Bush Veto Of Troop Withdrawl Bill
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
May 2, 2007 - 05:57 AM on May 2nd, 2007
It is shameful that the Demoncrats are hoping we lose the Iraq war in order to gain seats and the Oval office. It is amazing that the American public is being sold their “bill of goods” and they will soon find out…the bag is empty!!
May 2, 2007 - 06:34 AM on May 2nd, 2007
1, The Democrats know that none of the pork or anything else they attached to the bill could stand on its own. GOD DAMN Democrats!
May 2, 2007 - 02:18 PM on May 2nd, 2007
1- “It is amazing that the American public is being sold their “bill of goods”and they will soon find out:the bag is empty!!”
You’re talking about what the Bush administration has been “selling” for years? Too late, we already figured out the bag is empty.
May 2, 2007 - 02:52 PM on May 2nd, 2007
3, No, Tofu, the lies are the ones you tell daily, you and the Democrap party that is. None of you supported the troops, and never will. Just because you can’t play barracks bed bingo you want to see them dead.
May 2, 2007 - 02:56 PM on May 2nd, 2007
GOD DAMN Democrats!
Khaaaaan!!!!
May 2, 2007 - 03:00 PM on May 2nd, 2007
AKD, you are one of the biggest anal orifaces this side of shitto.
May 2, 2007 - 03:04 PM on May 2nd, 2007
you are one of the biggest anal orifaces this side of shitto
Coming from you, I suspect that this is some sort of come-on. Not interested, amigo.
May 2, 2007 - 03:07 PM on May 2nd, 2007
7, don’t flatter yourself. You aren’t worth anything. Hell, the beheading AlQaeda would send you back because of your worthlessness.
May 2, 2007 - 03:16 PM on May 2nd, 2007
8. What does PCD stand for anyway? I can’t help but notice that each of the letters suggests another “euphemism” for a certain part of the male anatomy: P****r, C***, D***. Are you honestly titilated by this sort of thing? Grow up!
Perhaps, following Montaigne (who I know you’ve read just as closely as Heinlein), you could change your handle to “Monsieur ma partie.”
May 2, 2007 - 03:30 PM on May 2nd, 2007
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.
“I had Bush all wrong. I applaud him for refusing to fund this ill-conceived, mismanaged war.”
(the onion gets it right).
May 2, 2007 - 03:36 PM on May 2nd, 2007
Why doesn’t Bush support the troops???
I know, because he wanted ‘no-strings’ attached. I say congress should send him another bill, but this time instead of ’strings’ make them ‘chains’.
May 2, 2007 - 07:57 PM on May 2nd, 2007
Bush looks even more removed from reality with this veto of his.
The democrats knew this was coming, and will obviously benefit from it.
The majority of Americans want this war to end. A majority of Americans think it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq.
Bush is only making himself look worse, now, and down the long road of history.
My righty friends here at RV are in a minority that is only getting smaller as this war of choice drags on, thanks to G.W. Bush. Keep it up, and your team won’t win an election for years. (!)
The democrats have done the job they were elected to do in 2006, with this troops withdrawl demand.
May 2, 2007 - 07:57 PM on May 2nd, 2007
I have finally figured out how exactly to address this issue about the Democrats wanting the US to be defeated but not take the blame for causing it. Today I again heard Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid proclaim that is is entirely their intention to end this war. Well here’s a history lesson for these two fine examples of Constitutional Knownothings. Through out history there have only been two ways to end a war, win it or lose it. A truce doesn’t end it only delays it. Therefore seeing as there are only two ways to end a war vis’ a vis’ victory or defeat, and they have stated that it is lost, exactly who do they want to surrender to? And exactly what terms do they think are equitable? The Islamofascists have flat out stated that the minimum that they will accept is the return of the Caliphate extending from Baghdad across North Africa and into southern Spain. They have also stated that their ultimate goal would be the Islamic flag flying over the White House. Which of these options of terms do you think the Democrats will find most acceptable? And then once they do agree to either of these terms of surrender, what will they do when the Islamofascists attack again in search of the rest? According to the radical interpretation of Islam that the Islamofascists are professing to, there can be no more than a 10 yr truce with the infidel which will be used for the purposes of training and rearming. While I will only be around after the Islamic invasion as long as my ammunition holds out, I would dearly love to see how the Islamofascists treat their good friends in the Democratic party.
