It’s kind of amazing that this idiotic and treasonous statement from Bush has been practically ignored.
Pressed on why he opposed the idea of sending a large contingent of special forces to Pakistan to hunt bin Laden, Bush said his strategy was to work with Pakistan’s government.
“First of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation,” Bush said. “In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we’ve got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.
That’s right, Pakistan has a border, so there’s no way we could possibly cross it to apprehend or kill the man who murdered thousands of Americans.
Once again, we find Republicans on the side of Al Qaeda.
It’s also hard to believe it’s not more (which is to say any) of an issue since BushCo disingenuously used Kerry’s “global test” as a cudgel against him. They said that Kerry was going to ask permission to hunt down The Big Bad instead of just doing it. That was bulljive, now Bush is up to the real thing. Unbelievable.
Whatever happened to listening to our allies? Upholding our prestige within the World Community?
Let’s assume, for a millisecond, that Bush took your advice and invaded Pakistan? How long before Dems complained about an “illegal war”, an “unprovoked attack”, a “quagmire”, “creating more terrorists”, “abandoning our allies”, “Bush lied, people died” and all the other greatest hits we’ve heard over the past 3 years? My guess would be “instantaneous”.
Farris, that isn’t Oliver’s advice. Invading Pakistan is Bush’s doctrine. So, yes, dems and the anti-war left would be all over it. However, I doubt there would be as many Bush lied, people died talk because most of what Bush claimed falsely against Iraq is actually true in regards to Pakistan. Military dictator, WMDs, harboring and engaged in terrorism, threat to its neighbors.
“First of all, Iraq is a sovereign nation,” Bush said. “In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we’ve got to be invited by the government of Iraq.”
(I eagerly await Farris/Dugger/Jay/etc’s explanation of how that’s completely different.)
Actually, as someone who supported the invasion of Afghanistan I support the elmination of Al Qaeda no matter whose borders they hide behind. Unlike Republicans, I actually want us to kill and capture terrorists. Somehow winning an election pales by comparison.
A simple multiple choice quiz for the irredeemably stoopid:
1.)Which country actually harbored and trained mujhadeen fighters, many of whom went on to form al-Qaeda (this includes the big cheese, OBL)?
a.)Iraq
b.)Afghanistan
c.)Pakistan
d.)c and eventually b
2.)Which country actively traded nuclear technology and equipment with known terrorist sponsors and axis of exil charter members such as Iran, North Korea, and even good ol’ Libya?
a.)Iraq
b.)Afghanistan
c.)Pakistan
3.)Where do terrorists seem to like to camp out?
a.)In the Kurdish controlled North of Iraq, effectively out of Saddam’s reach.
b.)In the Kunar mountains, effectively protected by tribal factions and out of the government’s reach.
c.) a and b
4.)Which country actually has WMDs and ongoing ties to terrorists and the Taliban?
a.)Iraq
b.)Afghanistan
c.)Pakistan
5.)Which country recently decided that appeasement was the way to go?
a.)Iraq
b.)Afghanistan
c.)Pakistan
Actually, if we were to follow Bushco logic, since we are fairly certain Pakistan is harboring terrorists, we should invade India right away (they do have WMDs, after all). Still, there is no need to invade Pakistan ala Iraq (besides, it wasn’t the invasion that ruined Iraq, it’s the f*cked up occupation and pathetic reconstruction). Besides, aren’t we supposed to be allowed a certain amount of latitude where cross border operations are concerned (the whole “hot pursuit” thing)? Given the fragmented nature of Pakistan’s political/military/religious landscape, Musharraf really has his work cut out for him juggling those obviously sympathetic al-Qaeda and Taliban against his desire for stronger Western ties.
Nothing points out the bankruptcy of what passes for progressive thought than this.
Invade Pakistan to hunt for one individual. Complete and utter idocy. That isslobberknockin’ dumb
We don’t know where OBL is. Some suspect he is in Pakistan.
What if we suspect he has moved to another country under cover. Gonna invade them too? Gonna show the world that stupid little things like borders and national sovreignty are meaningless when progressives want to show up Bush.
We are actively engaged in Iraq, and Iran is problematic. Our forces are limited. The president and Congress decided to act in Iraq first.
