You can dress it up anyway you want to, but the POTUS stood up to the defeatocrats and said no..just as he told him he would do before they wasted our time and money screwing around.
Ian has the video
Bush signed the veto with a pen given to him by Robert Derga, the father of Marine Corps Reserve Cpl. Dustin Derga, who was killed in Iraq on May 8, 2005. The elder Derga spoke with Bush two weeks ago at a meeting the president had with military families at the White House.Derga asked Bush to promise to use the pen in his veto. On Tuesday, Derga contacted the White House to remind Bush to use the pen, and so he did. The 24-year-old Dustin Derga served with Lima Company, 3rd Battalion 25th Marines from Columbus, Ohio. The five-year Marine reservist and fire team leader was killed by an armor-piercing round in Anbar Province.
Others blogging:
Weblog: The NJ Blog
Weblog: Axis of Right
Weblog: Left Wing = Hate
Weblog: JBDavis
AKD, your poor excuse for reasoning makes no sense to mature adults. If the exterminator fails the first time, you determine the cause and call him back for another treatment. Only fools like you let the cockroaches take over and then blame someone else.
FAO made a good point in 46. What should our surrender terms be? Since the liberals on this site don’t seem to believe in the threat and therefore won’t offer any solution to fight it then I would like to hear what they have to say on surrendering. San Fran, AKD, Toasted? Any of the libs please feel free?
Along that line I saw Newt speak and he made perfect sense actually. He said this country needs to DEBATE the consequences of our leaving Iraq. Can the democrats do this? San Fran, AKD, Toasted?
How will we leave the Iraqi’s? What will we look like in the eyes of the world when we surrender? What will be the consequences of a terrorists controlled state? What will happen when we lose control of the worlds oil?
For more info on Newts debate go here
Well condidering the fact that AQ is being dealt with rather than allowing unchallenged attacks around the globe, it would make perfect sense that the attacks have gone up…
“I’ve claimed that there are more instances of terrorist attacks in the region (and in the rest of the world”look at all the figures in the link) since we invaded Iraq. That’s it.”
That’s false. Here are you words, quoted verbatim, from post 26:
“Still no response to the fact that Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground, huh? That means more terrorists, not less. More.”
That was your claim.
“Care to provide some empirical evidence of this fact?”
I didn’t claim it was a fact. I said that it was a statement from General Petraeus and other commanders in Iraq. I can dig up the quote if you wish. He said that most terrorist attacks (attacks on civilians) are those of foriegn fighters such as Al Queda.
The insurgents (native Iraqis) focus attacks on the military. This is a legal act of war, according to the Geneva Accords.
This would seem to contradict you stateent that Iraq is a terrorists breeding ground. Indeed it is where some terrorist go to fight, and is a focus of Al Queda in particular. However, when taking Hamas, Hezbollah and the many other groups in the middle east in account, it hardly seems to be any different.
It seems folks like to lump these all together when it is convenient to them.
If the numbers of terrorist attacks in Iraq has increased it does not prove that there are numerically more terrorists, or that anything GWB has done has increased the numbers of terrorists. It only demonstrates that we are facing a determined, cowardly, and ruthless enemy.
You know Peejz…that is exactly the point. One of Bush’s strategies was not only to remove a dangerous dictator but to set up an allie in the middle east and to fight terrorism OVER THERE where it originates from. Personally I think this is a good strategy. I only feel sorry for the Iraqi people but I also believe they are afraid we will leave them again and when they listen to the dems talk who can blame them?
All this talk about increased terrorists is so much bull. There are organizations and people who have put together videos, books, etc. proving that Islamic radicals are recruiting and training terrorists and have been for many years now. They have become strong.
I have got a question for the lib appeasers, what makes you think that you will be safe if AQ starts attacks in the US? What makes you think that the public won’t turn on you when they put together your calls for appeasment and gutting efforts to kill AQ and other terrorists?
I only feel sorry for the Iraqi people but I also believe they are afraid we will leave them again and when they listen to the dems talk who can blame them?
BonBon you have hit on a key statement of reality in Iraq, one you will never get in the MSM and one that those who glibly keep posting that the Iraqis want us out seem to be unaware of:
The Iraqi people don’t like what is going on there, they are sick of the terrorism and war in their backyard, but the overwhelming majority do NOT want the U.S. to leave until things are stabilized because they know if that happens the place will be a killing field.
