home

How Will They Follow Us Home?

On the Fox post-GOP Debate fest, Alan Colmes asked John McCain how will the terrorists follow us home from Iraq? His answer? Like the Fort Dix "terrorists." I see. So like those guys followed us home 23 years ago?

Three brothers [Dritan "Anthony" or "Tony" Duka, 28; Shain Duka, 26; and Eljvir "Elvis" Duka, 23] charged in the alleged Fort Dix terror plot have been living illegally in the U.S. for more than 23 years and were accepted as Americans by neighbors and friends who had no idea they would scheme to attack military bases and slaughter GIs.

So they "followed us home" at the ages of 5, 2 and newborn? Um,"[t]he brothers entered the United States near Brownsville, Texas, in 1984, the source said, which would put their ages at 1 to 6 when they crossed the border. . ."

Precocious, these "terrorists."

< House Passes Student Loan Forgiveness Bill | Late Night: 1960's Police Drug Training Video >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    terror babies (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by chemoelectric on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:49:45 PM EST
    Why do you think they call it the terrible twos?

    Phrased the way you do.... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jerry on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:24:54 AM EST
    So they "followed us home" at the ages of 5, 2 and newborn? Um,"[t]he brothers entered the United States near Brownsville, Texas, in 1984, the source said, which would put their ages at 1 to 6 when they crossed the border. . ."

    Precocious, these "terrorists."

    Have you considered selling this speech to Tom Tancredo?

    Jerry (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:14:46 AM EST
    Have you considered the fact that they grew up and became terrorits??

    You know 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6........ You can count, can't you?

    See response (above) to BTD.

    Parent

    Naaaaah. You guys got it all wrong! (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by scribe on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:52:14 AM EST
    Remember, these brothers are from where - the former Yugoslavia, right?

    Well, 23 years ago, when they crawled across the Rio Grande in their training pants, they were welcomed as being among the masses of people who dreamed daily of freeing themsleves of the yoke of their communist overlords.  "Mr. Gorbachev, knock down that wall" and all that.

    Back in 1984 or so, Yugoslavia was perhaps the most westwardly oriented of the benighted lands struggling under the Iron Curtain.  That these baby genuises made it so far should have been the stuff of legend.  But, since Fox Noise didn't come into existence until afterward, I guess we just missed out on these three and their story of bravely escaping the commie thugs masquerading as border guards. (over there).

    I guess it must have been passing through Texas that poisoned these young heroes and led to them becoming alleged terrists 23 years later.

    They are NOT terrorists. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Guav on Wed May 16, 2007 at 07:56:07 AM EST
    I think it's important to note that these are not terrorists and they were not planning a terrorist attack. They were planning--with some coaxing it seems--to shoot soldiers with guns on an army base. That is a military operation (a quite stupid one, of course).

    Terrorist attacks are, by definition, attacks against civilians--not combatants or professional soldiers. Unless I'm misunderstanding what the generally accepted definition of terrorism is ...

    Guav (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:26:21 AM EST
    Actually the word guerrilla:

    person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage

    comes to mind.

    Historically they were given a tribunal and executed by various means.

    Why do you want to split hairs? What is your agenda??

    And if they were coaxed, it wasn't as if they were a group of teenagers being driven to a snap decision....

    "Come on guys we need some money... let's rob a liquor store..."

    Is not what happened.

    Parent

    The terrirosts apparently need maps! (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:07:54 AM EST
    I am thrilled that someone has finally highlighted this complete inanity.

    "If we don't fight them there (or if we pull out from there) they will follow us home here" has got to be one of the all-time stupidest strategic comments I have heard, and I can't, for the life of me, understand why the press isn't mocking that all the way back to a dark hole.

    Consider: do the terrorists not have a map of the world?  Do they not already know where the US is, and where strategic targets are (NYC, Wash DC).  (OK, OK, yes, the Department of Homeland Security didn't realize that NYC and DC were high targets according to their last round of grant making -- under Tracy Henke, who, before that, was seen censoring press releases while at DOJ -- but I digress).

    In fact, just the opposite is true.  While we are preoccupied in Iraq, it ought to be easier to penetrate the US -- and, conversy, when we're less focused there we can focus more here on defending our own land.

    I certainly believe that there are mean nasty terrorists that want to kill us and would leap at the chance.

    But I also believe that they already know how to find us here in the US, and that "following us home" would be a very stupid move on their part.  (What are they, puppy dogs???)

    And it's an even stupider argument to make on our part.

    DC (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:17:14 AM EST
    While we are preoccupied in Iraq, it ought to be

    Uh, then your belief is that we can only do one thing at once??

    Have you heard of multitasking??

    Parent

    missing my point? (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:48:34 AM EST
    Uh, then your belief is that we can only do one thing at once??

    Not at all.  But certainly, we do have limited resources.  Quite clearly, the National Guard, for example, has fewer resources in the US right now because so many of their assets are in Iraq.

    But that's not the main point.

    The main point is the complete logical disconnect of the statement "they will follow us home."  It's not like Al Qaeda guys in, say, Saudi Arabia who want to harm us in the US, don't know how to get to the US and harm us.  And it's not like our presence in Iraq stops them from coming here.

    And it's certainly illogical to say that when the US Army leaves Iraq, then our enemies will try to attack the US, but not before then.

