April 25, 2007

Rudy: Democrats Want A 9/10 World

Of all the candidates running for president, Rudy Giuliani knows best what a 9/10 mentality means in an age of radical Islamist terror. He had to deal with the aftermath of bureaucratic confusion and politically-correct counterterrorism on 9/11 and the weeks afterward as the mayor of a city who saw almost 3,000 of his citizens killed by terrorists. So when Giuliani talks about the folly of returning to the defense against terrorists, he knows of what he speaks:

Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani wrapped up a day of campaigning in New Hampshire on Tuesday night by issuing a stark warning that Democrats would put the country on defense in the campaign against terrorism and needlessly prolong a conflict that he said America can and must win. ...

"If one of them gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on the defense," he said. "We've got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We're going to wave the white flag there. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense."

Giuliani said he believes the United States ultimately will win the war on terrorism, regardless of whether the country is led by Republican or Democratic presidents, but added that Republicans will do a better job of keeping the country safe, with fewer losses.

"The question is going to be, how long does it take [to win that war] and how many losses will we have along the way. And I truly believe that, if we go back on defense for a period of time, we're going to ultimately have more losses and it's going to go on much longer," the former mayor said.

Giuliani called the war on terror "the defining conflict of our time," and that cuts many ways. The conflict will define political parties and movements based on how they approach it; it will define nations based on whom they support; and it will define an era based on who eventually prevails. Rudy wants to continue the forward strategy of engaging terrorists and their sponsors abroad with the American military, rather than allow terrorists to gather their strength abroad for an attack on the US, with law-enforcement resources as our only defense.

Democrats, he argues, want to take us back to the 9/10 national posture that allowed Osama bin Laden to finish what terrorists started in 1993. We imprisoned those we caught after the first World Trade Center attack, and the terrorists kept coming. After the Khobar Towers attack, we sent the FBI after the terrorists, and found out that our law-enforcement writ didn't extend to Saudi Arabia. The same held true after the African embassy bombings, as well as the attack on the USS Cole. None of these attacks prompted the US to use its military power to defeat the terrorists except in one-off missile attacks that did nothing to slow the enemy down.

Now we have Democrats who declare defeat from the well of the Senate, and who can't be bothered to meet with field commanders to determine whether American forces have made progress in Iraq. They have already decided that we have lost and have to withdraw back home. They want to roll back the Patriot Act provisions that have allowed the counterintelligence assets we have to work with law-enforcement personnel instead of against them. Democrats want to return us to the 9/10 posture, where all we can do is wait for the next attack -- because we will have removed our military from the region where these attacks get planned and staged.

The war will define our era and our politics. Either we continue taking the war to the terrorists, wherever we find them -- and we've found them in abundance in al-Anbar -- or we declare defeat and return home, awaiting the next attack. Rudy has made his choice clear.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rudy: Democrats Want A 9/10 World:

» A warning from Guiliani from Stix Blog
Guiliani thinks that if a Democrat gets elected, we willbe more vunerable to attacks by the terrorists. I agree, with the Defeatocrats waving the flag to the terroists in Iraq, what is to say they will stop and not come [Read More]

» Rudy: Democrats Want A 9/10 World from NoisyRoom.net
Courtesy of Captain’s Quarters: Of all the candidates running for president, Rudy Giuliani knows best what a 9/10 mentality means in an age of radical Islamist terror. He had to deal with the aftermath of bureaucratic confusion and politically-... [Read More]

Comments (44)

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 8:25 AM

This is one of the more rediculous talking poitns I've heard... and I think the current Dem leadership is not doing enough to make it uneffective for Republicans.

But it's interesting, I've read these two views this week:

"LONDON - The British government has stopped using the phrase “war on terror” to refer to the struggle against political and religious violence, according to a Cabinet minister’s prepared remarks for a Monday speech.

International Development Secretary Hilary Benn, a rising star of the governing Labour Party, says in a speech prepared for delivery in New York that the expression popularized by President Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks strengthens terrorists by making them feel part of a bigger struggle."


"Giuliani called the war on terror "the defining conflict of our time."

Two different philosophies. Personally, I'm with the UK on this.

I don't like all these grand statements that we're in the "struggle of our times" and all that. I don't like romanticizing this war.

It is what it is. And I think John Kerry had it right. We fight terrorism politically, economically and militarily... and perhaps most importantly through intelligence until we've properly minimized it. You know, his whole "nuicance" schpiel.

I mean, these are a bunch of f*cks in a cave and we're given them EXACTLY what they want. they want this to be a grand struggle of good versus evil.

See this article from the American Conservative:

"Other reasons, however—different, more powerful, highly practical, and astonishingly overlooked—argue against conceiving of the struggle as a war and, more important still, waging it as such. The reasons and the logic behind them are somewhat complicated, but the overall conclusion is simple: by conceiving of the struggle against international terrorism as a war, loudly proclaiming it as such, and waging it as one, we have given our enemies the war they wanted and aimed to provoke but could not get unless the United States gave it to them. "


I still believe Clinton's idea as to how to fight terrorism is the better method than Bush's.

Granted, Clinton was gun-shy. Was afraid there wasn't the justification or political will to bring engage in a large military campaign. But, if he had been president on 9/11, there's no doubt that hesitation would have disappeared.

In terms of fighting terrorism here and abroad, there aren't too many differences between Dems and Republicans. The BIG one being Iraq. You can be for fighting terrorism aggressively and be against the war in Iraq. Those are not mutually exclusive ideas. What republicans have done a good job in doing, and democrats have done a good job of enabling this, is painting oppossition to Iraq as opposition to the war on terror.

Basically, we need to fight the war on terror intelligently. And with Iraq, Bush and co. have shown beyond a doubt that they are not the people for that job.

First and foremost we need to:

A) Isolate terrorist and terrorist orgs. You do this politically and econmically. NOT by invading Iraq. That was the worst thing you could do.

We still need to get to step 1. While we try to get there, more and more are joining the ranks of AQ. We are not isolating them, but making them more popular, which is going to extend the "war on terror."

Bush's greatest blunder in fighting the war on terror was his statement "you're either with us or against us." He isolated the US instead of isolating AQ. And who ever is the next president is going to have to work hard to reverse that trend.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 8:39 AM

I love what Rudy is saying here.

