Well, neocons are playing the fear card again. Gosh, what a shock. Check this add out and tell me if you know of anyone that would actually buy this line of bullshit.
Laura Ingraham said on her show today that "the terrorists are watching our election and we all know who they want to win."
Really, Laura? Because from where I am sitting the only terrorist attack that occurred on our soil was on Bush's watch. And it has been FIVE FUCKING YEARS and we haven't caught the person behind it yet. To top it all off, reports from Afghanistan say that most foreign jihadists are leaving Iraq (too dangerous with that "non" civil war going on) and are now back helping the Taliban.
Great. Good job, neocons! It looks to me like you are INCREASING the chances of a terrorist attack by your failed policy. Your policies have hurt us, not helped us and they make us weaker. Do you want to know that the Democrats will do if they take back Congress?
Cut off funding for the Iraq War, redeploy troops to Afghanistan (where the actual people that attacked us are hiding), and start kicking diplomatic ass up and down the Middle East which will re-establish our country's street cred.
Do you want to have a strong country? Start listening to people like Jack Murtha (D-PA), a twenty year veteran in the armed forces and Vietnam combat volunteer. His plan, which can be read here, is the only sane idea for Iraq I see coming out of Washington these days.
How anyone can take conservatives seriously anymore, in the face of so many facts to the contrary, completely boggles me...
10 comments:
good God...I'm so glad I don't watch television much, don't have cable or a satellite dish. To have to endure this...get out and vote on November 7th is the only message in here that I'd take to the bank. good one, mark.
bailey.
To be fair, Mark, a "foreign" terrorist attack occurred here in 1993, a few weeks into Clinton's first term. People with links to Al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center and several people died. You can fairly blame that one on the first Bush administration's Middle East policies.
In fact, bin Laden states that his jihad against the West started because the US stationed troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. The US had previously financed the Taliban and bin Laden when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Al Qaeda attacks occurred at American embassies in Africa in 1998 and against the USS Cole in December, 2000. The Cole attack should have been a wake-up call to the Bush administration that Osama Bin Laden wasn't going to cut Bush any slack, happening as it did after the 2000 election.
But inexplicably Dick Cheney, who was in charge of the review of the anti-terrorism plan handed off by the Clinton administration, did absolutely nothing -- except cozy up to the oil company execs who wrote our energy policy. Programs such as Able Danger had identified some of the 9/11 hijackers, and the CIA knew bin Laden was not giving up, but Bush's cronies were asleep at the switch.
During the Clinton administration America bombed Sudan in retaliation of its sheltering of bin Laden, and Afghanistan in an attempt to kill bin Laden. During that period Republicans criticized Clinton both for those attack and for failing to get bin Laden. Strangely, there seems to be no record of any attempt by the Bush administration to target any terrorist organizations, including bin Laden, before 9/11.
The Republicans love to boast that no attacks have taken place on American soil since 2001. Al Qaeda doesn't rush into these attacks, so that's not really surprising. They take their time and plan well. And they don't really care if they kill Americans in America -- witness the Cole and the embassies in Africa.
Terrorists have killed more than 3,000 Americans in Iraq now -- counting non-military deaths, such as security contractors, civilian employess, etc. That's more than died on 9/1l.
So, Al Qaeda seems to have accomplished their goal, and George Bush has been working hand in glove with them, sending Americans off to Iraq to die in Al Qaeda IED attacks.
Personally, I don't see a difference between Americans dying in Iraq and Americans dying in the US -- they're just as dead.
Ooo....Crab won't like that post, BLK. Too much truth and facts...in fact, let's hear from some neocons in addition to Crab and that "faux" neocon, PL, on this one. What do you say neocons? I know you read my blog (I have that supersecret NSA spying technology in place) but are little timid when it comes to posting.
What do y'all say to BLK?
I'll take your silence as shame.
Actually, Markadaelphia, I was going to wait until you claimed that it was a fact that I'm not posting out of shame before I responded. But then I realized that I should probably clarify something about your usage stats. For the record, your usage stats log page hits, not human reads. In my particular case, 90% of the hits are from my web crawler.
