When All Else Fails
Tweet
Your president will lie.
“Our troops know that they’re fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy,” Bush said in his weekly radio address.
“They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war,” he said.
This is how Bush responds to Cindy Sheehan asking him to talk to her about why her son died. He says 9/11 had something to do with Iraq. No shame.
25 Responses to “When All Else Fails”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I can’t believe Bush still uses the flypaper analogy even after the London bombing. Does it occur to Bush that terrorists could strike us here in America AND in Iraq? Does it occur to Bush that the number of terrorists in the world is not stable – that certain actions can increase the number of terrorists just as certain actions can decrease the number of terrorists, so it’s very possible that while we are creating a perfect environment to “fight them in Iraq” we are creating even more that will attack us at home. Worse, did Bush ever consider that some of these foreign jihadists will emerge from Iraq with battlefield training and will attack us at home more effectively than they would have without the Iraq training? The Pentagon seems to think so.
“Our troops know that they re fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere”
Elsewhere? Where’s elsewhere?
“They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war
Jeez, gimme a break! If the above words are not implying a terrorist attack like the one that happened on September 11, 2001 what the hell is he talking about? Car jacking ?
Where’s 9/11 in the bit you quoted, Oliver?
“I can t believe Bush still uses the flypaper analogy even after the London bombing.”
Why? Clearly the London bombers were home-grown amateurs, not international jihadis. The lack of large-scale and highly sophisticated attacks since the Iraqi war would seem to indicate that most of the highly trained terrorists are fighting and dying in Iraq, not running rampant in Western cities.
“Does it occur to Bush that terrorists could strike us here in America AND in Iraq?”
Obviously it has, as shown by the many sucessful anti-terror operations we have carried out in the homeland.
“Does it occur to Bush that the number of terrorists in the world is not stable – that certain actions can increase the number of terrorists just as certain actions can decrease the number of terrorists, so it s very possible that while we are creating a perfect environment to fight them in Iraq we are creating even more that will attack us at home”
To quote Osama Bin Laden, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, the naturally prefer the stronger.” By preservering against their terrorist attacks and helping Iraq towards democracy, we are showing ourselves to be the stronger horse.
“Worse, did Bush ever consider that some of these foreign jihadists will emerge from Iraq with battlefield training and will attack us at home more effectively than they would have without the Iraq training?”
There is no such thing as a veteran suicide bomber.
As for battlefield training, that tends to be most useful on the battlefield, not the home front. At any rate, our troops are benefitting from it much more than our enemies, as our troops have a vastly higher survival rate in combat, and are free to train in complete safety and security far from the front lines, unlike our enemies.
“Why? Clearly the London bombers were home-grown amateurs, not international jihadis. The lack of large-scale and highly sophisticated attacks since the Iraqi war would seem to indicate that most of the highly trained terrorists are fighting and dying in Iraq, not running rampant in Western cities.”
You have a somewhat strange definition of “large-scale and highly sophisticated attacks” if the London bombing does not qualify. So if terrorists do manage to bomb the New York subway, that would just be a minor skirmish by amateurs? That the only “real” terrorist attacks are ones that involve planes and falling buildings, or death counts greater than 1000? Tell it to the families of the victims of the London bombings.
“Obviously it has, as shown by the many sucessful anti-terror operations we have carried out in the homeland.”
Name one. An absence of attacks so far does not guarantee an absence of them in the future.
“There is no such thing as a veteran suicide bomber.”
Cute. You are assuming that all foreign jihadis are suicide bombers. Ignoring the ones planting IED’s. And the ones who have engaged in street battles with US forces in Fallujah and elsewhere. Those kinds of jihadis get very good at attack, escape, evade, repeat.
“As for battlefield training, that tends to be most useful on the battlefield, not the home front. ”
And planting an IED on a roadside in Iraq is different to planting a bomb on the side of a freeway in America during peak hour how?
Bush (and others) seem to be confused about what a terrorist is vs. what an insurgent is. The insurgents are guerilla fighters, repelling an invader. They aren’t trying to accomplish a political objective, but rather a tactical one – to kill enemy soldiers. They don’t plant IEDs to send a message – we already know the message, that they don’t want us there – they plant them to kill the enemy.
A terrorist is not a soldier, he doesn’t fight in units like an army, and he’s not going to go toe-to-toe with an army unit in a straight-up battle. A terrorist is someone with a message, and he uses violence to call attention to his message. He picks civilian targets, to maximize the emotional impact of his violence. It’s idiotic to think that our soldiers in Iraq are killing terrorists; the terrorists are where their targets are – in America, in the U.K., and other places. They have to be where the targets are, to plant the bombs. If you want to fight terrorism, you don’t start a land war in Iraq, so the “flypaper” analogy is just stupid.
And planting an IED on a roadside in Iraq is different to planting a bomb on the side of a freeway in America during peak hour how?
The insurgents plant IEDs in order to kill soldiers, to accomplish a military objective. Terrorists plant bombs to kill civilians, to accomplish a political objective.
It’s funny because a federal judge (a Clinton appointee) ruled that Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks.
Ugh – forgot the first link. It was supposed to be this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3118262.stm
Where’d you hear that from.. Sean Hannity?