It makes sense, he's communicating it clearly and it resonates.
This is exactly what we have not heard from the Bush Administration, who has been all too reluctant to confront the Democrats.

And he has a resume which far eclipses the unaccomplished lightweights the Democrats are offering.

Posted by TheRealSwede [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 9:06 AM

Tom Shipley,

"...First and foremost we need to:

A) Isolate terrorist and terrorist orgs. You do this politically and econmically."

You are right to say that there are political and economic aspects to fighting terrorism. But without the military option they often do not have the desired effect. You specifically mention Iraq. In that case there were twelve long and fruitless years of political and economic "action". It produced nothing but numbing stalemate and unparalleled corruption. You will, no doubt, disagree, but with Iraq the military option was all that was left to us unless we were to walk away and let Saddam's Iraq become an ever-growing problem for the region and the world.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 9:21 AM

The ME breed of human respects "force, strength, power" and nothing more...

I'm not making this stuff up; look at the history of this people. Any sign of weakness only emboldens them; this is a behavioral pattern with these people that dates back several hundred years. "Peace through strength" is the only peaceful times these people have had during their lengthy history.

Posted by lexhamfox [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 9:56 AM

Post 9/11 World Yawn.....

Pity we invaded Iraq and squandered our power there instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq was a beautiful gift to the perpetrators of 9-11 and Iran. Poor leadership and planning have led to this and that inept leadership was rather fond of the terms 'war on terror' and 'post 9-11 world.'

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 9:59 AM


This thread is quite apropos of the point I was made in thread below. Giuliani is spot on. The Democrats yearn for a return to false security of the pre-911 world. You are absolutely wrong in stating the Democrats want the same thing except for Iraq. Once they force a withdrawal from Iraq they will soon discover that Afghanistan isn't winnable either and will withdraw from there as well. Even if you accept the Democrat’s argument that Bush screwed up withdrawal doesn't cut it because of the cascading effects this abandonment of Iraq would have both in and out of the region. Even the Neo-Communists at the Guardian understand that. Furthermore, an American withdrawal after militarily insignificant losses validates Al Qaida strategy. I don't know why we continually attribute congenital stupidity to the Democrats when they have supported America's enemies since the McGovern years. This is a pattern of behavior. The Democrats see their interests in having the United States economically, politically and militarily weak. They believe a weak nation will keep Democrats in perpetual power and party power is all they care about.

Ultimately, the Pelosi-Reid Democrats are at best just like the leader of the Copperhead movement Clement Valllindigham, who to the end his days believed that all we needed to was return the country to the status quo ante and everything would be alright. The enemy, in this case the Confederacy, took a different view. When Lincoln exiled Vallandigham to the Confederacy Jefferson Davis kicked him out. The Confederacy didn’t want the status quo anti, they wanted Independence. Davis thought Vallandigham and the Copperheads were dishonorable traitors to their own country. This is how both branches of Islamicists view the Democrats. Useful infidels who are undermining the West’s will to fight but they shall suffer the same fate of all infidels…death or submission.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 10:06 AM

A very intelligent take on the situation now facing the U.S. in Iraq:

The last thing the Middle East's main players want is US troops to leave Iraq - Across the region, ordinary people want the Americans out. But from Israel to al-Qaida, political groups and states have other ideas

And no, this isn't a good thing for the U.S. Far from it, because it demonstrates the utter failure of the current strategy to accomplish anything at all, other than "surging the course" until January 20th, 2009 when it'll no longer be President Bush's fault.

Posted by richard mcenroe [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 10:09 AM

Tom -- Clinton's way got my family blown up in the WTC. Twice.

To hell, literally, with Clinton's way and all who sail in it...

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 10:13 AM


For someone who in his ignorance thought "a couple of submarines could completely blockade Iran" you certainly are pretty arrogant in your assessment about what could/should have done to fight in Afghanistan or the larger war against Islamicism.

Posted by Jack Okie [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 10:20 AM


I am just now wrapping up re-reading McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom". It is astonishing (and revolting) how similar the rhetoric from the "Peace Democrats" of 1863-64 was to today's edition. Of course, the "War Democrats" wanted to return to the Union of the status quo ante, leaving slavery intact. Rather than the donkey, the emblem of the Democratic Party should be the locust.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 10:23 AM

Rudy's stock just went up a bunch of points with me. He may be a semi-lib whose personal life is a disgrace and who I fear will trample the Second Amendment, but he's got it right in the most important issue: the war. Yes, it IS the defining issue of our time. Either we beat the islamofascists, or we resign ourselves and our posterity to eventual dhimmitude.

Tom Shipley wrote (April 25, 2007 08:25 AM):

I don't like all these grand statements that we're in the "struggle of our times" and all that. I don't like romanticizing this war.

Oh, shame on you! Hurting the terrorists' poor widdle feewings!

(rolls eyes)

What the hell DO you want to call it? The "police action of our times"? The "modestly important but far from defining issue of our times"? The "minor unpleasantness of our times"?

FWIW, I don't especially like the term "War on Terror" as it defines the enemy as a tactic. Our war is with Islamic extremists and the states who give them aid and support. It's not a war against "terror", nor is it merely a war against bin Laden or even al Qaeda.

Isolate terrorist and terrorist orgs. You do this politically and econmically. NOT by invading Iraq. That was the worst thing you could do.

How, pray, do we do this? Terrorists don't come from the Terrorist Republic of Terrorismstan; we can't look at their passports and turn them away when they try to get on planes. We can't build a wall around their country. Hell, as far as libs are concerned, we can't even lock 'em up, listen in on their phone calls, or try to trace their bank transactions. Economic isolation only works when EVERYBODY agrees to do it. Do you really think that Russia and Red China are going to embargo Iran, for example? The sanctions against Saddam were collapsing before we invaded, and I also recall libs whining (with considerable justification, actually) that the sanctions weren't hurting Saddam and his murderous regime, but rather were causing suffering and death among the innocent Iraqi people.

In short, please spare us the liberal shibboleths about how how to fight the terrorists, and how Bush is so incompetent and how he's blown it at every turn. He might not call every play exactly right (who does?), and he may have made mistakes, but at least he's got the right idea:


Posted by unclesmrgol [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 10:29 AM

I love the symbolism you have generated: "9/10 world" says it all.

