IAP Political Forum

The fact Democrats are going INSANE about this today shows he must have hit em where it hurts...

Biden is calling it Bullshit, and pelosi and the lrest of the Lefties like Obama are attacking hard :)

They seem to umm be prostesting too much ....


---------------------

In veiled attack, Bush criticizes Dems for terrorist 'appeasement'  (I dont think its too veiled)

Story Highlights

• Bush says trying to negotiate with terrorists is a "foolish delusion"
  Obama: "Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists"
  McCain recently charged that Obama is the favored candidate of Hamas
  White House denies comments were attack on Obama

By Ed Henry
CNN White House Correspondent
JERUSALEM (CNN) -- President Bush launched a sharp but veiled attack Thursday on Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats, suggesting they favor "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way some Western leaders appeased Hitler in the run-up to World War II.

The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged to CNN that the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party.

After Bush's comments were widely reported, the White House denied they were an attack aimed at Obama.

According to Obama's Web site, he favors "tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions, and is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe."

He does not favor talks with Hamas, which the U.S. government has listed as a terrorist group.

Former President Jimmy Carter recently wrapped up a trip to the Middle East, which included talks with leaders of Hamas, an Islamic fundamentalist group that controls the Palestinian territory of Gaza.

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to Israel's parliament, the Knesset.

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." Watch Bush describe what he calls a 'foolish delusion' »

Doubts about Obama with Jewish Americans were earlier stoked by Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee in the 2008 presidential election, when he recently charged that Obama is the favored candidate of Hamas.

Obama last week called the Hamas allegation a "smear" and lashed out Thursday at Bush's speech in Israel.

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement released to CNN by his campaign. "It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. ...

"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel," Obama's statement said. Watch the Obama camp's response to Bush »

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush's comment was not a "slam" aimed at Obama.

"There are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to," she told reporters after the president's comment was widely reported.

The Bush administration held three rounds of discussions with Iran about security in Iraq last year, including two at the ambassadorial level, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday said Washington needed to "figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with" Iran.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, condemned Bush's comments and suggested that McCain denounce them.

Pelosi, who leaves later Thursday on a bipartisan congressional trip to Israel, said there is a "protocol" of not criticizing the president when he is abroad, but then declared, "I think what the president did in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel."

Howard Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, also called on McCain to denounce the comment.

McCain declined to do so Thursday, instead criticizing Obama's willingness to talk to the president of Iran.

"It is a serious error on the part of Sen. Obama that shows naiveté and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country who says that Israel is a stinking corpse," McCain told reporters.

Bush largely focused his speech in Jerusalem on highlighting the American-Israeli partnership. "The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty," he said.

Bush said the United States and Israel are locked in an ideological struggle with radicals in the Middle East, using the speech to tie al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to the terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

"That is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the 'elimination' of Israel," Bush said. "That is why the followers of Hezbollah chant 'Death to Israel, Death to America!' That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that 'the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.' And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map."

Bush then made his transition to Obama and other Democrats without naming names, raising the specter of the Holocaust to make his point.

"There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain their words away," said Bush. "This is natural. But it is deadly wrong.

"As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century," the president said.

So Obama is for "securing our ally Israel?"

Bush has been consistent in his stance to not talk to terrorists.

It seems Obama's strategy is to not allow criticism to go unanswered quickly, which is smart. He may have jumped the gun on this one, though.

Well no. Bush says:

"Bush says trying to negotiate with terrorists is a "foolish delusion"", from the master of foolish delusions when he hired 21-year old post grad students to be the new Iraqi Minister of the interior, etc.

Anyways as it says in the article this is a "veiled attack" (not much "Testies" needed for that) meaning he's not really going to say anything he has to back up but instead simply use implication in place of actual facts....kinda like conspiracy theorists. he wants to criticize what he wished Obama said rather than what he did say.

What Obama did say was:


So no they aren't "protesting too much", unless I claim you said something you didn't and correcting me at all means you're protesting too much.

I don't know how many "testies" it takes to make a bs implication you don't have to back up, and at a time in your career where you really have nothing to lose and could probably say anything you liked, but ...okay.

If he was having difficulties finding his testies my guess would be that they were hidden under the atlas.

While we're at it what does McCain say he's going to about Iran? Bomb 'em? Can I get a quote here? Because if he hasn't said anything then...well whatever. More UN sanctions? Sure that'll work.

Just sayin',
Ahk

I think Bush was taking a shot at Jimmy Carter.

This was the same partisan, divisive crap that has been a hallmark of the Bush administration.  Call this what it is, this is Bush using his office to campaign for McCain. 