    Parent

    A DC Wonk (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:50:46 AM EST
    Do you state that we should be using the National Guard to patrol and close the borders?

    And at what force/equipment level do you thing that the National Guard be maintained at within its discrete state to assure adequate response to a natural disaster??

    And would the requirement for the NG to patrol the border affect that state level?

    Or would you withdraw from the world, and not put increased security on the borders??

    Would agree that we increase the size of the military to cover what was previously understood as a portion of the NG's responsibility because of border patrol and/or disaster recovery??

    I think your complaint about "they will follow us home" is that you, most likely willfully, misstate the concept. I refer you to my comment to BTD at 8:04AM today (above) and to MB at 10:28AM today (above).

    Parent

    Reckless, propagadistic (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jondee on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:28:24 AM EST
    abuse of language leads to reckless, self-defeating thought and action. Plato and Confucious covered all that 2,500 years ago. I thought.

    I also notice that one of the bleeting-in-fear sheeple has these men convicted already; catapaulting the propaganda, as it were.

    Why do (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by jondee on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:43:37 AM EST
    you want make a, in your own words "marginalized" nut case, the seeming spokesperson for any Muslim that may take their religious law a little too seriously, so that you conflate taxi cabs, foot washing, demonstrations with 9/11? Why would you do that?

    Not I expect much useful clarification from a guy who says just-because-I-dont-believe-him-dosnt-mean-Im-calling-him-a liar.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:11:16 AM EST
    If I thought that the Left would agree with the rest of us to tell these folks to get over it, I wouldn't mind.

    BTW - I have no idea as to what

    In your own words "marginalized" nut case,

    you mean, and do not accept it.

    It is probably another excercise of your tactics as shown in my comment on 5/14 at 9:53AM

    Parent

    Before this (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jondee on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:03:27 AM EST
    they had a "cultural war" against liberals-secular humanists- radical professors etc etc

    All those ones they wanted to give-a-tribunal-and-execute.

    Btw, Not everyone who's ever had a tribunal was executed, but there's not stoppin' Jim when he's in Strange Fruit mode.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:54:04 PM EST
    It all starts when you believe that all people are not created equal. Then killing looters is OK, killing Indigenous peoples is OK, killing international leader is OK. Just gotta keep the automatic rifle good and greased.

    Who will defend ppj when someone decides that he is a lower life form? Probably the ACLU.

    Why would they follow us here? (4.50 / 2) (#59)
    by peacrevol on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:36:38 AM EST
    You all remember, I'm sure, your history classes in high school. We once had a war that left part of our country with minimal leadership. It was called the civil war. Afterwords we went through a period called reconstruction, remember. That's where Iraq is now. Except they didnt have a civil war - their military got their a$$es handed to them by the US military. Now, they have a bunch of people in charge that dont know how to run a government. And what they have is a bunch of terrorists, not unlike the terrorists of the south after the American civil war. For example, the KKK at the time was targeting free slaves and those who simpathized with them. In the same way, insurgents are targeting anyone who is trying to keep them from power. Perhaps its time for us to tell the Iraqi govt and citizens to grow a pair and get with the program. We have to let them take control of their govt now or they never will.

    peacrevol (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:39:20 AM EST
    Not bad, but we didn't have three or four factions, plus outside intervention, fighting each other during the reconstruction period.

    The KKK was a huge problem, but its focus was on blacks and what the KKK saw as carpetbaggers who had moved to the South. It was never a threat to the Federal government, and the functions of the federal government.

    The question of when the Iraqis will become able to self govern, I don't know. I do know that as long as the Demos are demanding we put a time table in place the various terrorist groups will just hang around until we leave.

    Parent

    You have answered your own question. (1.00 / 3) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:00:25 PM EST
    We are engaged in a cultural struggle. That culture has managed to reach through all of our culture, and here, as in England, overcome what we have thought was stable and improving with teachings that are radically different.

    The individuals reached are, if press accounts are correct, inexperienced. As such when they see OBL's side, "winning," it drastically reduces their resistance to demands and propaganda. At best unsure of themselves, they move to believe that the teachings of OBL and demand for jihad against America must be obeyed because that is the winning side.

    If we leave in the manner you want, the world will see that as a sign of weakness. As surrender.

    That is a posion we can not afford.

    The world already sees the presidency (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:05:01 PM EST
    of George W. Bush as a sign of abject stupidity. But whatever.

    Parent
    Ummm (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:26:10 PM EST
    But were they terrorists when they followed us home Jim?

    At the ages of 1 to 6?

    Try to follow the post.

    I tell you what's funny to me - you may find that I may be the person wqho MOSTS agrees with you that the most important national security issue we face today is the fight against Islamic extremism, manifested in the form of Al Qaida and similar groups.

    Where you and I disagree is that I believe we should argue the issue with FACTS, not made up crap like McCain used tonight.

    IF you could see your way to arguing honestly on these issues you will be shocked how much you and I will be on the same side of issues and E, squeak, sailor and all of our good liberal friends at this blog (I am a Centrist, American Exceptionalist myself) wil start aiming their intellectual firepower at my views.

    And then you know what can break out? An honest to good stimulating high level discussion among Americans and and friends from other countries about the problems of our world and how we think they can be solved.

    Sean Penn said a great thing the other day - dissent is democracy. And it is.

    We need a few important things to make this a great blog. And we have most of them already. Smart folks commenting. People of good faith discussing issues. Respect for opposing points of view.