Posted by lexhamfox [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 10:41 AM


Thanks for the usual personal attack but you have gone and falsely attributed a quote to me that I never made. I said that a single submarine could pinch Iran's oil exports by blocking Kharg Island. You obviously disagreed with that but a single submarine in the South Atlantic bottled up the entire Argentine Navy during the Falklands campaign.

You also said that the British servicemen would not be freed and that the only sane response to their incarceration was a robust military one. You even suggested that the British write off those servicemen. Whose arrogant and ignorant Jerrry?

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 10:56 AM


You are correct I was wrong about the quickness of the release but I was correct that Blair would effectively surrender to Iran's demands which they have. The Royal Navy is no longer interdicting Iranian seaborne arms shipments to Iraq.

You actually said two submarines not one. And my criticism still holds. Submarines are useless to enforce a blockade unless they conduct unrestricted submarine warfare. All Iran would have to do is either charter someone else’s ship or reflag tankers as third parties and a submarine would be useless unless of course you follow the WWI German policy of sinking neutral shipping in the war zone. You also show that you don't understand the military problem in your statement about blockading Kharq. Submarines don't enforce close blockades; they interdict sea lines of communications.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 12:03 PM

"While we try to get there, more and more are joining the ranks of AQ. We are not isolating them, but making them more popular, which is going to extend the "war on terror.""

This is just Democrat spin on their "surrender and play "defense"" strategy.

The Wahabist cause has been funding madrasses for 50 years. In failed states, the madrass operates similar to illegal drug rings in our inner city neighborhoods (y'know, the ones Democrat politicians have done such a good job of governing).

The madrasses educate, pay and produce jihadists by the bushel. It's not as if lower caste kids in Muslim failed states, can go to college and get a real job. It's either go to the madrass, or herd goats for the rest of their lives.

The madrasses teach the jihadists that the infidels are weak and can be toppled. The Democrats are proving them right. And what do primitive cultures do to enemies who are weak?

Rudy and McCain understand what we face. The unqualified, media manufactured Democrat candidates are completely over their heads when it comes to national defense.

Posted by quickjustice [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 12:29 PM

I was in NY on 9/11. I lost twelve friends and neighbors in the Towers. I saw Rudy Giuliani hold together our community and inspire our nation during the aftermath.

Rudy Giuliani has many flaws, most of them personal. I assure you that he does not want 9/11 to recur. No one who was there wants it to happen again.

Shipley advocates for a return to pre-9/11 policy. Clinton's policy failed. By his own admission, Clinton refused Sudan's offer to turn Bin Laden's over to the U.S. Sandy Berger hid the smoking gun evidence in his socks.

The Democrats own defeat.

Posted by Al_Maviva [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 1:23 PM

Tom, what are you even talking about, 'isolating terrorist organizations?'

That may have been a valid idea when communist terror organizations were Soviet, East German or Cuban funded, or even for the first generation of AQ, but the "AQ" as it exists today is a rump organization. A much greater threat is posed by national, semi-autonomous Islamic extremist groups and the nihilists / sociopaths inspired by AQ. 'Isolating' AQ is about as relevant to the existing problem as applying a strategy of mutually assured destruction in this context.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 1:30 PM

"The madrasses teach the jihadists that the infidels are weak and can be toppled. The Democrats are proving them right. And what do primitive cultures do to enemies who are weak?"

So if you're at a frat party and someone calls you a pussy for not shotgunning 10 beers in a row, do you relent and shotgun 10 beers in a row so you're not thought of as a pussy?

I personally feel that our strategy in Iraq is not working (in large part because of the fatal flaw of how, why and when we went in). I don't think it's good policy to keep our forces in there without a plan to get out. We don't have that right now... in fact the one semblence of any sort of plan was dropped last week (We'll step down and Iraqis step up) as we chose to move our focus off of training Iraqis.

You can make arguments about staying in Iraq, but using the "AQ will think we're weak" argugment is, well, weak. It's like saying AQ wants the democrats to win, so don't vote for them.

I, and I don't think we, as a country should allow AQ to dictate what we do based on what they think. We need to do what is best for our country and the region.

Iraq was a mistake. We did to figure out the best way to fix this broken country. I believe we need to start drawing down troops so Iraqis start to own their country. I don't give a f*ck if AQ thinks I'm weak because of that.

You're truly weak when you keep a bad foreign policy just to show you aren't weak. Well, maybe not weak, but surely stupid.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 1:39 PM

Isolating them means thinning their ranks. Means giving people in the middle east less sympathy for them.

It means presurring countries that support wahabbism (like Saudi Arabia and Iran) to crack down on that teaching. It means leading by example so that when people think "am I with the US or AQ" ... a choice they were given by our president... that they'll choose the US.

It means getting world support and making sure you have the moral high-ground whenever you use military force against AQ and terror groups. This is a PR as much as anything else. In short, we have to make people want to not support AQ. Force and threats won't do that. I mean, that's what spawns terrorism... hopelessness in the face of overwealming force.

Bush does have the right idea that we stop terrorism through providing hope. But he's gone about providing hope in all the wrong ways.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 1:46 PM

Sorry to hear that, richard mcenroe.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 1:52 PM

"Ultimately, the Pelosi-Reid Democrats are at best just like the leader of the Copperhead movement Clement Valllindigham, who to the end his days believed that all we needed to was return the country to the status quo ante and everything would be alright."

It's nice that you know all about the Copperheads. But no one is advocating that we get out of Iraq and stop fighting terrorism.

We just have to be smart about fighting it. Smart about using force. Iraq was not a smart move, and that's the biggest issue I have in how Bush is fighting AQ.

And on "listening to terrorists." (not sure if you brought this up or someone else). it's about listening to Americans to find terrorists.

Yes, it sucks that terrorists want to blow us up, but that doesn't mean we have to give up constitutional rights to be protected from unwarrented searches.

If we allow the terrorists to alter our own freedoms too much, then... well, you know the rest.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 2:02 PM

"AQ will think we're weak" argugment (sic) is, well, weak.

