Note To The GOP: Al Qaida Leadership Is Not In Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War on Terror
Posted on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:25:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Booman, Dana Milbank documents that the Republicans seem to be unaware of where the leadership of Al Qaida is. When debating the Iraq Supplemental, the GOP seemed confused as to where Al Qaida actually is:

"When a newly revitalized al-Qaeda carries out a 9/11-scale attack, you will own that one," Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) told his good friends across the aisle.
Sen. Norman Coleman (R-Minn.) advised his Democratic colleagues that they were "handing al-Qaeda a victory that they will be able to use to strengthen their forces and then hurt and kill more Americans."
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), adopted the Republican language that Democrats were proposing a "deadline for defeat." He warned that "if we follow the plan in this legislation," Americans would lose their "security from terrorism here at home.

Gentlemen and ladies of the Republican Party and their fellow travelers, may I point out to you that the leadership of Al Qaida is to be found in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan?

BTW, how is the mission to capture the Al Qaida leadership proceeding? Let's see. Well we know Bush blew it at Tora Bora because he wanted to be ready to go into Iraq.

But what about since then? In 2003?

An aggressive search for Osama bin Laden may be getting closer to capturing the fugitive al Qaeda leader in northwest Pakistan, U.S. and Pakistani officials said Thursday. U.S. officials said the search for bin Laden has been narrowed to a few Pakistani provinces in the northwest including Waziristan, and tribal and frontier provinces north of it.

Hmmm. Did not get him then. How about 2004?

The Pentagon is moving elements of a supersecret commando unit from Iraq to the Afghanistan theater to step up the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
A Defense Department official said there are two reasons for repositioning parts of Task Force 121: First, most high-value human targets in Iraq, including Saddam Hussein, have been caught or killed. Second, intelligence reports are increasing on the whereabouts of bin Laden, the terror leader behind the September 11 attacks.
"Iraq has become more of a policing problem than a hunt for high-value Iraqis," the defense official said. "Afghanistan is the place where 121 can do more."

Say what? That's not what the GOP was saying yesterday? What happened?

How about more recently?

The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.
The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."

The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.
"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."

Excuse me? But but but the GOP just said that . . .

Let's face it, they are a bunch of McCarthyite, lying, attempted fear mongers.

But not to worry, it seems the country is full of appeasers now:

in a poll by the Pew Research Center yesterday, which found that Americans, by 59 percent to 33 percent, favor a timetable for leaving Iraq.

Those crazy Republicans will go down with the Bush Iraq Debacle ship it seems.

< Any White Feathers For Romney and Bush? | Friday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Note To The GOP: Al Qaida Leadership Is Not In Iraq | 116 comments (116 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It's just posturing (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Al on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 01:11:56 PM EST

Of course the GOP leadership knows AQ is not strengthened by recognizing the failure of the invasion of Iraq and cutting losses, they just can't admit it. For the sake of their own political survival, they need as many people as possible to connect the invasion of Iraq with 9-11.

Gabe Said (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:59:31 PM EST

That may well be true, but it is singularly unresponsive to the argument that by retreating in Iraq we will be strengthening Al Qaeda.

in response to BTD

the leadership of Al Qaida is to be found in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan?

and Gabe went on to support it with

Al Qaeda is in Iraq now. We have to take it into consideration when we make decisions about the future course of the war. I, and others, repeat: "Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq, therefore retreating will empower Al Qaeda." ..."It's 2007. Al Qaeda's in Iraq now and simply ignoring it won't make it go away."

calling him immoral, clueless, or obtuse does not address his point. The simple answer is "No, if we leave Iraq we will not empower Al-Qaeda. In fact, our presence in Iraq empowers them even more." followed by a well-thought out reasoned argument. Not for Gabe's sake, but for the sake of all those Americans and especially decision-makers who are fearful of the possibility that Al-Qaeda will be strengthened if we leave Iraq.

I think Iraqis will take care of the Al-Qaeda elements in their society themselves once we leave. They will be as brutal towards them as they are towards any occupier or threat to their Sovereignty. The Al-Qaeda element in Iraq is thrivign under our occupation there.

Thanks. (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:47:50 PM EST

I commented in this thread originally because BTD so smarmily responded to concerns about AQ in Iraq with "OBL is in Pakistan!" I was bugged because his repy to the quoted politicians was totally unresponsive to the issue of AQ in Iraq.

I was further bugged because the responses to me were:

(1) we shouldn't have gone to war in the first place;
(2) in 2002, AQ wasn't in Iraq;
(3) this war is immoral; and
(4) don't you know that OBL is responsible for 9-11?

None of which answers the concerns of the quoted politicians: what about AQ in Iraq today.

Thank you, Peaches, for actually getting to the issue. I suspect we come out differently on it, but at least we could have a discussion about the effect of withdrawal on AQ in Iraq.


Peaches (none / 0) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 09:47:33 AM EST

No.

al-Qaida has been calling for us to leave Iraq.

If we leave they will have visible proof to the whole world that they forced us out.

That will certainly make them stronger.


Laughable (none / 0) (#63)
by Freewill on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 12:18:43 PM EST

I believe that this Administration has been wire tapping known Terrorists under the Patriot Act. At least that's what this Administration has told the world.

If they are "Known Terrorists" and we obiviously know their phone numbers and have recorded and listened to their Terrorist's conversations, why are they still out there?

Are these recorded Terrorist's conversations your proof that:

That will certainly make them stronger.

Is this your proof and reason to believe what a Terrorist tells us? Are you that willing to believe everything a Terrorist tells you? Are you that afraid of Terrorists that you will allow them to merely TELL you something and you will take it at face value?

Wow, you are easily influenced and frightened!


Freewill (none / 0) (#70)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 08:01:50 PM EST

That is as about a weak reply as I have ever seen.

Do you deny that al-Qaida wants us out of Iraq??

And yes, I sometimes believe what my enemy tells me.

Please read Peter Arnett's interview with OBL.


: Jim - your ::deluding:: again. (none / 0) (#75)
by Edger on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 08:37:11 PM EST

Freewill is so far beyond you he's not even bothering to laugh at you.

revisionist history (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by tworivers on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:55:40 PM EST

That is what we are doing in Iraq, that is why we are in Iraq.

