The Bush administration had Al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri in their sights, but let him go. Why would anyone trust a Republican to catch a terrorist? They have a horrible record on fighting terror.
» Breaking News
Uganda Cops Warn About Knock-Out Breasts
CNBC Forced To Cut Costs
Sumner Redstone Sells Midway Games To Ease Cash Crunch
Murdered Anchorwoman Anne Pressly Was Sexually Assaulted, Parents Say
Trish Stratus @ The Gemini Awards
OW. Sober up. Are you really advocating invading pakistan?
Because it would have constituted an invasion of Pakistan and the senior DOD personnel in charge decided the risk was not worth the potential gain. And since much of this is undoubtedly classified, who can say. Lets not forget the last time Democrats led us on a big raid - Desert One. Why has their judgment improved now?
I’ve noted seven million times that I do not care where terrorists are, and find the sudden sensitivity of conservatives to international borders to be ridiculous.
I do not care where terrorists are
… unless they’re in Iraq. In which case, we should leave them alone.
Desert One, hmmm, yes, that didn’t go well.
I did admire Reagan’s solution, though, of secretly dealing arms to Iran. That’s the flaw in our current terrorist strategy. We see them as deadly criminals when we should see them as a ripe business opportunity. Well, I take that back, I guess that is what’s happening…
I also concede to Dugger’s flawless argument that G.W. has 100% surrendered to al Qaeda. I mean, if Pakistan is like kryptonite to Bushco and the military, then I guess the terra’ists have won. Kudos.
Just out of curiosity, Farris, what percentage of the attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq come from terrorists?
“and find the sudden sensitivity of conservatives to international borders to be ridiculous.’
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is why the left can’t be trusted with foreign policy. No matter how bad W has or hasn’t messed things up, we simply can’t let progressives do it.
Lets examine Pres OW’s solution: invade Pakistan to get one man. Pakistan is he second largest Muslim nation in the world. Its population is six times as big as Iraq’s. Georgraphically its twice as big. So if we have say 3,600 casualties in Iraq, Pakistan, whom OW would invade, should give us about 6 times more or almost 22,000. And if you double that number for the georgraphy - say 44,000. To get one man and strike a blow at the hated Bush.
Yeah buddy. Let ‘em run your foreign policy.
Dugger, Shut the fuck up. Pakistan is supposed to be our ally, aren’t they? Why won’t they help us smoke out these assholes? Because Musharraf is beholden to tribal leaders and won’t let us look there? Why the fuck not? I thought Bush said you’re either with us or with the terrorists, unless of course your Pakistan, then that’s okay, I guess.
You guys are always so gung-ho about Special Forces and Navy Seals and shit, why wouldn’t you be okay with a small force going across the border and taking out some turrists? Suddenly you respect sovereignty?
Give to me a break.
First of all, OW, unlike Insta-whosits, never said we should invade Pakistan. Secondly, we have a REAL good idea where the Al Qaes Terrorists are (hint:not in Iraq).
Thirdly, if we did cross the border, why do you beleive that we should occupy the entire country?
Lastly, it isn’t all about 1 man, whom we should have apprehended 4 fucking years ago. It is about the organization that he runs. Apparently quite well.
We can’t launch a missile attack inside Pakistan because it’ll make the Muslims mad. You know there’s alot of Muslims in Pakistan? If they get mad at us, it’ll be really, really bad. Never mind the fact that we’ve already launched several missile and Predator attacks inside Pakistan, this time it makes Bush look bad to point out the fact that he let al-Zawahiri get away, so I’m totally against missile strikes inside Pakistan.
Seriously. Your first mistake is thinking I’m as fucking stupid as George W. Bush. You know how we kill a guy in Pakistan? We’ve got a lot of great guys in the armed forces who are real good at that, and we don’t need to invade and occupy anything to get the job done - they’re that good.
This is why cons can never be trusted with these things. Just too god damn stupid.
“When I take action (against Bin Laden), I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive.”
Don’t Republican revisionists
criticize Clinton for not invading? What happened to George Bush saying, “We’re going to get him. He can run, but he can’t hide. He’s wanted dead or alive.” ?
You go get ‘em, boy.
Invade Afghanistan to get one man? Invade Iraq to get one man?
When the party line changes, the party apparatchiks turn on the dime.
“Lets examine Pres OW’s solution: invade Pakistan to get one man.”
Take it away, G.W….
I guess the “…unless it’s Saudi Arabia or Pakistan” is implied…or something…
Again, kudos to Dugger for taking a brave stand and pointing out Bush’s hypocrisy and utter failure in the “War on Terra.”
How’s that trumped up war with Iran coming?
“We’ve got a lot of great guys in the armed forces who are real good at that, and we don’t need to invade and occupy anything to get the job done - they’re that good.”