How is it partisan to state a fact? Some people DO WANT TO TALK TO TERRORISTS. Some people actually DO visit them (Carter).

I think you're right.

I mean think about it. He's talking to Israel and Jimmy Carter wants to negotiate with Hezbolah. It was an "pause and wait for applause" line... but I can't blame other Democrats for feeling criticized.

Of course, it's stupid to think it took any "testies" to say that. It doesn't take testies to kill people.

Also, for the record, we've never really sat down with ANY of the orginizations we refer to as "terrorists". What harm can be done in doing that? Why can't we go in, listen, act like we're trying to be diplomatic and THEN bomb the hell out of them?

Why is diplomacy cowardice?

It can and will be used as a propaganda tool against us.

One thing to remember...what seems rational to you and me (like talking) is not rational to the terrorists. These are people who have no gumption to turn on the tape and cut a mans head completely off his body.

I defer to the good senses of people who understand this thinking better than I.

 No testicles, no backbone, no brains. Standard Bush operating procedure. If he wants to challange Obama on what he did  say about diplomacy  Bush the coward should name names and quote quotes...Nah he's far to slimey to do that.

Yeah, cause our strategies thus far (bombing them) has really helped cut the amount of "propoganda" terrorist orginizations use to recruit followers.

/sarcasm


What harm is there in trying? Seriously.


So then our attempts at diplomacy reveal them to be the head-removing savages we all think they are. But what's wrong in trying? Are you afraid they might actually be more civil than you think?

These are men who routinely bomb cafes in Iraq taking out zero military targets and 100% civilian targets. This we know...we don't have to guess.

These are men that, according to their religion, think you and me should die.

These are men who will plot for 3 years to hijack civilian aircraft and killing thousands and themselves in the process.

Can you think of anything we could say because, at the table, I can't.

These are people who were victims of international interference, international restructuring and super power pissing contests. You're surprised they're pissed? Maybe if we spent some time analysing WHY they do these things we can get a better understanding of what we could do to FIX them.

I mean, look at Al Sadr. He's now an "ally" because he's doing what we want. Before then he was a terrorist who could not be negotiated with. What made him reliable? What did we do to get him on our side? What can we do to keep him and his radical elements on our side?

Are Hamas, Hezbolah, etc. any different?

Some, perhaps. Others have bought into the radical version of Islam.


That would make us to blame for THEIR actions. I don't subscribe to that. We are not completely guiltless, I will admit.

Nice of you to admit that we are far from guiltless. Over one hundred years of internationalism has made us enemies across the globe. Talking over killing makes sense to me.

OswaldTheOsprey

We absolutely have done things that our 'leaders' deemed in our national interest. Then again, yea without sin...

Does anyone here know why OBL turned his sites on the US? Was it OUR fault he came after us?

We cynically supported both Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein at one time-in essence building them up. Sort of like Stalin and lend-lease. This country should return to the principals laid forth in George Washington's Farewell Address.

OswaldTheOsprey

That certainly may be true just as Iran backing the insurgents in Iraq could bite them, too, but there is a very specific reason OBL turned.

Then perhaps we should not be trying to run the world.

OswaldTheOsprey

And what has macho posing and bomb throwing accomplished? Hmmm?

Terrorism has increased every year since the disaster of this invasion.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/30/terror.report/index.html

Even our friends hate us. Osama is nowhere to be found. The war created a new playground for terrorists.

In the world of bonehead Bush, there is a fake choice between bombing and talking. How about using ALLL the tools we have, talk when you can and bomb when you need to. Duh.

Yeah, by the by, the successes of American troops in Iraq in the last year? It is mostly due to talking, not shooting. This means often talking with the guy shooting at you yesterday. But it works.

Take a look. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1572796,00.html

I think neue is right, this was a jab at Jimmy Carter.  I don't think Obama was meant as the target here, maybe I am wrong.

What Bush says isn't completely ridiculous in terms of terrorist groups, but it isn't particularly useful when dealing with nations.  I don't have a problem with the US policy not to negotiate with terrorist groups.  I don't want to negotiate with Al Qaeda and I don't think we ever should.  Hezbollah and Hamas in my opinion fall into the same category. 

The problem is when you use that logic to dismiss negotiations with other nations.  I am well aware that Iran is far from innocent and they should be made to feel consequences for sponsoring terrorism.  However, Iranian leaders in my mind have other things to worry about, like running a nation and being held accountable by the people.  This gives us leverage in a negotiation and also makes them more likely to respond favorably.  We negotiated with the Soviets, and they were a far greater threat than the Iranians.  They were also indirectly responsible for FAR more American deaths than Iran.

