Emboldening The Terrorists
Tweet
According to the logic of Bush/Cheney, the Iraqi government requesting our withdrawl is just helping the terrorists. That’s the sort of tortured idiotic logic one must have in one’s mind to be a Republican apologist. I almost feel bad for them.
29 Responses to “Emboldening The Terrorists”
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
Frankie creates a strawman; the fact is the Iraqis have wanted us out for well over a year.
Poll:
“Yeah. Uh, tribal sovereignty means that. It’s sovereign. Means you’re a — you’re a — you’ve been given sovereignty and you’re — viewed as a sovereign entity.”
I seem to recall that every Republican statement about withdrawal included the qualifier “as long as the Iraqis want us there”, as opposed to the Democrats’ statements which left out the statement, whether or not the Iraqis are screwed or not.”
December 2006 is a long way off, and there is many a slip “‘twixt the cup and the lip.”
I wonder what the counter argument totimetables will be from deadenders now? The Iraqis don’t know what they’re talking about? No doubt we will now enter the patently paternalistic phase of the occupation in which our simple Iraqi friends need our protection because they cannot adequately assess and determine what’s best for themselves. Now we must stay the course until the Iraqis can see the wisdom of our ways.
That’s the whole point Frank. Now we’ll see if the Bush administration keeps its word. Bush has repeatedly rejected the idea of timetables. Now the Iraqis want one. The clock is ticking for Bush to step up and produce a timetable that the Iraqis — not his rabid base — will be happy with.
The sad thing is that the very plan the administration often savages its opponents for voicing at home was quite likely suggested to Iraqi officials by the administration itself.
Great link Joseph. This administration is unbelievable.
frameone: I’m not disagreeing with that. I’m just inclined to believe that the Iraqis are capable of deciding if they are ready to take on al – qaeda, and I hope they will not let national pride get in the way of a sensible decision in, say, the fall of 2006.
JadeGold the Putz pulls a poll out of his hat, and says that proves something.
This is a legitimate government voice, and, of course, the fact that you could produce an older poll “nullifies” my statement.
Talk about a ‘straw man’ — your “poll” has nothing to do with a possible 12/06 deadline, nor does it refute the idea that the Iraqis can change their mind.
So your poll, like most polls, JG the P, is meaningless.
JH: Linking to yourself? C’mon!
And Juan Cole is a mideast expert? So are Thomas Friedman and Bernard Lewis. Why aren’t you quoting them?
Friedman and Lewis are not Mideast experts. I’m a little clueless as to what Friedman is expert, actually. He hasn’t done actual reporting in almost two decades.
Frankie, you’re amusing. The Iraqis are capable, but they would be capable of making that decision in fall 2006? These are adults, Frank, not children, but you’re treating them as children.
Certain of the right’s rhetoric is evergreen. What changes is their accounts of events that led to collective consent to grant war powers to George W. Bush…what was known by whom, when, what affect it had on their decision-making.
Another constant is the chronic smearing of anyone willing to differ. The administration refuses to admit their inital motive. They refuse to acknowlege the current state of affairs in Iraq. Anyone who endeavors to reveal the truth or to point out possible alternatives to their flawed and failing policies is labeled a traitor or coward, wanting only to “cut and run,” giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
Despite Iraqis voting, very little’s changed in Iraq other than Saddam is in jail, insurgents flowed in by the thousands, civil unrest escalates, and insurgent tactics/ weapons are deadlier.
Of course, establishing democracy wasn’t our original purpose, it was to neutralize Iraqs alleged WMDs. Then it became unseating Saddam because he was a genocidal tyrant ignoring UN Sanctions. Now we seem to be there to prevent an all-out Civil War, ensure establishment of a democracy in the middle-east and to honor the thousands of US and allied troops who have died there.
Two of these three are dubious at best: 1) Who are we to force democracy down another country’s throat when we can’t ensure an honest election here at home?; and 2) How does killing more people for a contrived cause justify those who’ve already died honorably defending lies?
