognize the validity of criticism (in general). So, don't do what you accuse others of doing--and engage in mind-reading. I respect those critics who offer honest assessments of the situation in Iraq. And you just keep making assumption (after assumption) about all Bush-supporters (and assume all those who support the war are Bush-supporters). And you assume that I believe only supporters of the war have good intentions. The more you comment, the bigger hole you dig. Thanks, GPW]

ND30: So leaving is a surrender, always, even if you never surrender to anyone and you’re not actually running (a 12 month plan is hardly running with one boot on) or even having all the troops leave (withdraw to bases and force the Iraqis to do more with the 3 brigades Bush claims the Iraqis have)? Gotcha. And: “This is simply the Democrat Party yanking all troops out of Iraq and running like hell.” And some Republicans, lately, in case you hadn’t noticed.

As for the summary of OBL’s freedoms in the Clinton years:

He was safe from military intervention, sheltered and openly supported by a government, and able to move money and personnel at will without having to worry about his financial transactions being tracked or his communications with his cells being eavesdropped upon.

And this is different from his freedom at this point in time how, exactly? Read the NIE this week? Anyone? You know, the one that says after years of Bush’s “takin’ it to them”, let’s see how AlQ is doing: (again, credit Slate)

Al-Qaida has “protected or regenerated key elements” of its ability to attack the United States. It has a “safe haven” in Pakistan. Its “top leadership” and “operational lieutenants” are intact. It is cooperating more with “regional terrorist groups.” As a result, the report concludes, “the U.S. Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years” and is, even now, “in a heightened threat environment.”

Hmmm. So we’re less safe than before. That can’t be right, ND30, right? Cause Republicans are in charge now?
But, as Bush keeps telling us, Iraq is the central front of the war on terror: Well, the central recruiting front, anyway:

“One major reason for al-Qaida’s resurgence, according to the report, is its “association with” al-Qaida in Iraq. (Note, by the way, that these two organizations are said to be “associated” or “affiliated” with each other; contrary to what Bush has said in recent speeches, they are not the same entity.) This affiliation “helps al-Qaida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks.” Al-Qaida in Iraq—or AQI, as the report identifies it—is not merely al-Qaida’s “most visible and capable affiliate.” More significant, it is “the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland.” (Italics added.)

AQI is helped in its recruiting by the American invasion and presence in Iraq. AQI wants to attack the US. AQI enables AQ to recruit more, with the added transmission of the goal of attacking the US at home, so now AQ is both more likely and more able to attack us.
And ND30, lastly: really, man. Yes, Clinton sucked (and was sucked). Yes, he was a tool who toured the world attending peace accords after the heavy lifting was done and cluck-clucking over the world’s wounds. But, so what? Is your only metric of a good leader someone who does not equal Clinton? When the result of multiple years of war, billions of dollars spent and thousands upon thousands of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed and wounded, AlQ is as strong as before, more enabled and more excited about killing us than ever; we are more isolated now than in decades, with allies turned off and untrusting of us, world opinion against us more (than ever?), our country more bitterly polarized and discourse more poisonous, all of these lead you to believe that the GOP in charge has been a success?

Which part of “all troops out of Iraq by x date, 2008″ is so difficult for you to understand, torrentprime?

This is not a “drawdown”, “redeployment”, or whatever other cutesy name you want to use for it. This is simply the Democrat Party yanking all troops out of Iraq and running like hell.

And what this makes obvious to Osama bin Laden and his ilk is that, once again, all he has to do is outlast us. He doesn’t need to fight; he has Democrats like yourself to do it for him.

Osama bin Laden wants nothing more than to return to the days when Democrats were in charge of the military, torrentprime. After all, during that time, he was able to nearly sink a US destroyer, kill seventeen US military personnel, and wound tens more, at the cost of two men and a few boxes of explosives. He was able to blow up two embassies in East Africa, killing hundreds of people, then casually evacuate his camps as the Democrats in charge waited to shoot missiles at him until it could be used to distract the news coverage from the Lewinsky scandal. He was safe from military intervention, sheltered and openly supported by a government, and able to move money and personnel at will without having to worry about his financial transactions being tracked or his communications with his cells being eavesdropped upon.

