Reality Vs. Bush, 9/9/06
Tweet
Working with a fine coalition, our military went to Afghanistan, destroyed the training camps of al Qaeda, and put the Taliban out of business forever.
(via)
A suicide bomber rammed a Toyota sedan into a U.S. military convoy Friday morning on a busy Kabul street, triggering a blast that killed 14 Afghan civilians and two U.S. soldiers, officials here said. At least 17 other people, including a U.S. soldier, were injured.
Why? John Kerry explained it in September 2004.
“The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy, al Qaeda,” Kerry said in a speech at Temple University. “There’s just no question about it. The president’s misjudgment, miscalculation and mismanagement of the war in Iraq all make the war on terror harder to win.”
96 Responses to “Reality Vs. Bush, 9/9/06”
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
It’s probably past time for Bush administartion cynics to wonder if there ever really was any intent to make Afghanistan and Iraq safe, or to even want to win the bigger war on terror.
In Afghanistan turned out to be nothing more than a warm up to the assault on Iraq. There is an occupation dependency paradigm in Iraq under which many anti-war people now say it would be a mistake for us to leave.
The war on terror is but a slogan because of open borders, lax port security, exposed chemical and nuclear plants, and no strategy to win hearts and minds in the Muslim world (sans Karen Hughes, need I say more).
It seems only the cynics know that you can’t be a war time president with special war time powers unless the war keeps on keeping on.
Too bad the cons cut and run from Afghanistan, maybe this bloodshed wouldn’t be happening.
Source: Mullah Omar in Pakistan
The one-eyed Taliban leader Mullah Omar, who heads the religious militia fighting U.S. and NATO forc
Man, the quality of commentary on the left is going in the toilet.
As always Oliver seizes on and promulgates a terrosist incident as good political news for Democrats (and bad political news for Bush). So this creates the situation where every time a terrorist hurts Americans, Democrats don’t denounce the terroists , but score it as a political victory and brag about it. I
wouldn’t want to be in that position. Is there a Democrat out there who, when a terrorist commits an atrocity, has a thought or emotion other than, “Goody! That makes Bush look bad!”
Then Chum chimes in with the evident theory that the war on terror is a secret plot for Bush to get and hold on to war time powers.
And the dubiously monikered factcheck has the really intelligent theory that somehow we have are no longer in Afghan – that we have cut and run.
Dugger, what Oliver is doing is pointing out that our President’s declaration on November 23, 2003 turned out to be false. The Taliban was not “put out of business forever” and is now gathering strength in Southern Afghanistan and Pakistan. As far as I am aware, there is no signal that this is a success for Democrats, but I do get a strong sense that the news itself is bad for all Americans.
Sip some coffee Z. If teh terrorist attack is not good news for progressives, why is OW using it specifically to help Democrats get Bush – instead expressing outrage that terrorists have attacked Americans?
Dugger | Sep 10, 2006 3:19:39 PM
” …why is OW using it specifically to help Democrats get Bush – instead expressing outrage that terrorists have attacked Americans?”
Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnn … >
I think the time has come to say “Shut up, Dugger”.
Dugger, please help me understand what you think “expressing outrage” does exactly. I think we’re all a bit outraged by what’s happening, about billions spent on unnecessary wars, about the hollowing of our military, about letting OBL get out of Tora Bora, about sitting on our hands while Pakistan excuses the Taliban, about our inadequately staffing the Afghanistan theatre, about domestic targets left unguarded and on and on and on. Your outrage seems to get you more in a fighting mood to argue with war critics.
“Man, the quality of commentary on the left is going in the toilet.”
Priceless. You’re too much Dugs.
Once again, Mr. Bush boasts of a victory he doesn’t have in hand.
According to Dugger, to point this out is to celebrate terrorist atrocities.
And the quality of commentary on the left is lacking?
Quaker,
I saw no boasts about the terrorist incident Oliver is ballyhooing. Yes a while back Bush probably buried the Taliban prematurely, but we still maintain a strong presence there and in fact troop strength in S Afghan has recently been increased (despite ‘factcheck’s brilliant commentary). The current incidenthappened in Afghan – a place, in which, I’m repeatedly assured, progressives think we should be fighting. Yet we and others suffer a terrorist attack and the progressive response is not to condemn the attack but to score political points using the incident.
Therefore, terrorism becomes a political ally of progressives – it helps get Bush.
And yes, the left commentary when I made that post sucked. You look at them and defend them.
Six hours forty-five minutes is a long time in politics.
The reality is that we cut and run in Afghanistan, keeping only a token force, as the troops were needed elsewhere.