How do I know this? From people who were actually there, not just self-proclaimed gurus who are regurgitating MSM propaganda or Democrite talking points.
Way back in 92 I didn’t vote for Bush senior for one main reason. He didn’t finish the job. He should have taken Saddam out and he didn’t. Why he didn’t doesn’t matter now but our credibility is on the line with this issue imo. I don’t see how we can let the Iraqi’s down. For me it would be unconscionable.
The Iraqi’s are very aware that when we go their country will be a killing field. But hey the dems did it in Vietnam and to this day don’t care in the least that almost 4 million people died as a result of our departure. Why should it matter now with Iraq? That is the attitude I’m getting from these people. Only now the consequences are much higher and it is for that reason I get angry. Nuclear, biological, chemical warfare from terrorists is not a far fetched idea? Liberals do you agree? Oh you don’t, well, you better go do your homework. The threat is there.
56- My Dad and I got onto this subject yesterday…My nephew is getting ready to be a Marine and will be going to Basic Training in August..(Dad was Air Force in the 50′s)…That’s how the conversation started.
These terrorist cells didn’t just come about when we invaded Iraq…We are playing catch up to everything we let side under the rug for years…
God Bless your nephew and keep him safe. Thank him for me for his service to our country and know that I support him.
Catching up. Yup, that’s the one thing the liberals are so misinformed about. Or maybe the game of politics means more to them. Just like children they live in a perfect world where all things are bright and beautiful and they can play games all day long.
I’m going to be on the phone today calling these idiots and next week I plan on showing up in their offices. I want to know firsthand why they think the U.S. should surrender.
This would seem to contradict you stateent that Iraq is a terrorists breeding ground. Indeed it is where some terrorist go to fight, and is a focus of Al Queda in particular. However, when taking Hamas, Hezbollah and the many other groups in the middle east in account, it hardly seems to be any different.
If the numbers of terrorist attacks in Iraq has increased it does not prove that there are numerically more terrorists, or that anything GWB has done has increased the numbers of terrorists.
I still haven’t seen any evidence to support this notion. My evidence that Iraq is a terrorist breeding ground comes from the words of David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats coupled with State Dept. statistics showing that terror attacks have increased in the region by 91%. Given the number of terrorists who die committing their attacks, it seems safe to say that there are more terrorists. Most of what I’ve read—including the state department’s support—suggests that there is no reason to think that these terrorists are, by and large, anything but Sunni extremists from Iraq. Terror attacks have also increased worldwide since the US invasion (see links in my previous posts). If all the terrorists are going to Iraq, and there aren’t actually more terrorists, why are numbers up all over the world since the invasion?
I only feel sorry for the Iraqi people but I also believe they are afraid we will leave them again and when they listen to the dems talk who can blame them?
Yep, the Iraqis love us.
These terrorist cells didn’t just come about when we invaded Iraq:We are playing catch up to everything we let side under the rug for years:
Then why are terrorist attacks gone up every year since the invasion, both in Iraq and worldwide?
Yup, that’s the one thing the liberals are so misinformed about.
Yup, reading something other than right-wing blogs, looking at the U.S. Govt’s actual statistics—all of these things lead to living in that pesky reality-based community. C’mon, everyone knows that the founding fathers wanted us to close our eyes, keep our mouths shut, and pull the trigger.
62.:?::twisted::???::evil::idea:
Yup, reading something other than right-wing blogs, looking at the U.S. Govt’s actual statistics…
…and then drawing conclusions not supported by them.
AKD your link goes to NBC……rotflmao………
Gawrsh, NBC is the oracle of truth! The only ones with more integrity are CBS, CNN, and Al Jizzeera!
63-66:
So….
More terrorism in Iraq and more terrorist attacks worldwide every year since the beginning of the war means that we’re WINNING!!! Yay!!!
I wish that I could fit my head as far up my ass as you guys.