May 2, 2007 - 08:06 PM on May 2nd, 2007
FAO, the democrats aren’t giving up fighting terrorism.
We want this waste of time, effort, lives, money, credibility and strategic advantage that is called the Iraq War to end.
We can fight them so much better if we weren’t in Iraq.
That’s the part you pro-war people don’t understand.
May 2, 2007 - 08:26 PM on May 2nd, 2007
14- Yes, we remember the bravado shown in the 90’s:roll:
May 2, 2007 - 08:49 PM on May 2nd, 2007
14 I haven’t ever, not even once, heard ANY Democrite, Liberal, or Leftist articulate just how they would fight the WOT.
I don’t believe they ever would.
May 2, 2007 - 09:39 PM on May 2nd, 2007
I think I’ve already stated my position that what we are now, and have been doing for quite some time, doing in Iraq is not ‘war’ but ‘occupation’. We already won the War in Iraq. Really! I saw with my own eyes the Mission Accomplished banner. I saw the images of Saddam being dragged out of that spider hole. VICTORY!
We won the Iraq War. Now it’s time to set a schedule of pulling back the troops to the sidelines and see what the Iraqis do.
May 2, 2007 - 09:50 PM on May 2nd, 2007
14- “We can fight them so much better if we weren’t in Iraq.”
So true. Freeing up our military to respond to active threats and not playing babysitters/policemen/occupiers/cannon-fodder in Iraq is exactly what we need to do!
And to that ‘talking point’– “we are fighting them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here’ / ‘they’ll follow us home’ BS argument,
HELLO, if the right-wing koolaid-drinkers really think that Al-Qaeda are all just flocking into Iraq to fight US soldiers and we are absolutely safe from an attack on our own soil because of this theory– if you by this Bush logic, you’re a complete idiot.
9/11 — No WMDs, just a bunch of radicals getting passports into our country, taking a few flying lessons, and buying some box-cutters at Target. Who cares about Nukes and Biological weapons when you have holes like that people can slip through undetected.
The point is, they are going to try and hit us on the homeland again, endless Iraq occupation or not.
May 3, 2007 - 12:00 AM on May 3rd, 2007
The biggest hole we have in this country is the southern border. When are we going to actually do something real to close it?
There has been plenty of evidence found of Al Quaeda training on the manufacture and deployment of cyanide in northern Iraq before the invasion. Hydrogen Cyanide and Cyanogen Chloride are some of the nastiest WMDs on the battlefield. They can be made easily. They aren’t hard to handle. They can be stored easily in any refrigerator or freezer. They have no treatment other than a blood transfusion, and even small doses remain in the system for 6 weeks. Below 40 degrees fahrenheit, they remain in an easy to handle liquid form. Hydrogen cyanide also has a pleasant burnt almond smell. Walking through a puddle of hydrogen cyanide in winter would look like mud, and then when the person enters a building, the hydrogen cyanide evaporates and enters the ventilation system. While the doses will be small and non lethal, as more people track the cyanide into the building, the concentration levels will rise. People will begin to notice an elevated pulse, increased blood pressure, difficulty focusing and a mild headache. While these mild symptoms may not kill anyone outright, the increased blood pressure and elevated pulse can have adverse effects on anyone with preexisting conditions. Likewise the headaches will decrease productivity and lead to absenteeism. The inability to maintain focus will also reduce output. Now for the bad news. Hydrogen Cyanide degrades gas mask filters quickly. The M17A1 military gas mask filters are degraded to uselessness in about 2-3 MINUTES of exposure to high concentration. These filters take 3-5 minutes to change. There is a reason why I was third in my class at the Unit Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare Officers course.