In answer to a question from a previous topic - HMHC and I are in the 3rd district. We will again have the honor of voting for Jim Ramstad (as opposed to whatever sacrificial lamb the Dems are putting up against him).
I'm not a faux neocon. I'm a progressive neocon. Get it right.
To BLK's points: Speaking for myself, I have not, and do not, dispute the validity of the claims that there were massive f-ups by this government when it comes to allowing 9/11 to happen. Speaking only for my interpretation of what he has posted, I don't believe HMHC has spent much time disputing those facts as much as he has....ahem....clarified the gross failings of the Clinton administration in the same arena - failings that BLK completely glossed-over in his posting. Bottom line - BLK's points (and, subsequently, yours) don't really speak to the validity of the claim that we'd somehow be safer under the Dems than we are under GWB, in my book.
Lastly, to the posting issue. You'll probably notice me posting less and less on your blog. Not out of shame or out of acceptance of your positions (as you'll probably come to claim later), but rather due to the fact that I'll get just as much enjoyment and fulfillment debating the same issues with my cat, since he's every bit as likely to be understanding of my views. Plus, I won't have to endure the insults and condescending remarks directed toward those with whom I have associated and choose to associate. So I'll probably focus more of my energy on those debates. Should be fun.
My usage stats log page reads as well as how long people spent on the site and from whence they came. There is a map of the world that has little flags on it in the stat tracker and when you mouse over it, it shows how long people stay on the site and who they are. Most people stay on my site for less than 5 seconds or more than an hour. Crazy! I know who the neocons are that are staying on the site for more than an hour and they aren't just you and Crab.
Too bad about the 3rd. Wendy Wilde would be a great congresswoman. Lacks the experience of Ramstad, though. Jim isn't all bad. He has done some great things for education and the environment. Heck, the Star and Tribune endorsed him! His stance on the Iraq war is unforgiveable.
As for the rest, I don't quite get where you are coming from in regards to your desire to not post as much anymore. I also respect your opinion and feel that I have never insulted you. If I have, I apologize.
What I will not apologize for is the fact that I will never be open minded of ignorance, whether willfull or unwitting. I will also not be open minded towards anyone that supports a policy that has no clear direction and, by that simple fact, results in the deaths of innocents. Our troops, tens of thousands of children, and scores of other innocents are dying everyday in Iraq and you will have to excuse me if I am offended by that and refuse to see any merit in it or have the audacity to "see the other side." You will also have to excuse me if my rage over this is, at times, impolite. The time for being delicate is over and the time for calling things what they are, in all of its stark reality, is right now.
So, I happily admit that I am "close minded" if the above paragraph makes me so....I am, after all, in good company :)
You can take my silence however you want. The context you are about to get will make your crotch-thrusting, adolescent jock-like taunt seem extremely ignorant and petty.
Fact is that I am in advanced SAP training today, just like I was yesterday so I have not been at my desk. When I do get to return to my desk, I check my emails, check my voicemails and respond accordingly and check a few websites but I have to return to the training rather quickly. Also, whenever you send out emails the new column doesn’t show up for me right away, takes a couple hours.
Another fact is that it we are coming up on month end so us finance people have to have reports done, figures closed, projects completed, etc. Combine that with the fact that I’m headed to Europe next week, that means I have even more things to get done than normal. At night I have been working out, hanging out with friends, and I have been coordinating train schedules (which are in French for the trains in Belgium) as well as doing some extra research on the countries I am visiting.
That is what is going on with my life as to why I haven’t posted. I’m getting high level training in a computer system that many companies use...something I would think you would applaud but instead, you choose to slam people while being completely ignorant of the facts involving the last couple days of my life.
I have access to the tracking of this site and sorry but I can’t and won’t check the blog 18 times a day (every hour and a half) like you do while watching fox news and getting all worked up over Republican campaign commercials. That’s not how I choose to spend my days.
I’m on lunch right now so I’ll type something up for you.