Pakistan is SIX times as big as Iraq pop. and is largely Muslim. Even if he is in Pakistan, we would never find OBL with an uncooperative population – which is what they would be if we invaded.
Pakistan’s govenment is much more cooperative than Iraq, Iran etc.
Pakistan is more of a military force and the terrain is much, much more difficult than Iraq. An invasion of Pakistan will result in much larger casualties than Iraq.
There is very little economic or socio-political significance to Pakistan as compared to Iraq and Iran.
There are more reasons, but this is plenty. What total, utter breathtaking idiocy! Invade Pakistan, right.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/pakistan_throws.html
“The Pakistani military will no longer operate in the area where Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda operatives are believed to be hiding, according to terms of what the Pakistan government calls a “peace deal,” signed today with militant tribal groups allied to the Taliban and al Qaeda. ”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608310005
BUSH: We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you’re a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends.
So is this a Bush lie or a flip flop? Your choice. It was your president that promised to hold nations that harbor terrorists accountable. Now? Not so much.
“What if we suspect he has moved to another country under cover. Gonna invade them too? Gonna show the world that stupid little things like borders and national sovreignty are meaningless …”
For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
Dugger, in a nutshell:
1.)Iraq – no terrorist ties to al Qaeda – no WMDs – Invade!
2.)Pakistan – practically birthed al Qaeda – continues to harbor them and the Taliban – sells nuclear tech to “problematic” countries like Iran and North Korea – Appease them!
I’m not for any wholesale invasion of Pakistan (or any other country, Iran included), but the mind bending contortions Bush humpers go through to justify chimpy’s transparent hypocrisy are hilarious.
Unless they’re in Iraq. Then … “RETREAT!!!!”
factcheck
Are you wrong or full of industrial strenth Caca? Which is it? Show me where DOD or any of our intelligence services are saying that Pakistan is harboring OBL?
But you are going to invade them anyway, right? Tell me, when progressives do that and the body count dwarfs Iraq, will you and other progressives be outt here writing harsh posts about the current Democratic Admina and the death toll in the Pakistani quagmire? What do you ‘think’, hotshot? Still want to adhere to the brilliant progressive master paln of invading Pakistan and any other state somebody guesses OBL is in?
Sheer idiocy. There is no nice way to say it.
Bill L, fresh from your contention that US foreign policy and economic conditions are the roots of terrorism. As opposed to the Dugger theory that terrorists are the roots of terrorism. And I guess you are just for a small invasion of pakistan as opposed to the ‘wholesale’ invasion? Is that your brilliant strategy, Billy?
Maybe we could just give them alot of money – since economics are at the root of terrorism. H*ll, now that I think about it, just have progressive trillionaires Soros and Turner send their loot to the Ts direct – problem solved, right?
Yeah, buddy, progressives are really ready to run our foreign policy. ” I have those invasion plans for Pakistan, Russia, China and Iran ready to go President Gore. We are soooo much smarter and more moral than Bush.”
How much in aid do we send to Pakistan? Let’s see at least $3 billion dollars over 5 years.
That is US money going to a country that harbors al Qaeda, supports terrorism, threatens its neighbors, has WMDs, exports its WMD technology.
Bush only wants to invade the ‘easy’ countries apparently. Until his incompetence makes them completely messed up holes the US can pour its military and economic resources into.
Do we have to invade Pakistan? How about we demand that we get something for the $3 billion in American money Bush paid for photo ops with a muslim leader?
Seriously, Dugger, are you retarded or just ignorant?
“Osama bin Laden, America’s most wanted man, will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a “peaceful life,” Pakistani officials tell ABC News.”
I have never advocated invading Pakistan. It is your president who said
“We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you’re a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends.”
Flip flop or lie?
Notice how unhinged Dugger gets as the his hypocracy multiplies.
“Still want to adhere to the brilliant progressive master paln of invading Pakistan and any other state somebody guesses OBL is in?”
Quiz: Which progressive said this:
“We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you’re a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends.”
“Gonna show the world that stupid little things like borders and national sovreignty are meaningless …”
Oh mercy …
Dugger | Sep 20, 2006 10:00:45 AM
Jesus, when you’re not drinking and posting hardly legible words, you are a tiresome hypocritical son of a bitch.