    Let's add the final ingredient - respect for facts. With all due respect to my conservative friends here - respect for facts is lacking on their side.

    This is understandable in some ways. As Rob Corddry once famously said - the facts have had a liberal bias the past 6 years.

    I can imagine decent arguments for why we can not leave Iraq.  I made some myself in 2004. But the first step in reaching those arguments is to respect the facts.

    The IRaq War has been a Debacle. You know it has been. Bush is an incompetent. You know he is.

    But that should not be the end of the debate. But these acknowledgements are important beginnings.

    Parent

    I'm interested to know (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:33:08 PM EST
    what you think centrism is. Have you written on it before?

    Parent
    Meh (4.50 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:43:36 PM EST
    You caught me, I was being rather disingenuous there. It means nothing.

    Ask me what I think about specific issues and see where you think I fall.

    I'll give you what some will see as not liberal views.

    I am a free trader.

    I believe in capitalism.

    I am for a strong military.

    I believe that the United States is a great country.

    I envy people who have faith.

    I believe that the government should only be involved where it can serve the Common Good better than the private sector.

    I am for pragmatic solutions to the country's problems, I do not adhere to ideological solutions.

    I believe the Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever created, despite its flaws at creation.

    I believe Abraham Lincoln was the greatest American who ever lived, despite being a politician.

    I think George H.W. Bush was a good President.

    I think Bill Clinton was also a good President.

    I think Russ Feingold is a Centrist.

    I love the ACLU.

    How's that for starters?

    Parent

    Somewhere between extreme centrist and moonbat (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:58:00 PM EST
    with a large libertarian cherry on top. Except for the envying faith, except in people.

    Parent
    That was my own description of liberal, btw. ;-) (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:02:47 AM EST
    Good for a start (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:04:43 AM EST
    There are details I could quibble with:

    1.Can you really forgive H.W. for Clarence Thomas?

    1. I'm not sure I think that truely free trade is possible, and the things we call free trade these days aren't always so wonderful.

    2. I don't personally envy faith at all.

    I think we can live in the same political party though. ;-)

    Parent
    I'm not clear on what you mean by envying faith. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:14:40 AM EST
    "Faith" means something different to different people, I think, no? If I knew how you define it I might find myself envying it, or I might not.

    Parent
    How's that for starters? (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Dadler on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:59:03 AM EST
    As confused and as messy a pile of hurried B.S. as I've ever heard.

    Free Trade means nothing, Fair Trade means something.  Free Trade, by the standards of unfettered capitalism means nothing more than those with money win, those without lose.  Period.  Leaving humanity's fate to a rigged board game seems, um, slightly crazy.  

    A strong military in what manner?  Defensive?  Offensive?  Expansionist?  How about addressing the really difficult issue of the military culture.  From religious extremism to a pathological lack of imagination to bases strewn all over the globe, take it on.  Are you for closing our military empire abroad and focusing on really defending the country?

    Believing we're a great country is like saying "Air is fun to breathe".  Empty platitude.  We are sometimes great, sometimes awful, but our citizens are still more distant from their government and its actions abroad than almost any people on the planet, free or otherwise.  Hell, a free and great country does NOT censor war news like we do now.  I love America, but we are terribly f*cked up in ways that are insidious to deal with.  Capitalism's enshrining of private interest above public is at the core.

    You envy people of faith, my ass.  I don't buy it.  You are astounded by their ability to turn off their rational minds at will, maybe, but envy?  Gimme a break.    

    There is little to no difference between government and the private sector.  We are a government of, by and for the people.  Our government corruptions are identical to those of the private sector.  Since the private sector CONTROLS the government, they merely reflect each other.  Look at the rank failure of private companies to run public schools, for example.  The private sector simply enjoys a historical respect here as it doesn't in other parts of the world, because our entire nation was FOUNDED by businessmen who wanted more money in their pockets -- we weren't about getting rid of kings and all that sh*t, since we had no problem sucking the French kings d*ck to win the war.  Hence the trouble the revolution had in recruiting simple workers to fight.  And the disdain many revolutionary leaders had for these ordinary folk.  Hell, Washington was the richest man in America when he became president?  How much has changed since then?  Uh...  

    Who the hell isn't for pragmatic solutions?  And saying you are is just as much an idea (ideological) as anything else.  

    The Constitution has great parts, awful parts, parts in between.  What has made it great is the nation is was written for has never, NEVER, had to deal with foreign invaders because of its fortunate geography.  We have been allowed to f*ck up and wildly so, on our own, more than any nation in the world's history.  The constitution was secondary to our geographic solitude and sheer size.  You can't control what you can't control, and this place was always too big to control.  Our freedoms derive from that as much as anything else.    

    Wow, Lincoln a great president, really going out on a limb there.  Sheesh.

    Bush I was good?  By what standard?  His crack cocaine madness?  His hatred of those on welfare?  His foreign policy incompetence that led to the first Gulf War -- I mean, hell, Saddam ASKED us for permission.  Come on now.

    Clinton was the single most disappointing president of my lifetime.  As ignorant a man about his own psyche as I've ever heard or seen.  From Gays in the military to bullsh*t NAFTA to the sexual dysfunction he decided to treat by consulting the clergy, he was a failure as a genuine liberal in almost every way.  Even his welfare reform was callous for a man who came from his roots.  He was a corporate shill at heart and couldn't break free of it.  Though he had an intellect and certain sensitivity that played well at home and abroad.  At least he had that Rhodes' Scholar thing.  