It seems to me like Obama has the right idea in regards to Iran.  At some point, a line has to be drawn.  I am OK with negotiations with Iran, but that does not mean that I would be in favor of negotiations with Hamas, Hezbollah, or Al Qaeda (just to name a few).

Unfortunately, someone has to try keep order. Who else is going to to it...the UN?

We are the first nation everyone calls when they need help. We are like the parent that the kid wants around only when they need something.


9/11 happened before we went into Iraq.

I'm surprised no one has taken up the question of WHY OBL turned his sites on the US. It helps to know history.

Yeah, it's so surprising to see people we KNOW will overreact... actually overreact...

/sarcasm


We ARE to blame. And Britain and the other international powers that come in and compete for oil. And of course, there's Israel, a country everyone else just decided to invent - well, except the people around Israel, anyway.

And then there's Afganistan, Iraq and our "war on terror"...

Why are we surprised that they're pissed?

US bases in Saudi Arabia

"A classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html

Competing for oil is not the reason. If we've done anything, it is price manipulation, but that's not the reason either. Afganistan, Iraq and our "war on terror" are not it.


This is very, very close but not the gensis. OBL wanted to boot Saddam out of Kuwait himself. Instead, Kuwait turned to us, instead. US troops move in and get the job done with great ease.

Boots on the ground on arab soil was the reason OBL turned against us. THAT was the sin we created. He has hit us every since.

I'm reading a book right now that has the genesis of all radical islam going back to 1943. An incredible read and one I look forward to finishing.

Right. That was Osama's reasoning. First, which shows an Osama/Saddam alliance as ridiculous: Osama hated him as a secularist. Hopefully that book pointed out how many of Iraq's fundamentalists were put to death by Saddam.

Now, as far as oil. There would have been no interest in Kuwait or stationing troops in Saudi, without oil.   

There is no SINGLE reason. There are a multitude of mistakes made by us and them - like some perpetual avalanche. And the "War on Terror" isn't doing anything to curb it. In fact, it's just making it worse.


What's the title? Sounds intresting?

I have about 2 more books I need to read myself, but next time I'm at Borders I might pick it up.

This is true. Securing open pipes of oil is in the national security interests of the US. That will not change with the next president or likely the one after.

So to say that our mideast policy is not about oil is simply false.

In 1954, the US helped depose a popular elected leader in Iran, Mossadeq. Why? He was going to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian oil company, (the original BP). The company charter was drawn up in the days of colonialism and gave almost all profits to Britain. After the Coup, the Shah was installed. His legacy was very brutal and OUR man was the most hated of Iran. So, we have the hostage crisis, which gives us Afghanistan, Osama, Saddam as a friend, Saddam as an enemy, the Iran/Iraq war, Kuwait, Americans protecting Saudi and we haven't even got to Israel yet. 

Oh, and yeah, we are going to have to ween ourselves off the stuff, no matter what president comes to office.

Capitalist concerns, whether oil or Wall Street loans to allies or whatever, have motivated all wars we have fought in.

OswaldTheOsprey

Of course it is...I've never said otherwise.

Why else would be have any interest in that hell hole?

Well, when you screw with people's internal politics just to serve yourself, people tend to get mad, especially if they are pretty angry in the first place.

We can deal with the situation on the front end or the back end. In a perfect world, everybody plays nice. The world isn't perfect, unfortunately.

Why name names? You know who you are. ;)

 A President who is so ignorant of history that he has no idea the difference between diplomacy and appeasement has no business talking about anyone. To use the celebration of an allies anniversary of sovereignty as a platform for cheap shot, domestic, political fear mongering further demonstrates his crass, ignorant, incompetence as a world leader.
 Had he named names in his statement he would be held accountable for the gross inaccuracy of what he said . Bush never has any balls, and always makes sure he phrases his words so as not to be held accountable for what he implies.
 Perhaps he does know that appeasement and diplomacy are completely different things and he is betting that the American people are ignorant and uninformed. If that is the case...perhaps he is correct.
 Frankly I'm not sure which is worse.

How would adding a name make his statement any more or less accurate?

ps: Obama never said Bush was wrong. He said he agrees with Bush that we should NOT talk to terrorists. Obama protesting over a statement not directed at him seems a bit amateurish.

So is criticizing the actions of a political opponent about US Foreign Policy... in another country.

It's cowardice, too.

Jimmy Carter doesn't fit the description of a political opponent.

Now, what Murtha did fits your definition. THAT was treasonous.

Bush is a Republican, no?

Carter is a Democrat, right?

My description fits fine.


What does "treason" have to do with anything said here?