That isn't the entire argument. The argument is that the madrasses are producing the jihadists, not you cut n' paste Democrat talking point argument, that Iraq is creating more terrorists. That's the one that's "weak".

Because at the same time, the Democrats maintain that the Army can't meet their recruiting goals, because of the deaths in Iraq.

So, 3,000+ US military deaths means we should quit. 50,000+ terrrorist deaths? Join the cause, in the jihadi world!

The Wahabis (you do know who they are, don't you) have been building and funding the madrasses for over 50 years! They didn't open the day the Iraq War started, Tom.

And yes, "weak" is dangerous. Because if we win, we rebuild the country.

If they win, Al Qaeda slashes the throat of anyone who in the least assisted us.

So yes, when we look weak, it reduces the number of Muslims who will help us "isolate Al Qaeda" and it drives many to what they think will be the winning side.

"Well, maybe not weak, but surely stupid."

Yes, you're the bright one, Tom. Thanks for the brilliant insights, which are pretty much a warmed over blend of MSM truisms, along with Democrat talking points. Who do you think you're fooling?

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 2:08 PM


The madrasses educate, pay and produce jihadists by the bushel. It's not as if lower caste kids in Muslim failed states, can go to college and get a real job. It's either go to the madrass, or herd goats for the rest of their lives.

That's why going in there and trying to kill every member of a "jihadist" organization is not a viable strategy. First, you can't uproot something that deeply entrenched in the communities by force alone - not because it's impolite but because it's impossible to know your enemy. At least one face of the extremist groups are talking up, and providing security at a factional/milita level (brutally killing the opposition, but doing so in the parlance of a righteous war). Second, the havoc we are presiding over (I didn't say "causing") becomes another jihadist object lesson. That's not to say we haven't instilled some order, in some places, and at some times - but only temporarily and in limited measure.

These are the problems with the administration's obtuse handling of this endeavor. We keep hearing about the post-9/11 mindset and how everything is different, but the admin is not thinking in any recognizably new or innovative ways, that put military in the service of economic and political change. We are trying bravely, but it's not coming together.

A quick point on diplomacy. Neither Iran, Syria, nor Saudi Arabia (by which I mean their gov'ts) is comfortable with the religious extremists that they have always had to patronize, accept into their ranks. For the most part I do not think they view support for AQ and other militias/terrorist groups as such an attractive option. Governments like control, and they don;t have organizational control over the groups, no matter how many resources they ultimately finnel to them. Iran is obviously pretty comfortable with some of the more organized Shiite groups currently operating in Iraq, and do have a shot at taking over Iraq, but at that point Shite Iraq is not likely to be simply an extension of Iran under Iranian control. They KNOW they're playing with fire, and they very well could reverse course to some degree if we would open up talks with them. It is not incumbet on us to give away the store, but to shut down communication is insanity and one of the best reason to suspect that some of the wildest "Bushco" conspiracy theories are true.

I do not say that pullout is the solution and though I am to the point of despairing in the admin's leadership, still have hope in Petraeus and find the Dem leadership to be misguided. But as your statements about the madrassas suggests, religious extremism is a thread that has always run through modern Islamic culture, and the line between orthodoxy and extremism has generally been quite hazy. And though members of the culture have always had to deal with that thread, it has been rare that so many have been on such a razor's edge in having to choose it for the sake of survival. We need to present a better option, and tough talk about "cleaning house" (or what have you) is not cutting it - not because American voters said so (or whatever), but because it doesn't take the perspectives of Iraqis enough into account.

As for the voters, if they demanded anything last november, it was a change for the better. That's a reasonable request and our politicians should either be doing better or, indeed, getting out. I think most would prefer the first option, but Bush has been less than convincing that he is considering true strategic changes. What's worse, he has paid lip service to such change and reneged almost every time. Jan 2009 seems a long way off. Our next president doesn't have to a military expert - (s)he has to be authoritative, flexible, and superintelligent. It doesn't seem like too much to ask for the leader of the free world. I wouldn't rule Giuliani out for either my vote or for victory in the general election, though I don't think he has a monopoly on those qualities.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 2:09 PM

"not you (YOU MADE A TYPO!) cut n' paste Democrat talking point argument, that Iraq is creating more terrorists."

It may be a talking point, but it's also true...

"and the U.S. occupation has become a potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, top U.S. national security officials told Congress yesterday."


"The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document."


Posted by The Fly-Man [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 2:21 PM


Posted by docjim505 at April 25, 2007 10:23 AM

The logic of this not being played out by the current administration really confuses me. If Syria, now at AoE status and Iran are truly our worst enemies why is the most fundamentally important thing to maintaining our safety and literally our future, not being exercised? Sure Rudi does a great job reminding us of our shortsightedness and comfortable prone position we may assume with the democrats at the helm come next election, but with what Congress is he going to kill all of these mother Fuckers? If Bush is the Neocon's perfect president and Cheney is running the black ops stuff and even they can't get the cajones to attack Iran or Syria, what's Rudi gonna do, and again with who's Congress?

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 2:23 PM


But the Democrats are advocating withdrawing from the fight. If US military involvement is destabilizing Iraw and recruiting Jihadis so is our presence in Afghanistan. Right now Afghanistan is merely a foil for the Democrats to use to put on show that they want to fight an offensive war. Once they close down Iraq they will discover the same issues that we have in Iraq. If we leave Iraq then the situation in Afghanistan will deteriorate because it will release the Jihadis to come back to Afghanistan to fight. No, the Democrats don’t want to fight Islamicism anywhere. They just want to go back to the Clinton policy of law enforcement. They are much comfortable with futile gestures of sympathy to the victims then they are with aggressively pursuing an enemy that they really don’t believe exists. Sure they will lob a few cruise missiles and maybe this time take into custody Al Qaida leaders that some Muslim country my offer up but their ( and your) worldview the Jihad is all a misunderstanding and that we can come to an accommodation with Bin Laden and Iran. They (and you) are as childish and naïve as Clement Vallindigham.

One more thing. I am sure that Winston Churchill's defiance of Hitler in 1940 created more support for the Nazis in Germany. I guess he should have surrendered to prevent the creation of more Nazis.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 2:35 PM

Guiliani made a mistake.

You think only the GOP fights?