    Who's a centrist?  What's a centrist?  Huh???

    I love the ACLU, too.  Wahooo!!

    As for Islamic Extremism, it's only as big a problem as we decide to make it.  The idea, Tent, that we can't even win the rhetorical battle with it right now, well, that should tell you loudly and clearly how we haven't even used HALF a brain in countering its influence.  But we are a Christian nation, with leaders who cannot talk about existence as free people should, but instead talk about it in terms of the chains of faith and creation, like children, like the extremists we're supposedly fighting.  Imagine if our political leaders could actually speak and act like the truly great people America produces.  Try to imagine a Martin Luther King in today's environment.  The fact that we can't is sad.  And damning.  And the larger fact is, you can't go after radical Islam without going after radical Christianity that plays such a huge role in American politics.  Childishness is killing us from inside, not from out.  And that childishness is what keeps us from really making a dent in this problem of religion.  

    Greed, as ever, is the biggest problem.  America has given the world the idea that nothing is ever enough.  We have taken the idea of pleasure and plenty and transferred it from Kings to commoners.  We waste hand over fist like no one else on the planet.  We drive oversized cars, live in oversized houses, eat oversized meals.  We are full of sh*t, in other words, pissing into the wind and then saying, "Wow, why are my eyes burning so much?"  

    We are stagnant as a nation right now, as stagnant as I can imagine us being, considering the tools and resources at our disposal.


    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:04:05 AM EST
    Think of all the great discussions we can have on all of this. Trite condensed versions are useless are they not?

    And my point here is that we need one last little thing from the Right, respect for the facts.

    I may take you up later on each of these. But not this mintue. Stay tuned.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:04:20 AM EST
    But were they terrorists when they followed us home Jim?

    Your question is a nice ploy, and really is so rhetorical that you probably didn't ask it expecting an answer. Let me surprise you.

    If you read my comment you would know the answer is, no. But that isn't what's important. It is what they  become, and not all, just some. And not just here, but globally. The real question is how many and their dedication. Will they be fellow travelers that just support by accepting the claims of the activists involved in politics designed to force Sharia law on the west (See France, see Neatherlands, see Denmark, see Minneapolis, see cartoon riots, see Koran riots....)through protests and politcal pressure, or will they become full fledged terrorists ready to attack and die?

    So in a global sense, it is about perceived power. Except for Israel the ME has no history of democracy, but a long history of dictators, usually maintained by terror against the citizens.

    I speak of the ME, but it is actually a human condition. People are attracked to power and support leaders who they think can help them, and who can hurt them. If we look weak, the terrorists will look stronger.

    If we follow your plan, the true DEBACLE will follow as the various terrorist organizations sort out their issues, and then loosely cooperate in continuing their attacks against the west. The time frame is not specific, but it is real.

    You see this as a single issue. I see it on a larger scale. You see it as next month. I see it as ten years from now. You see it as a means to return power to the Democrats. I see it as a conflict that should be outside politics.

    You speak of liberals. I don't see liberals. I see Democratic politicans seeking to use a group as their base. I see people who are borderline anarchists, pacifists, libertarian left and, strangely, or at least to me, anti-Israel in their anti-war attacks. In their anger they shout down the opposition when they can, and as Edger said:

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    I find it humorous that these two commentators who supposedly  treasure debate, dissent and protest are the authors of such statements.

    You say that dissent is democracy. That is true. But I say that after debate and after dissent we have elections and should move forward based on what we have collectively decided. That is the essence of a Republic. For it to work, rights must be coupled with responsibility. The individual must agree to accept the group decision or else we  have anarchy. And while anarchists shout power to the people, their destruction of the existing structures usually lead to dictatorships.

    You speak of facts, and blame the Right. I see little respect for "facts" from either side. (See Squeaky's comment.) The one thing I treasure about the Internet is that it is full of "facts." Some of them are actually true.

    Finally, you close with:

    But that should not be the end of the debate. But these acknowledgements are important beginnings.

    You opened with a rhetorical questioned designed to place me into the position of answering a question that is essentially meaningless. You close with a statement that seeks to establish the framework of the debate.

    As I did at your beginning, I reject your closing. The debate must support not only why, or why not we should leave Iraq, but what will be the resuts of our doing so on a global basis.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    See the title of BTD's post. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:22:10 AM EST
    You suffer from paranoid delusions, Jim.

    Parent
    heh - edger (1.00 / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:32:59 AM EST
    I'm not the one who has posted comments and links claiming that 9/11 was a US/Israel plot.

    Parent
    I used to think that you did this on purpose. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:38:39 AM EST
    Until this morning. I apologize. I see now that you can't help it.

    Parent
    Edger (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:48:02 AM EST
    Do you deny that you haven't done so??

    Parent
    ooops (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:50:01 AM EST
    ooops
    double negative

    Do you deny that you have done so??

    Parent

    Jim. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:12:24 AM EST
    I wasn't kidding about the paranoid delusions. It was not an insult.

    I feel sorry for you, but there is nothing I can do to treat it here.

    And indulging your games only exacerbates your problems.

    Parent

    edeger (1.00 / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:19:59 AM EST
    Thanks for the giggles..