We are talking about things said in foreign lands. To me, it doesn't get any worse than what Murtha did on enemy soil.

Lol, democrats know that they cannot fight this campaign based on keeping america safe and fighting our enemies so they have to make believe terrorism is not a real threat and hope people forget about 9/11 and the many attacks on this country.

We're talking about what's appropriate to say in foreign countries. "Treason" is a step beyond what I think is appropriate considering the inciting incedent.

Unless everytime Bush does something wrong you're just gonna show us how a Democrat at some point in time did worse.

"A Republican stands up in Congress and says, 'I have a shitty idea,' and the Democrat stands up and says, 'I can make it shittier'."
- Louis Black

Appropriate, don't you think?


America isn't safer under Bush's policies either:

The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (http://www.hcfa.house.gov/110/GAO041708.pdf)


Basically, we're screwed no matter what.

You mean like Libia & N Korea, right?

And it remains, fists are only one option. Right now, talking is working in Iraq. Case Closed.

Read about Petraeus's plan. Read about what is working on the ground. Stop pretending it is only a choice between dropping bombs and "hoping the other guy is nice." Bush's policy is wrong. It hasn't worked and will never work. Iraq proves that.

What hasn't worked...that Iraq proves?

 The more appropriate question with the much shorter answer is, what has worked??

How much to cross yer lil bridge? And I thought French trolls were taller.....what's up?

 What in Bushes foriegn policy has worked?  How are we safer or how are our relations with other countries any better because of Bushes preferences to stonewalling or invasion, as opposed to diplomatic relations?

When was the last time the US was attacked?

... not this argument again?

Seriously, what does that prove? If the number of attacks on American soil is inversely related to the success of your foreign policy, than Bill Clinton was actually BETTER then George Bush.

Basically, it's disingenuous to say, "Bush is doing alright cause we haven't been attacked again". It intentionally ignores everything else like the increased ability to hurt US troops abroad and the increased anti-American sentiment that has grown since OIF started.

I'll agree with you there, it doesn't prove anything. However, another attack on our soil and to Bush's opponents, it would suddenly prove everything. Patton simply knows how to play the game here, the fact is....reality verifies that we have not been attacked. Bush does get credit for that reality as he'd get criticism should we experience the other shoe dropping.


Like that is a factor? We went after Japanese and increased their ability to attack us. We invaded France and Germany opening up huge swaths thru Nazis often dropping men far behind enemy lines. The Feds marched right at the Rebs. Abraxas, we happen to be in a two front war! Your argument that we increase our chances of being attacked...is quite painfully obvious. The risk of getting hurt........leaps expotentially and no I ain't gonna check for spelling. In absolutely every single conflict in human history one cannot be in the right or wrong, on offense or defense, and not increase their enemy's ability to harm. That argument is in itself disingenuous and needs to find the round file cabinet.

I could Imagine Roosevelt or Lincoln making any decisions on war and General Abraxas weighing in..."Mr. President you do realize this increases the chances our men and women in all likelihood will have their abilities to get hurt...increase?"

"Yes well.....thank you General Abraxas...what say you let the President and Congress decide this one, your keen awareness of the painfully obvious is seond to none...Sir."


How do you know that? The statements made in here like they're facts or just assumed......are abhorrent.  What are you talking about?

Sheer hatred coming out of the Afghan wars and onto the international scene as far as al-Qaeda is concerned. Pissed because of three reasons. We ain't believers and thus cannot be trusted not to wage war on them. Our presence in their spheres. Our continued support for Israel. This new war in Iraq now their central front... and a fourth rail whereupon they are getting their arses collectively whooped.

We've had Tony Blair in Britain followed by Brown, a much more conservative and more in line with Bush French President Sarkozy, John Howard from Austrailia was always a staunch ally, Germany's Merkel. You have some hate meter that measures this?

That crazy left wing rag "Forbes" Doesn't assume the facts they back it up with evidence:
 Anti-American Sentiment Grows Worldwide

European and world views of the United States and President George Bush have dramatically worsened since 2000; the trend has intensified since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. There has been a decline in perceptions of the United States throughout the European Union, including in such traditional U.S. allies as the United Kingdom and Poland, and in Muslim and Latin American countries, according to annual polls undertaken by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the Pew Research Center and the BBC World Service.

--Whereas most people in the world have a positive view of the E.U., U.S. influence is in noticeable decline, even among formerly staunch allies.

--Divergent views within the E.U. on U.S. policy have their roots in the 1980s East-West split in Europe on the respective threat from Soviet and U.S. military power.

--Contemporary anti-Americanism derives largely -- but not entirely -- from President George Bush's Iraq policy.