Which is exactly what you and your fellow Democrats are going to give him if you get your way.

You’ll pardon me if I doubt he was referring to those who are screaming for our surrender. Further, I dare you to find our military appreciating the liberal media coverage.

Only those of you so blinded by partisan hatred actually believe that a drawdown in troops is a surrender. You’re using the terms “surrender” because the GOP desperately needs to label a change in strategy or presence a “surrender” in order to get you to control how you think about it. And unless you have talked to the man personally, I doubt you know what he thinks. But then again, mind-reading (”democrats *really* want this, they *really* mean that”) is a hallmark of the Bush-supporter these days. You don’t actually debate facts or strategies; you simply attack your archetypal foes. Not one of my questions on strategy, planning, or political changes in Iraq has been answered. Not one. You, ND30, GPWest: none of you have had a single thing to say about any of those issues. All you offer is insults and personal attacks, because that’s all you have left now.

[Don't put words into my mouth, torrentpirme, and don't take them out of there either. Perhaps, I haven't answered your questions to meet your high standards, after all, you're the one insisting that only the benchmarks not met were set too low. I had much to say about those issues. And I've offered neither insult nor personal attack in my responses instead noting the improving security situation in Iraq. Here, in a screed-laden post, you accuse use of ducking the issues. You claim we attack our "archetypal foes" while you define us as you want to see us while ignoring actual points (and facts) we bring up to address questions you ask and issues you raise. Sounds like you're the one attacking "archetypal foes." You claim "no progress on the actual things that effect the Iraqi civilians' lives," I reply by noting the virtual cessation of bombing in Anbar province," something which very much efets the lives of Iraqi civilians in that once-troubled province. You refuse to address that. --GPW]

Also, in regards to the military appreciating the “liberal” media coverage: there have plenty of conservative commentators weighing in for years on the mismanagement of the Iraq war, from its (lack of) planning for post-invasion to the bad tactics used to fight the budding insurgency. How will you avoid answering those critics? What insults or childish tantrums will you throw their way to avoid facing the realities in Iraq?

[Yep, there have been plenty of conservatives who have faulted the Administration for mismanaging the war. Many of whom (e.g., Bill Kristol) strongly support the surge, a shift in strategy, and are optimistic about its success. Have we ever attacked them, insulted them? No, because we recognize that their criticism has been well-intended. They fault the past strategy because it failed to produce victory. They criticized because they wanted a better strategy and understood the stakes in Iraq. --GPW]

Last: I wouldn’t speak for the military, as you do, although I note in passing the rise in the number of stories of military vets joining anti-war organizations (traitors, too, I assume, GPW?) and the rather extraordinary high military contributions to Ron Paul.

[The only reason I'm interjecting in this comment to a post Bruce did is because this writer addresses me in claiming I've called war opponents traitors, an accusation I have not leveled. So, please if you're going to take issue with my points, take issue with my points, don't fault me for saying things I never said--or claim I never said things I did. --GPW]

failed war and a failed presidency.

It’s great to see our military appreciating and respecting diversity of opinion about matters as great as war, something which is so lost on conservatives these days.

Comment by torrentprime

You’ll pardon me if I doubt he was referring to those who are screaming for our surrender. Further, I dare you to find our military appreciating the liberal media coverage.

Are you taking spinning lessons from Wonder Woman?

LOL….obviously you’ve never heard him rant about the need for attacking “corrupt” Islamic governments and “corrupt” Muslims who are too moderate for his tastes.

What is happening in Iraq is the realization among Muslims that bin Laden’s argument is a crock of sh*t; he and his fellow radicals are just as willing to kill Muslims who don’t fit their views of right and wrong as they are to kill “infidels”.

The reason that has taken so long is because of leftists like yourself who have blamed bin Laden’s bombings and attacks on targets as being all the United States’s fault. You yourself have facilitated his propaganda because you want to be anti-American; you are blaming the United States for everything, which plays right into his hands.