This is revisionist history. Back in late 2002 and early 2003, the primary reasons given to justify preemptive war with Iraq were

A) Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we couldn't "...wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

B) supposed ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda

These reasons have both since been discredited.

As it stands, this theory you cite (western liberal arab culture being the best cure for islamic extremism) is something like the 3rd or 4th justification for the war that Bush has floated out there. If Bush had initially appealed to the American people with the reason you cite , I would disagree strenuously but I could at least respect it in the sense that it was honest.

But Bush was not honest about this war. He lied in the lead up to the war and he has lied througbout the course of the war. And because of this track record of lying and not facing reality, he has exhausted most people's credulity (and patience).

: tworivers (none / 0) (#47)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 09:52:16 AM EST

Actually we could argue over the reasons, but so what.
The issue now is that when the Surrender Party pulls out of Iraq the world we see us as weak.
Weak people and lambs get attacked.

Disinterested? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by squeaky on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:15:06 PM EST

The Iranians will be tons of help that way, as they fund the Shia to kill off the Sunnis - and the Saudis get involved to prevent that from happening.

You are either making this up or just repeating MSM talking points.

The Iraq Sunnis are not friends with the al Qadia in Iraq Sunnis. The Sunnis and Shias have coexisted in Iraq for a very long time. Most families have both Sunnis and Shias in them.

No one cared who was Sunni or Shia before we occupied Iraq.

Yes, removing the only semi-disinterested party from the conflict will help a whole bunch.

That is hilarious. We were for de Baathification, which has been a disaster. We have hunted down al Sadr who is the most popular leader in Iraq.

Disinterested?

The only ones we have been interested in are ex pat criminals like Chalabi or CIA assets like Allawi.

If you gave a hoot about your proposed genocide you would be calling for troops to leave ASAP as it is already a genocide.

Seems like the only thing you care about is your filthy oil.

I would guess that you drive a gas guzzler.

Nazis? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by squeaky on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:51:06 PM EST

So then - circa 1945, was de-Nazification a mistake too?

And what does that have to do with our occupation of Iraq? Apples and Oranganutans. The analogy shows how weak your argument is.

You are the one who claimed that we were a semi-disinterested party, whatever that means.

I never said that there was no Sunni Shia strife in the region, but to compare it it what we have willfully caused is absurd, besides we are not talking about the region we are talking about Iraq where most families were intermarried and had a peaceful co-existance.

As far as brutal dictators go we have far surpassed anything Sadaam had done to his countryfolk.

squeaky (none / 0) (#52)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 10:05:44 AM EST

And what does that have to do with our occupation of Iraq? Apples and Oranganutans. The analogy shows how weak your argument is

Actually, one of the Left's complaints is that we didn't just tell the Iraqi army to just go back to their bases and then use them, via their commanders, to do various things.

And that was probably the most practical thing to do, just as using low level Nazis to run Germany after WWII. After all, they weren't really Nazis, just beaurcrats who joined the party the sameway we join unions to get a job in closed shop states.

We didn't do it in Germany because we judged it wrong to reward those who had enabled the Nazis, just as we didn't in Iraq because we felt it would reward those who enable the Baathists and Saddam.

Your excusing Saddam by claiming that we have caused harm in removing him is silly. If he had cared about Iraq he would never have done what he did, or he would have left when Bush told him he would leave with no penalty.


: Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 10:27:06 AM EST

Low and mid level level Nazis ran germany well after the war and many who profited from the Nazi war machine are still amongst the richest and most powerful in Germany. In fact Bush's grandpa made a bundle that was frozen and then returned to the Bush family.
On the other hand in Iraqis who joined the Baath party in order to teach at University or get other jobs had zero political, philosophical, or other attachment to Sadaam. They have all been frozen out of the work that they were trained to do.
Your comparison of Nazi Germany to Iraq under Sadaam is analogous to Almadjeen claiming that the Holocaust did not exist. Not surprising from you though.
I am not excusing Sadaam from anything, so stop distorting what I say. What I did say is that your boy Bush has done more damage to Iraq than Sadaam did or could have done had he lived a long life as ruler of Iraq.
That is saying a lot. But in either case to compare Iraq to Nazi germany insults the millions killed there and insults the Iraqi people.

: Substantiation for baseless claims, ppj. (none / 0) (#53)
by Edger on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 10:12:42 AM EST

It's what people don't do when they can't.

Try it sometime. After all, since you have zero credibility now, what the hell do you have to lose?

I understand Gabe and Jarober (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 06:29:35 PM EST

I don't know why it didn't hit me sooner. The construct of AQ in Iraq is their justification for continuing our "presence" there. It's part of the Global War On Terror (please salute now - thank you and be seated). I see this as the next big lie.

Fritz,

"AQ can only be defeated by developing a western liberal arab culture, period."

What the heck is that?

You typify the arrogant anglo western culture of superiority. You don't care whether those people want "western liberal" influences or not. You just arrogantly assume that, since it's how we do things here (a delusion in itself), then it should be applied to the Arab world as needed. It's too bad the criminals who started this war did so for completely different reasons, which you seem to incapable of comprehending.

So the new propaganda line and spin (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Edger on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:06:29 PM EST

from the RWNJ's who do everything they can do to avoid responsibility for the debacle they have created is that because AQ was not in Iraq before Bush invaded the country using the justification that AQ and Iraq were best buddies, the occupation which has resulted in the death of nearly a million people must go on and cannot be ended because Bush's invasion and occupation brought AQ into Iraq, so leaving Iraq is not an option because AQ might take up residence in Iraq.

In other words the new RWNJ line now is that because we were completely incompetent and brainless we have to keep on being incompetent and brainless so we don't have to face the reality that we are incompetent and brainless and so that some day, if we keep on being incompetent and brainless, eventually the brainless ends will justify the incompetent means and it will become clear to everyone that incompetent and brainless was the only way to go, all along?

The Incompetency Defense.

