The repub propaganda machine is truly impressive. If they weren't so good, Bush would already be long gone.
Exclusive Excerpt: Bob Woodward's 'State of Denial'
- Thread starter ktmexc20
- Start date
The repub propaganda machine is truly impressive. If they weren't so good, Bush would already be long gone.
What is more impressive is how gullible the klansmen are to believe that crap being put out by the propaganda machine.
Hey hap
I thought that was a balanced article you posted. The author had some good points. One I would take issue with, however, is the above. I am not sure about the characterization of the American military effort in Iraq as 'an attempt to deliver (Iraq) from adherents to the ideology of Islamic Fascism'.
After all, is it not correct that OBL had chastised Saddam for his un-Islamic ways? OBL felt that Saddam was 'not a good Mulsim', right?
As far as I can tell, the actual reason given for the invasion of Iraq was first that Saddam had been, either directly or indirectly, involved in the 9/11 attacks. Then the suggestion was that he had knowingly allowed 9/11 conspirators to use Iraq as a staging area. Then of course these reasons were backed up by the WMD claims which have unfortunately been shown to be false, and which will blemish the career of Colin Powell for good.
This is the problem with the ongoing mission there. Let us say that, all of this aside, we now believe that the mission in Iraq must continue because Iraq is a breeding ground for Islamo-fascism. The problem with that is that Iraq is nowhere near the prime breeding ground for Islamo-fascism. The problem is that Islamo-fascism can flare up anywhere on the planet. This is why, even though I am glad that there's a country like the U.S. that's willing to throw huge amounts of men and money at the problem of fighting these lunatics, I don't think that invading Iraq was the best use of the money. Let me ask anyone out there this question - if you had to choose between allowing Saddam Hussein or Iran's Ahmadinejad to remain in power, who would you pick? Which country, including all the clerics, poses a bigger direct threat to the US?
Last, the characterization of our actions in Iraq as 'liberation' was probably correct insofar as the intentions of the commanders were concerned. However, it has become abundantly clear that our ideas about how the Iraqis would respond when handed the opportunity of a lifetime, the opportunity to build a modern Arab state that could participate in the global economy and provide opportunities for its citizens, were wrong. In fact they seem just as interested in murdering each other as rebuilding their country and becoming a fully modern state. The question is - are they ready for 'liberation'? It's difficult for some Westerners to believe, but there do exist countries and certainly provinces within countries that aren't ready for Western life. The hideously barbaric stoning that you pointed out, along with the other executions of others (mainly women, those devils of carnal deceit), show that we're dealing with people that have a fundamentally different mindset. Is it logical to try to defend ourselves from the lunatic behaviours of some of these people by trying to talk them into acting like us?
We only have to look at India to understand the difference between their mindset and others in the area. True, 300 years of British occupation uniquely prepared the Indians to embrace Western ideals. But it hasn't been a smooth process, and it isn't over. Nevertheless, the Indians read what they felt was the writing on the wall and have embraced international trade. I am not saying that every Indian peasant drinking Pepsi is good for the world condition either, I am simply making a statement about the lesser of the two evils.
Guess who is creating problems in India? Not the Hindus.
The disappearing "US"
By Michael Barone
Monday, October 2, 2006
One of the salutary results of the Clinton administration, I thought, was that it got liberals and Democrats in the habit of using the first person plural. U.S. military forces in Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere were "our troops." NATO and Japan and Australia and all the rest were "our allies."
The second person plural used to come naturally to all Americans. G.I.s in World War II were "our boys" (the second word now politically incorrect and also inaccurate), whether you were a Republican or a Democrat, from the North or the South, black or white. But the Vietnam War got liberals out of that habit. U.S. troops were "the military." They were sent into Lebanon and Grenada not by "the president," but by "the Reagan administration." (Did anyone say that troops were ordered to Normandy or Iwo Jima by "the Roosevelt administration"?) The Gulf War in 1991 was regarded by most Democrats and liberals as "their war."