The search for OBL was terminated 6 months after it started. Why? Because the special forces were needed elsewhere.
The cons cut and run from Afghanistan and the gains we made there are rapidly eroding.
“Then Chum chimes in with the evident theory that the war on terror is a secret plot for Bush to get and hold on to war time powers.”
There’s no “secret plot” Dugger. The people who lay our policy through papers like the Clean Break or PNAC, and think tanks like the AEI who write our foreign policy
openly promote this strategy.
If I had to choose between the people running things being incompetent or having an agenda, it is clearly the latter. They first took over the Republican party, then Congress, then the White House, then the World Bank, the Supreme Court, and now they have their sites on the UN (although Bolton is the wrong guy for that job, unless the job is to marginalize that organization?).
The wholw WW III and Islamofascists are going to take over ther world is a cannard. Can you explain to us how people who can only find their way out of caves to occasionally blow something up can eventually take over the world?
Given more than a few seconds of reasonable thought it becomes as preposterous as it sounds. Unless of course you’re an idealogue who only trusts what you’re told by a like cabal of idealogues. Whatever happened to the critical thinkers in this country?
“”"”factcheck”"”" is it?
Out of curiosity, why did you choose the word “fact” in your name? You assert we have ‘cut and run” in Afghanistan? I see over 20,000 coalition troops in Afghan, and probably more, given ongoing reinforcements of the south. Is that your idea, “fact”check, of cutting and running?
http://www.cfc-a.centcom.mil/Information/Coalition%20forces%20in%20Afghanistan.htm
And chum, you are careful to say its not a ‘secret” plot, right. A plot, to be sure, but not a secret one. And gee, the same old sectret conspircay villains, though: PNAC, the World Bank, etc.
Good luck.
“”"”factcheck”"”" is it?
Out of curiosity, why did you choose the word “fact” in your name? You assert we have ‘cut and run” in Afghanistan? I see over 20,000 coalition troops in Afghan, and probably more, given ongoing reinforcements of the south. Is that your idea, “fact”check, of cutting and running?
http://www.cfc-a.centcom.mil/Information/Coalition%20forces%20in%20Afghanistan.htm
And chum, you are careful to say its not a ‘secret” plot, right. A plot, to be sure, but not a secret one. And gee, the same old secret conspiracy villains, though: PNAC, the World Bank, etc.
Good luck.
The difference between a plat and plan is that one is carried out in secret (a plot) and the other is published for all interested parties to read (a plan).
Again, you put it out there as being secret when it’s all openly published as policy statements.
It’s not a conspiracy, it is a movement. Neo-conservatives, Straussians, Trotskyists, whatever you want to call them control nearly all aspects of our government, and yes the World Bank too through Wolfowitz who has was an erstwhile neocon.
No hidden agendas, no secret societies, no regard for the rule of law. Just another group of power hungry elitists who want to secure the realm for the new century and beyond.
As the other power centers in the world line up to stop them it will all come to an ugly end. It doesn’t have to end that way if they can be stopped by Democratic means here at home. Unfortunately the sanctity of our votes is now sacrosanct.
The nuts aren’t the ones who read the diabolical plans, it’s “the fucking crazies” who write them.
Dugger, back in “blame America first” mode. No matter how much you try to insist that we didn’t cut and run from Afghanistan, we did. 20,000 troops to cover 650,000 square kilometres = 1 soldier for every 32.6 square km. When you figure that these are people operating in rotating shifts, most of whom are operating in logistics and planning, it is probably no more than a soldier every 100 square miles. If 140,000 soldiers in Iraq is an inadequate force, how is 1/6 the number for 20% more land and people not inadequate?
Nonetheless, the real issue isn’t the number of troops. The real issue is the lack of reconstruction funds and the failure to complete development projects due to security concerns. This is the issue over which earlier this year, you might recall, Hamid Karzai said he would quit.
Democrats are now talking in the Senate to authorizing more funds for troops in the south, re-opening the CIA unit tasked with bin Laden intelligence and money to combat the increased poppy production, but this is all triage after 5 years of neglect on Bush’s part.
Dugger, you are supporting a failed president and a failed policy. You are no longer with the majority of Americans but now with the angry and evil mange of the Right.
Hey Z, if 20,000 plus troops in place means to you we have cut and run, have at it. The debate needs to go no further.
Well, now Chum, I’m having a problem. First it sounded like a secret conspiracy you were fretting about. Then, OK, it wasn’t secret and now its not a conspiracy. Its actually an open plan for anybody to read and a movement that involves Neocons, trotskyists and the World Bank among others. Now I would think that to carry out sucha plan, sucha power grab i public with all to see and oppose – would be the act of utmost cleverness and care, but, no, the people who are bringing off this huge public plan are actually “crazies”. Well, how ’bout that. What a very special little train of thought you have, there.
