I don't like being overly partisan, particularly when it comes to the Iraq War and national security issues. And I am registered Independent. But there's no getting around which party's rhetoric handed al Qaida this latest propoganda victory. If you're in doubt, contrast what they've been saying with this item on a new blog to which I was recently introduced.
CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, said in a videotape aired Friday that the United States' recent decision to withdraw some troops from Iraq represented "the victory of Islam."
Al-Zawahri, wearing a white turban and gray robe and seated next to an automatic rifle, waved his finger for emphasis as he spoke in the two-minute excerpt aired by Al-Jazeera.
"I congratulate (the Islamic nation) for the victory of Islam in Iraq," he said.
Do you always believe everything you read? And why would anyone listen to some lunatic ranting and raving.
If we get caught up in what he says, if we make it important then he wins, otherwise just blow the dude UP, sorry I mean off.:)
Posted by: klrclsr | Friday, January 06, 2006 at 03:19 PM
why would anyone listen to some lunatic ranting and raving.
You mean Howard Deam, or Senator Murtha? I do ignore them as they're ultimately harmless beyong being just one vote. Propaganda in a war can be far more dangerous. Just because you or I tune zawahri out doesn't mean everyone else does. That's putting one's head in the sand, ultimately allowing you to be kicked in the butt.
Posted by: Dan | Friday, January 06, 2006 at 03:27 PM
Right on, Dan!
Didn't Vietnam prove the power of propaganda. Well, at least Jane didn't go sit on a tank in Baghdad; that's the only way it could be any worse.
Posted by: PoorPaulaNNJ | Friday, January 06, 2006 at 03:45 PM
Yep. Some lunatic ranting and raving... let's do the opposite! Unless, he's conniving and wants us to do the opposite... then we should do what we were going to do. Unless he knows that we know he knows and... hold on there. Either way, if Bush decides to draw down the troop levels then it's the fault of the libruls and the mdia including Tucker Carlson.
Doesn't matter, Iraq is on the fast track to being yet another a brutal Islamic theocracy.
Personally, I'm not interested in getting my face blown off so Sadr and Jafari can have "good times" brutalizing women who don't wear the hajab or whipping some poor bastard caught with a beer [or more correctly, imprisonment not less than two years and whipping not exceeding thirty stripes].
By the way, don't the Pakistanis have nuke weapons?
http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/zia_po_1979/po4_1979.html
===============
Posted by: Sgt. York | Friday, January 06, 2006 at 03:54 PM
You don't like being overly partisan? And you're an independent??
**rubs eyes**
Posted by: lwm | Friday, January 06, 2006 at 04:24 PM
uuuhhhrr *yawn* mmmmm.....we're just lulling them into a false sense of security, yanno - flush 'em out for you guys, like jumping on brush piles rabbit hunting......zzzzzzz.....
Posted by: callmeBetty | Friday, January 06, 2006 at 04:25 PM
Dan, like most wing-nuts, you will believe anything.
MrsLevy
Posted by: MrsLevy | Friday, January 06, 2006 at 05:01 PM
Weren't the troops going to be withdrawn anyways??? I mean, weren't the dems already vilified in Nov, Dec for being soooooo stupid to demand something already in the works?
Nice little revolving door we have here.
Maybe the rest of the world will start to pay more attention and contribute essential resources now that Mommy and Daddy are fighting in public again....... Just another symptom of a divorced, disfunctional element of society that doesn't value the contributions made by the other significant parent.
MOMMY - On the Left
We have dreamers, idealists, creatives. The sensitive among us, the nurturers and feeders. We make your movies, we sing your songs, we commune with nature so WE can breath for another hundred years.
DADDY - On the Right
We have discipline and balance, defenders of the home and purveyors of substinance. We build and tear down to provide nourishment and progress. We fight to defend our loved ones, stamp out injustice.
Which job is more important and why does one side have to be right? We've all got jobs to do. Life is complicated; to oversimplify is to miss the point entirely IMHO.
Posted by: callmeBetty | Friday, January 06, 2006 at 07:21 PM
Bush's did state in one of his speeches, his arguement in proving a time table early on..."didn't want to give the terrorist/enemy the impression we have been defeated by setting dates." PsyOps...
Posted by: *flo* | Friday, January 06, 2006 at 07:34 PM
No matter what happens they will say they have a victory. They have already been saying it the whole time we have been there, and they will say it if we stay over there for another 15 years.
So what? It is not up to them to define what we set out as our mission, that is for us to decide.
Saddam has been over thrown and is being tried for crimes against his people, Iraq has elected its leaders, and even though no weapons of mass destruction were found,the concerns have been alleviated about the possibility that they might have access or begin development under Saddam.
Therefore,I say,
>>> Mission Accomplished
>>>>Time for us to begin phasing out and bringing the troops home.