Is it our part to fight a Civil War in Iraq, which this administration was repeatedly warned against long before we ever set boots on their soil? Because that’s what our continued presence there will entail.
Since its inception, justification for this ill-conceived, haplessly executed, tragic misadventure has changed more than the seasons in Vermont. Its affects may remain with us for centuries, if we manage to survive as a planet for that long.
“I m just inclined to believe that the Iraqis are capable of deciding if they are ready to take on al – qaeda”
And I’m not?
The Iraqis have wanted us out since day one; why do you think they keep blowing us up?
4 to 10%? Is that insignificant? Split the difference and you get 7%, or more than 2000 foreign terrorists.
The more important number is the 30,000 terrorists out of a population of 26,000,000.
I guess from the liberals’ perspective, 30,000 out of 26 million is “representative”.
Diamond: Are you a graduate of the JadeGold school of noncomprehension?
Thomas Friedman has been writing on the Middle East for years — if memory serves, a lot longer than Cole has even been publishing.
Bernard Lewis is recognized as one of the world’s authorities on the Middle East. You obviously have never heard of him.
Your last paragraph is, not surprisingly, incoherent. But if you think I’m viewing the Iraqis as children, I’m not. I’m saying that any new nation can be tempted by nationalistic pride to say, “Leave us to fight our own battles, we can handle this ourselves,” when in fact, they are not ready.
sooperedd: If you really believe that all these terrorists in Iraq are homegrown resistance fighters, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
“If you really believe that all these terrorists in Iraq are homegrown resistance fighters, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.”
How much for that bridge, Frank? Foreign fighters in Iraq are estimated to make up only between 4 – 10 percent of the insurgency.
“The relative importance of the foreign component of Iraq’s two-year-old insurgency, estimated at between 4 and 10 percent of all guerrillas, has been a matter of growing debate in military and intelligence circles, U.S. and Iraqi officials and American commanders said.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html
Come on Frank. Are you following the news? The insurgency is 90 percent Iraqi which is one big reason why the Iraqi government just declared that the insurgency has a “legitimate right” to resist the American occupation. The Iraqis basically said it’s only terrorism if the attacks are aimed at Iraqi civilians and institutions. Attack an American and, well, it’s legitimate resistance. If you want to call the insurgents terrorists that’s all well and good, but just remember, the people you want to bring democracy don’t see it that way anymore. It’s so like you to change your tune when confronted with the facts only to run head long into yet another fact.
More fact: Most pollsters rely on much smaller samples than 30,000 to determine representative opinions. Take for instance a recent poll taken by the British Ministry of Defense:
“According to the Telegraph of London, a poll commissioned by the British Ministry of Defense found that 45 percent of Iraqis believed that attacks on coalition forces were justified at least some of the time, and a staggering 82 percent of those polled indicated that they were “strongly opposed” to the presence of foreign troops.”
It’s true that 30,000 people trying to kill you may not mean much in a country of 36 million but certainly the almost 18 million people who think that the 30,000 might have a reason to kill you should be a cause for some alarm. Don’t you think?
“calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces … control the borders and the security situation” and end terror attacks.”
Put this up there with all those leak indictemets in Plame gate. The wording is such that the timetable is dependent upon accomplishment of certain goals which are the keystones of the Bush policy any way: end terror attacks, etc.
Read it and weep. Gonna have to hate Bush for old reasons over the Thanksgiving holidays.
Dugger
The State Department’s interpretation (per an interview of Condoleezza Rice on CNN) of that statement is that they meant “resistance, short of violence”, not “armed resistance against GI’s”. This has not been refuted.
The issue here is not whether the US’s presence is desired — I’m the average Iraqi would answer “no” to that poll question. The issue here is will the terrorism come to an end, if we go. In other words, is this a picture of Iraq’s future?
Or will it be this?