“What do you ‘think’, hotshot?”
In a different thread, you conceded you didn’t KNOW how terrorists think. You finally conceded that people make JUDGEMENTS about how terrorists think. You posted your OPINION.
“Is that your brilliant strategy, Billy?”
It’s funny watching you lose it and twist other peoples’ names while you struggle to make your point.
I’m waiting for the frankd style meltdown, s. Though hopefully it won’t drive duge into “deviant lifestyles”
“Are you wrong or full of industrial strenth Caca?”
Dugger supports torture but he won’t write the word ’shit.’ See how ‘grown up’ he is?
Wouldn’t want to be uncivil, frame
/snicker
“Do we have to invade Pakistan?
Hey ‘fact’check and Midder, its the progressives here staking out that territory. I think its dumber than dogsh*t. But I take it both of you are now mind-numbed, -uhh- numbed Bushbots who agree with Dear Leader’s policy of NOT invading Pakistan.
frame, Does your spittle ever clog the keyboard?
BTW, still haven’t heard which agency it was that was saying that Pakistan was harboring OBL. Anybody? I mean I’m guessing it might be a good idea to have, like, an adult confirm he is there before we start a full scale war with the sixth largest country in the world – or do I not understand the sophistication of progressive foreign policy sufficiently?
Hey you’re waste in the Big Muddy on this one, boys. Better just keep quiet go back to Cardin vs Steele.
Yours ever so humbly, Dugger
“Do we have to invade Pakistan?
Hey ‘fact’check and Midder, its the progressives here staking out that territory. I think its dumber than dogsh*t. But I take it both of you are now mind-numbed, -uhh- numbed Bushbots who agree with Dear Leader’s policy of NOT invading Pakistan.
frame, Does your spittle ever clog the keyboard?
BTW, still haven’t heard which agency it was that was saying that Pakistan was harboring OBL. Anybody? I mean I’m guessing it might be a good idea to have, like, an adult confirm he is there before we start a full scale war with the sixth largest country in the world – or do I not understand the sophistication of progressive foreign policy sufficiently?
Hey you’re waste deep in the Big Muddy on this one, boys. Better just keep quiet go back to Cardin vs Steele.
Yours ever so humbly, Dugger
“BTW, still haven’t heard which agency it was that was saying that Pakistan was harboring OBL. Anybody? I mean I’m guessing it might be a good idea to have, like, an adult confirm he is there before we start a full scale war with the sixth largest country in the world ”
Change “OBL” to “WMD” and “Pakistan” to “Iraq” and you might have an argument there, dugie
“But I take it both of you are now mind-numbed, -uhh- numbed Bushbots who agree with Dear Leader’s policy of NOT invading Pakistan.”
Whaaaaa?
I’m old enough to remember when he had THIS policy:
“We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you’re a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends.”
Flip flop or lie?
Lets face it ‘fact’check. Bush supports NOT invading Pakistan. You, likeswise, support NOT invading Pakistan. Other progressives here support invading Pakistan. Sounds to me like your a mind-numbed, Valerie-Plame-outing love slave of Karl Rove. Now you know how Kerensky felt.
BTW, talking points arrive via courier every morning at seven.
What was that bit in the campaign about not seeking permission from other countries to protect America?…thekeez
I mean I’m guessing it might be a good idea to have, like, an adult confirm he is there before we start a full scale war with the sixth largest country in the world – or do I not understand the sophistication of progressive foreign policy sufficiently?
Yeah, that must be it. Since I haven’t seen anyone here saying we should invade Pakistan or anything.
Let me reiterate:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/pakistan_throws.html
“The Pakistani military will no longer operate in the area where Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda operatives are believed to be hiding, according to terms of what the Pakistan government calls a “peace deal,” signed today with militant tribal groups allied to the Taliban and al Qaeda.
“Other progressives here support invading Pakistan”
Who? Or did you try to read their mind? Nah, that can’t be it, you can’t possibly know what someone really thinks or knows, right?
Lie or flip flop? Which is it? Why are you evading the question?
Well, lessee, according to the 1% doctrine™, we should invade.
