The Democratic Strategy For Combating Terrorism

Published September 5, 2006 in 9/11, Democrats, Iraq and Terrorism.

Somehow I didn’t have to write up a 29 page document stuffed with filler.

24 Responses to “The Democratic Strategy For Combating Terrorism”

Feed for this Entry

1 factcheck
Sep 5th, 2006 at 4:20 pm

I did a PDF search of the 29 pages- bin Laden is mentioned ONCE.

“Many of the September 11 terrorists were from middle-class backgrounds, and many terrorist leaders, like bin Laden, are from privledged upbringings”

Iraq is mentioned 12 times. When will the Bush administration take terrorism seriously?
2 SaveFarris
Sep 5th, 2006 at 4:48 pm

Problem is, when we do actually capture/kill “them”, people of a certain political persuasion tend to pooh-pooh it.
3 Quaker in a Basement
Sep 5th, 2006 at 4:57 pm

Wrong again, Mr. Reading Comprehension.

People “of a certain political persuasion” call B.S. on the continually recycled claim that we’ve captured “the number 2 man” in the terrorist organization.

Let me put it this way: How do YOU explain the improbable fact that “Number 2″ has been killed or captured so many times?

Or do you even bother? Maybe you just accept the claim–no questions asked.

Don’t the Orwellian overtones of having each new headline contradict the old ones bother you at all?
4 Oliver Willis
Sep 5th, 2006 at 4:58 pm

I pooh-pooh the hype about capturing peripheral nobodies.
5 factcheck
Sep 5th, 2006 at 5:01 pm

“when we do actually capture/kill “them”,”

What’s this “we”? You finally sign up? Do you mean “we” Republicans? You don’t catch anyone.
6 SaveFarris
Sep 5th, 2006 at 7:05 pm

I was using the American “we”. You don’t want a part of that? It’s your perogative.

How do YOU explain the improbable fact that “Number 2″ has been killed or captured so many times?

We’re really REALLY good at going up, but not all the way up, the food chain.
7 Oliver Willis
Sep 5th, 2006 at 7:48 pm

You guys haven’t been interested in fighting terror. Not even remotely. The right sees terror and all it can think is “opportunity”.
8 Diamond LeGrande
Sep 5th, 2006 at 8:03 pm

The Right sees terror and ties it into the one thing it does well: win elections.

I don’t know if actually governing bores members of the Right or if they just suck at it, but I’m astonished out of the entire Right, no one has proven himself even adequate at governing.
9 Hollywood_Freaks
Sep 5th, 2006 at 8:05 pm

Republican strategy - Prevention. (they try this at least)

Democrat strategy - Revenge.

Why do you think the U.S public voted Republican 2004?
10 Diamond LeGrande
Sep 5th, 2006 at 8:18 pm

Republican strategy - Prevention. (they try this at least)

Democrat strategy - Revenge.

That’s the exact opposite of truth. The Republicans loudly extoll revenge, until it gets around to actually administering it. Instead of killing one terrorist, the Republicans bomb a village of folks who have nothing to do with the terrorists in question, aside from having brown skin and facing Mecca to pray.
11 MM
Sep 5th, 2006 at 8:22 pm

yes, we can kill them with a more sensitive war on terror.
12 factcheck
Sep 5th, 2006 at 8:24 pm

MM, do you have any idea what you are talking about? Lay off the booze.
13 Todd B.
Sep 5th, 2006 at 11:54 pm

I was under the impression we lived in a country that built it’s laws centered around the premise of a trial and jury? Why is the immediate response for *anyone* to be “Kill them”? How does that make us any better then “terrorists”? Have we not seen enough killing in our lifetime? Why do we have to have any policy, Democratic or Republican, that is centered around the theory of “An eye for an eye”.

Lest not we forgot that violence only begets more violence.
14 Don Myers
Sep 6th, 2006 at 11:45 am

Todd makes a valid point here. An eye for an eye is getting us nowhere.