I guess you think everyone is blind, and Guliani has the one eye that gets him elected.

NOPE. A dumb move. SInce no one "predicts" the future; let alone pandering plliticians trying to make their campaigns work.

Some day? Well, Bush sits there. Having tried to do his schtick. PUSHED on 9/11 by the HOUSE OF SAUD!

See? I stopped believing in the CAVE MAN.

I know something about money. And, I know where the money for global terrorism thrives. In the hands of the SAUDS. Not just one strange brother. Or cousin.

For all you know? Osama was turned into a cave's spray painted walls & ceilings, back in Tora Bora.

He's not carrying a check book with him, however!

Now, for the terror to still exist, today, you'll notice that none of the Saud's mosques got touched. They recruit there. They get their suicide bombers. And, they even think it's a religious experience.

On par with most phony-baloney religious experiences that the Elmer Gantry's also cook up. Revival tents aren't for everybody!

And, snake oil salesmen can fool you until the day you die. But lots of others think swallowing snake oil is a dumb idea.

Bush went into Iraq. To get Saddam. Because the Saud's were more angry with him, than most others. (Except Iraqis. Who did look forward to the day he'd be gone.)

Then? Well it only took 3-weeks to get Saddam out of power. A few more years to get him to swing from the gallows. But to "give" Iraq government, we switched to offering them stuff that pleases Bush?)

And, you don't see a downside?

Maliki had to stop building the 3 mile long wall, to keep the worst of the sunnis, inside what's left of their own neighborhood. Because James Baker and his teammate Gates, are pushing to overthrow Maliki in Iraq, now. And, install ALLAWI.

The IRaqis don't want Allawi. The Saud's do, however! They still want what they sent Bush out to get! PROPERTY.

Their first list?

Half of Israel.



and, Iraq.

While Abner Dinnerjacket, seeing a fire-sale. Ran in and put down his bid. This is NO Clash of the Titans, folks. This is a clash between jerks.

It's as if Bush wants to see "all the tribes under one unit." On par with taking the Mohawks, the Chick-a-hawks, and the Crow. And, telling them to "pick one chief."

Okay. I'm sure we tried that, too.

Didn't work.

And, the Mideast is absorbing our money at a faster clip than using it for other stuff, would do. While the Sauds? They're watching us pay. And, they're building even more terror into the STINKING not-so-religion-of-peace.


It's okay. His dad didn't understand the kick in the pants, back in 1992, either.

But if you go back and look, it's NOT Ross Perot! It's George Herbert Walker, who thought he could move his mouth and LIE. And, not get caught.

Then? Dubya got angry.

And, in 1998 the HOUSE OF SAUD picked Dubya ta run in 2000. Sad to say their picks for us stink to the high heavens.

Let's see what fate has in store?

Sometimes, the Man Upstairs gives the Israelis a card. And, they're also players.

You think neo-cons? Boy, is the world bigger than that to the Man Upstairs! Besides. Bush's neo-cons are gone, now. Even Cheney has lost power to Condi. And, the other incompetent, AG Gonzales, shows ya that Bush plays with the weakest players on earth. Yup. He's in charge.

I can't wait for him to pack up and go home. And, take his affirmative action crap out of the White House, with him.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 3:03 PM


Who wrote the Times article, Jason Blair? Was he gone by 2005.

A bunch of "anonymous" sources, leaking against the White House. Big news.

Just happens to align with Democrat talking points. What a shock.

No concrete evidence of anything at best and at worse, lies.

In any case, abandoning Iraq will lead to massive Jihadi recruitment, to the murder of Muslims who believed in us and to the instability of the governments who helped us.

I can't think of a more irresponsible idea than to abandon Iraq, but then there is no more irresponsible, unaccounable and contemptable people than today's Democrat Party.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 3:39 PM

Can't use the media bias crutch on this one, Donk. Sorry...


Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 3:43 PM

Anyone who advocates that we abandon Iraq loses, for all eternity, any moral high ground for any humanitarian enterprise anywhere.

Such people are broadcasting two messages loud and clear to the whole planet:

1) We don't believe in democracy (and/or brown-skinned people of the middle east) enough to help the Iraqis. Democracy is not worth it.
2) If you want a democracy in your country, you will get no help from us. You are on your own.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 3:55 PM

Tom, did you even read the article you linked to?

"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

This supports what I'm saying.

The rest of it is pretty general, with no supporting documentation. I thought we were supposed to be sceptical of intelligence on terrorism. You seem pretty convinced the Republicans manipulated intelligence; are you really going to tell us Democrats would never stoop to that level?