The success of the Gulf War and the election of a Democratic president the next year got Democrats back into the habit of thinking of the government and the military as "ours." They reveled, especially during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, in portraying themselves as the champions of "our troops." They howled in anger, I think justifiably, when House Minority Leader Dick Armey, looking over to the Democratic side of the aisle, referred to Bill Clinton as "your president."
Today, Democrats are pretty much back to the third person plural. Yes, they still talk of "our troops" from time to time, but usually only to call for them to be "redeployed" from a mission that has been more successful than not, but has not been completed. They seldom mention any soldier's heroism unless they can persuade him to run for office on the Democratic ticket. They talk, instead, about George Bush's war, even though most Democratic senators and nearly half of House Democrats voted to authorize it and -- remember? -- said that they believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
And most Democrats are willing, even eager to take unprecedented stands that will retard the fight against terrorism. More than four-fifths of House Democrats voted against the military tribunals bill this week, though military tribunals have always been used to try unlawful combatants, and the bill gave those charged more protections than in the past.
Many have taken the astonishing position that National Security Agency surveillance of suspected terrorists abroad, undeniably legal, must cease when the subject calls someone in the United States until a court warrant can be obtained. Their proposals for immediate or rapid "redeployment" from Iraq are championed with claims that our cause is already lost or with reckless disregard as to whether it will be if their course is taken.
The likely consequences of that stand are laid out in the full National Intelligence Estimate's "Key Judgments" revealed last week -- not just the snippets leaked to The New York Times by liberals in the intelligence community.
Here's one key judgment: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." Here's another: "Perceived jihadi success there (in Iraq) would inspire more fighters to continue the fight elsewhere."
That shouldn't be surprising. If you lose, or are perceived to lose, a war you will likely have more enemies. If you win, you tend to have fewer. Democrats are arguing, based on their cherry-picked section of the NIE, that going into Iraq created more enemies. But the "redeployment" so many of them favor would likely result in our having even more.
Back in 2003 and 2004, supporters of Howard Dean's presidential campaign talked about "taking back our country." The implication was that America is not "ours" so long as George W. Bush is president. Nor is the struggle in Iraq "ours" for many Democrats. It's "their" war, the Bush administration's war. And they seek not the road to victory, but the acknowledgement of failure.
Their pit bull attacks on Bush, their constant references to the Abu Ghraib abuses as if they were typical, their opposition to letting the NSA listen to conversations from al-Qaida suspects to persons in the United States and to letting interrogators of unlawful combatants use techniques that have helped us foil those plotting violence against us -- these amount to a strategy of rule or ruin. You must let us rule this country, or we won't regard it as "our" country anymore. So much for the first person plural.
By Michael Barone
Monday, October 2, 2006
One of the salutary results of the Clinton administration, I thought, was that it got liberals and Democrats in the habit of using the first person plural. U.S. military forces in Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere were "our troops." NATO and Japan and Australia and all the rest were "our allies."
The second person plural used to come naturally to all Americans. G.I.s in World War II were "our boys" (the second word now politically incorrect and also inaccurate), whether you were a Republican or a Democrat, from the North or the South, black or white. But the Vietnam War got liberals out of that habit. U.S. troops were "the military." They were sent into Lebanon and Grenada not by "the president," but by "the Reagan administration." (Did anyone say that troops were ordered to Normandy or Iwo Jima by "the Roosevelt administration"?) The Gulf War in 1991 was regarded by most Democrats and liberals as "their war."
The success of the Gulf War and the election of a Democratic president the next year got Democrats back into the habit of thinking of the government and the military as "ours." They reveled, especially during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, in portraying themselves as the champions of "our troops." They howled in anger, I think justifiably, when House Minority Leader Dick Armey, looking over to the Democratic side of the aisle, referred to Bill Clinton as "your president."
Today, Democrats are pretty much back to the third person plural. Yes, they still talk of "our troops" from time to time, but usually only to call for them to be "redeployed" from a mission that has been more successful than not, but has not been completed. They seldom mention any soldier's heroism unless they can persuade him to run for office on the Democratic ticket. They talk, instead, about George Bush's war, even though most Democratic senators and nearly half of House Democrats voted to authorize it and -- remember? -- said that they believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
And most Democrats are willing, even eager to take unprecedented stands that will retard the fight against terrorism. More than four-fifths of House Democrats voted against the military tribunals bill this week, though military tribunals have always been used to try unlawful combatants, and the bill gave those charged more protections than in the past.