Bush uses it. Gonzales used it. Libby used it. Condi will probably use it. RWNJ trolls here use it.

Most rethugs use it.

I guess they just go with what they're comfortable with.

BTW, when was the last time an American was killed in this so-called war on terror outside Iraq, and when was the last time there was an attack in the continental United States? Either an attack on hard targets, or an attack on freedom and democracy by people who demonstrably hate freedom and democracy.

By anyone?

Except by Bush and Cheney and RWNJ's?

Did I miss anything?

Nope (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Edger on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:13:06 PM EST

On rereading, I don't think I missed anything.

It's all pretty clear.


It sounds like (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Edger on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:53:12 PM EST

The Last Resort, to me.

We satisfy our endless needs and
Justify our bloody deeds,
In the name of destiny and the name
Of god
And you can see them there,
On sunday morning
They stand up and sing about
What its like up there
They call it paradise
I dont know why
You call someplace paradise,
Kiss it goodbye

Ask and you shall have it (none / 0) (#54)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 10:20:03 AM EST

BTW, when was the last time an American was killed in this so-called war on terror outside Iraq, and when was the last time there was an attack in the continental United States? Either an attack on hard targets, or an attack on freedom and democracy by people who demonstrably hate freedom and democracy

Actually we have had several attacks by what I see as Moslem Radical "Loners." The attack on the El Al Ticket Counter, the attack in Seattle on the Jewish Federation Building, the car attack at UNC? NCS?, the taxi attack in Nashville....

In conversation with a 911 dispatcher, Haq said: "I'm upset at your foreign policy. ... I'm an American too but I just want us out of Iraq." His outburst points to a duality in Haq's identity: a U.S. citizen by birth, he despises "your" foreign policy. Who is "you"? Also indicative of his mentality is a quote ascribed to him by Seattle Police Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske, that he "wanted the U.S. to leave Iraq, that his people had been mistreated." Who are Haq's people, Iraqi Muslims? That's interesting, seeing that his family comes from Pakistan.

Ahhh. (none / 0) (#57)
by Edger on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:07:16 AM EST

So those were worth the lives of nearly a million people, to your way of (not) thinking?

btw - provide links next time, instead of making things up. Since you have zero credibility now, you have nothing to lose.


edger (none / 0) (#71)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 08:07:40 PM EST

Actually I will let you tell us what you think an American life is worth. Perhaps now we are getting down to what you are willing to negitiate with the terrorits over.

BTW - Are you denying the attack at LAX, Seattle, etc??

Google is your friend. Try it and you will look less uninformed.


I think they are worth about the same as (none / 0) (#78)
by Edger on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 10:55:14 PM EST

any human life, anywhere. And the reverse is true as well. You'd agree, of course.


Edger (none / 0) (#87)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:53:48 AM EST

Not at all.

I value American lives more than others because I believe that the nation exists to protect its citizens.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You see when you start making every thing equivalent you discover that you have no basis for good or evil, so you just drift aimlessly. And if you don't understand why we have a constitution, then you have no real respect for the constutution.


As we knew all along. (5.00 / 2) (#119)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:49:48 PM EST

To you, everyone else is second class. Thanks for finally admitting it.

Give me your hungry, your tired your poor Ill piss on em
Thats what the statue of bigotry says
Your poor huddled masses, lets club em to death
And get it over with and just dump em on the boulevard
--Lou Reed, Dirty Boulevard

The Rational (5.00 / 2) (#120)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:57:06 PM EST

Behind White Supremecy aka american home grown terrorism, and all other separatist movements:

I value American lives more than others.....
.....You see when you start making every thing equivalent you discover that you have no basis for good or evil, so you just drift aimlessly.

: And he asks what we'd give up (5.00 / 2) (#121)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:04:21 PM EST

to end terrorism...

Pakistani sovereignty aside. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Che's Lounge on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:27:01 AM EST

Purely from a tactical perspective. I know it's not personal about the troops. Yet you are saying that these sandal clad terrists are wandering around up there and our 21st century military cannot traverse that terrain?

IMHO the armed forces are capable of going there. I believe they have not been ordered there for political reasons. Jim is just using the military as a scapegoat to propagandize his (and Cheney's) false pretenses for continuing the "War on terror". And the war must continue.

: Che (none / 0) (#73)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 08:16:13 PM EST

Hate to tell you this Che, but high mountian passess, steep valleys and narrow gorges aren't condusive to high tech weapons.
They would respond (somewhat) to tactical nukes.
Do you think we should?

Jim (5.00 / 3) (#94)
by Che's Lounge on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:27:28 AM EST

wants to fight in all the wrong (expedient) places and is too chickens**t to go after the killer of 3000+ people on US soil, the killer of many US military. The truth is that Bush does not WANT to capture Bin Laden. He is a more useful tool alive. But the minion Bushies like Jim have been convinced by the upper eschelon Bushies that he's not worth the effort. Man, those 9/11 victims' families really pissed Jim off! Screw them, eh?

Just like his mentor.

Che (1.00 / 2) (#99)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:21:31 AM EST

You have already demonstrated that you care nothing for the troops. And now your demand for a wild, reckless and costly (lives and dollars) search for a marginlized OBL show demonstrates how far you are willing to go.

And yes. OBL as a dead, or captured martyr will be a problem. Better he be hiding in a cave than living in GITMO served the best of food, medical and legal care.


Yeah, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:26:46 AM EST

He cares so little for them that he wants them brought home so they will stay alive.

How many more kids do you need to die for you, ppj?


edger (none / 0) (#107)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:56:35 PM EST

Maybe we could have saved 2000 or so if the Demos and the Left hadn't convinced the terrorits they could win a political victory.


: Could have saved them all (none / 0) (#108)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 02:01:08 PM EST

if they had never been sent there.

You still haven't answered the question.