Until Al Quaeda bombed the Golden Mosque in Samarra, terrorist attacks were on a downward trend. They blew up the mosque as a means to incite sectarian violence. It unfortunately worked to some degree. The Iranians are supplying weapons and other material support to Shia extremists and Iranian agents in Iraq. Al Quaeda and the Iranian backed groups are fighting a war by proxy with the Iraqi population caught in the middle and US and Iraqi troops trying to stop the attacks. Unfortunately for the civilians, if 99 of 100 terrorist attacks are stopped cold, it’s still a good day for the terrorists. Of course, for a variety of reasons, the press refuses to report the stopped attacks but concentrates only on the successful ones. This “if it bleeds, it leads” sensationalist mentality improves enemy morale and thereby provides recruiting support for the terrorists.
Until Al Quaeda bombed the Golden Mosque in Samarra, terrorist attacks were on a downward trend.
Link? Statistics? I’m sorry, FAO, but until I see some indication of a positive trend (that deals with a period longer than a week or two), I’m going to accept the numbers provided by the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center.
Once again these are the numbers for Iraq (linked above). The first set of numbers is for 2005, the second is for 2006:
Incidents of terrorism in Iraq 3,468; 6,630 (up 91%)
Incidents in Iraq resulting in death, injury, or kidnapping of at least one individual 2,834; 6,026 (up more than 100%)
Individuals in Iraq killed, injured, or kidnapped as a result of incidents of terrorism 20,685; 38,813.
Here are the numbers for the rest of the world (same dates):
Incidents of terrorism worldwide 11,153; 14,338
Incidents resulting in death, injury, or kidnapping of at least one individual 8,028; 11,170
Incidents resulting in death of at least one individual 5,135; 7,332
Incidents resulting in the death of zero individuals 6,018; 7,007
Incidents resulting in the death of only one individual 2,881; 4,091
Incidents resulting in the death of at least 10 individuals 228; 291
Incidents resulting in the injury of at least one individual 3,838; 5,718
Incidents resulting in the kidnapping of at least one individual 1,152; 1,334
Though in Iraq, the number of terrorist attacks has increased at a much faster rate than the rest of the world, the rest of the world still shows some disturbing growth. I’m not sure how attacks in the second set of statistics have been carried out by terrorists coming from Iraq. It does however make you wonder about David Low’s remarks (cited/linked above):
Iraq provides terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills,”said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. “There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries.”
Hmmmmm.
the Iraqi population caught in the middle and US and Iraqi troops trying to stop the attacks.
Again, all of the statistics I’ve seen—including the statistics of the US govt.—suggests that the the majority of the terrorist attacks are coming from Sunni (as Saddam was) extremists from Iraq. I don’t doubt that AQ also has a presence in the region (though Osama was, of course, incredibly critical of Saddam before the US invasion of Iraq—calling him too secular and a communist), but I’ve seen no indication that this is the main terrorist presence.
As for the Iraqis being happy that were there, the most recent poll, carried out by ABC News, USA Today, the BBC and ARD German TV (not NBC, though they also reported on it) reports the following (linked above):
The number of Iraqis who say their own life is going well has dipped from 71 percent in November 2005 to 39 percent now.
About three-fourths of Iraqis report feelings of anger, depression and difficulty concentrating.
More than half of Iraqis have curtailed activities like going out of their homes, going to markets or other crowded places and traveling through police checkpoints.
Only 18 percent of Iraqis have confidence in U.S. and coalition troops, and 86 percent are concerned that someone in their household will be a victim of violence.
Slightly more than half of Iraqis ” 51 percent ” now say that violence against U.S. forces is acceptable ” up from 17 percent who felt that way in early 2004. More than nine in 10 Sunni Arabs in Iraq now feel this way
Just stating that you don’t like these numbers and that you know they can’t be true (because you don’t trust the media or because you just know that the Iraqis love us despite all their dead children) isn’t an argument unless you can show me where there was some failure in gathering these statistics. A hunch to the contrary doesn’t cut it.
Hmm, I see a lot of the old appeasement routine in here. “If we don’t fight back they’ll stop attacking us.” Never happened! These people see appeasement as cowardice (and it is) and will step up their attacks on us if we go the appeasement route. Appeasement has never worked, never will. Libya knows that – they have wanted to play nice with us ever since we entered Iraq (or was that Afghanistan?). We hit them once before, not very hard, but they don’t want to be hit again. Who was it who said (very wisely),”Those who cry ‘Appease, appease!’ are destroyed by those they try to please”?