Most of the people of Iraq don't want us to continue to stay there and they need to take charge of their own country now.
People can call this tucking tail and going home, or they can say we did what we went there to do and it is time to end it. We aren't married to these people. Congress did not give Bush the authority to invade Iraq if he decided he needed to so we could go billions of $$s in debt to establish a democracy in Iraq. NO, this invasion was authorized if he thought he needed to do it for National security purposes due to the concern about Saddam as their president and concern about possibility of weapons of mass destruction.
This has now been addressed.
This war is costing our country dearly $$$. The national debt is so large now that is is inconceivable. My newsletter I got today from Alan Boyd, one of our representatives in the House, highlights some issues related to the national debt and strategies that have been proposed to address it. (He is not anti war in this case.) I have personally written him about my concerns about the lack of fiscal responsibility under this administration and by this congress. He said he has national debt clock in his office now.
Our national debt is now $8,137,000,000,000 and each US citizen's part is $27,000. He didn't display the daily interest, but I have seen it before and it is mind boggling.
Our great grandchildren will be paying for this war.It is time to bring it to closure.
I have other issues related to this war also, but I have focused just on the fiscal cost.
Posted by: shonane | Saturday, January 07, 2006 at 01:41 AM
the national debt is insignificant compared to the payables that have been promised to the baby boomers....this path will be catastrophic and I don't see anything being done to address it....any politician who makes the war an issue affecting the deficit is being very disingenuous....baby boomers should not have voted themselves S.S., drug benefits, increased school $, daycare, sick leave, etc, etc....and then mass produced birth control & legalized abortion....this is mind boggling...we haven't seen a deficit yet!
Posted by: COLUMBO | Saturday, January 07, 2006 at 08:22 AM
By the way, don't the Pakistanis have nuke weapons?
They are no longer in the business of exporting the technology
Posted by: COLUMBO | Saturday, January 07, 2006 at 08:25 AM
".baby boomers should not have voted themselves S.S., drug benefits, increased school $, daycare, sick leave, etc, etc....and then mass produced birth control & legalized abortion....this is mind boggling...we haven't seen a deficit yet!"
Columbo, your list makes sense until 'legalized abortion..' What does that have to do with your premise?
All this talk about costs and deficits won't mean doodly if we suffer a nice nuke on one of our big cities. The neo-cons, who are able to engage in futuristic thinking as opposed to those capable only of seeing the world in Just Today's terms, know well that if we don't have a military presence in the Levant, all bets for worrying about retiring Baby Boomers and the national deficit won't mean squat. Getting rid of Saddam was flicking a piece of lint off compared to the larger picture of our having a presence in the middle of several Levantine countries that possess nukes. A few of those countries don't like us.
Posted by: Phoenix | Saturday, January 07, 2006 at 11:35 AM
Columbo, your list makes sense until 'legalized abortion..' What does that have to do with your premise?
tax payer gap...after voting for all the program$, birth control and abortions went mainstream...there is an echo boomer generation (echo of the baby boomers) who will be picking up the tab while they are changing the depends...or perhaps the baby boomers will make assisted living an entitlement
Posted by: COLUMBO | Saturday, January 07, 2006 at 12:28 PM
> the larger picture of our having a presence in the middle of several Levantine countries that possess nukes. A few of those countries don't like us.
Hi Phoenix - I'm afraid; if that makes me a leftard or moron so be it, but I respect your opinion and would be very grateful if you could elaborate on this idea.
A number of us on the Left believe that this is one of the real reasons for the war. Unfortunately, it is also one of the main reasons why I don't see this "war" ending at Any time, not just any time soon. A permanent or even long term presence in Iraq is meeting with substantial resistance, to put it mildly. They don't appear to want us there. Even the countries that "like" us don't like us there.....
After invading Afghanistan and removing the Taliban from power, isn't our presence already established over there? It's not the Levant but it's close by. We will have business ventures to protect there soon, as well as an unstable political climate to prop up...... Why not stop there. 911 retribution done. That's all.
And the threat of nuclear destruction was initiated by the US, ignored in Pakistan, India, Israel... N Korea, Iran. We've got 'all' the bombs and we've used them before. Who's scarier?
I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I do respect your opinion. It may be a dumb question but I don't care. We have a job to do in Iraq, rebuilding the destruction we inflicted. We CAN'T leave now, that would be insane. Our troops are dedicated and caring professionals, commited to getting the job done..... I hope that's possible.
Posted by: callmeBetty | Saturday, January 07, 2006 at 01:05 PM
Breaking news.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay on Saturday abandoned his bid to remain as House majority leader, clearing the way for leadership elections among Republicans eager to shed the taint of scandal.
Posted by: coconuttree | Saturday, January 07, 2006 at 02:48 PM
Dan, something is messup with your blogsite. All the side and top menus are gone, and the background is purple.