Crab doesn’t mind blk’s post. This latest post is full of Monday morning quarterbacking as well as assignment of blame, as usual. What vision. His first paragraph as well as the phrase "Al Qaeda doesn't rush into these attacks...They take their time and plan well" completely contradict your original post. In other words – the planning for the 9/11 attack began long before GWB took office and you know that to be true. But all that doesn’t matter – there’s blame to assign and that’s damned hard work. Hatred of this country began long before Bush 1 came to office. It was during Jimmy Carter’s presidency in 1979 that the Iranians took to the streets with chants of “Death to America” while taking our citizens hostage.
Fact – the Cole bombing took place in October of 2000 – before the 2000 election, not after like blk said. Was that one of the facts you were talking about Mark?
As PL noticed as well, since blk’s post skipped right over the time period of 1993 to the year 2000 with only 1 mention of an incident in 1998, I’ll fill in the rest for you. Sure Clinton caught the bombers of the 1993 WTC bombing. Notice that the “law enforcement” style of fighting terrorism did nothing to prevent further attacks. In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered. Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: 'The youth...realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.' In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing. In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing. Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil. Clinton lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces. In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. spy plane. Clinton did nothing. In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no. On Aug. 7, 1998, as blk mentioned, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing. On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury. Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory. On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day. Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as 'by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991.' The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 - when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics. Clinton did nothing about the USS Cole bombing either as GWB was not sworn in till 5 months later in 2001. Reading that paragraph just makes ya want to rush out and vote patty doesn’t it?
I suppose you all would have been happy if Ashcroft had detained 19 muslim men on 9/10/01 whose only crime at the time was attending American flight schools. I guess you all would have supported GWB had he decided to invade Afghanistan on 9/10/01 as well. Hindsight is not wisdom.
IMO, you libs are demonstrating a weakness that terrorists like to exploit. Osama predicted Americans wouldn't tolerate casualties and would run from the battlefield if we had them. Given that you and a majority of other liberals are ready to cut and run because of our current number of casualties, even though it's extremely low compared to other major wars we've been in, I can understand why Osama thought that. If all you do is base our success or failure on casualty numbers (again, which are small compared to other wars we've been in), then we lost on D-Day, got whupped badly at the Battle of the Bulge and got positively annihilated on Okinawa. Wow, Germany and Japan won WWII...thanks for the update.
You may hate that this is true but casualties never have and never will end a war. What will cause the US to withdraw is what always causes nations to disengage: either they achieve their initial objective, negotiate a new objective, or are defeated. Numbers of dead have zero to do with it. Now numbers could affect one's view of achievable objectives as the North Vietnamese learned during the 24/7 bombing of Hanoi and in spite of being weary of that war those in DC did not halt the bombing until there was a settlement and in spite of the fact our highest losses of planes and pilots occurred during that offensive. Since WWI, it sure seems like the wars we have been successful in involved military decisions that were not made with sentimentality, they were made with rather cold calculations with human lives marginally in the picture. The wars we have not been successful in have been wars where people demanded civilians not be killed. 95% of Iraq is stable with most of the violence coming from just a couple provinces and I fault GWB for not using enough brute force over there.
Blk loves to mention that we funded the Taliban in the 1980’s. When Afghsnistan was invaded by the Soviets, our #1 enemy was the Soviets. The thought of Soviet world domination certainly trumped any consequences of arming a bunch of rag tag mountain warriors. You must take in the full context of the time. What decision would you have made? Would you have not armed these people and allowed the Soviets to carve out territory in the Middle East and monopolize the world's energy source? Hope you guys enjoy riding bikes and horses because that’s how you would have gotten around if Iran or the Soviet Union had their way in the 80’s. It's easy to say "we created these terrorists". It's difficult to see that it is merely a side effect of avoiding a much worse problem. Are you only capable of looking at the negative effects of an action without also looking at the possible effects of inaction? It's a messy world, and sometimes you have to choose between bad and worse.
Let’s see, you’re on record on this blog wanting to do something about Darfur. The U.S. role in Afghanistan during the 1980’s is condemned by blk but no one utters a single peep of condemnation for the Soviet Army’s outright murder of over 1 million Afghan civilians during that war. You both are quick to blame the U.S. for all of it's failings but fail to even mention any other parties (e.g., the Soviets) for creating bad geopolitical situations where the U.S. had to choose from a number of unattractive and (at best) morally gray areas. If you want to avoid a "leftist blame america first" label, then start evaluating our foreign policy choices in the larger context of what was going on in the world at the time we made them and realize that often times those choices we made were not so clear cut.