If we pull our troops out of Iraq, exactly what are we going to do about the potential humanitarian disaster that will probably follow? At least a few of the libs have stated that we should pull our troops out of Iraq and send them to Darfur where the Sudanese government is an unfriendly regime. Which would you think is safer a nation with a friendly regime, or one with an unfriendly government? Of course keeping a friendly regime in Iraq will benefit the US while there is nothing in the Sudan that will benefit the US at all. What is more of a waste of life, a military excursion into a country that is of no consequence to the US, or one with vast natural resources that will fall into the hands of the enemy if the friendly government fails?
May 3, 2007 - 12:16 AM on May 3rd, 2007
At least a few of the libs have stated that we should pull our troops out of Iraq and send them to Darfur where the Sudanese government is an unfriendly regime.
That’s because the Liberals just want to STEAL Sudan’s oil!!!
(Yeah I know, it sounds totally stupid, doesn’t it? About as stupid as when the Libs say that about the U.S. and Iraq’s oil)
May 3, 2007 - 06:15 AM on May 3rd, 2007
I wonder if active threats would include the AQ operatives that we are fighting in Iraq:roll:
May 3, 2007 - 08:38 AM on May 3rd, 2007
I am to the point where I hope Tofu or SFL get a taste of AQ terrorism up close and personal. I don’t believe they will take the threat seriously otherwise. These fools believe that AQ won’t come here or will leave them alone if … All liberal delusions. The only thing AQ understands is what they do to us but to them.
May 3, 2007 - 11:08 AM on May 3rd, 2007
I am to the point where I hope Tofu or SFL get a taste of AQ terrorism up close and personal.
Hmmmm…. Wishing death on Americans who disagree with your poorly articulated positions. Ultimately an unsurprising remark, I guess.
Y’know, PCD, if any of us—you and your family included—”get a taste of AQ terrorism up close and personal,” it will most likely be at the hands of a terrorist that our moronic administration has bred.
Once again:
Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director’s think tank.
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.”
May 3, 2007 - 11:44 AM on May 3rd, 2007
AKD, You are the one equating it to death. I think being held hostage, having a gun stuck in your mouth or a bomb in your building without killing you may wake you the H*LL up. Until then, you will be nothing more than a tool for George Soros and his open borders and legal drugs agenda.
May 3, 2007 - 12:01 PM on May 3rd, 2007
Y’know, PCD, if any of us”you and your family included”â€get a taste of AQ terrorism up close and personal,”it will most likely be at the hands of a terrorist that our moronic administration has bred.
Yes, YES! Before Bush decided to fight back, the terrorists only hated and wanted to kill us! So for years we could just ignore them, allowing them to strike when and where they wanted.
But Bush had to mess it all up. He was the first President to actually do something. Now the terroorists are really, really mad!!!
Now they can’t be ignored any longer! And it’s ALL BUSH’S FAULT!
May 3, 2007 - 12:04 PM on May 3rd, 2007
Still no response to the fact that Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground, huh? That means more terrorists, not less. More.
Do you understand?
I’ll wait for someone brighter to respond.
May 3, 2007 - 12:10 PM on May 3rd, 2007
AKD, condesension from a Liberal means that the Liberal has lost and is trying to save face. You have NO proof that AQ is stocked with Iraqis. What we have seen is that AQ have bored scions of middle class Arabs brainwashed by their Imams into joining the great jihad against the Infidel.
Only a dullard such as yourself ignores all the references to incidents the US had no part in and occurred before 1980 as the basis many Jihadists spout for their reasons for joining.
Go educate yourself in reality, dolt.
May 3, 2007 - 12:50 PM on May 3rd, 2007
AKD is apparently not perceptive enough to realize that any response to terrorism that is substantial, regardless of where it is, is going to be used by the terrorist leaders to recruit.
I guess his solution, assuming he even understands this, is to go back to the days of ignoring terrorism. Then they’ll just hate and want to kill us again, but they won’t be really mad.
May 3, 2007 - 12:52 PM on May 3rd, 2007
Hey AKD hows the weather in Tora Bora? It still gets cold at night, eh? I heard a camel dung fire is great for warming up your hands so you can keep posting.
May 3, 2007 - 01:45 PM on May 3rd, 2007
So Iraq is basically a success story, huh guys?