: It's a shame that... (none / 0) (#128)
by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 06:51:56 PM EST

we enabled the terrorists to have satellite television reception. I'm also saddened by the fact that all those foreign terrorist are multi-lingual and able to understand those nasty liberal remarks. Also, what kind of power do they have in some of these regions in order to power the devices to receive these messages?
Wait a minute... I have to blame this on the real...
Jim you're brilliant!!!!
In order for those evil terrorists to receive television or even radio reports concerning what is going on in Washington, I have just realized that all those American companies that have outsourced American jobs overseas and have provided (like Cheney's company dealing with Iran) these Terrorists lands with technology to be able to receive the messages that Democrats were saying. In many cases, I really objected to the fact that those Republicans who favored the war, went on repeating the so-called defeatist messages verbatim echoing the so-called defeatist messages over and over again thus, amplifying the 30 second dissent to record levels. Why? Why repeat over and over a message that according to you Jim and your party, is a message that is killing our troops?
Hell, what is even more amazing is the fact that most Americans, day-to-day don't even know what is going on in Washington and most Americans can speak English and have access to power, t.v., radio, Internet, newspapers, ipods, and smoke signals! But yet, according to Jim, thousands of lives were lost because we here in America have a democracy and in the past 4 years some Democrats (the minority during the majority of those 4 years) were lucky enough to get 30 seconds to voice their concerns about this war.
Blame the Global Economist and Outsourcers. Those who are empowering the Terrorist to receive the tools needed to receive the message. Blame those who, because of greed for profit, still do the American Way of Life thing and sell to those Evil beings!

Silliness (2.00 / 4) (#22)
by jarober on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:36:32 PM EST

"That is hilarious. We were for de Baathification, which has been a disaster. We have hunted down al Sadr who is the most popular leader in Iraq."

So then - circa 1945, was de-Nazification a mistake too? If you think there was no Sunni/Shia conflict in the region before we got there, your history is sadly lacking. Try reading some Bernard Lewis. There have been periodic outbreaks of internecine warfare between the sects for eons, and the only reason Iraq was free of that before the war was the same reason that the chaos of 1920's Germany disappeared in the 1930s - totalitarianism has a way of doing that.

Is that your theory of best practices then - leave brutal dictators alone so that at least the trains run on time?

How far the ideals of the left have fallen.

leave brutal dictators alone? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Edger on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 08:22:52 AM EST

No one here wants to leave Bush or Cheney alone, James. On the contrary, most would rather see them behing bars, or swinging from a gallows pole.

Do you have a better suggestion for what to do with someone responsible for the deaths of nearly a million innocent people?


Gabriel (none / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 09:55:35 AM EST

Actually that theory was used to support the Soviets and their satellites through out the Cold War by fellow travelers.


j-a-r-b-o-b-e-r (none / 0) (#51)
by Edger on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 10:00:05 AM EST

is an awfully funny way to splel Gabriel, p-p-ppj.


: Dittop (none / 0) (#84)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:43:54 AM EST

and e d g e r is a funny way to spell s a i l o r and s q u e a k y

Not responsive. (1.00 / 2) (#1)
by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:49:39 AM EST

Perhaps your criticism would have more force if it were true that Al Qaeda were not operating in Iraq, or if the Republicans (and Independent) you quote had mentioned seeking Osama bin Laden.

They said "Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq, therefor retreating will empower Al Qaeda." You replied, "Idiots, Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan!"

Did retreating in Afghanistan strengthen them? (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:12:46 PM EST

Memo to Gabe, Al Qaida, as it existed in 2002, WAS NOT IN IRAQ.

Zarqawi was not a member of Al Qaida at the time and he was in the Kurdish North anyway.

For the record, the Al Qaida in Iraq strikes at targets IN IRAQ and will not strike in the US ever.

The Al Qaida that hit US in in Afghansistan. As it always has been.

Why do you endorse the surrender to THAt Al Qaida?

Why do you hate the USA?


Memo to BTD (1.00 / 1) (#5)
by HeadScratcher on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:46:15 PM EST

You can't change the past. Whether Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to 2002 or not is irrelevant as of this moment and to his argument.

You say Al Qaeda will never strike in the US ever, so now you are a predicter of the future.

I'm not sure if Gabriel hates the USA. I've never seen him post anything that says he hates the USA. He may be wrong more often than right, but to say he hates the USA is purely childish. I'd say it's beneath you but I don't know you so I can't make that determination.

My point: Name calling gets us nowhere and doesn't do anything productive. In fact, I have always found it to do just the opposite.


Ugh (5.00 / 5) (#7)
by Warren Terrer on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:53:21 PM EST

A comment even more clueless than Gabriel's. Next thing you know David Broder will start commenting here.


Yes :-) (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by Al on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:20:21 PM EST

These people are so obtuse, you'll notice even PPJ is refraining from saying anything to defend them ;-)


Al (none / 0) (#40)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 09:07:26 AM EST

Atually Al I didn't know it was my place to respond to every off the wall comment made my BTD and group.

Now that you have told me, I will try to do better.


I'd rather you not (5.00 / 3) (#65)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 12:33:56 PM EST

Comment when you wish to and no more.


: Heh - The feeling is certainly mutal. (none / 0) (#67)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 07:49:30 PM EST

Big Tent (1.00 / 2) (#16)
by Fritz on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:01:51 PM EST

Last-night's candidates were asked what they would do if 2 US cities were hit by AQ. They responded that they would strike back, where? AQ can only be defeated by developing a western liberal arab culture, period. That is what we are doing in Iraq, that is why we are in Iraq. Democrats are providing AQ a victory against liberal western democracy. bin Laden's goal was to prove to his arab brethren that democracy is weak and would leave if they made it difficult. The clarity of failure is so evident, you are blinded by your hatred of President Bush.

I am Iraqi and to me the possible consequences of this vote are terrifying.


: Developing a culture.... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by kdog on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:20:30 PM EST

Thats an interesting term. How do you develop a culture exactly? How many lives does it take? How many planes, how many missiles, how many bullets?
Or, as I suspect, is "developing a culture" just a fancy term for occupation.

: Fritz (none / 0) (#41)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 09:09:45 AM EST

I could be wrong, but I believe that it was only Hillary who said she would take names and kick as*. The rest kinda namby pambed around...

The clarity of failure is so evident, you are blinded by your hatred of President Bush
Very well said.