Sip some coffee Z. If the terrorist attack is not good news for progressives, why is OW using it specifically to help Democrats get Bush – instead expressing outrage that terrorists have attacked Americans?
dugger hits the nail on the head again. Since when does anybody have the right to hold up failed Republican policy failure for scrutiny by the public? Only an America-hating traitor would mention anything classified by dugger as ‘bad news for bush’.
Dugger, 20,000 troops to neutralize 30 million people is not satisfactory. It is why the Taliban is resurgent and why there is unrest in the south. It is why trucks blow up in the friggin’ capital. Had we fought a single front campaign, redoubled our efforts to find OBL and actually committed resources to rebuilding this war-torn country, we’d all be in a different situation. But we didn’t… we discontinued our operation and now find ourselves facing a resurgent threat. I am not sure if you are dumb or just play dumb. Either way, your profound and willful ignorance does boggle the mind at times.
Hey Z, if 20,000 plus troops in place means to you we have cut and run, have at it. The debate needs to go no further.
If a Dem called for drawing down forces in Iraq to that level, we know what you would call it.
Yes a while back Bush probably buried the Taliban prematurely,
But so what? There’s no need to expect the C-in-C to level with us about how things are really going, is there?
Well Dugger, it was you who twice said it was a “secret” totally missing my intial point that it was not secret. It’s been around for 15 years.
The term “fucking crazies” referring to the neo-cons came from Colin Powell back in 2002.
Is the one who pays attention to such things the one with “special little train of thought”, or the one who doesn’t care to see the forest through the falling trees that too you make no sound.
“If a Dem called for drawing down forces in Iraq to that level, we know what you would call it.’
Laughable. Why would anyone, Dem or otherwise, call for arbitrarily drawing down the troop strength in Iraq to Afghan levels? Did you think about that before you posted it?
And you actually cannot possibly know what I would call it – though I concede ‘brainsplittingly stupid’ would not be bad guess.
buma, Your parents letting you back at the keyboard? Did you understand that terrorists killed a bunch of people, including Americans. And the first post I see here is one, not decrying the terrorist act, but one smirking about Bush. H*ll, you guys have the right to think and say terrorists attacks are good things for progressives. You just don’t enjoy the right to not hear that others of us think thats sicker than dog snot.
Dugger, terrorist attacks and attacks on our military are never good things, you SOB. You are slowly degerating from stupid to criminally stupid.
“If a Dem called for drawing down forces in Iraq to that level, we know what you would call it.’
But if Bush called for it, you know, as we prep for the attach on our real enemy all along, Iran, Dugger would hail it as necessary and brilliant, now that Iraq has a democratically elected government and an army that’s 85 percent up and running. Yup, 20 thousand troops in Iraq would be just fine if Bush ordered it because none of us have the right to actually judge the results of his decisions until we have the full pespective of history – in about 50 years from now. Only then will we be able to say with conviction that Bush is a failure. Meanwhile, just ignore the worsening situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney are the architects of a miserable disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any attempt to criticize their horrible decision making is met with more lies and distortions from you like the good rightwing lickspittle that you are. Oliver is not gloating. Neither is anyone in this thread. But the on going violence in Iraq and Afghanistan are the direct result of Bush’s incompetence. We should have total control over Afghanistan now with reconstruction well under way. We don’t. Not by half. I was opposed to the war in Iraq but going in I had ever expectation that we would succeed in deposing Hussein and rebuilding the country. Why? Because this is American we get shit done.
But that didn’t happen. We deposed Hussein but then fucked up everything else. Everything. Now we know that Rumsfeld was threatening to fire anyone who suggested that the Pentagon should give more attention to post-invasion planning and reconstruction. Rumsfeld bears a huge responsibility for the on-going violence in Iraq.
Meanwhile reconstruction stalled then stopped comepletely in Afghanistan where the Taliban is resurgent and opium production has returned to its pre-Taliban record levels.
You know Dugs, Bush didn’t simply bury the Taliban “prematurely.” He walked away from a job undone while trumpeting total victory to pump his re-election campaign. Your euphemistic misstating of reality is typical of right wing idiocy which you day in, day out exemplify in spades. You’re a joke.
Why respond to Dugger. He just regurgitates the same talking points. For istance he wants to pretend that everything is going swimmingly in Afghanistan, and then BOOM! “What! Oh, um, Damn you Liberals for rejoicing when terroirst attacks!”