Dugger –
More willful self-delusion from the Duggster. Yes, the plan is similar to Bush’s plan in all respects except for the call for a timetable. The Democrats plan was similar to Bush’s plan, all except for the call for a timetable. Bush has specifically, categorically rejected the idea of a timetable. No one was calling for a timetable that wasn’t tied to the rebuilding of Iraq armed forces. Did you read the Democratic plan? The Republicans embraced ever part of it, except for the timetable. You are, again, living in a fantasy land. INdeed, you choose to live in a fantasy land because the facts are so patently obvious and easy to find:
Yahoo News, Nov. 19:
“President George W. Bush vowed on Saturday “we will stay in the fight” until victory in Iraq, rejected critics’ calls for a troop pullout timetable and insisted progress is being made in Baghdad.”
London Guardian, Nov. 20:
“President George Bush vowed yesterday to keep American troops in Iraq despite growing calls for a timetable for withdrawal that have prompted a bitter political fight in Washington.”
CNN, Nov. 15:
“The Republican-controlled Senate easily defeated a Democratic effort Tuesday to pressure President Bush to outline a timetable for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It then overwhelmingly endorsed a weaker statement calling on the administration to explain its Iraq policy.”
ABC NEWS, Nov. 19:
“US President George W Bush has rejected critics calling for a timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq in a speech to US troops, laying out why he believes the Iraq war is worth the sacrifice.”
Sure the State Department has their way of looking at it. The statement, however, would seem to include every victim in Iraq but the Americans:
“Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships,” the document said.”
At best it’s a deliberately ambiguous statement which cannot be very comforting to anyone who has family and friends serving in Iraq. One would think that the people we are trying to help, who want us to help them, would be a little less accomodating to the people who are trying to kill both them and us.
Call me a pessimist but let’s face it the Bush administration has to play up the possible pessimistic consequences of a withdrawal to make their argument for staying the course. If, as Democrats have proposed, the timetable for our withdrawal is based on clearly demarcated goals for standing up an Iraqi army, why should we automatically expect Iraq to meltdown into more violence once we leave?
Oh and in case you think I’m reading the statement wrongly and the state department is reading it correctly, there was also this from the same article:
“In Egypt, the final communique’s attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.
“Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships,” the document said.”
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/22/iraq.conference.ap/index.html
Dear God, no!
Shoot if you must, this old grey head, but spare Teddy Roosevelt’s enormous granite dome.
It’s so easy to be “anti -war”. No matter what happens, you come out smelling like a rose. Now you can say you made the withdrawal happen, and if it works out badly, it’s just evidence that we never should have been there in the first place.
Of course, when terrorists blow a hole in the Smithsonian, or Mt Rushmore, you’ll think of something.
It may be moot:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1515507.htm
Quaker you’re too much.
Frank –
It’s awfully easy to be pro-Iraq war too isn’t it? One day withdrawal and timetables are for cowards and traitors, the next day they’re both administration policy and no one bats an eye. If the whole thing goes up in smoke, the pro-war side will just as easily and quickly start crying “The liberals made us do it!” Completely ignoring the Iraqis, themselves, and the American people.
If you really believe that all these terrorists in Iraq are homegrown resistance fighters, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
You know, I suspect you don’t actually own that bridge. I think somebody sold you a piece of paper. Hope you didn’t pay too much for it.
More good news:
Nov 25 2005
DEBKAfile Exclusive: US Marines battled Syrian troops Thursday night after crossing the border from Iraq into Syria at a point west of al Qaim
Both sides suffered casualties. US soldiers crossed over after Damascus was given an ultimatum Thursday, Nov. 24, to hand over a group of senior commanders belonging to Abu Musab al Zarqawi s al Qaeda force. According to US intelligence, the group had fled to Syria to escape an American attack in Mosul. Syrian border guards opened fire on the American force.
Yes, frameone, it’s called “saving face.” The important thing, to me, is not whether the Democrats or the Republicans take over Congress in ’06. The important thing is whether or not 2000 men died in vain
Here’s a poll for you:
Overwhelming Majority of Iraqis Plan to Vote in December