--It has waxed and waned before and is likely to subside again, in parallel with changes in the Washington administration and its foreign policy.

In a March 2007 survey of 28,000 people in 27 countries conducted for the BBC World Service by GlobeScan and the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, only Israel, Iran and North Korea were perceived as having a more negative influence than the United States on world affairs. During 2002-06, European views of the desirability of U.S. leadership in world affairs has declined from 64% to 37%, while its undesirability has risen from 31% to 57%. Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski gives Bush an "F" for his "catastrophic leadership" in world affairs in his new book, Second Chance.

Particularly dramatic are E.U. and world perceptions of Bush. Confidence in the U.S. president has declined in all countries, mirroring similar declines in the United States itself.

Bush's standing is as low as 8-20% in the U.S. Muslim allies Pakistan, Egypt and Indonesia. In the United Kingdom, a long-standing U.S. ally and supporter of the Iraqi invasion, only 30% have confidence in Bush. In Germany and France, this figure is 25% and 15% respectively. In Spain, it is as low as 7%, a consequence of the 2004 Madrid train bombing. Only in India does Bush's rating exceed 50%. In China, confidence in Bush (34%) is higher than in most West European E.U. members; Russia is similar (21%).

The most dramatic decline is in long-time U.S. ally and NATO member Turkey, where only 3% have confidence in Bush. However, Turkish views of the E.U. have also declined, in response to what is seen as the E.U. stalling over Turkey's membership. This mirrors declining support for NATO, now at 44%. Another U.S. ally, South Korea, also shows strong anti-Americanism, with 60% having negative views of the United States as a "colonial power." Anti-Americanism has become fashionable among young South Koreans.

Large majorities believe the United States is acting in its own interests while ignoring the interests of its allies. Such views reflect widespread opposition to U.S. unilateralism in world affairs. The Bush administration is perceived as over-reliant on hard power while ignoring soft power, whereas the E.U. is perceived as good at using soft power.

The U.S. Council on Foreign Relations' Task Force on Public Diplomacy has pointed to a perceived lack of U.S. empathy for other people's pain and hardship (for example, U.S. reluctance to intervene in Liberia's civil war), arrogance and self-indulgence. The E.U. is the world's largest bilateral aid donor, providing twice as much aid to poor countries as the United States.

Iraq has played a major role in mobilizing anti-Americanism. In one survey, there were majorities in 10 out of 14 countries supporting the view that Iraq had made the world a more dangerous place. Even in the United Kingdom, which has the second-largest military contingent in Iraq, 60% agree with that proposition.

Abuse of prisoners both in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay has damaged the image of the United States. More European than U.S. citizens have heard about incidents there, shaping their views. Brzezinski observes that the most powerful image of the United States is no longer the Statue of Liberty, but Guantanamo.

Support for NATO has declined in parallel with the fall in the U.S. image. Many countries see NATO as a U.S.-dominated organization. Like the anti-nuclear campaigners of the 1980s, countries conflate NATO with U.S. military power.

We are currently negotiating with terrorist all over Iraq and Afghanistan and it is working.

David Petraeus, the commander who has changed the way the U.S. Army fights. "You can't kill your way out of an insurgency," Petraeus told NEWSWEEK, in an interview in his Baghdad headquarters last month.


For weeks, Wright and his fellow soldiers had been hunting for a militant leader named Jan Baz. Finally Wright's boss, Lt. Col. Walter Piatt, decided that if they couldn't kill or capture the fugitive, they'd co-opt him. Piatt asked the local Afghan governor to set up a face-to-face meeting, where the American colonel offered Jan Baz the job of local police chief. The militant, eager to cement his authority in the area, accepted. "Was there some shadiness going on there?" Wright asks. "Yes. But it worked." After Jan Baz was put on the American payroll, attacks dropped.

Read it:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/123475/output/print

Thanks for posting this. Interesting.

I haven't seen paying off the enemy to not kill us as being in Obama's foreign policy.

I'll keep my eyes peeled.

Nice posturing. You seem to believe that killing is the only way to deal with terrorists. David Petraeus disagrees, "You can't kill your way out of an insurgency." You can kill, co-opt, negotiate, pay-off. You can do ALLL if that is what you need to do. If you read the article, you will see that the only resistance the commanders run into is idiots like Bush in the Pentagon, who have no idea what is going on on the ground and have never been near a war. These idiots prefer macho posturing to effective strategy. Like you.

Two things. First, there is a basic and distinct difference between insurgents and terrorists. Secondly, it is noted that you like the idea of payoff both insurgents and terrorists.

Of course we will have to come up with a pretty hefty sum in that Osama already pays for many of them. We have deep pockets, though.