Let’s see, four years after the invasion, U.S. prisons, one of the few reconstruction success stories in Iraq, are totally full, holding 18,000 or more Iraqis in what are essentially terrorist-producing factories; Iraq has the worst refugee problem (internal and external) on the planet with perhaps 4 million people in a population of 25 million already displaced from their homes (202 of whom were admitted to the United States in 2006); the Iraqi government inside the Green Zone does not fully control a single province of the country, while its legislators are planning to take a two-month summer “vacation”; a State Department report on terrorism just released shows a rise of 25% in terrorist attacks globally, and 45% of these attacks were in Iraq; 80% of Iraqis oppose the U.S. presence in their country; 64% of Americans now want a timetable for a 2008 withdrawal; and the President’s approval rating fell to its lowest point, 28%, in the most recent Harris poll, which had the Vice President at a similarly record-setting 25%.
I’ve linked extensively. How about y’all try edgumucatin’ yerselves.
May 3, 2007 - 02:01 PM on May 3rd, 2007
AKD the Terrorist. First of all it’s good we are fighting terrorists in Iraq and not here. Iraqi’s are grateful to us for freeing them from Saddam. Nothing like going home at night, locking your doors and hoping the bogey man, I mean Saddam does not come in the night to kill you.
There is more going on here than you obviously are aware of and if you are why you choose to ignore the significance of this whole thing is beyond me.
Terrorists acts like the Oklahoma City bombing and even before the WT93 were just the beginning. Clinton/Gore refused to act against terrorism. They were cowards and now the world is realizing that the democratic party are cowards.
Bush acted. YES, Robert and PCD are correct. Bush DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Now we should all get on board that school of thought and debate on what are the best ways to deal with it all.
Unless of course you really ARE a terrorist yourself which I have to say wouldn’t surprise me with your ideological bullshit.
May 3, 2007 - 02:06 PM on May 3rd, 2007
AKD…..TERRORISTS WANT TO MURDER US.
THEY HATE THE U.S.
THEY WANT TO RULE THE WORLD.
Do we let them? NOoooooooooooooooooo
May 3, 2007 - 02:32 PM on May 3rd, 2007
Once again BonBon is a voice of pure logic and common sense. Strip away all the rhetoric, all the politics, all the posturing, and her post #31 sums it up quite well.
May 3, 2007 - 03:25 PM on May 3rd, 2007
Thanks Robert. My point is that the libs sit around posturing about ‘oh how Bush lied, o my god’ then proceed to ignore every single reality that has brought us here in the first place. Many, many things happened loooonnnnngg before Bush even took office as governor of Texas, let alone President. The libs need to GET OVER IT. They are not doing the country any good.
Thank GOD in Heaven Bush had the courage to start dealing with this problem. As busy as I was in the 90’s I still saw the Saturday morning news and understood terrorism was a threat this country could no longer ignore. Why on earth the libs didn’t see it finally after 9/11 is anyones guess.
As it stands this moment though I think the American public understands the Democrats WILL NOT stand up to terrorism and WORSE they DO NOT SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.
Pacifism didn’t work in WWII and it won’t work now.
May 3, 2007 - 03:28 PM on May 3rd, 2007
And further AKD where do you propose we fight these terrorists if not over there? CAn you answer that question?
May 3, 2007 - 04:58 PM on May 3rd, 2007
AKD the Terrorist. First of all it’s good we are fighting terrorists in Iraq and not here.
BonBon the idiot. The problem is that we’re creating so darn many new terrorists. As I noted above, “a State Department report on terrorism just released shows a rise of 25% in terrorist attacks globally, and 45% of these attacks were in Iraq.” There aren’t a set number of terrorists that we have a choice of fighting either here or there. We’re creating new ones all the time. Some will stay in Iraq, some probably won’t Do you understand this? I suspect that you read poorly, so go over the articles I posted a few times. Squint up your eyes and try very, very hard.
Loser.
May 3, 2007 - 05:05 PM on May 3rd, 2007
You didn’t answer the question.