    You look great running away from the facts.

    Parent

    I haven't denied any of my comments, Jim. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:23:14 AM EST
    Nor was I joking. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:51:24 AM EST
    Edger Hey, I believe (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:48:47 AM EST
    you weren't joking about the US/Israel 9/11 attack responsibility.

    Seen Rosie lately??

    Parent

    Look it square in the face, Jim. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:04:34 AM EST
    It won't go away till you face it.

    But as soon as you do it will shrink to the size of a gnat and you can flick it away with your little finger.

    Parent

    I must say Jim (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:02:07 AM EST
    You may want me to write about a different subject but I chose to write about this one.

    Your answer is all that was needed - "If you read my comment you would know the answer is, no."

    Which is my point. And my larger point is we need to demand truth in these discussions.

    You can make a cogent argument for why we must stay in Iraq. The one McCain makes is not one of them.

    YOU should demand better.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:44:15 AM EST
    My comment had nothing to do with McCain.

    My life is not centered around politics. If I can believe your moniker, yours is.

    As for facts, as I said, both sides claim many, some are actually true..

    When you write a post about Rudy's command center and leave out his reasoning on the "front page" that is not being "factual." Now that doesn't make you immoral or evil. It does show that you are a partisan.

    But let's admit it and have a debate based on that.

    So I invite you to go back and read my total comment. Your desire to ask rhetorical questions and then claim the answer is all you need is not exactly the actions of someone who wants a honest debate, but someone who wants to debate the mechanics of their interest, which is politics.

     

    Parent

    It was a good effort, BIg Tent. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 04:57:12 PM EST
    Let's add the final ingredient - respect for facts. With all due respect to my conservative friends here - respect for facts is lacking on their side.
    Unfortunately, the walls of denial are too deep in some...

    Parent
    Factual (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:51:53 PM EST
    Who cares if there are facts, skip the trial and just shoot the looters.
    Re: Murder or Treatment? (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    Squeaky you got it. Killing looters, good. Killing medical patients, bad.


    Parent
    Squeaky practices his tricks (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:09:19 PM EST
    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.



    Parent
    Tricks? (1.00 / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:10:36 PM EST
     What you said:

    Re: Murder or Treatment? (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    Squeaky you got it. Killing looters, good. Killing medical patients, bad.


    Parent
    Squeaky's tricks (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:59:41 PM EST
    Rather than take up off topic space and bore the audience, Those interested can see my May 14 comment at 8:31AM

    Parent
    Sorry Jondee (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:04:23 AM EST
    Gosh. I confused Squeaky with Jondee..

    Sorry Jondee...

    Parent

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:20:09 AM EST
    I have to admit (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    that as stupid as I sometimes portray Bush, I really have problems with the idea that he is incompetent.

    I doubt that anyone incompetent has a chance of becoming president, unless they are so unbelieveably stupid that they really can be just a hand puppet.

    It think it would show publicly more than it does, and I doubt he'd be able to carry off his deceptive 'just a dumb good ole boy' act if he was that stupid.

    Bush is a clown definitely, but I think stupid clown is a simplification.

    Owning the World - The Great Illusion:

    In the sixties and seventies, a group of right-wingers in the United States formed a society of vindictive and power hungry men who thought they could reinvent reality. Initially they received little notice and operated inside the American Enterprise Institute; that think tank became the womb for these megalomaniacs and their monstrous ambition of remaking the world. Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz were among them and the movement was to turn into a preposterous beast...

    The clown didn't have to do anything other than smirk and occasionally lift his hand in a fist; they knew that would be enough to impress the world and, in particular, the American people. Oh yes, and he would pretend to be one of the people, just like your cousin Dave or your next-door neighbor.

    Joshua Muravchik, American Enterprise Institute:

    We got lucky with Reagan. He took the path we wanted, and the policies succeeded brilliantly. He left office highly popular. Bush is a different story. He, too, took the path we wanted, but the policies are achieving uncertain success. His popularity has plummeted. It would be pigheaded not to reflect and rethink.

    But we ought to do this without backbiting or abandoning Bush. All policies are perfect on paper, none in execution. All politicians are, well, politicians. Bush has embraced so much of what we believe that it would be silly to begrudge his deviations.

    Calling Bush incompetent I think might be dangerously minimizing and masking real and deeper issues:
    Absolutely convinced we possess the right to pursue our "happiness" and "security", regardless of the cost to the Earth and the rest of its sentient inhabitants, we US Americans are in a race to hoard the most toys, to eat the most food, to have the most orgasms, to be the best looking, and to be the biggest winners as we engage in a repugnant orgy of narcissistic and gluttonous hedonism.

    We wage war perpetually, strip the world bare like a swarm of locusts, and give virtually nothing in return. Ensuring our "happiness" and "security" extracts a tremendous price from the rest of the Earth.

    Since it rose to military and economic hegemony at the close of World War II, the United States, its proxies, an array of US-installed ruthless reactionary tyrants, and the World Bank have worked in concert to slaughter, torture, and impoverish untold millions of human beings in the "developing world" in an endless quest to satiate our plutocracy's insatiable thirst for power and treasure.

    Bush, his henchmen, and their multitude of war crimes are not anomalies.