Posted by jr565 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 3:55 PM

The dems and liberals are playing a dangerous game with Iraq, which, if they have their way, will redound on all actions against terrorism and Al Qaeda because it will dictate all future actions.
They point out that we lost friends because of our actions in Iraq, but back when we were friends with France, Germany and Russia they were playing the oil for food game, and undermining our security for their oil profits. On the backs of Iraqis. No blood for oil for food. Point being, our friends were never that close and to keep the international friendship going, we weren't and aren't exactly solving the issues that we are facing. Count Darfur, Rwanda, Iran, Syria any international crisis. So long as Russia or France or Germany decides to not go along we are stuck causing the problems to fester. We can't even get the international community to agree that there is genocide in the Sudan.
But now the dems have given the enemies the template as to how to beat us every time. Car bombs. We can't face more than the minimum number of casualties before we run. Wars too expensive and we bolt. Quagmires are scary. Every single trope that the dems level against Iraq which seemingly invalidates that war also invalidates fighting against Al Qaeda at all. If we become the targets then the war is lost. If we're in a quagmire then the war is lost. If after a few years the war isn't over then the war is lost. If it's too expensive then the war is lost. If there is any violence anywhere its time to head for the hills. Every argument is paper thin and meaningless. The chicken hawk argument falls apart immediately when dems say they were against the war in Iraq but are for the war in afghanistan because that's where the enemy is. Then why are all the people saying that neocons are chicken hawks not going to fight in afghanistan? Are we not short on troops there? Are they not warmongers for saying we should fight in afghanistan?
I'm so tired of these halfwits dictating foreign policy based on some sappy headed, pea brained self contradictory arguments that are devoid of logic and moral sense.
If Afghanistan is the right fight (even though we are now fighting far more al Qaeda in Iraq then afghanistan at this point) then when Murtha talked about strategic redeployment why didn't he say we should redeploy troops to Afghanistan instead of Okinawa?
Becuase they (dems) are incapable of fighting this necessary war on terror anywhere. Iraq has taken longer than world war II therefore its worthless. Well then, tAfghanistan has taken longer than Iraq therefore we should bug out there too.
Every war is a quagmire, every war costs lives, every war makes us targets, every war takes longer than it should and costs more than it should. So therefore any war that involves any of those factors would have to not be fought. And the democrats will not fight them.
Trolls on this site keep saying that we've given the area to Iran by removing Sadaam. But of course that isn't true beucase we are there setting up the wedge and alternative to IRan. Whereas if we boogie out of there the peacenicks most certainly will make Iran the predominate power in the region, because we are not there to counterbalance their actions until Iraq is on its feet. And in addition to the genocide that will occur in Iraq we will then give a new state to Al Qaeda, we will open up a front for Turkey to attack the Kurds, for Saudi Arabia to send in troops to protect the Sunni's. It will be an additional bargaining chip Iran has to continue building its nuclear arsenal.
Ah, but if we leave Iraq then we will fight the true war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the trolls will say. My ass. IN addition to following us home, the mujahadeen will follow us to afghanistan and continue to do what works for them to drive us out of there as well. Car bombs worked so well in Iraq, they'll work as well in Afghanistan. Quagmire worked so well in Iraq, import it to Aghanistan. We'll be invovled in a quagmire there too. We'll have targets on our backs there too. We'll suffer casualties there too in greater numbers. Are the dems who can't stand the site of blood and quagmire going to suddenly develop a backbone and actually commit to winning then or will they act as demagogues against Bush while allowing yet another front to fall apart.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 4:16 PM

“The rest of it is pretty general”

Here are some of those “general” statements.

“Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.”

“If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.”

“Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation and a sense of powerlessness (2) the Iraq “jihad”…”

“The Iraqi conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of the US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating suppoerters for the global jihadist movement… GOES ON TO YOUR SELECTIVE QUOTE.”

“with no supporting documentation.”

And what you quoted has supporting documentation????

Fact is, when we leave Iraq, be it 5, 10 or 100 years in, AQ will claim victory. US commanders in Iraq have said there is NO MILITARY SOLUTION to Iraq. Read, we can’t kill them all. Gates is putting the writing on the wall that Iraq needs to step up, or we’ll consider getting out of there. We can’t own Iraq forever. They need to step up. And it’s beginning to look like the only way they will is for us to start stepping down. If AQ calls that a victory for them, fine. Good for them. But we can’t stay there forever.

We can’t live and die by what they say, but go by what strategy will work best. Part of that strategy is thinking beyond “killing them all,” as this report also says:

“Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.”

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 4:45 PM

Something counter-intuitive;

But I think reid, ON PURPOSE, goes about looking INNEPT.

That's why we're given this rancid meat.

What would pelosi and reid gain by looking "innept?"

AH. They look HARMLESS.

So, that's the reason you see the headlines that make the GOP scramble. Or worse. Try to jump on "the fumbled ball." And, all you see is like boiling water drops, hitting a hot pan.

Everybody's flying through the air.

And, there's NO IMPACT.

I know this isn't going to appeal to many people.

It's too attempting to think reid and pelosi, as an act, are fun to attack.

But when you try to check to see where you are; you haven't gotten your jaws locked on either reid. Or pelosi.

What cover do the donks have?

Well, they have their nutty left wingers. Who I guess offer the couch, these two flop on; when it looks like they're falling backwards, off stage.

IT'S AN ACT. Old one, two.

Made famous in in the Charlie Brown cartoon. Where he is forever falling for Lucy grabbing the football away. While his kick sets him to spinning in the air.

All the donks need to do is hold onto the center. And, claim an extra ONE PERCENT. They are not looking for a religious revival.

What would really counter the whole operation?

Well, I think the FOG has to clear, first.

FOG. It comes at ya when the diplomatic pants dancers pinch their cheeks together; You could call it "dancing cheek to cheek."

I call it fart juice.

But it's a game. Where so far the GOP always seem to be tagging behind the stuff thrust at them by the media.

Well? Doesn't the band have to start, before you knock your knees together, doing the Charleston?

Congress, by the way, has seen the ball fall to the donks. What they have is called "the majority." Like a puppet show, if you only saw the strings! You'd get a better idea of why things flow the way they do.

What harry reid does, by the way; besides his "grandfatherly immitation," is to make people think that Iraq is a hard place, costing lots of money. And, no matter how it turns out; it's not all that exciting to go there to "visit."

On the other hand? Hitler saw it! If you want world dominance; you want Iraq!

FDR had a time of it, convincing Eisenhower that the FDR/Winston Churchill plan. To start fighting in Africa, was done to make sure Iraq didn't open like a funnel. For hitler to charge down. And, own. And, then swim across to South America. Where the evil Axis plan (including the Japanese on board). Was to ram America from the Atantic, and UP through South, through Central America. Right into our Southern holdings. WHile the Japs flew across the Pacific and took us from our Western shores.

Why forget about history, here?

You think Abner Dinnerjacket isn't aware that we've kick started a fire sale?

It's possible, ahead, Bush will not love the Saudis. And, he'll pull back from the maneuvering, that so far has not worked out at all. But it's hard to tell.

Today? I linked to Amazon, through Glenn Reynolds. And, yes. I just ordered Col. Hunt's book. Why not know what's aready gone wrong?

You think we've been wiz bang these past 4 years? You don't see that we've made a bed of troubles for outselves? WHile the House of Saud grows more of it's Wahabbist mosques every day.

NOBODY IS SPEAKING THE TRUTH! PC seems to be the greatest handicapper, ever. Until you let loose. Let it go. And, excercise your own observational powers. One pair of glasses, in only one prescription strength is NOT gonna work for ALL.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 4:47 PM

[Lots of expletives deleted.]

Could you please try to pay attention here?

“Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.”

This argument is EXACTLY the argument of the neocons. The multilateral effort we have been proposing for years is to recruit people to the side of civilization, to the side of democracy.

