A Congress for the children turned quickly into a Congress for the childish.

well said.

Cheney: the best thing that ever happened to al-qaeda

"Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats' patriotism," according to the article.

This suggests Pelosi is unfit to lead her party. She believes things Bush says. She doesn't understand the role of the military, which is to serve as props in partisan debates. She's sadly out of touch if she thinks that this sisomething too important to play politics with.

You know what really validates AQ's strategy?

Starting wars in countries where AQ doesn't have a foothold, creating enough chaos there for AQ to establish a foothold, and then remaining there long enough to create resentment so AQ can grow.

Now which party is the party of AQ?

I wish GW would step up and nail the DEMS like his VP.

steveGA,

I will answer you question with a question. Which party let al queda get away with attacking a US war ship? The Democrats. Which party took a fight to them when they attacked the Trade Centers? The Rebublicans. That says which part is the party of al queda.

Also to say that Al Queda gained a foot hold in Iraq because of the U.S is badly used MSM propaganda. Al Queda was there befere we invaded. In fact, it would be safe to say that Al Queda is strongly inbedded in almost every single Mid-Eastern country, Britian, Spain, Italy, Canada, USA, and so on. They are all over the world. The deal in Iraq just allows them to come out of the wood work and use thier violent tactics publicly. Just like Cheney said, thier goal is to divide us: the problem we have is that our MSM and the Dems in Washington are helping them with thier cause. This just gives them a longer life span. You defeat the propaganda war, you win more than half the battle with the extremists. So yes, Cheney is right, stop propogating the terroists war plan and join the fight to win.

Starting wars in countries where AQ doesn't have a foothold

Saddam's government harbored AQ-affiliated terrorist Abdul Raman Yassin (of the 1st WTC attack) for 10 years, according to documents found in Iraq.

Al Zarqawi, currently enjoying his virgins, was in Iraq BEFORE our invasion. He had also spent some time there to get medical treatment after being wounded in Afghanistan.

[sarcasm]Yep, no AQ foothold in Iraq before we invaded.[/sarcasm]

Bigfoot: "Saddam's government harbored AQ-affiliated terrorist Abdul Raman Yassin (of the 1st WTC attack) for 10 years..."

Well, I guess if you call sitting him in jail "harboring".

You know what really validates AQ's strategy?

1) Invading a secular, oil rich Arab nation that never threatened the US, thereby validating in the eyes of moderate Middle Easterners everything bin Laden ever said about dark American intentions.

2) Toppling al-qaeda's greatest enemy in the region.

3) Occupying this countries for years, and using it as a base to threaten a wider conflict against Iran, AQ's second greatest enemy in the region.

Question: why is Cheney so keen to carry out al-qaeda's strategic plans? Is he A) an unwitting fool, or B) cynically enriching himself and empowering his political allies by perpetuating an external threat, or C) is he some sort of "Manchurian candidate" with a brain implant installed by al-qaeda? Inquiring minds want to know.

Lets here a roll call: A, B, or C? I vote B. What do you think?

hear

I forgot to add that Abdul Raman Yassin only made it back to Iraq because the FBI released him from custody in this country and forced him to leave.

Oops.

Then, when they realized what they did they traced him back to Iraq, notified Saddam, and he put him in jail. Then over the subsequent years he tried to use him as a bargaining chip, offering him up on at least two occasions for concessions the US was unwilling to grant. I don't begrudge the US for doing that. He was in jail, for crying out loud. He was only released when Saddam, realizing an invasion was imminent, emptied the prisons. By the time we took it over, the only sound heard in Abu Ghraib was crickets.

Osama bin Laden used America like a tool to rid the Arab world of a secular leader.

OBL could not have wished for a more successful strategy in advancing his cause than what Bush and Cheney provided with the disastrous invasion of Iraq.

Perhaps OBL put up that sign "Mission Accomplished."

Wade

I think what Cheney said was long over due. For Pelosi to hide behind the term Patriot is disgusting.

Aaron... you are a boob.

To suggest that for the twelve years following Iraq's unprovoked attack on a neighbor and their agreement to cease fighting in order to be spared a full invasion, and then spending twelve years shooting at NATO planes who were protecting the Kurds (You know, the Iraqis Saddam gassed) and protecting the Shia in the South (you know, the ones he tortured and raped while family members watched).

You're right... Saddam was this GREAT guy.

If you want to go to a country that is oil rich, and secular with a swell leader like Saddam, which you seem to get a chub over... go to Venezuela.

The 19 terrorists who flew the planes on 9-11 were issued US visas and trained to fly 747's the United States. Does this mean that the US government supports and trains terrorists? I would never suggest something so ridiculous yet when a terrorist is treated in a hospital in Iraq all of a sudden the Iraqi government is supporting terrorism worldwide. When Iranian citizens are found in Iraq all of a sudden the Iranian government is supporting the insurgency and we need to attack them too. Let's get some credible proof this time before we get ourselves into another huge mess.

Rico,
Source, please. Last I read on the subject U.S. forces discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit that showed that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

Aztec, they were using Iranian issued weapons, sold to the Iranian government only last year. Sorry, I forgot, it's blame America first.

This provides even more insight into the psyche of the protoplasm named Cheney.
His comments yesterday were said in Japan. A country that pulled its troops out of Iraq last year. If the so called MMS invents news and events what is your source of information? Wild hallucinations? Cheney is implicit in turning those that were with us against them, to now be against us. If this is such a rightious fight, were is the coalition? The kind that GHWB put together? Guess what...there is none! To say that if anyone questions the actions in Iraq and the lies that led us there as being the equivelent of an enemy of America...and to repeat these statements...even after they have been repuitiated by GWB himself, shows just how deep the black hole of desperation that Cheney has sunk into is. If the Libby trial has exposed any single thing; regardless of the verdict, it is that Dick Cheney has become a 4th branch of government accountable to no one (by his own offices statement) and it is Cheney who is far more dispicable that GWB could ever be. The America that Cheney describes exist in his delusional fantasies and saying something doesn't make it so. Unless one thinks that one is divine.