I’d rather see Osama catured, interogated, and put on trial for all the world to see. I want the world to know that we are the good guys—not murderers and cowards like our enemies, but a nation of laws.

THEN, we can throw him in the deepest, darkest solitary cell we can find and let him rot.
15 factcheck
Sep 6th, 2006 at 1:18 pm

But first we need to find him- which the Republican administration is unserious about doing.
16 Dugger
Sep 6th, 2006 at 9:54 pm

“Let me put it this way: How do YOU explain the improbable fact that “Number 2″ has been killed or captured so many times?”

Think about that moment Quaker.
If we take out number two, then number three becomes the next number two. IE, there always a number two until there is only one left.

I can help with some of this stuff.
17 Quaker in a Basement
Sep 6th, 2006 at 11:21 pm

Think about that moment Quaker.
If we take out number two, then number three becomes the next number two. IE, there always a number two until there is only one left.

OK, now it’s your turn to think.

We seem to capture “#2″ with such regularity that we must have some way of knowing who just got promoted. If our intelligence is that good, where’s bin Laden?
18 Sketch
Sep 6th, 2006 at 11:42 pm

Nice one, Quaker. Dugger’s buried under talking points so it’s understandable he misses that kind of obvious logic.
19 Dugger
Sep 7th, 2006 at 8:43 am

Quaker,

You leapt across a great chasm there. Your logic doesn’t follow. You say, in effect, if we are smart enough to have a good idea of the AQ pecking order in Iraq, why don’t we know where the overall head of AQ is. Why do those necessarily follow? My understanding is, and I think it perfectly logical, that OBL is ultra secretive about where he is - dealing through a series surrogates etc.

We won major combat operations in Iraq, controlled the turf, and still couldn’t find Saddam for quite a while when he nearby the whole time.

Feel free to have a stab at answering also, Sketch. Or are you just me-tooing from the sidelines?
20 Quaker in a Basement
Sep 7th, 2006 at 4:29 pm

Dugger, if you want to unquestioningly accept that a virtual parade of #2’s have captured and marched off to Gitmo, who am I to complain?

It just smells like fish to me.
21 Adam Herman
Sep 7th, 2006 at 5:29 pm

If only all Democrats believed in find them/kill them.

Last couple of times we did successful missile strikes, I heard some whining from some lefty quarters that there had been no trial.

Oliver Willis of course has proven since 2001 that he’s no weeny about dealing with terrorists.
22 Elayne Riggs
Sep 7th, 2006 at 10:43 pm

Kill them? Whatever happened to “bring them to justice”? Martyrdom’s too good for these creeps, and we’ve already stooped to their savage level enough with our torturing and abdication of our own freedoms.
23 Sketch
Sep 8th, 2006 at 12:09 am

Dugger | Sep 7, 2006 8:43:07 AM

“You leapt across a great chasm there. Your logic doesn’t follow. You say, in effect, if we are smart enough to have a good idea of the AQ pecking order in Iraq, why don’t we know where the overall head of AQ is. Why do those necessarily follow?”

We disagree, Dugger, that Quaker’s logic ‘doesn’t follow’.

I think your understanding, as you outlined it, is basic, simple and naive considering The Decider’s earlier ‘wanted dead or alive’ proclamation followed by clear lack of interest in OBL months later.

I think your loyalty and faith in The Decider stems from your military background/experience and its requirement that you are committed and loyal, ultimately, to your Commander in Chief.

I think The Decider could openly and clearly break the law and be innocent, in your eyes, as long as he delivered the message properly and in his “ya gots to believe me” way.
24 Dugger
Sep 8th, 2006 at 7:57 am

Nevertheless, Quaker, it could have been a quite legitimate #2 and progressives are wrong to scorn the capture.

And Sketch, why does it follow that if our military and intelligence services know the AQ pecking order in Iraq, they MUST therefore also know the location of OBL?

Explain that or are you really a serious thinker. Quaker at least put forth his own original thought. Explain why.