BTD (none / 0) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 09:02:01 AM EST

Note to Big Tent Democrat: US Leadership is Not In Iraq.

And your point is??

I mean besides stating the obvious.

BTW - If you get your way and we surrender in Iraq, we will leave the country.

Do you agree that al-Qaida will see this as a win for them, and so will the rest of the world??


Attacking Iraq (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Warren Terrer on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:12:58 PM EST

because of what al Qaeda did on 9/11 was the most non-responsive thing I have seen in years. And they keep doing it, as do you.


Propaganda (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by squeaky on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:14:50 PM EST

Along the lines of Sadaam has nukes and was allied to al Qaida.

At most there are 1000 al Qaida of Iraq fighters in Iraq now. They are there in order to fight the US.

When the US leaves they will leave as well. They are not welcome in Iraq. Both the Sunni' s and Shia's in Iraq are nationalistic and are enemies of al Qaida, just as Sadaam was.


How many ways can you be wrong? (1.00 / 4) (#6)
by jarober on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:52:11 PM EST

"BTW, how is the mission to capture the Al Qaida leadership proceeding? Let's see. Well we know Bush blew it at Tora Bora because he wanted to be ready to go into Iraq."

Not so much. We had about as many troops in Afghanistan at that time as were supportable via an air bridge - which is what we were using. Since the war in Iraq started almost 2 years later, your assertion is doubly stupid - no additional troops had been deployed to Kuwait at that time, much less Iraq. We used local allies because that's what we had available.

"An aggressive search for Osama bin Laden may be getting closer to capturing the fugitive al Qaeda leader in northwest Pakistan, U.S. and Pakistani officials said Thursday. U.S. officials said the search for bin Laden has been narrowed to a few Pakistani provinces in the northwest including Waziristan, and tribal and frontier provinces north of it."

Sooo.... are you suggesting that we should have made a forced entry into the tribal regions of Pakistan? How do you suppose that would have gone? Would the Musharraf government have survived? I'll ignore all your lame comments about times after this, because the same question applies: Unless you are advocating forced entry into Pakistan - with no prior notification to Congress, I might add - then this is cheap political posturing of the worst kind.

Bin Laden and his leadership cadre - as best as anyone knows - are in Pakistan, beyond our reach absent some really heavy push on Pakistan. If that's what you want, then go ahead and advocate for it.

As to Iraq, the AQ leadership is sending waves of jihadists there. If we do what you want and leave, they'll take that as a victory (just as they took Mogadishu as one). What do you think they'll follow up with?
"

Funny how that line on the map between (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:42:18 PM EST

Afghanistan and Pakistan is so fragile and unpenetrable in your mind by our special forces and that line on the map between Afghanistan and Iran is crossed by American special forces right now so much that their tracks would make a nice braid instead of a line. Piffle.........whatever


Tracy (none / 0) (#43)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 09:24:14 AM EST

The essence of the modern US military is to apply force when and where it wants to by the use of technology.

Southern Afghanistan and the area around the border of Afghanistan/Pakistan is NOT condusive to that type of war.

What you, and the Left in general, apparently want is for us to go in there and fight a war with battles based on small arms and numbers.

That would cause a great deal of deaths and wounded of our troops to capture a leader that is mostly marginalized. In otherwords, the results aren't worth the cost.

You call yourself "MilitaryTracy" yet you demonstrate a very modest amount of military knowledge. I continue to have problems believeing you are who you claim.


It might have been helpful (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Edger on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 09:58:13 AM EST

If Bush hadn't helped Bin Laden escape in the first place.

^^
OO


I demonstrate a modest amount of military (5.00 / 3) (#59)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:08:25 AM EST

knowledge huh? Well at least I know better than to call our special forces not capable of and wussies. I would just adore watching you explain in a bar full of special forces why they haven't got Bin Ladin yet. I don't think you would like their replies and maybe a few other things they would like to show you you chicken hawk Bush worshipper ;p.


Tracy - Are you capable of an honest (1.00 / 0) (#115)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:27:17 PM EST

exchange? I said nothing about winning, or loosing. What I said was that the geography is not condusive to allowing us to use our technological advantges.

Those are numerous, among them is the ability to use helicopters to fight intense fire fights very quickly and in various locations, plus night vision...

Heliocpters don't work well in narrow valleys with tricky winds, plus the extreme altitude just increases the problems... Plus they are relatively slow and don't respond well to ground fire.. See the narrow valleys and think about maneuverability.. Caves and other natural obstacles provide cover against various other remotely delivered ordnances..

In short, it would wind up being a series of small arms fights in which we had no particular technological advantage.

See Tracy, that's important. I always want to take a gun to a knife fight. Winning a war is about killing without being killed. And doing that is about having advantages. It is also about not wasting the lives of troops for a mission unworthy of the cost.

That you don't undestand things like that is what continues to make me have real problems with the "military" part of your moniker.


DA (1.00 / 0) (#127)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 06:00:24 PM EST

Actually, the majority of the fighting was not done in the area everyone assumes OBL is in.

If you would read a thread you wouldn't look so silly in your attack mode.

As for her suggestion, it mistated my comments almost as bad as yours does.

And actually, Stingers or no stingers has nothing to do with anything.

yadda yadda


: DA (none / 0) (#130)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:15:53 AM EST

Since you don't seem to understand...
The context is that OBL is widely believed to be in the high mountain area of southern/southeaster Afghanistan along the Pakistan border.
It is truly some of the worst terran in the world.
My point has been, is and will be, that this terran removes many of the technological advantages we have, and that if we decide to go after OBL in this area, the loss of these advantages mean that the fighting will be, to a large extent, company or squad type action, with greatly reduced support.
That would be costly in lives and equipment.
Since OBL is marginalized, I think it would be stupid to pay a high price for his capture, or confirmed death.

DA (none / 0) (#82)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 08:32:58 AM EST

Another week and DA still can't read.

I said they couldn't use the technologial advantages they have.

This would mean very bloody small arms battles in which we could expect to lose many troops for something that would not be worth the effort and cost.

yadda yadda DA. Keep on showing us who you are.