From the same interview "(The British have) indicated for some time now that they were going to make adjustments based on conditions on the ground. I think they believe that in southern Iraq, that Basra region where they've been most active, we have made significant progress. And I think that's one of the reasons they feel that they can draw down their forces there"

if they have made progress in those areas, and haven't just lost confidence in us, why don't they shift the troops to where they are needed? Blair has been pretty supportive of the rhetorich that failure is not an option here, or civilization will collapse. Now, his government is pulling out troops. If Bush is correct, and more troops are needed, why doesn't he raise a stink over Britain abandoning the struggle to save life as we know it? If Britain'scorrect in pulling out troops, why are we sending more?

I think its great that on this site you will the bloggers extolling the "virtues" of Dick Cheney.

Frankly, I think your out of line.

Now go **** yourselves.

Its quite hilarious when you think about how critical and disrespectful people like pelosi have been towards this Pres. and his administration, only to whine when cheney offers some of his own thoughts towards her.

wawilliyo -

"You're right... Saddam was this GREAT guy."

Straw Man alert! Straw Man alert!

Nobody ever remotely said Saddam was a "great guy". In case you missed the obvious, everyone recognizes Saddam for what he was: a murderous dictator. But he also happened to be al-qaeda's greatest enemy. Bin Laden was actively trying to overthrow him, and considered Saddam to be a socialist infidel.

Funny you should bring up the gassing of the Kurds. When that happened, back in 1987, nobody on the Right said a peep. On the contrary, the Reagan administration moved to mute condemantion of the gassing at the UN, continued to supply Saddam with intel and war material, and continued to have high level meetings with him. Why weren't you outraged about Saddam's human rights abuses back when, you know, he was actually doing them? Is this some kind of "delayed outrage", 20 years after the fact?

Similarly, you evoke Saddam's brutality towards the Shi'a in the south. But when the Shi'a were put down after the first Gulf War, why weren't Bushies howling about that back then? In fact, Saddam was granted permission by Bush I to use helicopters in the southern no-fly zone so that he could move troops in to put down the Shi'a uprising. At one point, US marines blocked the Shi'a from reaching a weapons depot to defend themselves from Saddam.

In any case, none of Saddam's horrible brutality changes the simple fact that Saddam was well contained and did not pose a threat to the US. He was also not involved in 9/11. And the fact that Saddam was a horrible dictator does not change the simple reality that his regime was al-qaeda's greatest enemy in the region.

You do remember al-qaeda - right? You know, the ones who actually attacked us? You know, the ones who killed 3,000 innocent American civilians?

You neglected to answer my question, wally: why is Cheney so keen on implementing al-qaeda's strategic objectives?

The fact remains: Cheney has been al-qaeda's greatest asset.

Cheney/bin Laden '08

Dick Cheney is a true American. I’d bird hunt with him any day!

What do Nancy Pelosi and her cronies know about military strategy? Did any of them graduate from West Point? No. So where do they get off telling the commander in chief what the hell to do about military troop movements?

The democrats are fools and ONLY care about one thing. And that is taking over the White House in 2008. They will say and do anything, including helping to losing a war (which translates into helping the enemy win), to make the republican party look bad, in order to gain power.

Look at how the Bill Maher’s of the democratic party continue to personally insult the President of the United States during a time of war. You can dislike Bush all you want, but when we are at war, you better keep your mouth shut, unless, of course, you are a treasonous bastard.

Cheney: American traitor

"you better keep your mouth shut, unless, of course, you are a treasonous bastard."

You may have forgotten, "and fall in line".

You have a wondrous vision of Amerika.

Cheney: terrorist enabler

2/2 Cav -

"What do Nancy Pelosi and her cronies know about military strategy? Did any of them graduate from West Point? No."

Um, you mean as opposed to the wealth of military experience Cheney has?

Notice how this has turned from Pelosi's whining about Cheney's comments, to insults towards Cheney?

Pelosi wants it both ways...To be the one to wield undisputed power in the House as the first woman Speaker, but then turns into a hurt little girl ('The bully is calling me names!') when criticized for what she is doing and saying as Speaker.

Um, Clementine...

Cheney served as the Secretary of Defense from March 1989 to January 1993 under President George H. W. Bush. He directed the United States invasion of Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East. In 1991 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for "preserving America's defenses at a time of great change around the world.

2/2 Cav -

With all that administrative experience flying desks, and with all those political awards, no wonder he never found time to actually wear a uniform.

Cheney and bin Laden: neither went to West Point, both actively subverting America.

Which one "graduated from West Point"? Cheney or Pelosi?

2/2Cav:
You are correct about Cheneys' previous positions. Before the PNAC. Before he picked himself as Vice and let GWB think it was his idea. Before he fought tooth and nail to institutionalize torture. Before old friends, commrades and like minded associates like Brent Scrocroft said of Dick Cheney..."I used to know him but not anymore". Before he controled the spread of inaccurate information and made statements like "last throes" and "enormous success".
Cheney did not attend West Point. Neither did GWB. Cheney received 5 deferments to avoid Vietnam.
If the USA was a fortune 500 company, would either GWB and Cheney still hold positions of authority and decision making? Would the stockholders be happy? Especially after they said they were not(happy) and GW and Cheney essentially say !#&% you! We don't have to listen. We don't have to abide by the charter?
I don't think so.
Bad data leads to bad decisions and when the data that they relied upon to invade Iraq was corerced, managed and out-right false we end up where we are now. Fightening with each other.
I used to think that Kruschef (excuse my spelling) was insane. Now I think that maybe he was visionary...