Knowing Osama bin laden wanted to attack the United States within our borders and knowing the attacks were coming are two different kettles of fish.
So yeah, blk’s post contains truth and facts but very little context. Why should I bother responding to his posts when he doesn’t respond to mine? Like when I put Guatemala in context or when I asked him to explain why musims hate all kinds of people from nations who don’t have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. In the last week, gangs of French “youths” (translated – muslims) have boarded 4 buses on the outskirts of Paris, ordered everyone off and set fire to the buses. Al Queda was recently busted planning a train bombing in Germany. The southern part of Thailand is mostly muslim now. Muslims gang rape females in Australia and the main Iman says it is the fault of the women for not dressing properly. They bomb nightclubs in Bali, they bomb markets in India, they take schoolchildren hostage and murder them in Russia (Chechnyian rebels = muslims), they kill a Dutch filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh (yes, he was related to Vincent) on the streets of Amsterdam in broad daylight and attach notes to his chest with the knife threatening jihad against the west, the situation in Darfur is muslims killing the native people, and so on. So in your reply, instead of assigning blame, why don’t one of you tell me why they hate all those people too.
As a free offering of goodwill regarding your “intelligence level” statements you make so often, I offer you this from the left-leaning Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33574-2002Nov9?language=printer
This is what retired Colonel Dr. Tony Kern (Director of Military History at the USAF Academy) wrote on September 14, 2001.
"...Unlike Americans who are eager to put this messy time behind us, our adversaries have time on their side, and they will use it. They plan to fight a battle of attrition, hoping to drag the battle out until the American public loses its will to fight. This might be difficult to believe in this euphoric time of flag waving and patriotism, but it is generally acknowledged that America lacks the stomach for a long fight".
In closing, to go back to a point from a previous topic - the point about how we can't tell how America would look if Dems were in power since they haven't been in power, I have a pretty good idea - let's take prop 85 for example. Prop 85 that is being voted on in California this year. It would require all parents to be notified if their under-aged daughters have asked a doctor for an abortion. The proposition doesn't say the parents have to approve, they just have to be notified.
Your buddy Hillary opposes it along with many, many lefties.
Now I’m pro-choice but I do think that parents should be notified if their 14 year old daughter is about to get an abortion. Some people are actually OK with a 14-year-old getting an abortion, then being sent home to deal with all the consequences of said abortion, without the parents knowing anything about it.
Is that the America you want to live in?
To speak to your last paragraph PL, my time and attention will be elsewhere as well. So now, us not posting equals an endorsement of Markadelphias views.
Lovely.
I think both of you misinterpreted by initial post. I was trying to get the neocons who read but do not post to actually post something. It was more along the lines of having someone other than you two post their points of view. I wasn't going to take your silence as shame....just the others who read but do not post.
Now, onto Crab's diatribe...yes, BLK is wrong about the Cole. But that is all he is wrong about...Your view of the Democrat's supposed "cut and run" philosophy shows how little you understand about their plan. Go look up what Jack Murtha is suggesting. Then come back and tell us all what you think.
Once again, you have done the ol "turn the tables, re-direct, shift focus" strategy of defense. By your logic, the only problem neocons have is weak liberals spouting off and not coming to terms with their own mistakes. The biggest problem you have, Crab, is that you are a one dimensional critical thinker. Some of the things you say about the Democrats are true and could be called fact. Some are not and are blatant lies. I have been extremly critical of the Democratic leadership and am becoming less and less impressed with Hillary Clinton everyday. Do you know what that is a sign of? Someone who is an actual critical thinker with an open mind. That's me, by the way. I am open minded. You are not. You are incapable of any significant criticism of Bush Co because by doing so, in your mind, you would lose....something...I'm not sure what.
