"It's also worth mentioning again that much of what the NIE says is virtually the same things President Bush has been saying for quite some time."

Careful, Matt -- you've just 'proven' in moonbat land that this NIE is 'obviously' just another example of President Bush coercing intelligence analysts to slant their conclusions in favor of his preconceptions. *eg*

/waiting for arrival of moonbat to be saying this /without/ tongue-in-cheek in 3... 2... 1...

not having read it yet, does the NIE define as "terrorism" BOTH the actions of Iraqi sectarian militias AND transnational jihadists? And is the (apparent) support of the Turkish rebels (PKK) bu the Iraqi Kurds also included?

if yes, then how does one reconcile that definition w reports of sunni tribal leaders offering to confront foreign fighters?

The left accuses Bush of "cherry-picking" intelligence information on Iraq (yet are somehow incurious as to why that info essentially agreed with the info on Iraq produced during the Clinton years), but now the leakers cherry-pick parts of the NIE to score points against Bush. I'm saddened that there will soon be no more cherries left to make pie or put into Manhattans.

A few examples indicating that the Clinton administration came to conclude that Saddam had WMD, before Bush Jr. took office, with any emphasis being added:

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed." President Bill Clinton, 17 Feb 1998, address to Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Secretary of State Madaleine Albright, 2 Feb 1998, town hall meeting at Ohio State U. (Note that she called this a threat that we face, contradicting the lefty idea that Iraq was no threat to us.)

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators." Secretary Albright, from the same town hall meeting.

"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons." James Rubin, spokesman for the Clinton State Department, 11 July 2002. It should be noted that Mr. Rubin would have left the federal government in 1/2001, like the rest of the Clinton administration. He would thus not have had any access to, and thus no chance to be misled by, any intelligence generated during the Bush presidency.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Nancy Pelosi, 16 December 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." President Clinton, State Of The Union speech, 27 Jan 1998.

Source: http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

The nation’s most veteran analysts conclude that despite serious damage to the leadership of al-Qaida, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach.

“If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide,” the document says. “The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.”

The President has not been saying this all along. He has been saying the opposite.

Bigfoot, the quotes you cite have been posted here on so many occasions that I've lost count. In fact, as I'm sure you know, there are dozens of similar quotes from Congressional and Senate Democrats during the 1998 to 2002 timeframe. I'm not sure whether or not BDS is a curable condition, but reminding those afflicted with it of the facts clearly has no effect whatsoever. The aspect of all this that I find so humorous is that, when presented with the facts as you and countless others have done, the Lefties favorite answer is that all those people you quote were "misled" by Bush. OTH, they continually remind us how they are smarter than we are, and that Bush is the dumbest President in history. Now tell me what's wrong with that picture.

The NY Slimes, the WAPO, and the repeaters in the lib media based the whole NIE story on ONE sentence from the NIE summary.

President Bush surprised the libs by releasing the summary and allowing Americans to see how the lib media (and democrats) cherry pick and misrepresent the facts in "news reporting".

President Bush sliced and diced the reporterette with his response:
World Trade Center I bombing...we weren't in Iraq
Khobar Towers bombing...we weren't in Iraq
2 African embassy bombings...we weren't in Iraq
USS Cole bombing...we weren't in Iraq
Touche, Mr. President...(and you to Karl).

And what did BJ Clinton do in response to these attacks on America on his watch...um' mentor interns!

Best qoute:
"Slick Willie hunting for Osama bin Laden? O.J. is having better luck hunting for the "real killer." dmeyler at Lucianne

While the lib press and democrats treat President Bush and republicans as the enemy...Americans know the REAL enemy is the islamo-terrorist still trying to kill as many Americans as they can. Americans will vote accordingly come November.

Nothing in the NIE released by the administration in any way supports the statements he's been making that we are winning the War on Terror. To the contrary, the report specifically cites the Iraq War as one of the main causes of increased terrorist threats.

Yes, the report states that representative governments would help decrease terrorism. This is obvious and true, no Democrat or Republican disputes that. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with Iraq, where there is a government in name only, one unable to provide basic security or services.

Also unfortunately, the report states that perceived victories by terrorists will encourage more terrorists, meaning that if we pull out, terrorists will declare victory and terrorism will increase.