I have just about had it with these so called 'patriotic' Dimocrats. Pelosi has done nothing but critize this administration while they have quietly taken it. About time someone spoke 'truth to power'. Has anyone heard about Rep. Jackson's little jaunt to Chavez country? Traitors all.

2/2 Cav-
Thanks for your service.

Don't bother with these fools, they just change the argument ever time someone points out how wrong they are.

It's like 6 degrees from Kevin Bacon; Pelosi; crybaby = Khrushchev visionary.

2/2 Cav -

You neglected to mention that bin Laden awarded Cheney with the "Medal of the Raging Crescent", fundamentalist Islam's highest honor, for his meritorious service is helping to terrorize Americans, diverting US forces away from fighting militant Islam, removing al-qaeda's strategic enemies, and uniting the entire middle east against the US.

Now that's one medal Cheney truly earned.

2/2 Cav,
The fact that Cheney was secdef under George I does not really serve as proof that he knows jacks**t about anything. In fact, it seems pretty clear that he and his pal, "Rummy", couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel (so-to-speak) -- except for being able to organize invasions of third-world countries that haven't attacked us.
As for Pelosi's qualifications -- the train is about to go off the bridge, somebody better hit the brakes -- who cares about they're qualifications?
By the way, shouldn't you be watching for IEDs and not blogging from the observer hatch?

"except for being able to organize invasions of third-world countries that haven't attacked us."

-Ah, you mean like the third-world countries that house the terrosist cell that attacked the 1st WTC, USS Cole, and 9/11? Man they sure are innocent.

Are people like Aaron and Sal just afraid of war? Would you rather the US just take hits and do nothing? We're the greatest superpower, and its not our place to help those who cant free themselves from oppresion?

You neglected to answer my question, wally: why is Cheney so keen on implementing al-qaeda's strategic objectives?

And you were the one screaming about a strawman alert?

I guess in the alternate reality you inhabit, installing a moderate democracy in the birthplace of civilization was, and remains, at the tippy-top of Osama's to do list.

Now about Saddam, let's recap this shall we? Saddam DID threaten the U.S. This lead the Congress to authorize the president to remove him.

You'll earn extra points if you can tell us when that vote actually occurred.

you mean as opposed to the wealth of military experience Cheney has?

I think the Troops have spoken about who they prefer as leaders in the record number of reenlistments.

What have Democrats offered them, invalidating their absentee ballots in Florida in 2000?

I still await a plan from the Democrat party that includes Victory, not cut and run.

Mitch - I'd rather have Cheney 2nd in command during war time then the likes of Al "Chicken Little, the sky is warming" Gore.

Clementine - you are loosing me with Osama Medal of the Raging Crescent awards bit! Bottom line, Cheney has forgotten more about military strategy, then Nancy will ever know.

Salvelinus (Fish) - I've been out for 20 years, so now I watch for DEM's.

Thanks Dasein Libsbane.

Aren't they all the same?

Bane, perhaps my comment will appear soon. Perhaps not. If it doesn't, unfortunately I managed to save only a fragment of it. But enough. So I'll give it a few hours, and if it doesn't appear I'll reconstruct it. Just wanted you to know that I haven't abandoned you, despite the heated rhetoric that has occured in the mean time.

Again, the trolls have managed to divert the main point regarding Pelosi's inability to defend the Dems' tactics and 'plan' regarding Iraq. When faced with criticism, the tactic is not to face the criticism with their own reasoning, but to cry and complain about the critic, and making that person's 'meanspiritedness' the focus.

Ricorun,

If it isn't here, then it got lost - sorry about that.

Hermie,

Good point; and that is their standard tactic - when faced with the indefensible, attack something else.

The plain fact of the matter is that - intentionally or not - Democratic policy is tailor-made to support enemy victory.

Mark,
Speaking of changing the subject, how come no mentions of the latest from the Fed? The recession probability index is now under 9%; the Fed isn't raising rates; inflation is slowing down from its historic low levels; the economy finished 2006 in amazing position; and the Debt to GDP is at the lowest levels in 30 years.

You know I lurk this site waiting for debate on the economy.

TLDietrich -

"I guess in the alternate reality you inhabit, installing a moderate democracy in the birthplace of civilization was, and remains, at the tippy-top of Osama's to do list."

When you succeed in installing a moderate democracy in the birthplace of civilization, get back to me. Talk about an alternate reality.

Meanwhile, the chaotic murder and mayhem you've actually achieved in Iraq is exactly what Osama wanted. He could not have wished in his wildest dreams for a better reaction to 9/11. Bin Laden thanks Mr Cheney and all you Bushbots.

Mission accomplished indeed.

2/2cav:
I didn't mention Gore. He has nothing to do with this discussion. The speaker of the house does not have the responsibility of making or creating military strategy. Rather the speaker is the voice of the legislature which represents the voice of the people. And the people have said enough of this. There is no military solution to Iraq. All of the flag waving histrionics and character disparages will not alter this. If you need to operate and the only tools that you have are for car repair, it is best to get a different tool kit. Or someone who has one.
Drawing attenion to people and issues that are either tangential or irrelevent by addressing their flaws does not in anyway give legitimacy to your position. Do you really want to bring up corruption? How many Republicans in the past 6 years have either been forced to leave office, are indicted, are in jail or are about to go. Purity of heart and moral certitude does not transform...ipso facto...into an ability to manage a country and wage a war. Corruption? Is lying a virtue? Manipulating information to get what you want? That's why the books were cooked at Enron and look what happened to them. Cheney is no different than Ken Lay. Except Ken is dead in body and Cheney is dead in spirit. The citizens of this country in particular and those of the world in general are far worse off now than we were before this group was given unfettered power. Power handed to them by the Congress which was in a state of shock and grief by 9/11. What is more dispicable? More indicitive of corruption: Taking money, illicit sex or waging a crusade based upon false and intentionally misleading information all wraped in some base appeal to patriotisim. Cheney should go on American Idol and compete with Bagdad Bob. Remember him? The grand master of reality denial?