May 3, 2007 - 05:07 PM on May 3rd, 2007
You obviously know nothing about middle eastern terrorist organizations or the problems within the middle east at all.
Do nothing and it will all go away. NOT.
May 3, 2007 - 05:51 PM on May 3rd, 2007
Re 26 (AKD)
“Still no response to the fact that Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground, huh? That means more terrorists, not less. More.”
I’ll respond, simply with two direct questions.
1) Do you have empirical evidfence to back this claim?
2) If you can provide empirical evidence as to how many terrorists were created in Iraq, can you provide empirical evidence that it is an increase in the rate of the number of terrorists that 1) were created pre-invasion in Iraq 2) it is an increase of the number of terrorist that would have been credted in the middle east?
May 3, 2007 - 05:57 PM on May 3rd, 2007
BonBon posts common sense (backed up by reality) and you post Democrite talking points. So who’s the idiot and loser?
May 3, 2007 - 06:29 PM on May 3rd, 2007
“Bush DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.”
LOL…yeah, the WRONG thing.
And we’re all worse off because of it.
Bush has made the terrorism problem WORSE, not BETTER.
May 3, 2007 - 06:37 PM on May 3rd, 2007
Bush has made the terrorism problem WORSE, not BETTER.
I don’t mean this a personal attack, but the above statement is one of the most absurd Democrite talking points ever that keeps getting repeated ad nauseum.
How much worse can it get when a terrorist entity openly declares war on us, states their full intentions, then carries out an act of war that eclipsed the attack on Pearl Harbor that launched America into WWII?
So if Bush had done the “right thing” (whatever that might be), the terrorists would still hate us and want to kill us, but somehow not as much? They wouldn’t have the recruiting tools?
Like I said, common snese tells you:
1. Any substantive response from U.S. will cause them to intensify their war, that is the nature of conflict.
2. Any thing we do is used as propaganda to recruit.
3. In fact some of their best propaganda used to inflame hatred and recruit has been provided by the American Left.
So stop already with that crap. It is absurd, idiotic, moronic, brainless nonsense.
May 3, 2007 - 06:37 PM on May 3rd, 2007
No San Fran, Bush did not do the wrong thing. Clinton/Gore did the WRONG thing by doing NOTHING. Pontificate all you like, it gets old.
You got a better plan? Bring it on then? We’re dying to hear it. Don’t bother though if all it is is critism of the status quo and negotiate or worse do nothing. What ACTION would you guys take? I’m waiting.
May 3, 2007 - 06:47 PM on May 3rd, 2007
Thank you Robert. I just get so frustrated with these wimpy left wing types who offer nothing and criticize everything. It gets old.
May 3, 2007 - 09:45 PM on May 3rd, 2007
30- 64% of (Telephone interviews with 1,052 American adults) feel that there should be a timetable.
18,000 detained is a sign of progress…you do realize there is a war being fought there don’t you?
Iraq has the worst refugee problem? Because a blog said so? That would be like holding my arguement up as evidence…it is opinion.
What does the Frank Rich link have to do with the Green Zone? Did you take the time to read it?
You just figured out the fact that there are increased attacks? We are fighting AQ in Iraq..you knew that right?
May 3, 2007 - 11:19 PM on May 3rd, 2007
I’m still waiting to hear which of the surrender terms the Democrats wish to accept? The immediate surrender of the United States to the Islamofascists, or the immediate surrender of the area that comprised the pre 14th century caliphate followed by the eventual surrender of the rest of the world to the Islamofascists and eventual rule by imams under Sharia law? Those are the only options that the Islamofascists have said they’ll accept, so if the war is lost, which surrender terms do the dems want to accept? If we’ve lost, the Islamofacists must have won and the winners always dictate the terms of surrender.
May 3, 2007 - 11:57 PM on May 3rd, 2007
“I think it’s important for the president to lay down a timetable as to how long our troops will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
Candidate George W. Bush prior to the 2000 Election speaking about the war in Kosovo where no US troops died.
To quote FAO, there are only two ways out of a war, win or lose. Clearly GWB wanted to lose that war.
