My contention is that by invading Iraq, we created a state that promotes, expands, arms, and advances anti-American terrorism, as well as providing nearby American targets for these terrorists to attack.

ell, let’s see, the Brits foil a terror plot, using pretty much the techniques y’all say are illegal here.

Oh really? I’d say otherwise. Looks like the cons, once again, fail to understand the arguement at hand. We don’t have a problem with the wiretapping. We have a problem with the fact that they’re warrentless, especially since these warrents can be acquired retroactively.

If someone suggests that perhaps Arabic looking or named individuals ought to receive closer screening, you scream about profiling, and claim that’s a no-no, too.

Yes, because everyone knows that all terrorists are Muslim.

And the most prominent guy in your party who understood that just lost his primary campaign due to the hard left of your party!

I think that this can explain the issue in a way that even you can understand.

Mike: Who said that needless U.S. military invasions were the only cause of terrorism? Oh right, no one. And no, your ass isn’t a person.

Jeez, can’t you jackasses go for more than 5 seconds without making complete fools of yourselves.*

*BTW, this is a rhetorical question. You and I both know the answer’s “no”.

Mike:

So I think that your implication, “American military intervention causes terrorism” is false.

Whose implication exactly? Because it’s no-one here. Sure, plenty of people have said that the American military intervention in Iraq has stoked the fires of terrorism, but that’s not the same thing. Now. Is. It?

And no. You didn’t invade the UAE. You just gave them six of your major seaports to play with.

I hears this nonsense over and over again by people on the right who like to create mysths and repeat them over and over again until even they believe it to be true.

The hard left, Dana? The war in Iraq is unpopular with most in the middle as well. You don’t have to be an extreme far left liberal to see that the war policies of this administration are an utter failure. Though you do have to be a member on the far right fringe to believe those same policies are a success.

“Of course now Iraq is a terrorist hotbed, recruiting center, fund raising center, munitions dump, and shooting range.”

But Iran certainly is, and we didn’t invade Iran.

Sudan certainly is, and we didn’t invade Sudan.

Since the unilateral Israeli withdrawal The Gaza Strip is, and we didn’t invade the Gaza Strip.

The West Bank certainly is, and we didn’t invade the West Bank.

Lebanon certainly is, and we didn’t invade Lebanon.

Syria certainly is, and we didn’t invade Syria.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia both raise millions for terrorism. So does the UAE. We didn’t invade those nations.

So I think that your implication, “American military intervention causes terrorism” is false.

The Iraqi factions that are now engaged in “civil war” (much to the delight of liberals, I should note) were suppressed by Saddam Hussein through imprisonment, torture, and murder by the hundreds of thousands.

This is the same tactic used by the Soviet Union to suppress regional and ethnic factions. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, the fighting broke out again among those factions, and tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands died. Yet you would be hard-pressed to find even a liberal who would argue that those people were “better off” under the boot of the Soviets.

Likewise, it would be hard to find a liberal who would argue that continental Africans were “better off” under the colonial boot of the English, French, and Dutch. Yet millions of Africans have been slaughtered in post-colonial tribal wars and by violent post-colonial regimes like those of Charles Taylor and Idi Amin.

Before everyone misunderstands — I am not suggesting that the US removal of Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the sectarian fighting in Iraq. But what I am asserting is that sectarian violence is a common occurrence once the shackles of an iron-fisted government are removed from an oppressed people.

That being the case, I cannot understand why liberals are so quick to make the US into a special-case villain.

The Brits foiled nothing, it appears. Perhaps under pressure from the Bushies, perhaps because they sought their own screaming headlines, elements of the Blair administration blew the whistle on what looks like a lot of hot air.

The Timing is Political

There’s always the Hail Mary pass.

Next, Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror. Or more specifically Al Qaeda. Many on the left feel that going after terrorists in other countries should involve going to where there are actual terroists and getting them. Like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Where the governments give or gave them free rein and support.

Of course now Iraq is a terrorist hotbed, recruiting center, fund raising center, munitions dump, and shooting range. If this is the goal the pro-war nutjobs had for this Iraq invasion, one has to seriously wonder about their priorities and patriotism.

It’s one thing to say that y’all are for better security, but it’s going to be seen as a political platitude unless you can come up with real suggestions that address real problems, and aren’t being seen as tailored around political correctness bovine feces. If you are seen as caring more for the “rights” of terrorists than in preventing future terrorist attacks, no one is going to believe that y’all are the party of security.

One thing you’ve got to understand is the difference between good police work and fighting enemies. I’m seeing a lot from my friends on the left about using “good police work” in the war against terror. The trouble is, good police work is the investigation and solution of a crime that has already occurred. In fighting enemies, you go after them, and kill them, before they get the chance to attack you. And the most prominent guy in your party who understood that just lost his primary campaign due to the hard left of your party!

I’ll believe you on security when you present a real, workable plan, and get the main body of the Democratic Party behind it to support it.

I agree with your points, about Democrats coming up with national security policy. But the marketing hasn’t worked if the average guy in the street isn’t aware of the source of some good ideas.

I simply don’t think the Dems have done an effective job of marketing their ideas and appealing to the public. Lieberman was a mixed message to a lot of people. I liked the dude, but he was highly unpopular within the party because of his views of the war. But a person outside of the party like me doesn’t understand that.

The Pubs have honestly been dominating in the arena of marketing, an expertise that has traditionally favored Dems.

The abundance of easy targets in Iraq has really kept those terrorists busy. Good strategy, bring the targets to the evildoers so they don’t have to travel here. Helps with the immigration problem too. Breeelliant!

And Steve, remember the Department of Homeland Security? Democratic idea. Although I don’t think they included the all important crony affirmative action plan. Port security, upgrading first responder equipment, 9-11 commission, following the 9-11 commission’s recommendations, working with other countries to catch terrorists…

Republican initiatives: create a new terrorist breeding ground in Iraq, ignore afghanistan, ignore pakistan, antagonize Iran and North Korea into aggressively pursuing WMDs, ignore Osama bin Laden, encourage China to dramatically increase their military budget, expose CIA covert assets, spy on American citizens, spend as many resources investigating domestic anti-war groups as they do combatting Al Qaeda, reducing our military readiness, 9-11…

MMMMMMM, National Security.

The perps behind 9/11 was OBL. He’s alive, I know you don’t care, but some of us do.

Uh, maybe you should read a newspaper instead of RW talking points. Dems have been pushing for port security for years. Dems have also been a lone voice pushing for funds to secure power plants, chemical plants, and other potential targets. And we also want to direct Fatherland Security funds to cities that are at risk for terrorism, rather than use the funds as a slush fund for Chimpie contributors.