When you succeed in installing a moderate democracy in the birthplace of civilization, get back to me. Talk about an alternate reality.

Perhaps you've missed the news...it has ALREADY happened. Contrary to what you may believe. And guess what, that's what the "insurgents" are fighting against.

Besides which, as you have done throughout this thread, you are skating away from the point in an attempt to change the subject. Even an attempt to install a moderate democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan is NOT what Osama wants, but yet that's what Cheney has been advocating. Thus, your point about Cheney doing Osama's work is not only flat out false, it defies the simplest of logic tests.

Meanwhile, the chaotic murder and mayhem you've actually achieved in Iraq is exactly what Osama wanted. He could not have wished in his wildest dreams for a better reaction to 9/11. Bin Laden thanks Mr Cheney and all you Bushbots.

I guess Iraq really was a utopia before we overthrew Saddam.

But that again is beside the point. Answer this question, WHY are the "insurgents" fighting in Iraq?

And once again, in your alternate reality, Osama really wanted to lose the safe harbor that the Taliban provided. He also wanted to see thousands of is "best" figthers die at the hands of the U.S. military in very heart of the Middle East, as opposed having them carrying out suicide missions on U.S. soil and killing thousands of innocents.

You can twist it, you can spin it, but you can't change the truth. You might as well just face it. You may hate Cheney and Bush, but they are doing the job you and your ilk WILL NOT do, and that's protecting American lives and preventing more attacks on U.S. soil. Only in your world does that mean that they are doing Osama's bidding.

Lastly, I see you didn't bother to answer my question....figures.

The speaker of the house does not have the responsibility of making or creating military strategy.

Really? Wow...someone get San Fran Nan on the phone and let her in on this nugget.

Rather the speaker is the voice of the legislature which represents the voice of the people.

The Speaker is elected by majority party. The office contains certain Constitutional responsibilities. As you noted above, making military policy is not one of those. The Constitution is pretty clear on that issue. As such, the Speaker is the voice of the majority party and nothing more. If the Speaker disagrees with the military decisions made by the President, then the Speaker has the right to sponsor a bill cutting off all funding for the President's military campaign. The fact that Ms. Pelosi WILL NOT offer up such a bill is a pretty clear indication that she realizes that such a bill would not be the "voice of the people."

Taking money, illicit sex or waging a crusade based upon false and intentionally misleading information all wraped in some base appeal to patriotisim.

Methinks you should truly examine when, where and how this "false and intentionally misleading information" came to be.

Bear in mind that the very nations who were supplying Saddam with arms and materials in violation of U.N. sanctions, namely France and Russia, believed he had WMD.

Hence, it may have been false, but by who's intention? Holding Bush accountable for something that proved to be false, yet still believed to have been truthful by Putin, Chirac, Schroeder and the entirety of the Clinton foreign policy team, strikes me as more than just a bit hypocritical.

Lighten up, Piglosi, VP Cheney meant you no harm.

He wants to make nice with you, Speaker Mimi; he's offered to take you hunting...

TLDietrich -

"Perhaps you've missed the news...it [installing a moderate democracy in the birthplace of civilization] has ALREADY happened. Contrary to what you may believe. And guess what, that's what the "insurgents" are fighting against."

Oh you poor naive waif. Manipulative homages to Purple Fingers is not the equivalent of a "moderate democracy". Holding elections is easy (well, except in Florida). Stalin held elections. Elections are held in Iran too. There is nothing remotely equivalent to a constitutional authority in Iraq. Power is weilded thru a gun in Iraq, and no amount of us staying there is going to change that.

Nor does having a piece of paper drawn up by the US substitute for a constitutional order.

Iraq may some day have a functioning consitutional order - that is, a country where everyone agrees on the 3 basic conditions of a liberal democracy: Rules to decide who rules, rules to make new rules, rights the state cannot abridge. And if indeed this ever happens in Iraq, Osama surely would be against it. But Iraq is the opposite of that now, and whether Iraq one day becomes a constitutional democracy has nothing to do with whether we stay fighting in Iraq. In fact, we can only hinder this development.

What is evolving in Iraq under the US occupation is a civil war. A complex mix of tribal aliances vie to dictate terms at thru warfare. And guess what? All of this was predicted beforehand, if Bush and Cheney had only listened to anybody who knew the region. And the US can't stop it. And no amount of purple finger photo ops is going stop it.

Iraq didn't have a constitutional democracy under Saddam either. But it did have stability and order, and it was a country where secular values were promoted by the regime, and where Islamic terrorists seeking a theocracy were jailed. Iraq now has neither democracy nor order, and has become increasingly radicalized and fractured towards various sects of Islam. The horrific violence in Iraq only serves to beget more violence, and further traumatizes an already shattered population. This in turn makes people easy prey for militant fundamentalist Islamists. Over the course of the US presence there, this situation has only gotten worse.

"...but yet that's what Cheney has been advocating."

As they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. (and with plain stupid intentions too).

"And once again, in your alternate reality, Osama really wanted to lose the safe harbor that the Taliban provided."

Now you are talking about Afghanistan - that's a completely different story. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan was an militant Sunni Islamic fundamentalist state. Unlike Iraq, it actually did harbor and train the very group that attacked us on 9/11. Unlike Iraq, US intervention was warranted and feasible.

I supported President Bush and head puppeteer Cheney when it came to Afghanistan. Too bad we didn't finish the mission there. Since we went off and invaded a country that was an enemy of al-qaeda and which wasn't involved in 9/11, the Taliban have been returning to Afghanistan in droves.

"Only in your world does that mean that they are doing Osama's bidding."