How about Dugger return to reality (if this is his home planet that is). The Taliban is still there and gaining in strength, bin Laden is still on the loose, Warlords run most of the country, opium production is the number one export, the coalition controls about 10 square miles and violence occasionally strikes in that. We didn’t finish the job.
Laughable. Why would anyone, Dem or otherwise, call for arbitrarily drawing down the troop strength in Iraq to Afghan levels? Did you think about that before you posted it?
Yessir. Carefully.
And it has yielded exactly the result I intended.
Per Dugger: Drawing down forces in Afghanistan–not cutting and running.
Drawing down forces in Iraq–cutting and running, but only if a Democrat proposes it.
Quaker,
You may have thought about it but I don’t see the careful part of it.
Cutting and running is not the same as drawing down forces. We have plus 20,000 in Afghan. Cutting and running is just flat pulling out – regardless of theater circumstances. Say like leaving Europe in early 1945. Later after we won major combat operations in eurpoe we drew down forces. Saying we will withdraw all forces from Iraq by date xxx is cutting and running. And it is still butt-stupid to arbitrarily set the force level in Afghanistan as the force level in Iraq.
And it is still butt-stupid to arbitrarily set the force level in Afghanistan as the force level in Iraq.
Why?
It wasn’t “butt-stupid” to insist that 20,000 is the magic number for Afghanistan.
Quaker, do you need some aspirin? You know your conversation with Dugger’s just going to go around in circles, right?
“We have plus 20,000 in Afghan. Cutting and running is just flat pulling out – regardless of theater circumstances.”
Dugger, the fact that we never controlled most of the territory in Afghanistan, the fact that we never fully eradicated the Taliban and the fact that opium quickly returned as the staple crop are all indications that we withdrew troops from Afghanistan well before conditions on the ground merited it. We shifted our attentions to Iraq before the job was done. How about if we draw down to 20,000 in Iraq and shift our attentions back to Afghanistan, only we do it right this time? Is that still cutting and running?
Quaker
Force levels are dictated by circumstances in the field as judged by the onsite commanders. It has to be balanced against other defense considerations worldwide by the Cinc and SecDef. Force levels in Iraq are determined foremost by the assessment of military commanders on the ground there and the command structure. The force levels in Afghanistan have almost nil to do with the force levels in Iraq.
frame,
The truth is we will never fully control Afgahnistan or Iraq. And it doesn’t have to do with force levels. There is too much land and too many places to cover – even if it were only one of those states. And we are ‘too humane” as ‘occupiers’ (to suppress rebellion). Even if it were a fourth of one of those states. There will always be terrorist incidents in both countries. Like a bad arcade game, when we vacate one area, the trouble will pop up there soon thereafter.
The problem is not Iraq vs. Afghan -as I see it – its with the fundamental premise that we can change somehow those nearly medieval societies and make them democracies and thereby self sufficient, modern and humane. I don’t see it happening. That IMO is the fundamental flaw in the neocon’s ‘vision of hope’. I believed that two years ago, one year ago and now.
“The problem is not Iraq vs. Afghan -as I see it – its with the fundamental premise that we can change somehow those nearly medieval societies and make them democracies and thereby self sufficient, modern and humane. I don’t see it happening. ”
But we’re obligated to stay there, indefinately, allowing soldiers and civilians to be killed daily. Nice solution.
factcheck,
You’re not obligated to do jacksh*t. Adults have to deal with reality – not comic book make-up stuff. We are in Iraq. Period. We got there via Bush’s leadership but with support from both parties. The question is what do we do now. You want an easy answer -an answer that fits your cartoonishly simple vision of evil Republicans.
The dilemma is if we cut and run as most Democrats seem to want, we hand terrorists a major victory; we embolden them; we say to them -’we are weak and if you persist in attacks against us, we fold; we likely create a much greater bloodbath in Iraq; we weaken israel; and like it or not some believe (I do) we may well increase the probability of attacks on US soil.
OTOH if we stay, we are caught in a long, drawn out malaise involving never -ending sectarian violence – of which US soldiers are casualties. The latter is bad, but probably not as bad as the former. And we still can’t really say definitively that the neocon vision for Iraq might not work. The only answer is to continue to intensely train the Iraqis to do the job themselves.
Dugger | Sep 12, 2006 10:03:24 AM
” …we hand terrorists a major victory; we embolden them; we say to them -’we are weak and if you persist in attacks against us, we fold; we likely create a much greater bloodbath in Iraq …”
How do you KNOW what the terrorists think about us?
We can’t conjecture about Bush’s idiocy but you know exactly how the terrorists will think …?