And I say bullsh*t. One of the thrusts of the article was that the mission was already getting too big. Flying a multi-service military presence in with multiple C-130s and no doubt choppers and support personnel and crews and troops is going to seem like an invasion to the Pakistanis. How long do you think that government would survive in a huge Muslim country if they just stood by and let us trample their sovereignty. But maybe you know more than military planners who have done that all their lives and have had special training. That works in the comics and in James Bond novels but not real life.
I’m doing you a favor. Don’t make an invasion of Pakistan a cornerstone of your foreign policy. If you don’t like Iraq, you’re gonna hate Pakistan. Sheesh!
“Dugger, Shut the fuck up.”
That’s really all you need to say to this asshole.
Dugger, the Republicans attacked Kerry and the Democrats during 2004 claiming they wouldn’t let some other nation veto plans for American security. They also said they would get Saddam.
Republicans are worthless in this field. Everything they say is for politics only.
Hell, that’s true in every field.
The funniest (or saddest, take your pick) part of Dugger’s perspective on being more aggressive with Pakistan is that he seems to think we’d be losing some terrific ally or something.
“Gosh, if we did anything resembling protecting our national interests in Pakistan, they might rise up and do something nasty like sell nuclear secrets on the black market or provide safe havens for al-Qaeda and the Taliban or…oh, really? Oh f*ck…Never mind.”
It goes without saying that somehow this logic goes down the swirly when you change “Pakistan” to “Iran.”
And do we really need to bring up the genius of funding radical Sunni groups in the region in an attempt to destabilize countries like Syria and Iran when you have the Saudi backed Sunnis carrying out 90%+ of the attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq (and, let’s not forget the gift that keeps on giving, 9/11)?
How long do you think that government would survive in a huge Muslim country if they just stood by and let us trample their sovereignty.
Somehow this never came up when you morons were all rah-rahing the invasion of Iraq.
“How long do you think that government would survive in a huge Muslim country if they just stood by and let us trample their sovereignty.”
But we need to stay in Iraq to defend the iraqi government even through the majority of the muslim population there sees us as an occupying force that’s trampling their sovereignty. Fantastic, dugs, fantastic.
“How long do you think that government would survive in a huge Muslim country if they just stood by and let us trample their sovereignty.”
Wait.
Dugger…Dugger said that…
What the fucking FUCK? FUCK OFF.
You can’t have it both ways. Pakistan, objectively, would be much much worse than Iraq. So invading Pakistan is a dumb, dumb idea - unless its a strategic necessity.. And, guess what, boobinsky, we’re already in Iraq! Its already been invaded. You guys forget about that? The pres said yes, and the Republicans and Democrats (don’t you hate it?) in Congress not only said yes initially, they said yes year after year with the bucks.
Now, do I get this sweeping progressive brainstorm right that, uhh ,’since we are in Iraq and you don’t like that, we should invade Pakistan.”
Check in with me later with your brilliant answer.
Dear GOD shut the fuck up. Seriously, unless there actually is something you know anything about, stop talking, typing and communicating at all. Just stop.
“Check in with me later with your brilliant answer.”
Dugger you mindless asshole. Every complaint you have about the left can be applied more aptly against the right. Every one.
Forget the attempts to distract from the core argument that Bush is a total f*ck up on fighting terror. Given Bush’s own heated rhetoric, which I have quoted extensively here, do you, Dugger, concede that he has in fact allowed Pakistan to have, as Bush himself put it, “veto power” over our national security?
BTW, I love the “we’re in Iraq” argument on a blog where more than half the posts focus on getting out of said disaster. Well played.
Like I said, oh so tough on terror except when it involves good buddies like Saudi Arabia.
Who says invade? Merely go after the guys who attacked us who are living on the border of Afghanistan. Why let Pakistan give sanctuary to those who killed thousands of Americans? Are you a bin Laden supporter?
My goodness, this is a red-letter day. I get to agree with Dugger not once, but twice!
What he writes it true–you can’t have it both ways. If you think invading Iraq was a disastrous decision, you should see similar flaws in any argument about invading Pakistan. (Arguing that we’d only invade but not occupy the country is a cheap dodge.)
But Dugger neglects to point out the stinking elephant in the room: it’s the Bush administration that wants to have it both ways.
The Bushies resolutely ignored any complaints about “soveriegnty” or “Muslim sensibilities” when it gave the American public a convenient target for its post-9-11 rage. Suddenly, it seems they’ve got religion on the complexities of real-world international relations.
The pertinent question is: why so much sensitivity for Pakistan, but none for Iran?
Let’s see how fast Dugger goes back to having it both ways when the subject of Iran comes up.