So lets see. If you were Osama, you'd want to provoke a "war of civilizations" between America and Islam. Check. You'd want the US military pinned down in a no-win occupation. Check. You'd want the US to validate the region's most paranoid fears of the US by having it invade invade an oil-rich Arab nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Check. You'd want the US to suffer a devastating loss of credibility in the eyes of the world. Check. You'd want the US to suffer a devastating loss of moral authority. Check. You'd want to create as much chaos and violence in the region as you could, preferably in the form of a US occupation, so as to radicalize the population. Check. You'd want the US to prematurely pull away from pursuing you and your top cadre, and allow Afghanistan to slip back into a base camp for al-qaeda. Check. You'd want the US to remove Saddam as a competing secular nationalist whom you'd been fighting with for years. Check. Now with Saddam gone, you'd want the US to mix it up with your other main enemy, Shi'ite dominated Iran. Check. And basically, you'd want the entire region inflamed and angered at US conduct in occupying Iraq. Check.

Gee, is there anything else Cheney can do for Osama? Anything at all?

AND, if you were Osama, you'd want the US government to make sure Americans felt completely terrorized. You'd want a US government that would help stoke the fires of terror long after you had lit the match. You'd want a US government that made people hysterical about terror, terror, terror - after all, that is the point of terrorist acts. You'd want a US government that used the fear of terror to destroy American freedom. You'd want the US government to make people so afraid of terror that they would readily ascented to doing stupid things - like invading Iraq.

Check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check.

One wonders who does more to aid terrorists, someone who criticizes a failed military strategy or someone who actually gives money to terrorist organizations, to fund terrorist training camps. http://news.bostonherald.com/national/northeast/view.bg?articleid=183999

What a wonderful Anti-American screed, Errortime.

Too bad your knowledge of bin Laden is as tortured as your logic:

“We are following up with great interest and extreme concern the crusaders' preparations for war to occupy a former capital of Islam, loot Muslims' wealth, and install an agent government, which would be a satellite for its masters in Washington and Tel Aviv, just like all the other treasonous and agent Arab governments.

Regardless of the removal or the survival of the socialist party or Saddam, Muslims in general and the Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad against this unjust campaign and acquire ammunition and weapons.

Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists.” Osama bin Laden

Errortime; just another useful idiot.

Are people like Aaron and Sal just afraid of war?

No, they're lobotomized robots who deserve to be ignored here. Aaron appears to be tweaking again...

"Our brothers, the mujahedeen in the al Qaeda organization, have chosen the dear brother Abu Hamza al-Muhajer as their leader to succeed the Amir Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, I advise him to focus his fighting on the Americans and everyone who supports them and allies himself with them in their war on the people of Islam and Iraq.

Our Muslim people in Iraq need to learn that no truce should be accepted with the crusaders and the apostates, there shouldn't be any half-solutions and there is no way out for them except by fighting and holding on to their jihad. Do not be fooled by the invitations to join political parties and taking part in the so-called political process." ObL-2006

Yep, this new Iraqi government is falling right into bin Laden’s hands.

Maybe bin Laden ought to call Bush and complain that he's being compared to dimocrats. I'd be insulted, too.

Dietrich:
Want a taste? Dietrich is a German name, is it not?

Reality 101.
Democracy is imported...not exported. It comes from within. It cannot be imposed, applied or forced. This is especially true for democracy 2.0 and that development is far beyond the affinity that GWB tries conflate with the fathers of our countrys' revolt against an English king. Problem is, GWB thinks he is a man-god-king and Cheney encourages this delusion and has taken great efforts to malign our constitution and hammer it in to a document that supports his contention.And this document is 230+ years old! Talk about genius...
Unresolved age old hate and physcial human conflict that were not addressed...or even considered...by the administrators of this "war" is fundementally indcicative of their incompetence. What don't you understand about that? What don't you get about the majority of the people being skeptical of the crap that comes from the mouth of our administration? Are you that much of a die-hard fan of the truly insane and delusional?
Forget Clinton. Instead of blaming our current problems on those immediately responsible for them, why not blame them on evolution. Or Cleopatra. Or any other historical figure whose actions led...willy nilly...to where we as a school of fish...are today.
This simplistic rationalzation of the failures of those that you support only magnafies your weakness of arguement.

I have an idea. Lets do what you secretly desire but are too Chicken&!*& to say. Lets turn on your reptilian brain stem to meth and nuke 'em. Lets nuke any country, any people who could possibly develop the idea...the very idea...that the US of A is not the manifestation of all that is good and rightious and perfect in the world. Lets nuke anyone...any country that dares challenge our dominance. Lets nuke all that disagree that America alone is hemoginious because of our benevolent history.
People like you are a simplistic aboration. You succomb to a base human defense mechanisim of fear. Yes, I agree that Islamofascisim is the very same thing but we...as a country...as a well developed modern society...are superior to all of that but lets get on the bandwagon of destroying the cancer cells from within them ....not from without. On the molecular level. Be smart. Not reactionary. Evolve. Put an end to this blind allegence that (a smaller and smaller) group has to GWB and DC. They are not the answer in our lifetimes.
We are...

Dear Chimpy McBushitler

Make that mean ol' Cheney stop saying mean things about me!

Regards,
The most powerful women in the free world

Yikes Aarontime, that was like a red hot poker and TLD was tying his shoes.

Atime is off his meds again....

Derangement; thy name is mitche!

raker, a shame Errortime was holding the wrong end of the poker.

Mitch – I’ll try to dissect the highlights of your comment in the following way:

M: I didn't mention Gore. He has nothing to do with this discussion. The speaker of the house does not have the responsibility of making or creating military strategy.

2/2Cav: I realize you didn’t mention Gore. I was simply stating my preference for someone with balls to be Vice-President. Regarding the military strategy, that is what Generals do and suggest to the President. They have suggested a build-up of troops so we should listen.

M: There is no military solution to Iraq. All of the flag waving histrionics and character disparages will not alter this.