    Parent
    Who will provide the grand design? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:39:25 PM EST
    What is yours and what is mine?
    Cause there is no more new frontier
    We have got to make it here

    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

    --The Last Resort

    Parent

    They don't have to follow us (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Sailor on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:47:20 PM EST
    they're homegrown too!
    Extremist taunts his victims from prison

    Victims of Eric Rudolph, the anti-abortion extremist who pulled off a series of bombings across the South, say he is taunting them from deep within the nation's most secure federal prison, and authorities say there is little they can do to stop him.
    [...]
    But Rudolph's long essays have been posted on the Internet by a supporter who maintains an Army of God Web site.

    In one piece, Rudolph seeks to justify violence against abortion clinics by arguing that Jesus would condone "militant action in defense of the innocent."


    Religious wackdoodles will always be willing to kill folks who don't believe as they do.

    (p.s. Just like all those east asians that defeated our country when the domino effect happened because we left VN.)
    [/snark]

    Parent

    I would bet that (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:27:21 AM EST
    Eric Rudolph thinks he has faith in Jesus.

    Parent
    Sailor (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:31:26 AM EST
    The question becomes how many and the size of their support organization...

    All Rudolph is to you is a straw man to try and say the radical Moslems are no problem.

    Parent

    adjust the meds Dr (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:57:44 AM EST
    a violent christian terrorist organization that bombs and kills innocent people is OK with ppj.

    All Rudolph is to you is a straw man to try and say the radical Moslems are no problem.
    nope, never said or implied that. your insane personal attack just shows the depth of your mental instabilities.

    Parent
    Sailor misstates again (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:12:28 AM EST
    Your personal attack ignored...

    I didn't say that. I merely said that I think you use him as a strawman because anyway you look at it, his attacks are related to the abortion issue. That is self limiting.

    The radical Moslems attacks are not self limiting, and the total group size is probably a million times the size of the one Rudolph is involved with.

    It is then, a difference in degree.

    I like neither. But I tend to worry less about being hit by lighting as I do the associated tornado.

    Parent

    Paranoid delusions, Jim. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:29:12 AM EST
    the total group size is probably a million times the size of the one Rudolph is involved with

    The Al Qaeda Clubhouse: Members lacking

    [Before 9/11, Osama bin Laden's group was small and fractious. How Washington helped to build it into a global threat.]

    ..."up to 9/11, Al Qaeda could barely hold its act together, that it was a failing group, hounded from every country it tried to roost in (except for the equally lunatic Taliban-run Afghanistan) . . . This is the reality of the group that the Bush Administration has said would engage us in a `long war' not unlike the Cold War--the group that has led to the transformation of U.S. foreign policy and America's image in the world."
    ...
    Al Qaeda had 72 members when it was founded in 1989. Twelve years later, the task force got its hands on an updated membership list after a CIA Predator destroyed a building near Kabul during the American invasion of Afghanistan. The membership list was discovered in the rubble, along with dozens of casualties, including Mohammed Atef, one of bin Laden's closest aides. It showed that bin Laden had a grand total of precisely 198 sworn loyalists.

    What can we do about Islamic Terrorism?
    The Department of Defence defines Al Qaeda as "a radical Sunni Muslim umbrella organization established to recruit young Muslims into the Afghani Mujahideen and is aimed to establish Islamist states throughout the world, overthrow 'un-Islamic regimes', expel US soldiers and Western influence from the Gulf, and capture Jerusalem as a Muslim city."

    They're probably right. I think that's a good assessment. But, it's pretty much on a par with defining the objectives of groups like Fred Phelps and his band of christian(?) nutbars, or Aryan Nation, or Ann Coulters or Pat Robertsons followers, and bears no relation to these groups status or non-status as representative of the thinking and intentions of all people in their respective societies - Al Qaeda in Islamic countries, and the groups I mentioned in western Christian societies.

    There are crazy fringe fanatics in every society. Al Qaeda is probably a little bigger that the three I just mentioned, but is probably not anywhere the size of the group that supports bush's hegemonic fanaticism. There are no hordes of billions of insane Islamic killers out there about to wash over us in a tidal wave of massacre.



    Parent
    edger (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:44:45 AM EST
    Why don't you just admit that you are against a military solution??

    My point was, has been and will be that the issue isn't the number of radical Moslems, but that the Islamic religion and culture of the various countries seem to create radical Moslems.

    The Ft Dix 6 had ample opportunity to see America in a positive light but chose to revert to radicalism at the first opportunity. The same for the home grown, some second generation, in England, etc...

    This is a movement that spreads by being sure that those it exports through immigration, does not lose contact with its religion, and many religious leaders demands adherance to Sharia law.

    This is creating a problem we have never seen before.

    Parent

    There was a military solution. (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:58:29 AM EST
    In Afghanistan.

    But Bush ordered the military to held open the escape route for bin Laden, while he and Karl and the WH sold a paranoid delusion to the gullible.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:14:23 PM EST
    Parnoia becomes you.

    Keep proving it.

    BTW - Which movie sound stage did they shoot the landing on the moon??

    And do you know we actually had a car design that uses water for fuel??? But Big Oil killed the designer and destroyed it..

    Parent

    Face it, Jim. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 04:42:26 PM EST
    Be a man.

    Parent
    The selling of a paranoid delusion (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    to you and others to justify the Iraq invasion and occupation, and your supporting it, is what is creating a problem we've never seen before.