Hey AKD, your numbers prove my point. Attacks went up after Al Quaeda bombed the Golden Mosque. It was an attempt to incite sectarian violence, attacks were down before that. LOOK UP the numbers from the beginning of 2005. The attack rate was down.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/images/06512-attacks2.jpg
Here’s a graph showing that attacks were down from the 2004 level. When attacks drop off, even a return to the previous level translates into an increase.
I wish that I could fit my head as far up my ass as you guys.
Your head is so far up there you can’t even see what anyone else is doing!
70. Hmm, I see a lot of the old appeasement routine in here. “If we don’t fight back they’ll stop attacking us.â€
But attacks have been increasing, so the strategy you’re supporting has clearly been a massive failure. FAO has suggested sealing our borders—maybe this is a better use of manpower than a policy of military adventurism that has only increased terrorism. The fact that you can’t come up with anything better than a silly rhyme to support your position is telling.
71. According to your chart, the actual trend has been upward. There was indeed a drop in Feb to Aug ’05, but the numbers never dropped below the pre-sov. levels of 2004 (the trend from May 2004 to Aug 2005 was still upward—from about 420 to 470). If you look at the entire chart, the movement is from around 420 up to around 620—an increase of over 45%. The increase in the last year has been especially large (as the US’s own stats suggests).
Simple solution to stop a majority of the attacks? Take all the cars away…should we do that? How many of the casualties are tied to car bombings?
Of course another option that would slow down attacks in Iraq would be to use predator drones and A-10 warthogs to seal the Iraqi border. Just put up signs demarcating the border and declaring it a demilitarized zone wherein anyone entering it will be subject to being shot on sight. Let the Kurds patrol the Syria border. The Kurds have no love for the Sunnis and telling them that they’d be allowed to shoot on sight anyone they caught trying to enter Iraq via Syria would make their day. I would also send Iraqi military units to the Iranian border with similar orders for anyone trying to enter via Iran. The Sunni tribal leaders are getting fed up with Al Quaeda and are beginning to turn on the foreign terrorists. If we can cut off supplies and reenforcements coming in from Syria and Iran, half of the battle will be won. That will reduce the level of logistical, technical and personnel support that the Terrorists are currently receiving. We are making headway with most of the people in Iraq, however when even 1% of a population in excess of 20 million are looking at losing their power to a democratic form of government, they are probably going to put up a fight.
As for polls in Iraq, polls are almost always rigged. Those who frame the questions almost always get the responses that they seek. The polls are simply set up to validate the viewpoint of the pollster.
As for polls in Iraq, polls are almost always rigged. Those who frame the questions almost always get the responses that they seek. The polls are simply set up to validate the viewpoint of the pollster.
Do you have any statistics that validate your viewpoint? Anything to undercut the information provided by the U.S. Govt and the other stats I’ve cited?
Who’s conducting the polls? CNN? There’s your answer.
“But attacks have been increasing, so the strategy you’re supporting has clearly been a massive failure.”
Wouldn’t this be the natural course of event when terrorist organizations are focusing efforts in a particular region? A war is being fought in the region (one that I will conceede has been mismanaged by Bush, but needs fought none the less). Why is that a massive failure?
If there was progress being ,made, and clear cut indisputable evidence that the war was being won, in my opinion poll numbers would be on a reverse trend. The issue isn’t the need for the war itself, but the issue is how it is being fouight- hamstrung by political correctness from both sides of the isle.
BTW, Terrorism Down Worldwide
78. Wouldn’t this be the natural course of event when terrorist organizations are focusing efforts in a particular region? A war is being fought in the region (one that I will conceede has been mismanaged by Bush, but needs fought none the less). Why is that a massive failure?
Because attacks have continued to increase. I’d be willing to accept that there would be a spike soon after the invasion, but the situation has continued to worsen for years. I’ve also cited (multiple times) the following remarks:
Iraq provides terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills,”said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. “There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries.”