2/2Cav: I disagree. Military action is the ONLY solution to the problem. Without a troop presence, the militants will continue their bombings.

M: How many Republicans in the past 6 years have either been forced to leave office, are indicted, are in jail or are about to go.

2/2Cav: I don’t know. How many dems are there too?

The rest of your post is more rambling than I can dissect.

Typical of the BDS-res around here; Iraqis defy murderous thugs to establish their own government and that doesn’t satisfy the liberals; our allies fight and die on the battlefield alongside our troops, and they didn’t die in sufficient numbers to earn a liberals respect; 25 million people are free for the first time to govern themselves, and liberals bemoan that there was “stability and order” under a brutal dictator; al Qaeda leaders encourages their faithful to fight and die in Iraq, and it’s all part of al Qaeda’s plan to lose the war; al Qaeda wants to “create as much chaos and violence in the region”, and that’s our fault; al Qaeda attacks us, we raise awareness and prepare for more attacks, and to a liberal it’s our government that’s making us afraid. The only thing I fear is that you panty-wetters will sell out our men and women in service of our country to score political points.

Like the sell out you cretins engineered for your communist masters in Vietnam; you will tax the resolve of the people until they abandon our principles once again at the alter of appeasement.

FYI - For those that continue to say that Americans don't want to succeed in Iraq.

57 percent of Americans supported "finishing the job in Iraq" - keeping U.S. troops there until the Iraqis can provide security on their own. Forty-one percent disagreed.

By 53 percent to 43 percent they also believe victory in Iraq over the insurgents is still possible.

Poll Review

We ALL want the troops home. But we need to stabilize Iraq before we leave. Look what happended to Vietnam AFTER we left.

Mitch - as a well developed modern society...are superior to all of that but lets get on the bandwagon of destroying the cancer cells from within them ....not from without.

Uhh? Anyway, Radiation is very a effective means to destroy cancer. I haven't found any scientific evidence that diplomacy or sanctions or reason are effective measures against cancer. Cancer needs to be starved or killed. Any other option is futile.

Oh you poor naive waif. Manipulative homages to Purple Fingers is not the equivalent of a "moderate democracy".

Thanks for proving you are clueless about the difference between past and present tense.

The rest of your epistle proves you truly do live in an alternate universe. Why even mention Iranian and Soviet elections? Let's just stick with Iraq shall we? Under Saddam, the Iraqis were forced to the polls at gun point. Now, the Iraqis are under the threat of being killed for going to the polls. Yet somehow in your view it isn't a valid election, and not indicative of a legitimate government.

This next quote demonstrates how detached from reality you really are:

But Iraq is the opposite of that now, and whether Iraq one day becomes a constitutional democracy has nothing to do with whether we stay fighting in Iraq.

That has to be the most incredibly assinine claim I've ever seen made on this forum, and that is an awfully high bar to get over.

Let's see, according to you it is a mess currently, and somehow it is supposed become a stable democracy by us pulling out? Is that what happened in the Balkans? Yeah....didn't think so...

Now you are talking about Afghanistan - that's a completely different story. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan was an militant Sunni Islamic fundamentalist state. Unlike Iraq, it actually did harbor and train the very group that attacked us on 9/11. Unlike Iraq, US intervention was warranted and feasible.

It amazes me how this myth has become engrained into the mass psyche.

Ever heard of Salman Pak?

Go here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

Read the whole thing, but in particular the question about airplanes proves enlightening.

Then there's this one:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html

Note the date.

Despite what you WANT to believe, Iraq WAS harboring and yes, even training, terrorists under Saddam's utopia.

I supported President Bush and head puppeteer Cheney when it came to Afghanistan. Too bad we didn't finish the mission there.

Hate to say it but we are still there and the mission continues.

Dietrich:
Want a taste? Dietrich is a German name, is it not?

Yes, and that's relevant exactly how?

Reality 101.

Based on what you wrote, I'd say it is more like Surreality 101.

Democracy is imported...not exported. It comes from within. It cannot be imposed, applied or forced.

Ahhhh, now I see how my heritage is relevant, though I'm sure you didn't intend it...

Let's see, you came to the above conclusion after carefully examining the failure to import, impose, apply or force democracy in Italy, Japan and...yes....Germany!

You do realize don't you that in 1946 your ideologicaly predecessors were saying the same things about those three countries, right?

Forget Clinton. Instead of blaming our current problems on those immediately responsible for them, why not blame them on evolution. Or Cleopatra. Or any other historical figure whose actions led...willy nilly...to where we as a school of fish...are today.

So did you not understand the point I made? More likely you fully understood it, and chose to sidestep it and come up with this tripe. Given that everyone.....EVERYONE thought Saddam had WMD can't be dismissed out of hand as you try above. The fact that the belief was false is not Clinton's fault. It's not Bush's fault. I agree the information was intentionally misleading, but what you won't admit is WHO was doing the intentional misleading.

Lets turn on your reptilian brain stem to meth and nuke 'em.

People like you are a simplistic aboration. You succomb to a base human defense mechanisim of fear.

What was it you said in a prior post? Oh wait here it is:

All of the flag waving histrionics and character disparages will not alter this.

Character disparaging? Apparently it works to prove your argument, but no one else's.

Reminds me of the story about the old law school professor who instructed his students as follows:

When the law is on your side, argue the law.

When the facts are on your sie, argue the facts.

When neither the law, nor the facts are on your side....pound the table.

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, Ms. Pelosi pounded the table by crying about Cheney's critcism of her policy. You, following on her que didn't want to address the issues I raised in response to your positions, so you start with the ridicule and name calling.

I should have known better, like most all liberals you are allergic to logic, and thus avoid reasoned debate like the plague.

Once again I've gotten the "Thank you for commenting" screen, which of course means that my comment will never be posted.