Dugger can only think in terms of “leave it alone” and “invade”. there is no other action possible, and he talks about the bankrupt ideas of the left.
Pakistan. We had heavy sanctions on pakistan because of their nuclear programs, sanctions we maintained until Bush repealed them after 9-11. In return for lifting sanctions, 3 billion dollars in aid, billions more in loan guarantees, debt forgiveness and debt restructuring, Pakistan was to be our Muslim Stalwart Allies in the War Against Terror despite their record of harboring Al Qaeda, dealing with the Taliban, and promoting terrorism.
They haven’t been living up to their end of the bargain have they? Are there alternatives to invasion? Cut our aid to them, install sanctions.
duggersez: Invade Pakistan to hunt for one individual. Complete and utter idocy.
Especially when you contrast it with the utter wisdom of invading to search for two individuals, as did Israel this summer. Makes a world of difference.
Keez
“What was that bit in the campaign about not seeking permission from other countries to protect America?’
Well since you’re the new guy (at least sig), what does your statement have to do with the issue at hand? Why exactly do we need to invade Pakistan to protect ourselves. Are you suggetsing we should invade Pakistan to find out IF OBL is thre? Otherwise, why invade?
Hey at least the progressives advocating invading Pakistan have a positon, a stupid one, but one of their own making. You second stringers have no position and don’t like anybody else’s position.
And hey what about my idea of having Soros and Turner send some of the $billons they just have lying around to end the econmic causes of terrorism. Isn’t that the eastsiest fix of all? If we give them money, they will like us!
buma, Doesn’t like Israel fighting back against Hamas.
One more time, Dugger, pay attention..
NO ONE HERE IS ADVOCATING INVADING PAKISTAN, YOU ZIPPERHEAD!!!!
Now you are saying that because OBL is on the loose he does not pose a threat to America…
I can’t brain anymore.
duger plan is to do nothing while furiously knocking down strawmen that say the progressive posters advocate invading Pakistan.
As a liberal poster to this site so cleverly said a few days ago
“Knocking down strawman never killed a terrorist”
What is the duger plan?
“Now you are saying that because OBL is on the loose he does not pose a threat to America…”
I’ve heard this RW meme for awhile and it is exactly wrong. Even if OBL was reformed from his evil, doesn’t he have to answer for his crimes? Not in wingnutland.
“And hey what about my idea of having Soros and Turner send some of the $billons they just have lying around to end the econmic causes of terrorism. Isn’t that the eastsiest fix of all? If we give them money, they will like us!”
He’s losing it quickly. I’ve never been a fan of “eastiest” fixes myself, I much prefer the westiest fixes.
We know where the WMD’s are; they’re Northiest, southiest, eastiest or westiest of Tikrit or ….something.
“Why exactly do we need to invade Pakistan to protect ourselves. Are you suggetsing we should invade Pakistan to find out IF OBL is thre? Otherwise, why invade?”
Um, please tell me then the new reasons for why we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, because I thought we invaded the first to get Bin Laden and Al Qeada and that we invaded the second to protect ourselves.
Now I’m not advocating invading Pakistan but if we’re supposed to take the Bush Doctrine seriously, and I’m assuming that Bush and his supporters do, Pakistan fits the profile of a country that we should invade. Far more than Iraq.
“frame, Does your spittle ever clog the keyboard?”
Go back on your meds torture boy.
Well now kiddies. OW says Bush’s statement that we can’t violate Pakistan’s sovreignty by sending troops across the border is “treasonous” and “idiotic”. Now I can assume one of two things: one, that, like ‘fact’check, OW has become a Bushbot and believes that a Bush policy he views as ‘treasonous and idiotic’ is actually the one he prefers; or that the stated alternative, sending a large contingent of troops across the border against the wishes of a sovreign nation (here in the south, see, we call that an “invasion” ), the ‘non-treasonous’-'non-idiotic’ alternative per OW, is the one he actually prefers. I’m assuming the second – that he prefers the ‘non-treanous’, etc.
How ’bout you guys?
“Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fools keep yelling to push on”
There are a couple of assumptions that I can add
3) that liberals rightly point out the difference between “We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid.” and giving Pakistan billions to harbor OBL.