“…its with the fundamental premise that we can change somehow those nearly medieval societies and make them democracies and thereby self
sufficient, modern and humane.”
Hilarious. You’ve always been a joke but now we can add that you’re a racist joke. Nice.
Dugs, you doubt that we can bring democracy to Iraq because of the nature of Arab and Muslim culture. Indeed you say of the President’s plan to bring democracy to the Middle East that you “don’t see it happening.” But somehow, in your mind, we have to stay in Iraq and keep trying otherwise the terrorists win. It’s simply unbelievable the pretzels you have to put yourself in to stay a Bush supporter these days.
So leaving American troops caught in the middle of a bloody sectarian conflict for another decade is the best way you can think of to prevent another terrorist attack on US soil? You’re a bigger moron than I thought you were.
Dugger | Sep 12, 2006 8:15:32 AM
” …fundamental premise that we can change somehow those nearly medieval societies and make them democracies and thereby self sufficient, modern and humane. I don’t see it happening. That IMO is the fundamental flaw in the neocon’s ‘vision of hope’…”
Dugger acknowledges that The Decider’s policies are flawed. Jay’ll be bummed.
S
We don’t know. I don’t know. You don’t know. So what. WE judge. I judge that terorists are backward, evil, murderous SOBs who look at retreat as weakness and weakness as vulnerability, and vulnerbility as a signal to attack. You trust ‘em if thats your thing. I don’t.
frame, Still tossing out the harsh insults. The people in the Mideast could be purple, orange and white and if their society is structured as it is now, I would say the same thing. Are you a racist frame for hating Bush and Republicans? They belong to a race and you clearly hate them. You therefore must be a racist – by your own logic. I demand you apologize to all people everywhere for your horrible racism! How does it feel to be a racist, frame? Are you a racist every waking second or just now and then? How many races do you hate? Are you proud or ashamed of your racism, frame? Which is it? Proud or ashamed of your racism?
Please answer all of these questions about your sick racism, frame.
I think we broke Dugger.
Good.
You know your conversation with Dugger’s just going to go around in circles, right?
New here,Sketch?
Dugger and I have been doing this for years.
Force levels are dictated by circumstances in the field as judged by the onsite commanders. It has to be balanced against other defense considerations worldwide by the Cinc and SecDef.
There you go.
“If George Bush says it’s right, I say it’s right–regardless of the results.”
Good work.
“Please answer all of these questions about your sick racism, frame.”
Oh please Dugs. From the very beginning Bush has held out the strawman that opposition to his war in Iraq stemmed in part from people who believed that Arabs and Muslims were incapable of democracy by their very nature. Now it looks like this wasn’t a strawman argument, he was talking about you, who believe that Arabs and Muslims are too “medieval” to live in freedom and democracy.
Sez the prez:
So dugger we can now count you among the racist “elitists” who don’t think Arabs and Muslims aren’t capable of democracy. The president says so.
You know, Dugger sounds a lot like my ex-wife sometimes. You say something, she hears it, it rolls around in her head for a while and then it comes back at you completely different from what you said. Or thought.
Just for once, Dugs, try to hear what people are actually saying. Terrorist attacks of any kind are bad things and I condemn them.
There, I said it.
The flippy-flopping bush is interested in getting OBL again. Which is something he used to be concerned about before he wasn’t concerned about it. This is what having a plan is all about, as anyone can easily see.
“So dugger we can now count you among’
frame, you can count the hairs on Hodean’s *ss for all I care. Racist.
duros,
Compliments to your X on her taste. I actually believe most liberals do detest terrorist attacks, so it is doubly unfortunate that every time one happens, the only thing one seems to hear from progressives is not outrage about the attack (which was gainst us all) but how bad this is for W. Lets not forget that when a T attacks this country, he’s attacking you, and progressives and Democrats just as much as everybody else. And that the fight against those sumb*tches is also your fight; and the casualties, your casualties, and the soldiers, your soldiers.The first thought in anybody’s mind should not be : “great, another blow against W” .
The first thought in anybody’s mind should not be : “great, another blow against W” .
Who thought that? Exact quote, please.
Not one naughty thought proven. Not one.
“frame, you can count the hairs on Hodean’s *ss for all I care. Racist.”
You’re too much dugs. By the president’s own definition you’re part of the problem, part of the racist elite! Time for you to go back to the Karl Rove Memorial Re-Education & Old Time Gospel Kamp.
September 8, 5:51 p.m.:
When you lose it you go cheap and dirty.
September 12, 2:15 p.m.:
you can count the hairs on Hodean’s *ss for all I care.