May 4, 2007 - 03:11 AM on May 4th, 2007
1) Do you have empirical evidfence to back this claim?
2) If you can provide empirical evidence as to how many terrorists were created in Iraq, can you provide empirical evidence that it is an increase in the rate of the number of terrorists that 1) were created pre-invasion in Iraq 2) it is an increase of the number of terrorist that would have been credted in the middle east?
I’ve linked to statements from the national intelligence council. I’ve also linked to statistics from the state department report on terrorism. Here’re the numbers if you’re not interested in clicking on any of the links:
The first set of numbers is for 2005, the second is for 2006:
Incidents of terrorism in Iraq 3,468; 6,630
Incidents in Iraq resulting in death, injury, or kidnapping of at least one individual 2,834; 6,026
Individuals in Iraq killed, injured, or kidnapped as a result of incidents of terrorism 20,685; 38,813.
Note this is a rise from 2005 to 2006. They’ve increased 91% during the last two completed years of the war. This seems to address question 2.1 as well. As for the second part of the question: of course I don’t and you don’t have any statistics available on it either as it’s a purely hypothetical question. You can’t use it to argue for one position or the other. I could just as easily argue that you have no evidence to support the idea that, had we not entered Iraq or Afghanistan, all terrorism would have ceased worldwide.
Now I’ll ask you some questions. Does this increase in terrorism mean that we’re winning? If the number of terrorists coming out of Iraq quadrupled, would we be even more victorious? It seems that what BonBon and Robert are arguing (and maybe you as well) is that whatever happens in Iraq, it’s a sign that we’re winning and that we should stay. If more terrorists attack, it’s a sign that we’re fighting them they’re rather than here; if less terrorists attack it’s a sign that they’ve been defeated. This seems a little questionable. Or does faith make you position irrefutable?
So…No WMDs, no link between Saddam and AQ, the creation of a new terrorist breeding ground, resistance by the majority of the American people, etc, etc, etc.
Given the fact that the majority of RV posters—Robert, Peejz, PCD, FAO, and usually you—typically constitute a “united front,” it’s interesting to hear so many of you describe contradictory states of affairs (we’re winning, the iraqis want us there, they don’t want us there, we’re creating more terrorists but it’s a good thing because we’re fighting them there, etc.). Kettle logic anyone?
Of course you all argue that these contradictory statements all point to the same thing: stay in Iraq indefinitely despite the will of the majority of the American people. Thank God you’ve become an annoying minority.
By the way, Ted, FAO, and anyone else who appears to have Libertarian rather than simply Republican leanings: Did you seen Ron Paul on the debates last night? Here came off looking smarter than the front-runners. I’d forgotten what a true conservative sounded like.
May 4, 2007 - 05:30 AM on May 4th, 2007
“As for the second part of the question: of course I don’t and you don’t have any statistics available on it either as it’s a purely hypothetical question. You can’t use it to argue for one position or the other.”
I’m not, and that’s the point. It is you that are making the claim, unfounded I might add.
I’m not claiming “Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground”, as if it is a condition exclusive to that area of the mid-east. Most of those numbers you have quoted aren’t due to native Iraqi’s , as most terrorists in Iraq aren’t native to the area but are imported according to General Petraeus and other commanders in Iraq.
This hardly making it a terrorist breeding ground but but does make it a focal point on the war on terror. It is a common 3 card monty ploy that I’ve seen in this discussion.
Now, if you wish to discuss insurgency, that is differnt. There is a distinct difference between the insurgents and the terrorist groups in Iraq.
“By the way, Ted, FAO, and anyone else who appears to have Libertarian rather than simply Republican leanings: Did you seen Ron Paul on the debates last night?”
FTR, I have as much disdain for Libertarians as much as I do Democrats and Republicans.
No- I didn’t watch it. It is a waste of time. Yes I am familiar with Ron Paul already. I was actually attarcted to him as a politician when I first discovered him, but once you scratch the surface one finds that he is as shallow as any of the other candidates. When he started using cooked figures two or three years ago to support his positions, I relegated him to the same status as the other politicians. It helped me come to the realization that on the national level, not a single one of them are really worh a damn.