In short, our continued presence in Iraq increases terrorism, but our leaving Iraq also increases terrorism. The classic no-win situation. Thank you, President Bush!

keep it up militia man - blame the 'liberal press' (even though the NIE out TODAY says EXACTLY THE SAME THING), blame the liberals, blame clinton, blame the blogs, blame the judges, blame the generals, accuse us all of hating america and supporting the terrorists (and i guess that would include major general batiste, major general paul eaton, former sec of state powell, richard clarke, colonel thomas hammes, and everyone else who has served in the bush administration that have now come out against this administration's failed iraq war).

"But.. but - IT EVERYONE ELSE'S FAULT BUT GEORGIE'S!! It cannot be dear leader who has screwed up. Who would actually blame HIM?"

You know what'e REALLY sad? It's sad that in a fight the Iraqi's are ralleying while HERE the liberals want to run. In some ways (and though they still remain a deadly enemy) the Iraqi insurgants are better patriots than Democrats are.

At least they fight for what they believe. Sometimes it's easier to respect your enemies than your "friends".

"the Iraqi insurgants are better patriots than Democrats are." Kahn I think that is pretty absurd...both parties, though they differ in approach, have the same motivations in protecting America.

The question is what role the war in Iraq plays in protecting America. At the same time that the NIE shows that leaving will embolden jidhadists, it shows that our simple presence there emboldens jidhadists. What do we do? I'm not yet sure, there is no easy answer. What is easy to understand is that this country needs to have a frank, rational discussion about solving Iraq that aims to reduce the number of jidhadists in the world (how Rumsfeld, and I, measure winning the war on terror) - and right now neither of the "solutions" offered by either party ("staying the course" or "phased redeployment") address that problem. Dropping rhetorical bombs praising the insurgents over Democrats hurt this attempt at discourse, so do so many liberals comparisons of Bush and Hitler.

trust me kahn - i'd never fight for you. i don't like what you stand for. you stand for pissing on the constitution, rolling back the rule of law, skyrocketing debt, diminishing american's rights, increasing the terrorist threat, and fighting unneccesary wars.

i would have a modicum of respect for you kahn if you at least had the courage to take a stand on your own principles rather than standing lock-step with those of the administration. you let your ideology get in front of your convictions.

kahn - one best respect one's enemies...lest they kill you.

That's the difference Orange. Kahn would fight for your right to say things he does not agree with. You by your own admission would not be as noble. He is standing up for his own principles, but yet you slam him as they do not align with yours.

Orange - I used to wear green. My niece and nephew are in Iraq now. I’m in the process of putting CARE packages together for both of them. And, the Marine Corps is evaluating an idea I had for combating roadside IED’s.

Your party tramples on frees speech, hates religion, hates the Boy Scouts (for cryin’ out loud), wants to stifle my second amendment rights, and pays for the black vote with addictive government money programs.

We have created a fighting zone in Iraq. Thrown a lightning rod into the middle of it. And, it’s working. To pull out now would be insanity of the highest order.

But thanks for proving my point. I respect an insurgent who takes on an Army or Marine patrol (facing almost certain death) more than I respect you. I’d still kill him in a second – but I respect him.

no bob - kahn would fight for his right to slam his rightwing ideology down my throat and down the throat of anyone who disagrees. that's essentially the MO of the current admin.

as i understand around these parts (and i don't recall that kahn applies here) - having differing views about current policies warrants being branded a traitor and an america hater. i'm not sure anyone would stand for fighting for tyranny - which is essentially what quelling dissent is.

Oh, and almost forgot: The fact that you're not willing to fight for me is obvious from the way your party undermines the war effort, fights recruiting, and refuses to serve.

Thanks so much for being a big damn burden for the rest of us.

Your party tramples on frees speech, hates religion, hates the Boy Scouts (for cryin’ out loud), wants to stifle my second amendment rights, and pays for the black vote with addictive government money programs.

the idea that this fighting zone is working - well, by what measure exactly kahn? because, as i understand from all the government provided information, the war has not only cost us human lives, its costing us 8 billion a month and for what? an increased threat of terrorism and a country we have to babysit as it slides into civil war. gee - great! nothing like having to build a FRIGIN MOAT around a city to stem the violence.

yeah - as coulter says - things are going "swimmingly"

Try to buy some local TV time naming either the Republican or Democrat running for Congress in your distrct.

Look into the continuued attacks on the Scouts by the ACLU - it is such a pain having to educate you.

Drawing our enemies into the open so we can kill them is a valid war strategy (you dimwit). Jeeezzzz, you're stupid as well as be unworthy of respect?

Well not to worry - you will never need to understand a war strategy since you will never serve.