DA (4.00 / 0) (#106)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 12:51:05 PM EST

It is hard to read your great ripostes with all the underlining. I don't think it adds anything to your winning arguments. They are better w/o the eye strain.


yadda yadda DA (1.00 / 0) (#111)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 02:52:09 PM EST

The issue, which you and Che fail to grasp is not the capability, but of the cost in lives.

I think there are many Americans who would say that OBL, the man behind 9/11, would be worth some American casualties, but I'm glad to know that you are with Mitt on this one.

BTW (1.00 / 0) (#112)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 02:54:05 PM EST

The words in BOLD above are a quote from the Dark Avenger.

He has a strange way of supporting the troops, eh?


No. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:10:09 PM EST

he is describing you and others who have a strange (psychotic, really) way of claiming to support the troops while advocating and supporting everything you can that will cause their deaths.


And (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:24:42 PM EST

advocating and supporting everything you can that will cause their deaths.

and guarantee their failure.


He's saving the (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:30:58 PM EST

incompetency defense for his last resort?


Last Resort (5.00 / 0) (#118)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:43:02 PM EST

I do think that Incompetency and Brainlessness defense has quite a ring to it, but for ppj the last resort is blaming Clinton. It takes a more greymatter to pull off the Incompetency and Brainlessness defense, not much but a bit more.


DA (none / 0) (#124)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:29:50 PM EST

yadda yadda yadda


: Yeah!!! (none / 0) (#126)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:50:56 PM EST

Duh!!!

Can't live in the present? (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 01:05:17 PM EST

BTD, squeaky, and Warren Terrer, all note that Iraq and Al Qaeda weren't affiliated before we went into Iraq. Let's set aside the factual problems with that and just assume it's true.

So what? Al Qaeda is in Iraq now. We have to take it into consideration when we make decisions about the future course of the war.

I, and others, repeat: "Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq, therefore retreating will empower Al Qaeda."

BTD responds: "Idiots, Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan! AND Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda in 2002."

To which I must respond, "It's 2007. Al Qaeda's in Iraq now and simply ignoring it won't make it go away."

Immoral (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by squeaky on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 01:25:07 PM EST

So you believe that it is Moral to occupy an entire country, moral to destroy its infrastructure jail and torture its people in order to fight 1000 people linked with al Qaida who would either leave or be forced out when the US leaves?

That makes the US the biggest terrorists on earth, by your logic.


Are you deliberately being obtuse? (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Al on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:31:28 PM EST

BTD responds: "Idiots, Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan! AND Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda in 2002."
To which I must respond, "It's 2007. Al Qaeda's in Iraq now and simply ignoring it won't make it go away."

Once again: Osama bin Laden, who is responsible for 9-11, is in Pakistan (or thereabouts), not in Iraq. It is indeed 2007, and that's where he is. As long as American forces are concentrated in Iraq, that makes it more, not less likely, that OBL and his gang will be able to organize other attacks against the US or European countries.

It's 2007 as you say, and "we fight them in Iraq not to fight them here" is still a lie.


Al (1.00 / 1) (#44)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 09:43:59 AM EST

As long as American forces are concentrated in Iraq, that makes it more, not less likely, that OBL and his gang will be able to organize other attacks against the US or European countries.

Based on this comment, you want the military returned home and used for homeland security. That would be troops along the border with Mexico and Canada? Patrol boats operating on the Mississippe and Hudson rivers?

No? Oh. You believe that if we leave Iraq and the SA /ME in general, all will be peace and love?? Well, let's again see what OBL says about that very subject.

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?
BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

Shorter. If you don't let me do what I want to do, the jihad will dontinue.

Interview with OBL in March 1997 by Peter Arnett of (then) CNN.


You're (none / 0) (#46)
by Edger on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 09:51:59 AM EST

s-s-stuttering now, p-p-ppj.

There is nothing left.


: edger (none / 0) (#68)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 07:57:25 PM EST

You have no answer, eh??

PPJ assumes (none / 0) (#66)
by conchita on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 07:17:04 PM EST

NO! I want to see the backdoor draft and the National Guardsman return to their families, jobs, and communities rather than putting their lives in danger and endangering others while illegally occupying a country for its oil.


conchito (none / 0) (#69)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 07:58:41 PM EST

I think I have explained to you before why this is not about "oil." I see no need to repeat myself since you won't pay attention this time.


clearly, ppj, your explanation did not have much (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by conchita on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 08:59:22 PM EST

traction with me. it did not hold up against the following realities:

we have either already passed or are rapidly approaching peak oil and iraq possesses significant oil reserves. this is something of which dick cheney and the industry leaders with whom he conducted his energy study are well aware. if they release the minutes of their meetings and they refute my expectation that they are not on top of their field, i will begin to question if it has been about oil.
the u.s. has an energy problem in that we have not learned to curb our addiction to it in defiance of the reality that a) it is raising havoc with our environment and b) we are running out of our supply. in addition, the leadership in our government has not only not acknowledged this and has not taken steps to effectively develop other sources of energy, but instead is closely aligned with corporate interests which profit from our addiction. i credit nancy pelosi with taking steps to make the house greener, and if bushco takes steps to effectively address the energy problem, then i will begin to question if it has been about oil.
the u.s. has built permanent bases in iraq which - quel surprise! - coordinate almost perfectly with the location of the major iraqi oil wells and oil deposits. if we leave these bases and the iraqi to develop their oil industry without interference from the u.s., then i will begin to question if it has been about oil.
the administration and congress of the u.s. seems to think that it should dictate iraqi disposition of their oil via the much touted iraqi oil law which in neocon doublespeak is described as a law which guarantees iraq's oil profits will be shared by all iraqis. what the law really does is denationalize iraqi oil, taking it out of the control of the iraqis, and open it up to exploitation by the big oil companies. it is unlikely that the law will ever go into effect in iraq, but only when the u.s. retracts this demand on the iraqis will i begin to question if it has all been about oil.

unless your argument somehow disproves any of the above it is highly unlike if i will begin to question if it has been about oil.