Mark: "Ricorun, If it isn't here, then it got lost - sorry about that."

Thanks for the heads up. And I apologize for all that have posted comments since "Dasein's". I rather figured I had a hole in my schedule this afternoon, but it didn't turn out that way. Rather, it turned out to be one of the most interesting days I've had in quite a while. I truly do love my job. All of them. Anyway, back to the subject...

Bane: ""Rico, Source, please. Last I read on the subject U.S. forces discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit that showed that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary."

To be perfectly honest, it's been a while since I did the research. I'm pretty sure I presented it on this site, with citations, a while back. But that was months ago. And I don't know of an efficient way of searching back. I don't remember what the topic was, or even the time-frame with any accuracy. Color me Scooter Libby, lol! Somewhere it's on record, though.

Be that as it may, and as I'm sure you are also aware, some citations that were once easily available are no longer. I don't mean to imply that I can't ultimatlely comply with your challenge, I just wonder how much effort you expect me to expel. I ask because as I recall, mine was a compendium of sources. It almost always is. As you also know (or maybe you don't), I'm pretty thorough. I rarely rely on one source exclusively. And though nonetheless, even now I could first direct you to a certain [insert citation here] Wikipedia article that fleshes the situation out in general terms, and then I could direct you to a certain [insert citation here] New Yorker article that fleshes out other details, and then I could direct you to the transcript of a [insert citation here] 60 Minutes interview with the man in question that occurred in late spring 2002, while Yassim was apparently sitting in an Iraqi prison. But even given all that, which I am absolutely sure I can do, that does not constitute a "smoking gun". For that I'd have to dig deeper into my (admittedly unorganized and incomplete) archives.

The 60 Minutes transcript I cited, however, reinforces pretty much everything I said. And while I readily acknowledge that any 60 Minutes broadcast on anything will be met (and sometimes rightly) with a great deal of skepticism, it is not the original basis of my contention. It is only the piece that I can find now (and without looking all that hard) that summarizes what I said. What I recall from the past is that I mentioned sources that included FBI agents involved in the case (at least some of whom went on record as I recall), and intelligence agents (who did not, as I recall - go figure) that (a) corroborated the claims that Saddam did stick him in prison until the general release, and (b) Saddam used Yasim as a bargaining chip.

But let me ask you, Bane, what part(s) of my claims have your shorts most in a bunch? And what can you offer as counter-claims other than a statement, without verifiable sources, by our vice president?

TrueAmerican: "If you read the latter part of the article, it does say they are in a state of emergency, but this is not due to insurgent fighting. It is rather due to organized crime, ala gangs."

You might want to read the latter part of that article again yourself. Because it clearly states that "The political parties, and particularly Muqtadah al Sadr's organization, will struggle to maintain a fragmenting range of local militias, most of which have become thoroughly intertwined with criminal enterprises..." "... In essence, the deep south has become a `kleptocracy`, where well-armed political-criminal mafioso have locked both the central government and the people out of power."

Apart from whatever take you have on what's going on in Afghanistan, or - ALERT!! - Pakistan (which is a roiling cauldron of instability), or Uzbekistan, or Lebanon, or even Russia and China, how can you possibly construe the emergence of organized crime (even if they weren't aligned with the militias -- which they are -- and even if the militias weren't aligned with the ruling administration -- which they are) a good thing?

Think about that, would you please? Your conception of reality is the very type which we cannot allow in Iraq. Yet it is the same type which, if we are not exceedingly careful, will almost certainly result -- not only in southern Iraq, but ALL of Iraq. The situation is SO MUCH MORE COMPLICATED than you apparently appreciate. And that's my freakin' point. Part of it, anyway. I can't state it all in one post, but I'll keep trying.

And I don't mean to personally single you out, TA. I mean to take to task anyone who hasn't seriously thought about what we're up against, and who prefers instead to hurl simple epithets at those that don't completely agree with them.

You claim that my stand is "Another attempt of the left to twist the news to meet their agenda." Go ahead and try to prove that.

Well, apparently I've isolated the problem to the [insert citations here] parts. Go figure.

A lawyers job is to win cases.

Send me lawyers, guns and money.

First we kill all the lawyers.

I am right. You are wrong. I expose. You defend. And the more I point these "liberaly baised" facts out the more irrational you become.
Which only further proves my point.

When do the dead give up?

mitche, you didn't address anything remotely relevant, and this last post proves you can't defend your nonsense. Even after I challenge your tactics you reply with more of the same. BRAVO!! Well done!! Keep steering clear of debate. It's the only way to avoid having an epinephrine IV...

Aartime - "Stuck on stupid."

The British are leaving. Are they validating Al Qaeda? All the retired military Generals, strategists, NIE reports, Baker and his commission, all validating Al Qaeda?

If this wasn't so terrible, so bloody, so horrific, so meaningless. Yes, meaningless. It would be laughable. Yet, how dare one.

Dick Cheney is a laughing stock. He is Emmit Kelly. The more he twists and spins, the more foolish he looks. He, gentlemen is only one of the many problems of the decaying Bush administration.

Your administration is like a cornered dog now. Lashing out, snarling, snapping at anything. Nothing, absolutely nothing can validate the mismanagement so very evident. So now you snap at another American. Yap, yap, yap.

We have no time for this anymore. Heel. Now. Sit. Hush. There are lives at stake.

Yesterday Russia subtly warned the United States of America about our seemingly imminent escalation in to Iran. The WORLD is not viewing our cowboy diplomacy with patience anymore.

The President and his minion have isolated us.

Cowboy diplomacy be damned. You horsesarses have got us into a mess that is only beginning. There is NO winning or losing. This IS NOT a game. There is no face to save.

Just one more life to spare.