If we continue our occupation of Iraq, and if the numbers continue to increase—and, at this point, we only have evidence that they will as they have continued an upward trend over the last few years—then we’re left with a choice: Either continue to pour military into what’s become an increasingly gaping wound (realizing that as soon as we leave, the terrorists we’ve bred will likely spread elsewhere) or look for another option. What this option ought to be needs to be thought through, but recognizing our failures in Iraq is a nice first step.
As for the stats: I’m not quite sure how these numbers are being spun. Even if you subtract the instances of terrorism in Iraq from the instances worldwide, the numbers have still increased from 7,685 to 7,708. It’s true that the percentage of terrorist attacks in the rest of the world has declined but only relative to the huge increase in Iraq. In terms of the actual number of attacks, however, the numbers have gone up. This means more dead, more wounded, etc. I’d call this worsening rather than improving. BTW, this doesn’t even take account of the number of American military casualties whose deaths are not the result of terrorist attacks.
So basically, it doesn’t matter where we chose to fight AQ, it will become the training ground?
81. So basically, it doesn’t matter where we chose to fight AQ, it will become the training ground?
Iraq has never been simply a fight against AQ—there was no link between Iraq and AQ until after the invasion (as Bush, Cheney, and Rice have all publicly admitted). The point is that we’ve made such a mess of things in Iraq (see my post 69 for some statistics), that it’s become a breeding ground for terrorists with no immediate link to AQ as well as one of AQ’s most productive recruitment centers. These facts as, as I’ve shown in my previous posts, substantiated by both the studies completed by the U.S. govt. and the remarks by David Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats.
AKD, as we have shown, one person is not GOD! Low is not the be all and end all. Now, your liberal sites have been great at taking comments out of context that you repeat endlessly, but AQ was in Iraq before the war. AQ was sheltered by Saddam, and there were active AQ camps in Iraq before the war. That is fact, but you seem too dishonest to accept that.
Hi PCD…and don’t forget Saddam harbored the mastermind of WT 93, the Blind Shiek as he’s been called. This man had a state house and a state pension given to him by Saddam. Oh yeah and let’s not forget $25,000 went to every family of homicide bombers in Israel.
83, BonBon, AKD is not an honest debater. We can have Jesus Christ say we are right and AKD will say he doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ even if Christ sends AKD to Hell, which AKD doesn’t believe in either until his *ss hits the hot flames like Saddam, Uday, and Qusay’s did.
“These facts as, as I’ve shown in my previous posts, substantiated by both the studies completed by the U.S. govt. and the remarks by David Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. “
No, you haven’t AKD. You’ve shown that terrorist incidents have increased from 2005 to 2006. You’ve not provided any proof that Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground at all though.
While the only eviednce I’ve provided was General Patraus’ statement, yours come’s from David B. Low. However, your argu,emt in post 62 does not provide proof, as it is just an opinion based on unrelated statistics.
You know, there is an increasing amount of US soldier in Iraq also. Does that imply that Iraq is an US Soldier breeding ground?
Your logic is circular- there are more terrorists incidents in Iraq, therefore Iraq is a terrorist breeding ground. This doesn’t make sense. Unless you can give statistical analysis of terrorist captired and killed in Iraq as to what their country of origin is, you can not realistically make this claim.
Your logic is circular- there are more terrorists incidents in Iraq, therefore Iraq is a terrorist breeding ground.
Correlation does not equal causality. This is a fact AKD seems unaware of.
Here’s yet another theory: The summers are very hot in Iraq. Therefore; hot summers breed more terrorism!!!
STOP Global Warming! It breeds terrorism!!!
…until his *ss hits the hot flames like Saddam, Uday, and Qusay’s did.
IMO Chapatraitor Kennedy, Turban Durbin, “In Cold Blood” Murtha, Stretch Pelosi, and much of the Democrite leadership will be in line right next to Saddam, Uday, and Qusay getting roasted by the flames of hell. Along with assorted leftists.
Hi PCD:and don’t forget Saddam harbored the mastermind of WT 93, the Blind Shiek as he’s been called. This man had a state house and a state pension given to him by Saddam. Oh yeah and let’s not forget $25,000 went to every family of homicide bombers in Israel.
AKD seems to have forgotten all of this. That is if he ever knew. I doubt the Democrat talking points of the week sheet has any of this.
Correction: Democrite As in “hypocrite”.