May 4, 2007 - 06:33 AM on May 4th, 2007
I’m not, and that’s the point. It is you that are making the claim, unfounded I might add.
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. There are more now than there were then. This is what the statistics indicate. If you send an exterminator in to get rid of cockroaches and, a few years later, you have 91% more…
as most terrorists in Iraq aren’t native to the area but are imported according to General Petraeus and other commanders in Iraq.
Care to provide some empirical evidence of this fact? According to the NIC’s report, there’s no real reason to believe this (though there is reason to believe that yet another branch of AQ has formed in the region).
May 4, 2007 - 06:36 AM on May 4th, 2007
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.
May 4, 2007 - 06:49 AM on May 4th, 2007
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
May 4, 2007 - 06:56 AM on May 4th, 2007
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…
May 4, 2007 - 06:58 AM on May 4th, 2007
“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.
May 4, 2007 - 06:59 AM on May 4th, 2007
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.
May 4, 2007 - 07:02 AM on May 4th, 2007
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.
May 4, 2007 - 07:09 AM on May 4th, 2007
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?
May 4, 2007 - 07:14 AM on May 4th, 2007
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.
May 4, 2007 - 07:22 AM on May 4th, 2007
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.
May 4, 2007 - 07:46 AM on May 4th, 2007
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…
May 4, 2007 - 08:08 AM on May 4th, 2007
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.
May 4, 2007 - 04:12 PM on May 4th, 2007
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.
May 4, 2007 - 04:38 PM on May 4th, 2007
62.:?::twisted::???::evil::idea:
May 4, 2007 - 05:40 PM on May 4th, 2007
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.
May 4, 2007 - 05:44 PM on May 4th, 2007
AKD your link goes to NBC……rotflmao………
May 4, 2007 - 05:57 PM on May 4th, 2007
Gawrsh, NBC is the oracle of truth! The only ones with more integrity are CBS, CNN, and Al Jizzeera!
May 5, 2007 - 02:08 AM on May 5th, 2007
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.
May 5, 2007 - 12:14 PM on May 5th, 2007
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.
May 5, 2007 - 01:10 PM on May 5th, 2007
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.
May 5, 2007 - 02:29 PM on May 5th, 2007
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”?
May 5, 2007 - 08:13 PM on May 5th, 2007
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.
May 5, 2007 - 10:20 PM on May 5th, 2007
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!
May 6, 2007 - 02:53 AM on May 6th, 2007
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).
May 6, 2007 - 09:01 AM on May 6th, 2007
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?
May 6, 2007 - 03:19 PM on May 6th, 2007
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.
May 6, 2007 - 03:50 PM on May 6th, 2007
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?
May 6, 2007 - 05:04 PM on May 6th, 2007
Who’s conducting the polls? CNN? There’s your answer.
May 6, 2007 - 08:24 PM on May 6th, 2007
“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
May 7, 2007 - 05:02 AM on May 7th, 2007
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.
May 7, 2007 - 06:29 AM on May 7th, 2007
So basically, it doesn’t matter where we chose to fight AQ, it will become the training ground?
May 7, 2007 - 11:34 AM on May 7th, 2007
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.
May 7, 2007 - 11:50 AM on May 7th, 2007
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.
May 7, 2007 - 12:13 PM on May 7th, 2007
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.
May 7, 2007 - 12:49 PM on May 7th, 2007
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.
May 7, 2007 - 01:33 PM on May 7th, 2007
“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.
May 7, 2007 - 01:38 PM on May 7th, 2007
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.
May 7, 2007 - 01:39 PM on May 7th, 2007
Here’s yet another theory: The summers are very hot in Iraq. Therefore; hot summers breed more terrorism!!!
STOP Global Warming! It breeds terrorism!!!
May 7, 2007 - 01:42 PM on May 7th, 2007
…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.
May 7, 2007 - 01:47 PM on May 7th, 2007
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.
May 7, 2007 - 01:48 PM on May 7th, 2007
Correction: Democrite As in “hypocrite”.