Logic? What is the logic (look up the definition)of invading a country based upon information that was intentionlly skewed at best and outright managed lies at worst? You have no arguementative basis to make aledged assumptions. You sir, are moronic. A deluded syncopant who swollows the extreme rights justification for American domination of the middle east while claiming an etherial battle of goodness vs badness as the main claim for your deluded and unrelenting quest to find some kernel of truth as you lash out; not only at the truly terroristic, but at your brother Americans who try to hold your head to the mirror and your eyes to reality.
Bush Cheney bad.
Thoughtful alternatives good.

Rico - Hey dude, lighten up on the coffee or meth!

Matt, isn't there a post limit here? I would suggest a 200 word limit in order for other posters to read and reply in a timly manner.

Surely, most folks can make their point in under 200 words or less.

That would keep the word bleeders from hogging up your web space.

Just a suggestion. :) Later...2/2Cav

Debate is not just us listening to you call us stupid. Cheney correctly points out how disastrous and stupid removing support for the Iraqi government would be. So? Argu that point. I don't want to hear about the past (not for THIS argument). I want to hear about the futute.

The Democrats complain and cause harm to our troops by emboldening the enemy. Yet with the actual power to force a pull out, they refuse. That is fact. Deal with it.

Matt - So I guess the 200 word limit is mute.

That's cool. Wouldn't want to limit my fellow bloogers from posting their taste treats.

With that said, Democraps are building a front against us bloggers. The Fair doctrine fans are willing to spread their wings.

Later, 2/2Cav

2/2 Cav,
Just curious... how long does it take you to read 200 words?

Funny...Rio....I'l leave a lamp on for you...

Bush Cheney bad.
Thoughtful alternatives good.

Posted by: mitche at February 22, 2007 11:56 PM

And that right there is the problem. Where are the thoughtful alternatives? As we've seen in the past, giving up the fight because the US can't stand sacrifice only encourages them. Light response to attacks is not a deterance to our enemy.

Bush came up with a new thoughtful alternative, which used what the Democrats were calling for before the last election. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt since problems get solved with ideas. Of course they switched sides to attack Bush while again offering zero thoughtful alternatives of their own.

The lib:
"Your administration is like a cornered dog now. Lashing out, snarling, snapping at anything.... So now you snap at another American. Yap, yap, yap."

The President ten days ago:
"A couple of points. One, that I understand the Congress is going to express their opinion, and it's very clear where the Democrats are, and some Republicans; I know that. They didn't like the decision I made. And by the way, that doesn't mean that I think that they're not good, honorable citizens of the country. I just have a different opinion. I considered some of their opinions and felt like it would not lead to a country that could govern itself, sustain itself, and be an ally in the war on terror."

This idea that it's somehow rabid for the Vice President to describe the likely consequences of retreat is ludicrous, because by extension if Petraeus thinks it emboldens our enemy to non-binding disapprove then of course a binding disapproval would embolden them more, and since according to the intelligence community Iraq is a cause celebre for terrorists, us pulling out would obviously embolden them since that was Osama's rationale to attack us on 9/11, that we could be defeated because we retreated from Mogadishu. So you're going to call Petreaus and our intelligence community a bunch of rabid dogs because they actually listened to Osama and believe him? Of course, why not? Clinton didn't believe Osama and respond accordingly, and he's your hero.

“But let me ask you, Bane, what part(s) of my claims have your shorts most in a bunch? And what can you offer as counter-claims other than a statement, without verifiable sources, by our vice president?”

Glad you asked, Rick. Your statement was in response to Bigfoot who noted, once again that Islamic extremists of the al Qaeda variety were harbored in Saddam’s Iraq. Bigfoot cited the same thing in June of 2006, and you did not at that time respond with the claim that this particular operative was imprisoned (before I asked you for the source, I searched all of your posts at B4B that I was able to find on the subject.)

As I pointed out in my post; documents disseminated from the Iraqi regime indicated that he was not imprisoned in Abu Ghraib, but lived in Tikrit on the government dole. It is valid to assume that Saddam had him “available” to use as a bargaining chip, as any person within Iraq was available to Saddam, it is also reasonable to assume that Saddam, like ObL felt that the enemy of my enemy is my ally, until I get a better deal.

And Rico, don’t insult me with the challenge, “other than a statement, without verifiable sources, by our vice president?” I offered documents found after the fall of Saddam; I never referenced Mr. Cheney. If you want to read more about those Tikrit documents, read Steven Hayes, "The Connection" Also see Paul Wolfowitz press conference in July 2004.

The Iraqis also claimed that Yassin “escaped” to Pakistan in 1999 and were unable to produce him, when in fact (according to my sources) he was very much still in Tikrit. (60 minutes notwithstanding).

You should also read up on why our government released Yassin in the first place (Jamie Gorlick!)

I asked for source in the sincere desire to find more evidence; not to infer that you were “lying.” Don’t worry your pretty little head; I’ll continue to search out the truth about Yassin, and report back to you whatever my findings. I don’t mind admitting when I’m wrong; I just haven’t found evidence of that ever happening … yet.

I also don't mind admitting that the best available information at the time might have been wrong.

mitche wrote: A lawyers (sic) job is to win cases.
A lawyer’s job is to zealously represent their client.

Send me lawyers, guns and money.
Warren Zevon’s song was about an obviously guilty man.

First (thing we do, is) kill all the lawyers
From Wm. Shakespeare’s Henry VI describing a plot to overthrow the government.

You are as ignorant of the profession of law as you are on politics. JPL, where are you?

"Bush came up with a new thoughtful alternative"

Boy oh boy I bet he stayed up past 9:00 pm thinking up that one. I can picture it...let's see, more troops. Yeah, thats the ticket. OK, nighty night.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

He can also go...YO Blair, do you think you can send some of your boys up north to give us a hand? Come on Tony, I thought we were bros...

Or, he could just post inane, simplistic carping at Blogs for Bush and then congratulate himself for being oh so clever.