Polls are your measure? I see.



I see Britian and Australia in Iraq with us, I see France moving into Afghanistan, Canada is doing outstanding work. What staunch former allies?



Exactly why polls suck on making definitive statements. An error my debate opponent doesn't factor.



Exact %'s...but not entirely...sort of...kinda? Like? Please.



Waxed and waned like....all fickle poll taking endeavors? Your waxed and waned argument and likely to subside....what a f'n joke.



Has not one iota of credibility to be gradin nobody. And...how many countries in the world are there? 27 countries good enough for a solid poll? And.....how did Mexico vote? I read in some poll where Mexico don't favor us neither....and yet...pour in by the tens of millions.



World perceptions are often oblivious to reality. And I don't see a relative decline in US power and influence either. In fact..if you're an Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Saudi, Afghan, Paki, from Uzbekistan to Kurdistan, US power and influence is a daily reality. Got any arguments with actual substance?



You can give me the EU soft power victory list...when?



Perhaps pull our American Forces from their decades long presence in Germany and Europe proper...there protecting a rebuilding Europe from a just as viscious Stalinist regime...and give the savings to charity. Awfully easy to spout this nonsense now ain't it? The EU should be the largest f'n donor their incredibily nasty wars enveloped every continent they owe the planet some back pay! Tell you what...why not submit we stop taking care of the cemetaries on Euro soil that are full of dead Americans and we'll send the savings to "poor countries." Afterwards, stroll outside and hop into your recent model vehicle or enjoy typing on your oil based product computers and internet platforms. Cause, who do you think has been patrolling shipping lanes bringing you freedom? Our Aid packages to poor countries. Check that argument at the door, Chief, the United States is a huge reason you even have a f'n EU. Or a NATO. Or a UN.


Well, if he says so..it must be true. ::)



Support for NATO we've declined. As we realize multi-nation endeavors that worked so well during the world wars where nations fought, probably don't work on Jihadists and the other threats of today. Hopefully, we see the same reality with the UN as Bush exposed their inept and corrupt programs and peeled back the skin to see what was really happening. Seriously, is there anyone credible today arguing the UN can solve a serious crisis?

Here's a hilarious video of a right-wing talkshow host explaining the "appeaser" thing:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs&feature=related (http://youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs&feature=related)

Thanks for the video JPN. Dumb ass idiot is exactly the right word to describe Kevin James. Chris certainly put him into his place. Serves him damn right. God bless us all if more idiots like him draw superficiall parallels in the history.

Carrot and stick a well known strat...long as you're more than able to set the carrot down and start swinging the stick. With bad intent. And we're not talking to al-Qaeda. Sunni tribal leaders, Shia in Basra and Sadr-City, however, we've taken after AQI, there are those with a carrotless mentality, Irwin.

Mathews smelled a bushbot talking point memo, dittohead and called him on it. He was dead nuts on, the imbecile had no idea what he was talking about. Mathews is a well read history buff and he can't stand it when pinheads like this refer to the past without knowledge of it. Quite amusing.

First what you hope to do is pretend every terrorist is Osama so you can safely make the claim there is no room for a strategy of negotiation. Second, you hope to pretend that there is only a choice between killing and talking. Both of your attempts have failed, as has that of Bush. You have failed to demonstrate that talking is not SOMETIMES a better tool than killing. You have failed to demostrate that there is a crucial distinction between terrorists and insurgents. The insurgents we are currently co-opting to bring down AQ in Iraq, use precisely the same tactics as AQ in Iraq. If bombs work, we use them, if talking works we use it, that's called behaving rationally.

It is unfortunate that you are still too ignorant and stupid to see what the commanders on the ground HAD recognized a long time ago. Being that they are smarter than you, I will take their word for it, rather than that of an incompetent politician in Washington.

While tripping to throw out insults, I think the point you were trying to make was lost.

No, my point has been made OVER and OVER. Everyone here understands it but you because you don't like the facts. If a bomb works, you use it, if co-opting works, use it. The commanders in Iraq have learned that. You and Bush haven't. You and your buddy Bush would only be right if every terrorist was Osama. Every terrorist is not.

 A little over the top Irwin. New rule is not ignorant or stupid  and has always been a gentleman here. He may be misinformed, stubbornly pigheaded and maniacally vengeful...but ignorant?...  nah.

Wait a dang minute...is this my wife!!!!??????   ;D

I calls 'em as I sees 'em: his is a willfull failure to see basic knowledge. He seems unable to distinguish action movies from the realities on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and the history of terrorism.

I'm actually in the middle of a really good read on the history of terrorism. I'm up to the Gulf War. Will be happy to discuss realities.