: conchita (1.00 / 1) (#83)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:39:16 AM EST

unless your argument somehow disproves any of the above it is highly unlike if i will begin to question if it has been about oil.
That assumes the information you rely on is correct.
Since I have a few moments this beautiful morning..
1. How much oil there is has always been a moving figure. They haven't been right in the past, so why do you think they are now?
Link1
2. The US doesn't have an energy problem. It has a possible future problem in obtaining energy sources.
There are many reasons for this, and many solutions. It is further being complicated by the alarmist belief that man is the principal cause of global warming, and that we must reduce our use of fuels that are "carbon" based. That would be petroluem, wood, alcohol, etc.
Obviously a reduction in use will extend the reserves, no matter what the actual number is.
But given that global warming will not stop India and China from increasing their use, the net effect will be no change, or, more likely, an increase in use.
Wind and solar power is often touted as solutions, but both have several problems. The first is unreliable performance. Clouds cover the sun, winds stop blowing. And while some areas are more reliable - coastal winds and desert sunshine - the practial transmission distance of electric power is not infinite --- see Ohms Law and some other nasty old facts ---- from a national view neither add a great deal.
Plus, since they are unreliable, the size of the transmission network must still be the same. And since the souce locations will be different, and overbuild, almost a duplicate in some areas, would be required. Thus would be God awful in cost, and very harmful to the environment.
The best curent solution is nuke power. Most of Europe is going in that direction, but the environmental wackos and jelly spined politicans have made if off limit in the US, proving that neither group care about the environment, or the country.
I could go on, but you get the point. If you have some solutions for the above, let us know.
3. We are building bases in Iraq because it is in a strategic location for military purposes. See Iran.
If we had just wanted the oil we could have out bid anyone. Or, if you want to know how it would have been done...

What would a real "war for oil" look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port ? probably Basra ? and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.
There would have been no overland campaign ? what for? ? and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: probably would have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?
The above from ejectejecteject and if you want to find it, you'll have a bit of scrolling to do. BW is a better writer than layout artist...But you might find some other fun things while you do it. BTW - The blogger is from the University of FL, which our esteemed BTD is also from. Showing that a great school can't screw up every time.. ;-)
4. Your complaint about the control of the oil is noted. But don't worry. Just as soon as the Surrender Part gets the troops out the fighting will become so bad that no one has control, so no oil will get out.
Hope you have some paper fans and a lot of blankets...

Al Qaeda in Iraq is not the same (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:44:44 PM EST

as Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.


Gabriel (none / 0) (#42)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 09:12:25 AM EST

True, but that isn't the issue to the Left.

The issue is making Bush go away.

See, you don't understand who their enemy is.


LOL (1.00 / 4) (#18)
by jarober on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:05:07 PM EST

"I think Iraqis will take care of the Al-Qaeda elements in their society themselves once we leave. They will be as brutal towards them as they are towards any occupier or threat to their Sovereignty. The Al-Qaeda element in Iraq is thrivign under our occupation there."

Right. The Iranians will be tons of help that way, as they fund the Shia to kill off the Sunnis - and the Saudis get involved to prevent that from happening.

After the genocide, and the multiple markups in the price of oil that come from that theory, I'd love to see your reaction.

Note to Defeatocrats (1.00 / 4) (#21)
by Barb Sinister on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:25:08 PM EST

Al Qaida Leadership Is Not In Iraq . . . because we hauled his @ss to Gitmo.

It's not what you don't know that will trip you up -- it's what you know that isn't so.

: One more defeatocrats (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 07:07:21 PM EST

and I will ask Jeralyn to delete your comments.

lol (1.00 / 2) (#34)
by jarober on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:12:42 PM EST

"We can fight Al Qaida in Iraq without embroiling ourselves in the Iraqi Civil War.

That is what redeployment is all about. "

Hmm. How do we fight them by leaving? And, try answering this: We know that AQ felt empowered by the retreat from Mogadishu, and that they took that as a victory. How will they take a retreat from Iraq? After the retreat from Mogadishu, the attacks on American interests increased. What do you think will happen after we leave?

As to why the US hasn't been attacked, that's obvious. The AQ strategy has been to attack Iraqis (try to create chaos and create US opposition), and to attack allies (Spain, UK, Australia) in an attempt to detach them. They split Spain, and would like to do more of that. The enemy is not stupid, and - contrary to what a lot of people seem to think - they pay attention to US media.

They won't come after us here until they've driven us out of the mideast. After they succeed in Iraq, they'll go back to concentrating on Afghanistan - and I predict that the left will start being opposed to that, and calling that a civil war fairly soon after that starts.

: You have pretty good inside information. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Edger on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:17:14 PM EST

You must be pretty well-connected?

DA (1.00 / 0) (#74)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 08:16:40 PM EST

yadda yadda yadda

DA (1.00 / 0) (#88)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:54:38 AM EST

: yadda yadda DA (1.00 / 0) (#98)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:16:24 AM EST

Not an answer (1.00 / 1) (#81)
by jarober on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 07:55:51 AM EST

I love the way Edger is always quick with a non-answer answer. I outlined a logical theory on how AQ is proceeding (attempting to peel US allies, so attacks take place in other countries) and attempting to sap US will (horrific attacks in Iraq) - without attacking the US directly (so as not to "stir up a hornet's nest". I'm not the only one who has espoused that theory - you can wander around the net and find plenty of other expositions of it.

Heck, even if they didn't start out with that plan, it would be a logical follow up to Spain's actions after the bombing in Madrid. You can dislike the evidence for all of this, but I notice that you don't try to argue against it - like "Big Tent", you hand wave a lot.

You gave a list of assumptions in an (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:51:40 AM EST

unsubstantiated vomiting of opinion.

IOW you offered no evidence to "dislike", then made the brilliant observation that no one has tried to argue against the nothing you had to offer.

As I said, among other logical errors you assume you know what you're talking about, and you assume that is not obvious.

Not even a nice try, James.


Of course, the fact that ppj (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:04:18 AM EST

tries ineptly to offer you moral support doesn't do anything for your credibility either.