You know all those people in Iraq that you have no time for, the people you want to abandon to the tender mercies of the jihadis?

They're our allies. We have a common enemy. The more of a democracy Iraq becomes, the more both those things come true.

There is truly no limit to the deafness and blindness of the BDSers.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 4:59 PM


The war in Iraq and Bush's foreign policy in general since 9/11 has had the opposite affect.

See the part about how the invasion of Iraq has spread radical islam.

And I have never called for the US to "abandon" Iraq.

Thank you for deleting your explatives. Maybe next time you can comment without even a hint of cursing me out. But, whatever. At least you're using your words.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 5:26 PM

That is a claim, made by someone who thinks the same as you. Whoop de doo.

But let us take a look at your premise: the US removal of a vicious dictator is A Bad Thing and has made otherwise-reasonable people angry enough to blow up innocent Iraqis (the main victim of the attacks!).

This is patent nonsense.

And I have read enough of your posts to know that the Iraqis are a mere afterthought for you. After all, you have proclaimed that they cannot possibly defeat the jihadis, even with our help. So I conclude that you believe them to be helpless, stupid, and/or underdeserving.

Posted by jr565 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 5:40 PM

All you are TOm is selective qouting.You cherry pick your quotes and take things out of context to come up with your trite but meaningless surrender at all costs manifestos. Why did Al Qaeda target us in the first place? Because we had troops in Saudi Arabia. Why did we have troops there? To contain Iraq. Thefore, if we contain Iraq we will draw attacks, and if we remove Sadaam Hussein we will similarly draw attacks. That's because, taking your selective quote and drawing a point from it there are jihadists who are trying to spread the jihadist movement. THey will react to us whether we are trying to maintain peace by containment or wage war with Iraq to remove Sadaam (and thus end containment). If we did nothing and allowed Iraq to invade Kuwait, we would then have had to deal with Sadaam having Kuwaits oil, but alos with the jihadists trying to spread their agenda through the world. Grievances are a red herring. THe point is you have to beat Al Qaeda, kill their leaders, make the practicing of that ideology harder than not practicing it, setting up alternatives (ie democracies in the region) that will dilute their influence and dry up the recruits because they see somethign better in the alternative. You'll never completely remove violence there or get to a utopia, just as we stil have murder her in the US and still have poverty and rapes and racism,despite all our freedoms.

Fact is, when we leave Iraq, be it 5, 10 or 100 years in, AQ will claim victory. US commanders in Iraq have said there is NO MILITARY SOLUTION to Iraq.
I'm getting tired of you people selectively quoting Patreus. That is completely out of context. THERE IS NO POLITICAL SOLUTION WITHOUT MILITARY INVOLVEMENT. you constructi your straw men with your selective quotes all you want, but the generals are not suggesting that all is lost. You are. They are not suggesting that there is no need for troops. They are simply saying that military isn't the only solution. But we haven't been engaged in a strictly military solution since 3 weeks into the war have we? Thus your whole argument is one straw man after another. An altternative to the strict military solution is the political one. That involves building a govt. Having elections. Building a military and police force. Clearing out provinces etc etc etc. All of which have been done from the get go.

Read, we can’t kill them all. Gates is putting the writing on the wall that Iraq needs to step up, or we’ll consider getting out of there. We can’t own Iraq forever. They need to step up. And it’s beginning to look like the only way they will is for us to start stepping down.
Who says we have to kill them all? We certainly should be killing those who are preventing Iraqis from stepping up though right? What's preventing Iraqis from stepping up? Maybe the car bombs that Al Qaeada ad the baathists are using to kill them? They've been stepping up. How many people have braved terrorists attacks to vote and participate. How many have been blown up while standing in line to join the Iraqi army? How many people in the govt have been killed while carrying out there duties? If we step down, what makes you think they will continue to step up, if the cost is too great? if Al Qaeda starts decapitating people who join the govt and there is noone there to stop them from doing so, why would people continue to do so. THERE IS NO POLITICAL SOLUTION WITHOUT MILITARY INTERVENTION AND INVVOLEMENT. What makes you think that this process will move forward if we bug out? I

If AQ calls that a victory for them, fine. Good for them. But we can’t stay there forever. Good for them? That's your response. Its one thing for them to claim a victory if they're hiding in caves. It's another thing to give them an actual victory by running away with their tails between their leagues. And nothing succeeds like success, so they will use their winnning strategies that worked in Iraq to fight us elsewhere. Like afghanistan for instance. You'll see more car bombs in Afghanistan, then all the liberals and democrats will start saying how we can't stay there forever,and we need to strategically redeploy. It's just hiliarious that you would suggest this as a winning strategy.

We can’t live and die by what they say, but go by what strategy will work best. Part of that strategy is thinking beyond “killing them all,” as this report also says:

“Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.”

We can’t live and die by what they say, but go by what strategy will work best. Part of that strategy is thinking beyond “killing them all,” How are you suggestaing that us giving up and letting IRaq fall is the best strategy? Best for whom? Al Qaeda? Those wishign to make sure that democracy never takes hold? Other than, we have to get out, what exact strategy is your side even suggesting. Ah,its a puzzle to be solved and it can only be done through diplomacy. Mmm hmm. ANd the best solution to solving a puzzle is to throw it down in disgust and never solve it, and how do you deal diplomatically with people who are kiling people with car bombs? There is already a representational govt in place taht they could take part in to have their grievances addressed but the car bombers are trying to blow up the building where the negotiations would take place. Negotiations and diplomacy require diplomats and negotiators. If the only diplomats we can talk to are being assassinated or decapitated by jihadist murdereres there is no diplomatic solution. Again, THERE IS NO POLITICAL SOLUTION WITHOUT MILITARY INTERVENTION AND INVVOLEMENT on our part.

Finally you selectively qoute generals out of context with this: “Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.”