Mr. Pot, have I introduced you to Mr. Kettle?
duros,
Compliments to your X on her taste
Um, thanks?
Um, thanks?
I believe that falls under the “When you lose it you go cheap and dirty” category.
Boo freakin hoo Dugger. Bush put those soldiers in harms way. Bush fails to adapt. Bush spends his day telling us things are rosy so his sycophants can all pretend all is well, and when some of the soldier’s die, it isn’t a tragedy for YOU, it’s an embarassment. So shove your sick, false, moral outrage.
Most of the left wants those troops either out of harms way or in Iraq with a chance to accomplish some good, which would require a change in strategy, which Bush tells us isn’t going to happen every time he opens his mouth. How many of our troops have to die so you and George Bush can pretend Iraq isn’t a huge fuckup?
dugger says that the left wants bad things to happen to bush. But it’s 9/11 that bush has to be most thankful for. Karl Rove knows the attacks on that day have been the gift that keeps on giving.
Dugger, I am yet more confused by your line of reasoning than before. Consider the following:
1) Terrorists have proven post-9/11 that they can attack with impunity. See Madrid or London bombings, for example.
2) Terrorists’ numbers have approximately doubled as a result of our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan (where they also get hands on training.)
3) We continue to spend inadequately on domestic homeland security. And it is costing $100 billion per year and has cost 2,700 soldier’s lives.
You seem to buy all of these premises, yet you continue to support a policy because you don’t want to “let the terrorists win.” Step back for a minute and think about that.
What do they win? What do we lose?
Quaker in a Basement | Sep 12, 2006 11:45:58 AM
“New here,Sketch? Dugger and I have been doing this for years.”
LoL, not at all, Quaker. Been here for a while and changed my name after OW’s technical issues.
I felt compelled to be supportive at some crazy point in the argument merry-go-round is all.
How do you KNOW what the terrorists think about us?
We can’t conjecture about Bush’s idiocy but you know exactly how the terrorists will think …?
Dugger | Sep 12, 2006 11:16:55 AM
“We don’t know. I don’t know. You don’t know. So what. WE judge.”
Mmmm, don’t get it. You’re openly condescending and critical of anyone else who would respond like this.
But those weren’t America, and so they don’t affect Dugger’s carefully filtered statistics. Also they matter less, obviously.
zadura,
Your point 1. Terrorists have not ‘proved’ they can attack with immunity. They have had successful overseas attacks against weak governments – but few of those with your ‘impunity”. Four of the Madrid bombers were caught and took a self inflcited dirt nap.
2. Terrorist numbers have doubled? Who in authority says? Rand says its almost impossible to know because terrorists move around so much and that as they have recruited more, they have lost more. You or Harry Reid saying it doesn’t make it so.
3 Who says we are spending inadequately on homeland security. WE have had no attacks on our soils since 9-11. Perhaps you understand Congress appropriates money and it is a representative body.
S
You are wrong. Nobody on the left ever responds that way. The left is indelibly convinced they are right, moral and smart and everyone who disagrees with them, wrong, immoral and dumb. Show me a leftie poster that honest around here.
I’m not convinced everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, immoral and dumb, just Dugger. But then, he has worked hard to prove just that.
midderpidge | Sep 13, 2006 10:32:52 AM
“I’m not convinced everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, immoral and dumb, just Dugger. But then, he has worked hard to prove just that.”
Indeed, midderpidge. Dugger’s contemptuous of anyone who would dare to respond “We don’t know. I don’t know. You don’t know. So what. WE judge.” It’s OK for him but no one else.
Holy God, not only did you not attempt to refute my post, you effectively rubber-stamp it.
I felt compelled to be supportive at some crazy point in the argument merry-go-round is all.
I see. Thanks. Carry on.
Dugger,
The number of terrorist incidents has tripled, which could lead some to believe that the number of terrorists has increased commensurately. I know that most of the U.S. victims were soldiers which you always seem to exclude from your evil calculus, but they are also taking “dirt naps” in alarming numbers. Have you ever thought that it might just be part of OBL’s plan to have the U.S. tied down in foreign entanglements. He did afterall claim that as part of his plan.
Are we spending enough on cargo, portage, public transportation, chemical, nuclear and other facilities, the key vulnerabilities listed in 12.4 of the bipartisan 9/11 commission report? No. Are we spending 100 billion on wars? Yes. Just so you know, I don’t hold only the president responsible, though he’s certainly been historically incompetent. I also hold our compliant congresspeople responsible. Ultimately, that means I hold you responsible.
zadura,
This is going to be tough for you. I have already shown that terrorism incidents in the US and North America have declined dramatically since 2001. Don’t believe me – check OWs site – MIPT – and search terrorism incidents. In fact, the main problem we have are with progressive groups ALF and ELF. Why should statistics re Mideast and foreign terrorism drive an increase in US domestic spending – at this point?