Try to buy some local TV time naming either the Republican or Democrat running for Congress in your district.

Kahn, my guess is that Orange is still scratching his head, trying to figure out what the hell you're talking about, heh.

My nephew (a Marine helicopter crew chief) is heading back to Iraq for a second tour in 60 days. I imagine he'll be ferrying your niece and nephew around. They'll all be in my prayers.

no kahn - i never served, and (like the super majority of americans) probably never will (barring a draft). some of us have to sit around a desk all day and earn a living to pay the taxes to foot the bill to send your ass overseas. so you sit there, rest on your high military horse, and lecture me about war strategy (i'll admit my faculties in that regard may not up in-line with your own) if it makes you feel tough and gung-ho. but don't for a minute feel that you your patronizing tone in any way advances in my mind the policy of failure of which you so openly embrace....

Orange... you are indeed part and parcel of the "fifth column."

So your position is yes your ignorant dammit but no amount of knowledge will make you change your mind. THANK YOU.

THAT is what we've been saying about Demcrats for years.

Orange,
Let me guess...you still haven't read the NIE summary. Otherwise you would know the NYSlimes took the sentence out of context.

Educate yourself and get back with us.

Kahn said:

But thanks for proving my point. I respect an insurgent who takes on an Army or Marine patrol (facing almost certain death) more than I respect you. I’d still kill him in a second – but I respect him.

So you respect suicide bombers? I thought your party was tough on terror. This is truly shocking.

Orange, by your own declaration that you wouldn’t fight for Kahn you essentially strip away your own rights as well. A lack of even a willingness to fight for his rights says you have no leg to stand on to voice your own opinion such that ANYONE should care or listen.

That is part of what being an American is all about! That is a significant reason why Matt and Mark allow you to post here. Apparently you don’t deserve either.

Kahn:

You know what'e REALLY sad? It's sad that in a fight the Iraqi's are ralleying while HERE the liberals want to run. In some ways (and though they still remain a deadly enemy) the Iraqi insurgants are better patriots than Democrats are.

According to this poll: a large majority of the Iraqis want you to leave their country within a year. "A large majority of Iraqis—71%—say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less."

Another interesting find: "Large numbers say that the US military presence is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing.” This view is held by 78 percent overall, and by 82 percent of Shias and a near-unanimous 97 percent of Sunnis."

MV - "I’d still kill him in a second – but I respect him." Now, just what part of I'd kill him in a second do you find "soft"?

Suicide bombers - not what I referred to. I hate the idea that they often target innocents. But, unlike the people pulling the strings I really can't challenge their courage. Similar to the Kamikazee's. Though their attacks were against purely military targets.

No, I think that the blood thirsty hateful warmonger Republican is a hateful and manufactured liberal stereotype. Viet nam War vets from both sides resepect each other more than they do the anti-war crowd back here. Both groups of vets realize that the Viet Nam war was lost by those weak-minded Americans at home. Not by the brave sodiers, sailors, airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines in the field. I realize that - do you?

Willem...according to the latest poll, a majority of Iraqis want the US to stay. And the Iraqi gov't just two days ago is asking us to stay.

Again, liberals here on this board...WHAT IS YOUR PLAN.

We can all see that you guys are great at bashing 24/7...WHAT IS YOUR PLAN. Please don't say Okinawa.

Warrior,

what poll are you talking about?
is it Gallup, saying only about 1/3 say we're doing more harm then good, saying a majority want an immediate pull out?

what is our plan? simple, change of leadership, put someone in charge who understands what is going on, doesn't sugar coat everything, doesn’t just allow BILLIONS of dollars to go 'missing', doesn't keep on contractors who can't ever provide proper drinking water for our troops and doesn't declare the job is done when it isn't. Either go in and do the job, not half assed like rummy did, or get serious w/ the Iraqi’s and have them finally stand up instead of paying a PR firm to tell them everything is rosey, so we can get out and go on with the REAL WAR.

your little game of what's your plan is a little tired, turn off fox every now and then and try to see what’s really going on in the world.

oh and Kahn, the Boys Scouts get federal funds but are allowed to discriminate on religious grounds…that is why they get a bad rap from non-sheep.

Opus,

That’s it? That’s your plan? You sound like a politician with lots of words and no substance. I think when people on this blog ask “what’s your plan?” they’re looking for something more than rhetoric. Thanks for playing though.

He sure did have a lot of sweat coming off his chin when talking to Matthews on Hardball. If the Republican leaders would just tell the truth to the American people they would be under less stress.