Oh and other than running for cover what would the counter to the spread of jihadism be? OTher than sitting on your hands and watching while it happens? The international community will suddenly tell the jihadists they can't be mean any more and blow people up and destroy Iraq? why can't the international community say that now? If they say it now and the car bombbers shrug their shoulders what then? Send in forces? And get involved with a civil war? And a quagmire? There is no other solution that you and your side are advocating except to run. Calling it strategic redeployment doesn't change that fact. And that is going to come back to haunt all of us. Because when the smoke clears we will be unable to fight wars agaisnt Al Qaeda any more becuase they are onto our game plan. WHen the smoke clears, the only dominant power in the region is Iran who will further ramp up their nuclear capacities. And what are we going to do? Recommit in the region and risk the car bombs and the quagmire? And the Taliban learning the lessons from Al Qaeda will similarly ramp up their eforts and incorporate the winning strategy in afghanistan. And then it will be more retreat as victory that you seem to be espousing. Are you insane?

Posted by vnjagvet [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 8:46 PM

Rudy has framed the issue perfectly.

I agree with him and disagree with Tom Shipley whose argument is well stated, but strikes me as the kind of wishful thinking akin to that which permeated the intellectual elite of England and France while Churchill bayed in the wind during the 1930's.

I am afraid that leaving the field completely to the enemy's designs has seldom been a successful tactic in the history of warfare.

I still prefer the warrior Churchill's way. Maybe that shows my age.

Posted by vnjagvet [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 9:07 PM

As the old man (then over 65 years old) said in June 1940 after losing 35,000 French and some British troops to the Nazis at Dunquirk, said:

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

That is still the only way to win.

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 9:36 PM

So staying in Iraq, and policing a civil war between the Shia and Sunnis is the best way to fight AQ? WTF? The Sunnis in Al Anbar Province have already shown they'll kill the foreign jihadist. The Shia are blood enemies of the SUNNI Al Queda. The Kurds in the north are way to independent to let AQ set up shop there. So don't be laying this Bull_hit about abandoning Iraq to Bin Laden. That doesn't even come close to holding water. Re-deploy to the borders of Iraq, close the borders down, let Special Forces kill the remaing foreign jihadists, but, quit policing a civil war in Baghdad. Thats not fighting AQ, and don't ever drag out that nonsense again. Rudy wants a police state and he's not going to get one. He's a fool.

Posted by jr565 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 25, 2007 11:02 PM

The Sunnis are the minority in Iraq. If we pull out, the Sunnis may well fight Al Qaeda . But Al Qaeda are also Sunni's and it very well be in their interest to take on the Shias who may well seek to masacre the Sunni's for past actions against the Shia when Sadaam was in power. So, as often is the case two groups who may have very little in common may in the interest of fighting the greater enemy align themselves. This is not unheard of in that part of the world. And even if the Sunnis are enemies enough of Al Qaeda, whoever wins out is who is the most brutal so if Al Qaeda is brutal enough can cause other grousp in the country to acquiesce.Isn't that how Sadaam and the baathists were able to run the country for thirty years. But then you also have Iran in the mix. Iran will seek to influence the circumstances with Sadr and his group. How wil that impact Irans standing in the ME, and for example its nuclear aspirations. Will Iran be more or less emboldended to agree to the UNs denands to cease with its nuclear production. Saudi Ariabia has already said it would send in its own people to protect the Sunni's against Shia aggression and what about Turkey and its battles with the Kurds. You say there is a civil war now. You will not believe the civil war(s) that will ensue were we to pull out. And then lets not forget Afghanistan, the "good" war that the dems WERE ok fighting. Al Qaeda and all of the Middle East would essentially have figured out or tell. We would lose in afghanistan and everywhere going forward becuase Al Qaeda would now know how to beat us. War of attrition. Blow up enough car bombs and the democrats and libs will cry quagmire and run away. They will know they can call our bluff because they know our bluff is just that, a bluff. Don't say you really want to fight Al Qaeda, when on the major battlefield where we are fighting them, which THEY acknowledge is the key battlefiled you want to cede all the ground and give up in disgrace. All because you want to bash Bush. You really want to fight al Qaeda by giving up the key front where we are fighting them now to fight the real battle where you wil give up once the going gets tough too. Why are we staying in Afghanistan and policing a civil war between Karzai and the resurgin Taliban? Is that not a civil war? Has that war not lasted longer than World War II and Iraq, which similarly went on too long for its own good. As Cindy Sheehan and her crowd said the Taliban arent gone yet and we shouldn't have been there eitehr. But then again, we only were there becuase of the UNOCOL oil pipeline, at least as per Michael Moore.
If you think that because you call yourself conservative democrat that it gives you some bonafides that we should trust that Iraq is bad, but that you and your side would fight the Real war against Al Qaeda, well I just dont believe you. Even if you were genuine (which I dont' believe for a second) your lunactic fringe would simply call you a war monger and lump you in with Lieberman for grying to continue a war that is nothing but a quagmire over oil, thats lasted longer than wolrd war II is nothing but a civl war between the Taliban (who dind't attack us by the way that was Al Qaeda - how many of the 19 hijackers from from Afhganistan?) and Karzai who simarliy will fail becuase we propped him up there and anywhere democracy wont work in that part of the world.
Can you be more full of sh*t?

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 7:09 AM

To those who say I am misquoted by saying there is no military solution to Iraq, here's the quote:

Speaking publicly Thursday for the first time since taking charge in Baghdad last month, Gen. David Petraeus said military action was necessary to improve security in Iraq but "not sufficient" to end violence altogether.

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus told a news conference, adding that political negotiations were crucial to forging any lasting peace."

I'm NOT misquoting. The Iraqis needs to come to a political solution in order to end the insurgency. As I said, we can't just "kill them all."

And, in my opinion, in order to get Iraq to that military solution, we need to start drawing down our troops so Iraq is forced to get their sh*t together.

As I've said many times, to me it doesn't seem like Iraqis "own" their country. I think the perception is the Maliki government is a puppet of the US and that's why there is not strong support for it. We need to seperate ourselves from the situation in order for Iraqis to come together as a nation. (Seems like Gates may have this opinion as well).

If you want proof that people aren't coming together behind this goverment, look at the Iraqi army. Training is not going well, to the point that we've shifted it away from our top priority.

Why isn't the training going well? Not because Iraqis can't make good soldiers, but because the will is not their to stand with the US to fight for this government. We need to start lessoning our presence in Iraq so Iraqis start to feel that they own their country. Hopefully then things will start to come together. If they don't, then what are holding together by staying in Iraq?