Been there, done that, know the realities. Knew them back before 2003. That's why I opposed the invasion. The folks on the ground in Iraq had to learn them first hand. You do a lot of posing but you have not offered one single argument against fighting terror with EVERY tool available.

I absolutely support every tool.


Why exactly did you oppose going into Iraq?

1) Saddam was a check on Iran.
2) The WMD claim was weak at best.
3) The claim that Saddam and Islamic Fundamentalists would team up was laughable. Fundimentalists despised Saddam, who murdered them mercilessly.
4) A war in the heart of the Middle East was exactly what OBL wanted. It was the only thing that could turn his well-funded campaign of elites into a global movement. (He thought this might happen in Afghanistan. It didn't because reasons I can go into at another time. Then Bush gave him the gift of Iraq.)
5) Saddam wasn't a threat to us, or Israel, he was a man who lived in terror of an Iranian invasion. Period.
6) George Bush Sr. avoided invading Iraq for the same reason I opposed it. I knew before it all started that we would be EXACTLY in this place here and now.

The reasons for opposing could fill volumes. Oh, yeah, I know guys like you try to get around facts by saying things like, 'oh, you would have been against it any way' or 'you just opposed Iraq because you hated bush.' So: I supported action in Kosovo, Bosnia and afghanistan. NOT Iraq.

You are so quick to insult me you never leave room for me to agree with you.

I don't really care. Too many folks like you went around in those days with your action movie ideas of a war and total ignorance of terrorism. You and your neocon buddies sneered at the sane folks who looked at the facts and used reason. You used the kind of macho dogma you throw around in this post, like how we supposedly have only a choice between "appeasement" and dropping bombs. I'm not "insulting you by saying you try to get around facts, I'm stating a fact. You do. You are trying to get around how troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are now NEGOTIATING with terrorists by

a) suddenly saying that terrorists and insurgents are different, when they use the same tactics.
b) throwing out the word Osama, as if saying we can't talk with him so all talk is useless.
c) talking about "realities" as if you are the one with something to teach me. No, I saw the disaster BEFORE it came and I'm not still stuck on trying to rationalize it like you.

Glad you decided to learn something about terrorism. Should have done it years ago, when you were too busy sneering at liberals and kissing Bush's ass.

Yes, you are BRILLIANT!!! BRILLIANT!!!!! You are so smart without the benefit of ANY US intelligence. You saw things that neither Hillary nor Kerry nor Kennedy nor Bill Clinton saw!!

With that towering intellect, maybe Obama picks YOU!!!

It wasn't just me it was MILLIONS of Americans and everyone around the world. Why? Because the world outside wasn't looking at the US media, which was being fed by the neocons. The "intelligence" was garbage from the start. (And it leaked out that Powell said so AT THE TIME.) I didn't need US intelligence to know Saddam and the fundamentalists were bitter enemies, that Saddam was terrified of Iran, that if he had WMD, he wanted them for Iran, -- all I had to do was pick up a book about ME history, read an article about the Iran/Iraq war -- even -- GOD Forbid! -- read the damn NY Times. You name all the politicians you like, you keep pretending voting for that resolution was anymore than politics, rather than agreeing with the neocon psychotics. Anyone who just looked at the evidence saw this coming from a mile away.

I'm not a genius for seeing this way ahead of time, you are an idiot for NOT seeing it. Bush's daddy did!

Key takeaways...1) Saddam could have had WMD but only wanted to use them against Iran. 2) Most Democrats will vote for war when politically expedient.

ps:
Did he? Please tell us how GHW Bush's decision to boot Iraq out of Kuwait effected the terrorist movement.

Key takeaways. Try key pieces of spin.

1) MOST politicians say what they need to when their other choice is being accused of treason, which is what standing up against the neocon thugs meant back then.

2) We are not talking about Bush's invasion of Kuwait, (that's called a red herring) we are talking about him knowing how stupid it was to invade Iraq.

3) Saddam COULD have had WMD, and he wanted them against Iran. That's right. The US gave him WMD for that purpose. Why don't you look into Pakistan, genius. Hm? They have nukes, (unlike Iraq) are currently harboring OBL, Musharraf had personal connections and contact with OBL to arrange an assassinaton attempt on Bhutto, most of the 9/11 hijackers were pakistani --- but wait Saddam MIGHT have WMD, which he would only want for our enemy Iran.

You are a genius!

We? No.

You? Yes.


You didn't explain how Bush's decision to run Saddam out of Kuwait effected the terrorist movement. You said GHW Bush did it right and his son did it wrong.

I look forward to the discussion.