Many have taken the astonishing position that National Security Agency surveillance of suspected terrorists abroad, undeniably legal, must cease when the subject calls someone in the United States until a court warrant can be obtained. Their proposals for immediate or rapid "redeployment" from Iraq are championed with claims that our cause is already lost or with reckless disregard as to whether it will be if their course is taken.
The likely consequences of that stand are laid out in the full National Intelligence Estimate's "Key Judgments" revealed last week -- not just the snippets leaked to The New York Times by liberals in the intelligence community.
Here's one key judgment: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." Here's another: "Perceived jihadi success there (in Iraq) would inspire more fighters to continue the fight elsewhere."
That shouldn't be surprising. If you lose, or are perceived to lose, a war you will likely have more enemies. If you win, you tend to have fewer. Democrats are arguing, based on their cherry-picked section of the NIE, that going into Iraq created more enemies. But the "redeployment" so many of them favor would likely result in our having even more.
Back in 2003 and 2004, supporters of Howard Dean's presidential campaign talked about "taking back our country." The implication was that America is not "ours" so long as George W. Bush is president. Nor is the struggle in Iraq "ours" for many Democrats. It's "their" war, the Bush administration's war. And they seek not the road to victory, but the acknowledgement of failure.
Their pit bull attacks on Bush, their constant references to the Abu Ghraib abuses as if they were typical, their opposition to letting the NSA listen to conversations from al-Qaida suspects to persons in the United States and to letting interrogators of unlawful combatants use techniques that have helped us foil those plotting violence against us -- these amount to a strategy of rule or ruin. You must let us rule this country, or we won't regard it as "our" country anymore. So much for the first person plural.
I'm not even sure what the National Intelligence Estimate is, hap. Who writes that report?
In any case, I just have a real tough time with the idea that the overall security of the United States is intrinsically linked to success or failure in Iraq. The wording of that bit above is a little strange. Which threats to the US? The most serious threats? Of course it is a given to say that some threat or the other is intrinsically linked to success or failure in Iraq, in the sense that if enough Islamic fundamentalists are killed, the number that remain to carry out attacks on the US will be less.
And as always, please... I have asked this question several times in the past months and have yet to receive a cogent answer -
what defines success or failure for the mission in Iraq?
What is the mission in Iraq, now that the premise that the people would embrace the opportunity for democracy and unite in liberation from Saddam Hussein has been disproved?
The mantra of the right wing Stepford republican Bush followers has been:
"We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq, so that we don't have to fight them here."
I wonder how would those terrorists get here, and how would they get in to our country?
Oh yeah, they will dress up as Mexicans and just walk across the borders that Bush has not secured....
Or they would enter the country at our ports that are not secure....
Bully for "we are safer now."
"We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq, so that we don't have to fight them here."
I wonder how would those terrorists get here, and how would they get in to our country?
Oh yeah, they will dress up as Mexicans and just walk across the borders that Bush has not secured....
Or they would enter the country at our ports that are not secure....
Bully for "we are safer now."
We posted at the same time...lol.
I hear ya Nik. Just a couple of points:
I never got the impression at all that we invaded Iraq because Saddam was involved with 9/11, and I don't know why so many Americans thought that was the case. I don't ever recall Bush saying so. The reasons that I recall were WMD, plant a seed of democracy in a region that doesn't have an Arab one, and rid ourselves of Saddam.
I think Bush chose Iraq instead of Iran because he thought it was the more immediate threat, and logistically was easier. Iran has a much larger population and more difficult terrain.
Furthermore, I agree that Islamo-fascism can spring up anywhere, but the fact is, as the recent NIE that the Libs/Dims keep cherry-picking points out, Iraq is the focal point at this point in time and if we leave the consequences would be enormous.