You can list quote after quote from me and past posts but it really won't prove anything to me. The tactic of shifting the focus to me and my faults and away from your close mindedness won't work anymore. It's a classic neocon tactic that I see everywhere in our wonderful country and at the end of the day, we still are left with some collasal fuckups that Bush Co is making on a daily basis.
I guess I am someone who changes with the times....someone who, unlike our president, is smart enough to learn from mistakes. Bill Clinton said in his famous Fox News interview, "I tried to get bin Laden and I failed." Can you ever see Bush saying that? He won't and the reason why he won't is the same reason you refuse to be critical of your own party's policy. So, your paragraphs regarding the "lost years" of Clinton don't really seem all that scathing once the man admits he's wrong. Bush's stubborn determintation to stay the course is costing men and women their lives. Tell me who is more human. By the way, this quote:
"Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory"
is just flat out wrong. Here is what actually happened.
"In response to the 1998 United States embassy bombings following the fatwa, President Bill Clinton ordered a freeze on assets that could be linked to bin Laden. Clinton also signed an executive order, authorizing bin Laden's arrest or assassination. In August 1998, the U.S. launched an attack using cruise missiles. The attack failed to harm bin Laden but killed 19 other people." (Wikipedia)
Remember that bin Laden's ex bodyguard testified that he told bin Laden, at the last second, to go to a different hideout the night of the bombing in August of 1998. Had bin Laden stuck to the original plan, Bill Clinton would've killed Osama bin Laden. Let's also not forget that people like John Ashcroft and other like minded neocons were critical of the bombing at the time and wondered what the point of it all was. Now they say he was weak and didn't do enough. So which is it? Let's also not forget that it was the people you support that powered the Monica Lewinsky debacle in which our country took a 18 month vacation so if anyone is to blame for Osama bin Laden, it is the neocons who, at the time, decided it was more important to "Get Clinton" than protect our country.
Maybe the reason why people in this country want to "Get Bush" is because they actually can tell the difference between a man whose daily lies cost lives as opposed to a man whose lies cost.....wait, why did it matter again that Clinton lied?
I enjoy the comments, great time to debate a side - butt (yes two tt's on purpose) I'm going to go with BLK on this one. Dead is dead. Go Jim Ramstad! Lil T
I really don’t understand how I re-directed anything – it was quite clear to me that the focus of several of your recent postings on the front page of this blog was about the democrats ability to kick butt on the war on terror. With statements like “Do you want to know that the Democrats will do if they take back Congress?
Cut off funding for the Iraq War, redeploy troops to Afghanistan (where the actual people that attacked us are hiding), and start kicking diplomatic ass up and down the Middle East which will re-establish our country's street cred” as well as “Vote Colleen” and “Vote Patty” I thought I stayed right on topic – the topic being the Democrats.
As you know, there is a difference between intentions and results. You pointed out intentions, I pointed out results. Liberals usually get upset when people point out the results of their policies so they jump back to their intentions. I mean look at the results of your Wikipedia entry. Did the “executive order” stop future attacks? Did it make our country any safer?
I’m really not sure what my close mindedness has to do with anything here since I have never put myself out there as being smarter than anyone else. I guess it would be an issue if I was trying to get everyone around me to vote Republican but anyone who reads my posts or hangs out with me can see that I don’t do that.
You all say “we funded the taliban” – I put forth context.
You all say “they hate us” – I put forth context that shows that they hate lots of people who didn’t do anything to them.
Open mindedness does not provide you a license to call people stupid. Through actual experience, I have concluded that you don’t know jack shit about car repairs. I don’t think you are stupid because of it as I don’t think it is the end all, be all of the dynamics of you as a person.
You want me to “come back and tell you what I think”...did you read the Washington Post link?
Next week I’ll post a few criticisms I have of GWB. So yes, I have criticisms but I don’t think GWB is bringing the world to the brink of destruction and I didn’t hear Kerry give any hint that he would do any better on the issues in the last election.
Democrats can't do anything unless they get into office on the state and federal level..which means you may have to hold your nose when you vote for someone who has ticked you off Mark..but a vote for Hutchinson is a vote for Pawelenty.
The same way a Vote for Penny got us into the situation we are in now..
Post a Comment