4) Duggers an idiot.
“liberals’ Liberals???
Liberals don’t advocate invading a sovreign country to find a terrorist who may or may not be there, do they?
Come on, facty, deeper in the Big Muddy.
The only big muddy is in your alcohol soaked brain, torture boy.
How ’bout you guys?
torure boy, lol.
No, dugger, once again you have yourself muddied the issue. My problem with it (IMO) is the revisionist history that the Bush clan practice. Yesterday, anywone that harbored terrorists was a target, regardless of soverignty. Today, we gotta ask nicely. “Excuse me, if it isn’t too much of a problem, have you seen a 6 foot 4 diabetic Saudi around here and if so, can we have him?”
Black is the new white.
Ignorance is Strength.
OBEY
Dugger idly muses to himself.
Hmm. I could just declare victory and move on. The kids have given up arguing that ‘nobody is advocating invading Pakistan’. Even frame-the-frantic-hater asserts ‘Pakistan fits the profile of a country that we should invade’. But its really a lot of fun mocking ‘fact’check’s name when he asserts idiotic things like we paid Pakistan to harbor OBL. But then no other adults take that crap seriously and I’m probably wasting my time with them and maybe being a little cruel. They are probaly just kids who don’t know jacksh*t about the world. I think I’ll just declare victory and move on. This is two bad outing in a row for them. Wonder what happened to ‘chum’ and his Trotskyist conpiracies. That was fun. Man, the Redskins suck. Glad I’m not a fan of them.
“The kids have given up arguing that ‘nobody is advocating invading Pakistan’. Even frame-the-frantic-hater asserts ‘Pakistan fits the profile of a country that we should invade’.”
Um, Dugger, if you could please quote my full sentence:
Any idiot who could read would understand from reading this that:
1) I am not advocating the invasion of Pakistan
2) According to Bush’s own stated policy dubbed the Bush Doctrine, we had greater reason to invade Pakistan than Iraq.
3)By respecting Pakistan’s sovereignty Bush is repudiating/directly contradicting his own doctrine.
You are, apparently, both dumber than the average idiot and dishonest to boot. Newsflash.
But Frame, that is so 4 years ago. Bush doctrines from then are not necessarily followed today.
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Day is the new night.
Taylor Hicks is the new American Idol.
***wretch***
Dugger | Sep 20, 2006 5:43:13 PM
“Dugger idly muses to himself.
Hmm. I could just declare victory and move on. The kids have given up arguing that ‘nobody is advocating invading Pakistan’. Even frame-the-frantic-hater asserts ‘Pakistan fits the profile of a country that we should invade’. But its really a lot of fun mocking ‘fact’check’s name when he asserts idiotic things like we paid Pakistan to harbor OBL. But then no other adults take that crap seriously and I’m probably wasting my time with them and maybe being a little cruel. They are probaly just kids who don’t know jacksh*t about the world. I think I’ll just declare victory and move on. This is two bad outing in a row for them. Wonder what happened to ‘chum’ and his Trotskyist conpiracies. That was fun. Man, the Redskins suck. Glad I’m not a fan of them.”
Is Dugger drinking and masturbating while he’s posting? He thinks he’s ‘outing’ people …? WTF?
Shorter Dugger,
“I appease terrorists, just like my hero G. W. And a special kudos to Bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban for finding a safe place to wage war against civilization or freedom or whatever the hype of the day is.”
“Is Dugger drinking and masturbating while he’s posting?”
No, no, Dugger is just drinking. It was, apparently, Frank D who was masturbating.
The truth is, the Democrats have always believed we should pursue bin Laden wherever he may be. Bush never wanted to find bin Laden because he gave Bush what Bush wanted: an excuse to invade Iraq. If a Democrat had been president and had found and destroyed bin Laden, the right wing hicks would be screaming treason! Just like they did when Clinton bombed Afghanastan in an effort to kill bin Laden. The way you people define patriotism and defense is amazing. You have completely rewritten the dictionary and the Constitution to suit your agenda, which is to destroy the United Staes. Contrary to what Marsha Blackburn and the rest of you are desperate to believe, those of us who want to destroy bin Laden and al Qeada are NOT against fighting for freedom.