As for if they are ready for liberation or not, I think they clearly were ready - to be rid of Saddam. The question is if they were ready for our style of democracy. Clearly Bush and Co. thought they were. Early signs of optimism included the massive participation of the Iraqi public in voting for their new government despite the killings and attempts by the Ba'athists and the terrorists to prevent them. But with the security situation worsening and the resulting rise in anti-US sentiment by the majority Shi'a, it is of course proving to be much, much more difficult than Bush envisioned.
Is it a screwed-up situation? Yes.
Can we afford to just up and leave? I don't believe so, and for reasons you have undoubtedly already heard many times on ET so I won't regurgitate the list.
Just my thoughts, which will inevitably get a rise out of the various moonbats.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Intelligence_Estimate
Nik, if we lose in Iraq, it is an enormous victory for radical Islam. Think about that in terms of worldwide recruiting of angry young Muslim men, loss of face to the US, and the additional attacks it would invite.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
The end has not yet been written, Nik. Democracies are not made in a couple of years and without bloodshed.
Although our enemies, external and internal (i.e. the resident troll and his ilk, who would love nothing more than an American defeat solely for the opportunity to castigate Bush), are salivating for an American defeat, I'm not ready to throw in the towel. And neither is the current Prez.
If a Democrat wins in '08, especially a cut-and-runner, you'll be able to see what the consequences of pulling out are.
Thanks for those links, I will definitely check them out. I am curious about what's at that link you provided in response to the question about the actual goals of the mission.
You know hap.. I guess I have this belief that if you picked the top 1000 most virulent Islamo-fascists in Iraq, a bunch of them would be more interested in consolidating their power and ruling Iraq with an iron hand than in mounting attacks on the US. If I can make a distinction for a second between Islamic Fundamentalism and Islamic Extremism, I have always seen the fundamentalists as essentially powermongers; like powermongers everywhere, they simply want the benefits that accrue to those who hold power.
RM posted an interesting excerpt from 1984, taken from Winston's final interrogation. In fact it is the seminal moment in the book, in many ways (aside from his admitting that 2+2 does indeed equal 5). He is told that the aim of power is power itself, not the wealth or influence or whatever. I just don't quite believe that these Mullahs are quite so pure. Certainly, from what I have seen in SE Asian and Asian countries, this is not at all the case among those powermongers - they want power because they like the power life, and that goes up and down the food chain.
Having said this, you know well that my views about what these people are capable of has been stood on it's ear in recent years.
If we 'lose' in Iraq ( and I will have to check out that link in order to fully understand what is meant by losing vs. winnign vs. neither) I think that it will be worse for the losing religious group than it will for the U.S.
Also, wouldn't a loss in Iraq result in less angry young Muslim men being recruited than if we actually win? Wouldn't a win there result in more hatred towards the U.S? Or is the idea that if we 'lose' it will raise the fighting blood of the young men who will then say 'Look, they can be beaten, let us press our advantage and establish the New World Muslim Order of which we all dream...'
Interesting, I haven't considered the possibility that a withdrawl from Iraq would result in a greater chance of attacks on U.S. soil for this reason, that hordes of young men would be emboldened to attack, sensing weakness. I'll have to think about that one.
Nik, again, I hear ya! As I see it, we're not fighting one enemy but two. There are the elements of the Sunni Ba'athists who want to regain power, and then there are the foreign Islamofascists, i.e. Al Qaeda, who have poured in for the opportunity to kill the American crusader. I read recently about a letter found in the aftermath of the al-Zarqawi termination where an Al Qaeda leader is reprimanding him over straining relationships with the Sunnis. So yeah, I think what you've said applies to the Sunnis but not the foreign fighters that have flowed in.
Yeah, that's how I see it - a loss in Iraq would embolden our enemies and swell their ranks. Remember, we're the Great Satan to them, and a victory against us would be like a pack of hyenas smeling the blood of a wounded lion. Bin Laden even said that after we pulled out of Somalia after Blackhawk Down, it proved to them that we were a "paper tiger."
p.s. Not trying to convince you that I'm "right." I know you well enough to know you'll look at everything and come to your own conclusion regardless of what I or anyone else says. Just trying to provide you with more info....and if we disagree, that's cool too of course!