Come on, even Bush himself has admitted that there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in September 11th. The 9/11 Comission also reported no link between Iraq/Saddam and 9/11 either.
The sad thing is that we’ve accomplished in Iraq what Bin Laden has been trying to do for years – replace a secular, democratic Iraq (as imperfect as it might have been) with a Islamic fundamentalist Iraq. It’s not exactly a secret that Bin Laden and Saddam hated each other.
When will people learn that you can’t respond to violence with more violence and logically think that that will solve anything.
It s funny because a federal judge (a Clinton appointee) ruled that Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks.
What was the judge’s name and when?
Did Todd B. just refer to Saddam’s regime as a flawed secular democracy?
That should have been “anti-terror”. As far as I know the homland is not yet being protected from ant-terror; although I expect we’ll get there eventually.
Um, yeah. Apparently, these successful ant-terror operations now include protecting airline passengers from drool.
Infants have been stopped from boarding planes at airports throughout the U.S. because their names are the same as or similar to those of possible terrorists on the government’s “no-fly list.”
(snip)
…”It was bizarre,” Sanden said. “I was hugely pregnant, and I was, like, ‘We look really threatening.’”
I feel much safer now, don’t you?
It s funny because a federal judge (a Clinton appointee) ruled that Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks.
Jay C. is once again caught telling a lie.
Jay C. is referring to default decision in a civil case in 2003.
Jay C. is once again caught telling a lie.
He forgets that not everyone is as stupid as your typical FOX news viewer.
“When will people learn that you can t respond to violence with more violence and logically think that that will solve anything.”
What trite and shallow nonsense. Responding to violence with more violence is how wars have been fought and won throughout recorded history Todd. Try learning about history through books, not by reading slogans on bumper-stickers.
Jadegold, once again, shows how FUCKING STUPID he is:
A federal judge Wednesday ordered Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others to pay early $104 million to the families of two Sept. 11 victims, saying there is evidence though meager – that Iraq had a hand in the terrorist attacks.
What a freaking moron you are and I’m really glad that you display your stupidity on such numerous occasions.
Additionally, Judge Baer noted Mylroie and Woolsley provided “classically hearsay” evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors’ descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists.
Better start drinking more heavily, Jay.
It’s really sad to watch Jay C. lie and then lie some more.
As the law.com cite I furnished earlier notes, this was a default decision in a civil case. A default decision means, essentially, the opposing side didn’t show up. In this particular matter, the opposing side was OBL and Al Qaeda–who didn’t make an appearance in a US courtroom for reasons that may even be obvious to Jay C.
Now, let’s review again what Jay C. originally claimed:
It s funny because a federal judge (a Clinton appointee) ruled that Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks.
In fact, Judge Baer ruled no such thing. He did rule that OBL and AQ could be sued as non-state actors. Once more, from the law.com cite:
There was no ruling linking Iraq to 9/11; all Judge Baer did was say–in absence of any other testimony–a jury might draw inferences Iraq had a hand in 9/11. More importantly, Judge Baer note Mylroie’s and Woolsley’s testimony was very short on facts and long on opinion.
Why does Jay C. even bother anymore? It’s just embarassing watching him destroy his amazing reputation for analytical debate.
ScottFree:
Kid 1: I’ve got this potion that will keep tigers away!
Kid 2: How do you know it works?
Kid 1: Well, do you see any tigers around?
That’s what your logic sounds like. Terrorists wouldn’t be “running rampant” in Western cities even if we hadn’t invaded a country that had nothing to do with al Qaida or 9/11.
Nice Lie, Oliver.
Laurie Mylroie says it’s true?
Good enough for me!
Haw.
>>vWhy does Jay C. even bother anymore? It s just embarassing watching him destroy his amazing reputation for analytical debate.
Huh? When did Jay get a reputation for analytical debate? (I assume this is sarcasm.)
Jay’s looking a bit frustrated with the left these days. Frankly, who wouldn’t be when you have to continually defend the mistakes and actions of an administration that sent 1,900 Americans to die in a “war” we’re all figuring out probably was not the best idea. I’d rather defend the guy with the girl and the blue dress.
I don’t think there is much doubt that many of these insurgents we’re killing in Iraq (and who are killing American troops) are terrorists, or potential terrorists. I’ve never bought into the Bush notion, however, that we’re taking the fight to them in Iraq.
Why? BecauseI think the *real* terrorists however are the ones that are in hiding, and/or living amoung us, waiting to strike us on our own turf, whether independently, or by order of some high ranking Al Queda nutball.
We keep re-living the question “What does Iraq have to do with 9/11.” I don’t particularly understand why we spend so much time talking about it when the fact is that we’re already IN Iraq. I don’t think it has much of anything to do with 9/11, but that doesn’t end this war any sooner, or get our troops home any faster.
We ought to be focused on the fact that this war, as it currently exists, is not going well. One GOP Senator worried publicly about it being similar to Vietnam.
I said it last week. This war, from the standpoint of achieving the objective of a stable, democratic Iraq, is lost. That has never, and will never happen.
Find a way to save international face on this one, and get out, and get out as fast as we can.
JK