    Parent
    Re-iteration... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:51:37 AM EST
    [al Qaeda] was a failing group, hounded from every country it tried to roost in (except for the equally lunatic Taliban-run Afghanistan)

    This is what the bush administration propaganda machine sold to the gullible to justify the invasion of Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or with al Qaeda

    Paranoid delusion:

    The infallible test for identifying a peasant is whether he believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack. It is an unarguable fact, widely known for years, that Saddam was not behind it, yet large numbers of Americans to this day think that he was. In linking Saddam with 9/11, President Bush simply lied, for reasons that seemed good to him, but his lies are not my concern. I am concerned that he never produced evidence and it was widely publicised at the time that there was no such evidence, yet much of the country believed him.
    ...
    But why would anyone accept it? Only by suspension of all critical faculties, curiosity about American society, the wider world and indeed, one's information provider. I would also add indifference to the truth, which is crucial in matters of warfare and the lives of men. The American peasant cannot protect his country as he believes he is doing because by his indifference, ignorance and credulity he cannot differentiate truth from falsehood.


    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:03:54 AM EST
    Without any belief in your claim, I note that even if it is 100% correct, it has nothing to do with where we are at now, and what the problems are now.

    I again refer you OBL's comments I quoted in my response to Molly Bloom.

    And I again note that you display your distrust in democracy by calling those you disagree with, "peasants."

    Parent

    It has ::everything:: to do with it, Jim. (4.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:09:27 AM EST
    Because where we are now is the result of the WH success in selling paranoid delusion to you and others, to justify an invasion that had nothing to do with protecting you.

    Parent
    No edger. You are talking about the past. (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:17:23 PM EST
    And your interest is only in blame.

    As I used tell those worked reported to me.

    We need solutions for where we are at now.

    How we got here doesn't matter.

    We can worry about that after we're through here.

    Parent

    Paranoid delusions, Jim. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 04:28:17 PM EST
    Face it. Be a man.

    Parent
    Major cultural differences do not = (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:10:40 AM EST
    cultural war. Your argument does not hold water.

    They want us out of their country. Its the same position we would take if they occupied our country.

    The position we cannot afford is the one where the world sees our weakness as gross stupidity. Remaining in Iraq is gross stupidity.

     If you don't want the US  to be seen as weak, then I suggest you forget Iraq which has an Al Qaida affiliate that is maybe 7% of the problem according to the experts and go after the real thing- OBL and the remenants of Al Qaida.

    Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?



    Parent

    MB (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:28:24 AM EST
    It becomes a war when one side decides to enforce their culture on you. If you deny that is not the aim of radical Moslems, then you have a major problem with reality.

    As I noted, I give you France, Denmark, Netherlands,  the cartoon riots, the Koran riots, taxi cabs in Minneapolis, pork and checkout clerks in Minneapolis, footwashing basins in Minneapolis, El Al ticket counter attacks, 9/11, WTC I, etc., etc.

    Plus, I give you OBL's own words from this March '97 interview...


    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 ?

    OBL....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.

    Now you may want to quibble over the meaning of the "aggressive intervention," but I ask you. What were we doing from 3/97 onward that triggered the various attacks.. USS Cole... the attempt on LAX...9/11...

    In fact he means simply that we must not try and stop any Muslim from doing what they want, especially in the context of Sharia law vs secular law. And Sharia definitely controls cultural aspects of life.

    On that basis your attempt to cherry pick where the enemy is at is utter nonsense.

    Isn't your real position that you want ALL military action to stop and turn our strategy into the failed Clinton strategy of a criminal justice defensive one??

    Parent

    There was a military solution. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:23:36 AM EST
    In Afghanistan.

    But Bush ordered the military to hold open the escape route for bin Laden, while he and Karl and the WH sold a paranoid delusion to the gullible.

    Parent

    Several problems with your response (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    First off, President Clinton's policy kept us from being attacked by extremist Muslims for several years. After all there wasn't a single attack on his watch... except for the one we can blame on GHWB based upon the consevative precedent of blaming President Clinton for 9-11.

    2nd: "They" think we are imposing our culture on them. Or didn't you notice?

    3rd: I don't lose any sleep over Muslims demanding we kowtow to thier culture in this country. It isn't going to happen.

    This is not a call to cultural war:

    OBL....So (sic), 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.

    Look at it carefully Jim... what is OBL saying? desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world

    I don't oppose military action per se. I was for military retaliation* in Afghanistan. I don't oppose police efforts either. They are not mutually exclusive. You are the proverbial carpenter who only has a hammer and therefore see everything as a nail.

    (Note: I feared Bush would muck up military retaliation and I was correct about that)



    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:02:29 AM EST
    We are engaged in a cultural struggle.

    Yes ppj, your values, and way of life will go the way of the dodo bird. About time, too.

    Parent
    Yes, yes (3.66 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:20:55 PM EST
    It's a very dangerous world that we can't possibly begin to understand. Seriously, if there were some desire for a Grand Inquisitor in America, we would have hired Ratzinger.

    Parent
    What a spectacle (none / 0) (#1)
    by bx58 on Tue May 15, 2007 at 10:47:35 PM EST
    You have to forgive the doddering McCain.

    Rudy, on the other hand went for the gusto ie,  shilling for the millions of war-monger/neocon dollars that are still floating around out there.

    It was a surely a fatal blow to Ron Paul's candidacy.