But you can always count on (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:29:55 AM EST

Bill O'Reilly, Bill Kristol, Brendan Miniter, three or four Faux Snooze pundits, Chris Matthews, Charles Krauthummer, and some others enamored with their own unsubstantiated opinions, too. They'll bolster your credibility. For sure.


edger (1.00 / 1) (#101)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:24:21 AM EST

The people you mention are "commentators."

You surely don't think they are "news" broadcasters, do you?

No wonder you act so confused.


I don't think they are (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:36:19 AM EST

anything remorely resembling "news" broadcasters.

But the peasants seem to think so.


Well said, Edger (1.00 / 1) (#104)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 12:06:25 PM EST

Everyone is ignorant except for edger and his friends.


Did I say that? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 12:11:17 PM EST

Link please. And give the quote.


: edger (none / 0) (#116)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:29:32 PM EST

Just read your previous comment.
Self destruction must be painful.

jarober (1.00 / 1) (#92)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:58:01 AM EST

That's Edger's basic startegy. It is an essential holding strategy until he can read Juan Cole to find out what he is supposed to be saying.


: Aren't those for finding out what he's (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:35:26 AM EST

supposed to think he thinks he thinks he thinks?

: yadda yadda, DA (none / 0) (#100)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:22:12 AM EST

The Islamic Caliphate of Waziristan (none / 0) (#10)
by Geekesque on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 01:24:11 PM EST

That's where AQ's leaders are. Why would they put themselves next to hostile Shiites and other stable states like Jordan, Turkey, and Syria when they can stay in their caliphate nestled between one failed state and another dysfunctional one?

Misleading and diversionary (none / 0) (#27)
by Charles Bird on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 07:46:53 PM EST

The top leadership is in Waziristan (which is still Pakistan, a country with atomic bombs), but there is enough al Qaeda leadership in Iraq for them to execute an increasing number of suicide bombings (see the graph or wiki reference).

The U.S. commander in Iraq, in yesterday's news conference, stated the al Qaeda is public enemy #1 in Iraq, and that Iraq is al Qaeda's central front in the War Against Militant Islamism.

Al Qaeda wasn't a big deal in Iraq five years ago, but now it is. They chose to go there, and there is where the war is. This is a fact that your Democratic leaders are either unaware or unwilling to acknowledge and accept.

: References & Gen. Petraeus (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by walt on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 01:41:34 AM EST

I checked your Wiki reference. A long & tedious multi-year list of various acts of violence in Iraq is not even faintly, not even remotely any evidence of al-Qaeda-in-Iraq generating any particular entry on the list.
Petraeus (& by his reference, NDI Gates) cannot be a credible source. Got to "catapult the propaganda" & all that, you know.
While it is a simple-minded approach for me to recommend, if one of the grand poobahs of the US-in-Iraq stated that Baghdad was secure, I'd bet you a $1,000 that the parliament building would be successfully attacked the next day----by some Sunni (what term do you prefer for local, or as they say "indigenous" personnel?) insurgents or freedom fighters or nationalists or patriots???
Descriptions of Qaeda, anywhere, are truly simple propaganda efforts of Bu$hKorps to divert attention from real issues. Fortunately, Senators & Representatives of the Democratic Party can see through this nonsense . . .
. . . as do also 59 percent of USA citizens.

: Thanks for stopping by Charles (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:05:56 PM EST

I disagree with you that Al Qaida in Iraq would have any intention of striking the US but that is not the question here anyway.
We can fight Al Qaida in Iraq without embroiling ourselves in the Iraqi Civil War.
That is what redeployment is all about.

See what I mean? (none / 0) (#28)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 08:54:43 PM EST

Being half informed is dangerous (none / 0) (#55)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 10:22:04 AM EST

I'd excercise some restraint in how I did that.

Or perhaps you have never heard of the French Revolution...

: You would? (none / 0) (#64)
by Edger on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:19 PM EST

Then why don't you?

Or perhaps you have never heard of the French Revolution?

Jim, (none / 0) (#58)
by Che's Lounge on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:07:39 AM EST

I would like to hear you tell our armed forces that they are not capable of going into that region and capturing Bin Laden.

: Che (none / 0) (#72)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 08:13:29 PM EST

What is it about the statement:

Southern Afghanistan and the area around the border of Afghanistan/Pakistan is NOT condusive to that type of war.
What you, and the Left in general, apparently want is for us to go in there and fight a war with battles based on small arms and numbers.
That would cause a great deal of deaths and wounded of our troops to capture a leader that is mostly marginalized. In otherwords, the results aren't worth the cost.
That you fail to understand? Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Do you want us to get into battles that will kill a lot of our people for basically worthless results?
Don't asnwer. We know the answer.

Yes well (none / 0) (#61)
by Che's Lounge on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:31:35 AM EST

I see you think it could be done but at great cost. Very tidy...for you.

: Che (1.00 / 0) (#90)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:55:32 AM EST

Hmmm, so you think I made the mountains??

Who we fight (none / 0) (#79)
by jarober on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:42:30 AM EST

"I disagree with you that Al Qaida in Iraq would have any intention of striking the US but that is not the question here anyway.

We can fight Al Qaida in Iraq without embroiling ourselves in the Iraqi Civil War."

Wow. So Big Tent - the military can stop, ask for ID - decide "whoops, this is just a sectarian guy, let him go whack some Shia" as they fight ? How do you propose to differentiate AQ fighters in Iraq from anyone wlse when the shooting starts?

And your assertion that they won't carry the fight out of Iraq ignores the reality of what happened after Mogadishu completely. AQ took our retreat as a victory, regardless of how we took it. Likewise, AQ won't pay any attention to your tidy theories of how leaving Iraq "isn't really a defeat". They'll see it as a defeat of the US, and act accordingly.

It's not 2002, and we can't call a do-over. The central fight against AQ is in Iraq, whether you like that fact or not. Falling back from there will cede that ground to AQ, and they will take that as a win, and decide that they can push the US and the West in general even harder.

: You asume Iraqis are incompetent. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 06:41:51 AM EST

You assume that being in Iraq is somehow stopping someone from attacking in the US.

You assume you know what you're talking about.

You assume that is not obvious.

You assume too many things for which you have no evidence.