No, we are not switching to a subject you would like to answer because you can't answer the subject at hand. You made the argument that only a "genius" at the time could know that the intelligence was faulty. I said it only took someone of normal intelligence to look at Iraq, it's history and the facts. I said GHW Bush came to the same conclusions I, millions of Americans, and most of the world did. When someone (you) is confronted by an argument they can't answer, they try to bait their opponent with a "red herring." You are trying to get me to answer the question I know very well the answer to, so you can talk about that, and cover your inability to answer what we were talking about. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

So, let's not let you change focus: George Bush Sr. Knew that invading Iraq was a mistake, back when he ejected Iraq from Kuwait.
So, it was perfectly easy to see that invading Iraq would be a mistake. 

If you would like to discuss your red herring, please bring it up openly and we will begin a new discussion.

Was he? And with Saddam still in power...and rising oil demand....and Iranian desires for a nuclear weapon(surely Saddam wouldn't simply ignore this), another clash was inevitable was it not? I need not remind you of the historic warfare between Arab and Persian...certainly. And while checking Iran...what was Saddam doing to the Shia in his south, Kurds to his north, Kuwait to his flank?


He had them, used them, never reported their whereabouts, and lied consistently. It was never the United States' job to go into Iraq and find WMDs.


Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal ring bells. Hello!


He wanted just the opposite and you have no clue as to what you're talking about. Do you? You find me Bin Laden wanting a war in the ME. Have you read his Fatwa, his little declaration of war, do you even know who he is, where he comes from? For the love of God, f'n pay attention.


No, just firing on our probably illegal no fly zones implemented to keep him from slaughtering his own people. Involved in an unprecedented oil for food corruption sliding him by serious sanctions everyone of them he ignored. He had international terrorists hidden in Iraq, he paid families of suicide terrorists. And his invasion of Kuwait doesn't seem to follow your ridiculous notion of Saddam being afraid of Iran. He treated their shia brethren mercilessly during his reign before and after our wars, his army much more capable than Iran's. And I guess you may have forgotten his SCUD attacks on Israel attempting to broaden his war, the WMD fear so great the news hounds would run for gas masks noone then had any trouble understanding Saddam would easy kill thousands to make a point. Lastly, I reckon Israel was way off going to Osirak in 1983, they seem to disagree Saddam was no threat. You know Irwin, if not for reality, some of your crap would actually pass muster. Alas, it so don't.



Monday morning QB braggings?


Your post prior to 2003 predicting such is...where again? Forum, thread, and post # of your claims would do alot more for your credibility than trying to sound as if you know what in God's name you're talking about.

The quotations are from OBL's 1998 Fatwa declaring Jihad against the US. You should read it sometime, Irwin.:)



Hold on there, Osama...Irwin is arguing with you, thinks you want us in the ME so as you can attack us(as if you had any trouble before we entered Iraq)



Turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead to launch wars? Does this sound like a man trying to incite war inside Arabia..or finds it offensive wars occur torched off by American presence?



Irwin is telling us you WANT us there, an occupation benefits you! Go figure.



Sound like he wants another war?.....Irwin....with your exactly what Bin Laden wanted bs. Please, you're not even paying attention, you're not even close on this one.



But...you want us there huh, OBL?



Yes, the Israeli support issue, always a sticking point with terrorists, we support the democratic Israel...we recognize her right to existence.



Irwin......are you crystal clear positive he wanted a war...I mean...his Fatwa just simply ain't consistent with your guess here. I suggest some reading. What in the world!

I marched in downtown Seattle http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030216&slug=protests16 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030216&slug=protests16) along with an estimated 25,000 fellow citizens on February 15, 2003. I marched because:

• I was afraid of unleashing civil war, and,
• I was convinced that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

Read it in 1999. New York Times quoted it, then. Found it online in 2002. OBL's intent was to embroil us in a war that would incite a global terror movement, said movement was designed to eject US troops fr/ Saudi. He succeeded, not where he thought he would, in Afghanistan, but in Iraq. Iraq created the global movement and the troops were removed from Saudi. But we were talking about Bush Sr. not being dumb enough to invade Iraq because he knew the consequences.

I see you can take apart a post and then repeat debunked junk after my quotes. Too bad you can't say anything that actually challenges my arguments. I'm sorry, worthless outdated arguments like yours were destroyed long ago.

And I quote, Scott McClellen: "The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. …

Thank You Mr. McClellen. The idea of going to war was based on propaganda campaign, NOT INTEL. Politicians, trusting the Pres., authorized war IF NECESSARY. It was up to the Pres to see that it wasn't necessary. He was only interested in propaganda.

CASE CLOSED.