    Heh (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 10:55:37 PM EST
    Ron Paul's candidacy.

    Heh.

    Parent

    The wider issue (none / 0) (#4)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:03:26 PM EST
    The SanctuaryPolicies that people like Gavin Newsom and RudyGiuliani support are similar to those policies that allowed the three Dukas to live here illegally despite having been arrested multiple times.

    One of the debate highlights was TommyThompson (who?) smacking down Alan Colmes on the Dem talking point of trying to support illegal immigration by downplaying the Dukas' illegal status. Anything to keep the cheap labor flowing, even if it means allowing terrorists to live in the U.S.

    Is this a wack baiting post, Big Tent? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:10:38 PM EST
    To give them a chance to show off their blinding intellect?

    Edger you have a problem with (none / 0) (#7)
    by bx58 on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:16:20 PM EST
    contrary opinions? Move to China or start your own country. Commissars to the left of me...

    See my comment to Jim (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:29:06 PM EST
    I think E looks for some respect for facts.

    It's funny because as I just told Jim, I think it would be great if we could have some honest debate here because we have alot of smart folks here.

    But we have to play fair with the facts. Otherwise what's the point?

    Parent

    I do, yes. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:51:32 PM EST
    But I will admit to impatience and a tendency, habit  now I think, to dismiss many from the right without debating with them much anymore.

    Mostly because of refuting idiocy hundreds of time and seeing the continually repeated same things brought up time and again, as if they had never been discussed. And seeing repeated, not simple ignorance, but wilful ignorance and simple pretending from them that their 'points' had never been answered or even raised before. As soon as I see those things I switch to rhetorical search and destroy mode.

    Marginalizing the segment of the right that does those things really is all I am after, now. It's a kind of weeding out process to find the ones that have enough on the ball to have understand fact and value reasoning and carry on an intelligent discussion.

    And there are many more than it might appear there are.

    Parent

    Edger (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:12:43 AM EST
    Marginalizing the segment of the right that does those things really is all I am after, now. It's a kind of weeding out process to find the ones that have enough on the ball to have understand fact and value reasoning and carry on an intelligent discussion.

    Shorter from egder:

    All those who disagree with me shut up and leave.

    I find that attitude in your own blog to be no problem.

    I find that attitude in someone else's blog to be totally wrong.

    It isn't your party. You shouldn't be trying to run off someone else's guests.

    And that is exactly what you admit to doing.

    Parent

    See my reply to your earlier comment. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:28:00 AM EST
    Edger be one smart cookie (none / 0) (#20)
    by bx58 on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:13:36 AM EST
    "It's a kind of weeding out process to find the ones that have enough on the ball to have understand fact and value reasoning and carry on an intelligent discussion." Got it.

    I'll just stop now. What's the point?

    Parent

    Exactly what I said. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:21:14 AM EST
    Thats pretty lame (none / 0) (#24)
    by bx58 on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:47:22 AM EST
    You have to do better than that. Answer man.

    Parent
    Sorry if it was beyond you, bx. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 04:00:53 AM EST
    Maybe this will help:
    "It's a kind of weeding out process to find the ones that have enough on the ball to understand fact and value reasoning and carry on an intelligent discussion."
    There I removed the extraneous typo. It should be should be clear enough now, even for you.

    Parent
    It might also help (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:19:52 AM EST
    if you read jimakappj's comment in this thread, bx.

    Parent
    Now do you understand? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:24:29 AM EST
    I missed that (none / 0) (#26)
    by bx58 on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:33:55 AM EST
    Funny

    Parent
    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:29:04 AM EST
    See my reply to you. (above)

    Parent
    Not at all. (3.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Edger on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:25:18 PM EST
    I get great chuckles from the wacks. Especially when they try to convince me they have opinions of their own.

    Contrary or not. But thanks for asking. ;-)

    Parent

    Did I imagine this, or actually hear it on NPR (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:20:37 PM EST
    [can't find the reference, although I've searched]?  I think I heard that the alleged terrorists got a map of Fort Dix from the pizza joint owned by the father of some of them.  

    Please stop the insults (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 16, 2007 at 07:11:38 PM EST
    and do not reprint comments that have been deleted. Thank you.

    survey of military and diplomatic analysts (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:47:16 AM EST
    Terrorists Following U.S. Home After Iraq Withdrawal Is 'Remote At Best'
    A new report from McClatchy debunks Bush's claim. Here's what the survey of military and diplomatic analysts found:
    U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States.

    Foreign-born jihadists are present in Iraq, but they're believed to number only between 4 percent and 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgent fighters - 1,200 to 3,000 terrorists - according to the Defense Intelligence Agency and a recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a center-right research center.

    "Attacks by terrorist groups account for only a fraction of insurgent violence," said a February DIA report.

    While acknowledging that terrorists could commit a catastrophic act on U.S. soil at any time - whether U.S. forces are in Iraq or not - the likelihood that enemy combatants from Iraq might follow departing U.S. forces back to the United States is remote at best, experts say.

    One U.S. intelligence official quoted in the article points out that "the war in Iraq isn't preventing terrorist attacks on America. If anything, that - along with the way we've been treating terrorist suspects - may be inspiring more Muslims to think of us as the enemy."

    So, the danger isn't that leaving Iraq will bring more terrorism to the U.S., but that staying there will.