Bush, 9/26/06
I think it’s a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe.
Reality, 9/27/06
The Iraq war has become the “cause célèbre” for Islamic militants, breeding resentment in Muslim nations and cultivating supporters worldwide, according to portions of a secret intelligence study the Bush administration released Tuesday.
(It’s also a straw man, because we “went on the offense” in Iraq for no reason while leaving our backsides wide open in Afghanistan and Pakistan)
James Fallows had a good article in last month’s Atlantic about this. The good side is that al-Qaeda has been fairly well disrupted. The bad news is that our leaders apparently have no understanding of the fact that our biggest setbacks have come from mistakes we’ve chosen to make: in particular, going to war in Iraq, and the constraints on liberty and compromises in our values we’ve instituted at home. Contrary to our President’s desperate claims, being “on the offense” often seriously fucks up our interests, especially when our interest is in winning people over.
“Because of al-Qaeda’s own mistakes, and because of the things the United States and its allies have done right, al-Qaeda’s ability to inflict direct damage in America or on Americans has been sharply reduced. Its successor groups in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere will continue to pose dangers. But its hopes for fundamentally harming the United States now rest less on what it can do itself than on what it can trick, tempt, or goad us into doing. Its destiny is no longer in its own hands… the real strategic threat from al-Qaeda is its ability to provoke us toward actions that hurt us in the long run.”
Conservatives — and most importantly, Bush — can’t seem to grasp this basic concept, and they’re putting us all at risk as a result.
Cue Dugger
– Too early to tell if war is successful blah blah blah
– I believe The Decider is weely, weely trying to do the right thing blah blah blah
– Must demonstrate unwavering loyalty to the The Decider because, really, what do WE know blah blah blah
– The Decider, Rumsfeld and in-field military personnel doing their best to make smart strategic war decisions blah blah bl …
Sorry, dozed off.
But (al-quida’s) hopes for fundamentally harming the United States now rest less on what it can do itself than on what it can trick, tempt, or goad us into doing.
Terrorist #1: Hey, Ahmed, I bet I can get all the Americans to take their shoes off at the airport.
Terrorist #2: I’ll take that bet!
At 1:12 today, Josh Marshall said almost the exact same thing based on the same article. That plagiarist!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010004.php
And here’s some more reality for you (or vs. you). You seem to have left out the next sentence of the NIE quote. here it is for you: “Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.”
If we leave Iraq, as the Dums propose, this will undoubtedly be perceived as our failure and their victory, inspiring more jihadis. On the other hand, a perceived US vistory in Iraq will do tremendous damage to the jihad. So which are you choosing?
ok, let’s just for a minute assume you have a valid premise nudnik.
How do we achieve “perceived US victory”?
We run around saying “WE WON!!!” a lot.
I figured, duros. Thanks.