Posted by: shonane | Saturday, January 07, 2006 at 05:23 PM
same here. It's ok on the PC but not on the MAC.
Posted by: callmeBetty | Saturday, January 07, 2006 at 05:45 PM
callmeBetty,
Rumsfeld has reorganized all our military bases around the world because the potential hotspots have changed. Our enemies are in the Levant. We need a base there. You're right....it will be years and years before we're out of Iraq. And who says they don't want us there? The MSM. As well, we can't protect Israel without a base in that area. Israel will take care of Iran, but they will need our help. Who is scarier? Not the country with the most nuclear weapons or the most powerful military. The scariest is the enemy backed by religious belief. They will die for their religion. A country like ours can raise an eyebrow, pass the message along and maybe no one dies. Yes, our presence in Iraq has a lot of opposition, but that opposition is from people who don't get it. They lack the ability to see into the future and to realize this enemy of ours is unlike any we have ever faced.
There is also the consideration that our presence in countries has increased that country's security and capital. We will bring home a substantial number of military, set up a base, and wait and watch......just as we have done all over the world for the protection of our country. The option of being isolationist is not even a reality anymore - if it ever was.
Posted by: Phoenix | Saturday, January 07, 2006 at 10:09 PM
My background is dark blue. No sidebar. Hard to read! I'm on a MAC. Maybe I'll try another server......
Posted by: Phoenix | Saturday, January 07, 2006 at 10:12 PM
Most people think it's the OIL! That's why we chose Iraq.
Nope. That is only part of it.
The 'cradle of civilization' is the Tigris-Euphrates confluence.
Iraq is the ONLY mideast country with WATER and OIL.
We can NEVER allow Iraq to become a haven for mishief because it has everything to sustain itself. Plus it's smack dab in the center of the Middle East. To hold or control Iraq is to prevent the rest of the region from coalescing into a homogenus geographical entity.
It's as important as Vicksburg was in our Civil War, because of its strategic location.
If we pull up stakes, Iraq will become the very nexus of Islamofascism and rabid religious fundamentalism is less than a decade.
If you think Iran poses a problem - imagine a zealot state stretching from Afghanistan to the coast of Syria. THAT is what was happening and will happen without due dilligence and sacrifice on the part of the West.
And don't tell me 'we do not have the support of Europe'.
Those bastards have relied on us to protect their sorry asses for over 50 years and no longer maintain a viable military and what money they have is paying for the socialism they have adopted.
As to the 'expense' of this endeavor, I would merely point out that without that region's oil, we would be brought to our knees in a matter of months and when a nuclear Islam becomes a reality, kiss Israel, and Europe goodbye, in that order. See, that is their plan.
A pan-Arabic calliphate reaching from Andalusia to Indonesia.
We must prevent that at ANY cost.
That is all.
Posted by: Steel | Saturday, January 07, 2006 at 10:43 PM
>That is all.
Thanks Phoenix and Steel. For the honest response and for indulging a very frustrated whiner (at least today-not always).
Knew I could count on you for a straight answer.
Posted by: callmeBetty | Saturday, January 07, 2006 at 11:39 PM
This 'incapable' administration has quietly redrawn the geopolitical map of the region....haven't seen such an 'incapable' administration do anything on this scale since.....Reagan!
as far as the WMD...Saddam had a large presence in Libya, the country that was discussed as a potential refuge for him (prewar)...is it not a coincidence that Khaddafi had a WMD program and the day Saddam was pulled from the hole it was relinquished and is now stored in New Mexico? Obviously, Khaddafi has been flipped
Posted by: COLUMBO | Sunday, January 08, 2006 at 01:40 PM
I predict we will be engaged with Iran by summer. This is not just a national security issue and concern about Iran developing nuclear capacity. It is about what currency is used for oil. Iran is going to the euro for oil trade in March 06. That is bad for the US $$, real bad.
Saddam did the same thing about a year before we invaded Iraq. After we invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was eliminated and the currency used for oil was changed back to the US dollar. This is a major issue which could have very negative effects on the US economy and the $$. It won't be hightlighted as a reason for a confrontation with Iran, but it will be a biggie for prompting the timing and urgency.
The US needs to go back to the gold standard. This is really a whole other topic for discussion, but when we talk about big oil, we are not just talking about getting access to it and controlling costs, we are talking about what is used as the international currency for oil trade. Right now it is the $$. When that changes, urgency will grow to change it back. Watch! The momentum is going to rapidly build for a direct confrontation with Iran - again, no one will mention this issue (their leader is agressive, non cooperative and talking crazy enough), but it will push the time frame into rapid motion.
And - - - this IS in our national interest, just like nuclear weapons and Muslim extremism.
Posted by: shonane | Sunday, January 08, 2006 at 10:45 PM