The leader of the do nothing Congress would have you believe they have lead us to paradise; Matthews was having none of it.

Warrior, can you show us that poll?

The WaPo has a similar story, citing polling from the State Department and from independent researchers (one of them the Program on International Policy Attitudes poll I quoted above).

Some quotes from the WaPo:

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

Nope - no Federal funds. Back to the research bin. The Scouts have been allowed to use properties and some Troops were sponsored by some bases. But because of blind hatred - yes that has been stopped. Are you proud of attacking the Boy Scouts? Feel it was justified?

FYI - The ACLU first attacked the Boy Scouts for not allowing gay leaders. Since these men are taking our ten year old boys camping in the woods, we see this as a safety and liability issue. That attack failed. Then, low and behold the ACLU says that the Boy Scouts discriminate based upon religion. Any religion is fine with the Scouts. And, last time I checked you have the right to associate with whomever you damn please in the country. No - your party's hateful and narrow-minded attacks on the Boy Scouts are unfounded and mean spirited. And you are harming a great organization.

I notice that 1, You didn't know anything about it, 2. You got the sum of your information from liberal sources (hence your ignorance), and 3. you are OK with attacking the Boy Scots. Again - thank you drone liberal for proving yet another reason why I don't like liberals.

Willem...I'll find it and link it for you.

Incidentally...

I wonder how the German people felt before Hitler and the Nazis were destroyed?

I wonder how the Japanese people felt before Kojo and the gang were destroyed?

Opus...what a plan. Wow, no wonder the American people haven't put a Democrat in the White House with more than 50% in 31 years.

Your plan is simply "we're not those guys". Sorry, that's not leadership.

Willem...I'll find it and link it for you.

I don't hold my breath. History has taught me that promises from rightwingers that they will find ‘it’ are meaningless.

willem, I promise to kick your ass if I ever meet you.

So matt,

You and Leo have been conferring amongst each other. Im glad you checked your server logs because you pointed out a flaw in our proxy redirect. (albeit it will cost someone their job.)

So you can continue to block me from posting on your website, or I can whip a bunch of type key logins to circumvent your measures.

But I am curious, why on earth do you want to prevent me from posting?

Is it because you do not want to hear the truth?
:)

marky mark

Couldn't resist.

So willem. Of the three options: stay, increase troops, withdraw troops you ARE for immediate withdrawl I assume.

The ensuing civil war and carnage would be OK wouldn't it? I mean, except for FOX News no-one would even report on it, so why worry. And that fact that terrorists would have ANOTHER victory because of the Democrats wouldn't embolden them AT ALL. No, I see your point. Running away from them wouldn't make us look like cowards. It would make us look like "the nation of Peace". And the Islamo-fascists and terrorists would respect that.

Just a second, have to mix some more kool-aid.

Wilhelmet...should I hold my breath too since you refused to answer my question...I find that to be the case with left wingers.

I'll ask again...

I wonder how the German people felt before Hitler and the Nazis were destroyed?

I wonder how the Japanese people felt before Kojo and the gang were destroyed?

Kahn, who the hell is "Kojo and the gang?" Did you mean Kool and the Gang? Cujo? What?

According to liberal lie site Wikipedia:

Kojo may refer to:

* The singer who entered for Finland in the 1982 Eurovision Song Contest.
* A nickname for Steven Cojocaru - Canadian fashion expert.
* A variant for the Akan name for males born on Monday.

I don't see how that is relevant to the discussion.

As Captain Kirk once said: "Kaaaahhhhnnnn!!!!"

Blah, it was warriornation, not Kahn. So I reserve the right to use the Captain Kirk line at a later date. Sorry, Kahn.

willem, I promise to kick your ass if I ever meet you.

Posted by: Kahn at September 27, 2006 11:59 PM

I'm glad you didn't pass up this opportunity Kahn! Personally, I'd like to add Opus & Orangepussy to the list. For some reason they are just grating on me today! If there is one thing I can't stand it is liberal pussies that talk the talk but won't fight the fight!

willem, I promise to kick your ass if I ever meet you.

You should know by now what I think of ‘promises’ made by rightwingers.

If there is one thing I can't stand it is liberal pussies that talk the talk but won't fight the fight!

When you are ready comparing the size of your dick with Kahn's (or was it a circle jerk?), could you finally post the link to that poll you promised us? Or is it scribbled at the wall of your little cave?

I didn't promise you a link ignoramous!