And again Rand doesn’t agree that the number of terrorists have increased like you say. They say its too hard to tell.
And yes it might be part of OBLs plan to tie us down in Iraq. Or it might be the only fighting option he has since we are over there in force. Does it occur to you that when we weren’t in Iraq, they hit us multiple times at home – including 9/11. And that since we have been in Iraq the incidents have decreased here dramatically?
Does it occur to you that when we weren’t in Iraq, they hit us multiple times at home – including 9/11. And that since we have been in Iraq the incidents have decreased here dramatically?
Well, there you have it. Proof of causality.
Feh.
Off
The sad thing is, Iraq is not just a lost and losing series of battles in the war against terrorism, it’s a loss against Axis of Evil country Iran. We have managed to create a buffer state for Iran against us. Bravo!
“And that since we have been in Iraq the incidents have decreased here dramatically?”
How then, do you explain the eight years between the first WTC bombing and 9/11 during which there were no attacks on US soil? Wait, don’t even bother. You’re a total fucking idiot.
Thank you frame. My sentiments exactly. It is like arguing with jello.
No attacks since 9-11, but damn that one was a doozy. That alone should blow the Bush terror record for his entire 8 years all by itself.
“How then, do you explain the eight years between the first WTC bombing and 9/11 during which there were no attacks on US soil?” (the rest of frame’s hate-filled personal venom deleted)
Why should I explain something you got 100% wrong? MIPT data base shows 35 incidents 1993 to 2000 in the US. Thats an average of about 5 per year.
Anybody else? Maybe a little more of a challenge than frame.
“No attacks since 9-11, but damn that one was a doozy”
Everyone forgets the anthrax attacks. That perpetrator hasn’t been brought to justice either. I wouldn’t be surprised if that one is sitting in the White House.
“Anybody else? Maybe a little more of a challenge than frame.”
Coupla things here, dipshit. The
MIPT Database lists 64 terrorist attacks between Sept. 2001 and July 2006. That’s 64 attacks in 5 years versus versus 35 in 7. I’d say, according to your own logic and the MIPT database that terrorist attacks on US soil have DOUBLED. I guess that blows your whole moronic point out of the water then doesn’t it?
Now if you want to talk strictly Islamic terror on US soil Clinton has the same if not a better record than Bush on the score, especially if you want to count casualties.
So again, you’re a total fucking idiot. Case closed.
Can we call this reality versus Dugger?
84 incidents of terrorism in the US on Bush’s watch.
64 Since 9-11.
versus 45 on Clinton’s watch.
of the international terrorism incidents on Clinton’s watch we have 19:
9 Targetting Muslims
4 Perpetrated by Muslims
It should not go unnoticed that we are also losing 50+ soldiers a month at a cost of about $8.5 billion per month. Dugger doesn’t give a shit about soldiers because he’s a pen-and-paper patriot, but I certainly do.
According to MIPT this is the full extent of Middle Eastern related terror attacks in the US between 1993 and 2000:
That’s three individual shooting sprees, eight letter bombs (undetonated), one pipe bomb (undetonated) and the first WTC bombing.
Total deaths: 173
Now do you really want to continue on with this comparison?
Oops, I included the Oklahoma City Bombing number (168)in the total deaths.
So the revised total of deaths attributable to Islamic terror attacks on US soil between 1993 and 2000: 5
Shit, still missed one. The total of deaths is approximately 10.
Oh hey, I just noticed Dugger wrote this above:
“WE have had no attacks on our soils since 9-11.”
Now unless the plural “soils” has some significance I’m not aware of, Dugger, was also, to use his own words: “100% wrong.” Idiot.
z adura | Sep 14, 2006 1:20:47 PM
“Dugger doesn’t give a shit about soldiers because he’s a pen-and-paper patriot …”
OR does he suffer from such unwavering loyalty to the Commander in Chief, as a result of his military background, that he believes in sacrificing anything and anyone to support The Decider?
“How then, do you explain the eight years between the first WTC bombing and 9/11 during which there were no attacks on US soil?”
frame said the above. His ignorance was made public. He then screeched, spewed a lot more of his venom and then talked about incidents from 2001 forward – as if he never made the gross mistake I caught him on.
All in all, this has been a disastrous item for progressives: frame’s above embarrasing public ignorance, “”‘factcheck”"” announces we have cut and run in Afghan despite 20,000 plus coalition troops on site, chum (who the hell is he?) is talking about a conspiracy that is not secret and involves the World Bank and Trotsktyists and being successfully conducted by crazy people.
Well, let this be a lesson to you. Maybe the left won’t be so eager to jump on the next terrorist attack as some kind of progressive rallying point.
Well, let this be a lesson to you. Maybe the left won’t be so eager to jump on the next terrorist attack as some kind of progressive rallying point.
Rallying point? Bad for Bush?
Who said that?
Dugger, I will say this. We have not “cut and run” in Afghanistan, and you win the prize for the stupidest argument over that definition. What we have done is opened up two theatres of combat, neither of which are adequately staffed according to military brass and the conditions on the ground. So we’ve not cut and run, we’ve cut and bled.
Hey, I’ve got a great idea for the Decider. Let’s attack Iran!!!
Dugger,
Are you kidding me? This is what you’ve been reduced to? Wait, scratch that. You’ve been so full of shit for so long you’ve you’re comments are pure entertainment.
Simply put if you want to count a handful of random shootings as acts of global jihadism then Clinton and Bush have the exact same record on keeping terrorism away from American shores only Bush’s failures come with a higher body count, billions of wasted dollars, and the enmity of the entire world. I’ll take Clinton’s record over Bush’s any day of the week. You’re fucking joke.
Oh and Dugger, can I remind you this comment of yours from above:
“WE have had no attacks on our soils since 9-11.”
If this is your understanding what are you basing it on? Because if you’re basing on the MITP database you’re as dead wrong as you say I was. Because the MITP lists these two events as terrorist attacks:
2002: Description: Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian-born man, opened fired at the El Al Israeli Airlines ticket counter at the Los Angeles Airport (LAX), killing two people and wounding three others.
2006:
Description: One woman was killed and five other injured when Naveed Afzal Haq, a Muslim-American man, opened fire on the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building in downtown Seattle.
Now if these aren’t terrorist attacks in your book I’d love to hear why.
Ok Dugger, Bush cut and ran from say the 95+% of Afghanistan now in the control of warlords or the Taliban. Just like the 95+% of Iraq in the control of militias, al Qaeda, or in plain anarchy.
Sure, sure boys.
Give it another shot on the next item. Maybe you will have your act together by then (uhh, free advise, put ‘chum’ on the bench).
Dugger | Sep 15, 2006 9:48:40 AM
“Give it another shot on the next item. Maybe you will have your act together by then …”
OR hand Dugger a bottle and try to make sense of his post …
Dugger | Sep 13, 2006 8:27:07 AM
aprisoner
defcated
Pile of hair next to him. Gurads pull it out.
WHos ays?
Thats yourr Nazis, bubba!!
Oh, horrors, rap music and bad air conditioning. Impeach Bush!!!
“Give it another shot on the next item.”
You’re an idiot.
Shorter Dugger:
“I’m wrong from top to bottom so I’m just going to patronise you to try and make it seem like I’m the sane man surrounded by crazies instead of the opposite.”
Let’s see,
Dugger: outraged that Democrat’s would try to politically capitalize on Bush trying to politically capitalize on something Bush has failed to achieve.
Rebuttal: argument speaks for itself.
Dugger: is outraged and claims that US soldier’s dying is celebrated by those pointing out that their deaths give lie to what Bush claims.
Rebuttal: no one is happy our soldiers are dying. Dugger seems to be outraged, not by the real life tragedies that are occuring when these deadly and injurious attacks strike, but by the negative political implications they have on his Lord George W Bush.
Dugger: we did not cut and run from Afghanistan:
Rebuttal: Bush pulled out the majority of the special units searching for bin Laden and fighting the Taliban. The Taliban is reestablishing itself and the pro-US government and our coalition control very little of the country.
Dugger: but I want to argue semantics! Cut and Run means pulling out all our troops.
Rebuttal: silly us for thinking it had anything to do with giving up securing the country from being a haven for terrorists and the taliban.
Argument: terrorism has increased, nearly tripling in frequency.
Dugger: no attacks in the US since 9-11.
Rebuttal: no attacks on US soil during Clinton Admin after the first WTC attack.
Dugger Rebuttal: according to the MIPT there were 45 so hahaha Dumbass.
Rebuttal: according to the MIPT databse you cite, there have been 64 terrorism incidents on US soil since 9-11.
Dugger: I CLAIM VICTORY!
Mission Accomplished, Dugger, mission accomplished.
You’d think dugger would be tired from carrying those goalposts all over the place.