Jihad Watch News Editor Marisol Seibold has done yeoman work holding the fort while I have been making my way through the Badlands for the last week and a half. I am sorry to be a bit late posting this due to my travels, but it is too important to let pass. From Reuters:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush vowed on Tuesday to prevent al Qaeda from setting up a violent, radical Islamic empire based in Iraq, which he said was Osama bin Laden's ultimate goal."We know what the terrorists intend to do because they've told us -- and we need to take their words seriously," Bush said in a speech liberally laced with quotes from bin Laden, architect of the September 11 attacks five years ago which killed around 3,000 people.
[...]
Addressing the Military Officers Association of America, Bush said Islamic radicals would like to obtain nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in order to "blackmail the free world and spread their ideologies of hate."
"If we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty 50 years from now, history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know why we did not act," Bush said.
"I'm not going to allow this to happen and no future American president can allow it either," he said.
Bush quoted extensively from bin Laden's videotaped messages and writings, comparing him to 20th century dictators like Russia's Vladimir Lenin and Germany's Adolf Hitler.
BIN LADEN LETTER
He cited in particular a letter from bin Laden to the former Taliban ruler, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces found in Afghanistan in 2002.
Bin Laden wrote that al Qaeda should launch a media campaign to tell Americans "their government would bring them more losses, in finances and in casualties," and that they are being sacrificed for big investors, "especially the Jews."
Bush said al Qaeda's vision was to create a "unified totalitarian Islamic state that can confront and eventually destroy the free world."
It is good of him to acknowledge this. It has yet to be established that there is significant, organized, and numerous Islamic opposition to this project. After all, the Iraqi Constitution already establishes Sharia as the highest law of the land. Is that not a step toward this goal?
Bin Laden has declared Iraq "the capital of the caliphate," said Bush, who has often faced criticism for trying to tie Iraq into the broader "war on terrorism."Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the losing presidential candidate in 2004, responded that if Bush had killed bin Laden in late 2001, "he wouldn't have to quote this barbarian's words today."
"Afghanistan is slipping back into chaos, Pakistan is one coup away from becoming a radical Islamic state with nuclear weapons, Iran is closer to a nuclear arsenal, and Iraq has become a recruitment poster for terror," Kerry said.
Appeasement-minded withdrawal and quixotic democracy planting are both out of focus. Resisting and defeating the jihad should be the goal, and the cornerstone of American strategizing.
Yeah, but who would establish the caliphate if the US leaves? The Shia? Their authority would never be accepted by the Sunni, even if they do gang up together in support of Hamas, Hizbullah, et al
It can't be a Sunni caliphate in Baghdad any more. Also, even if Baghdad did somehow become a Caliph seat a second time, would that be tolerated in Damascus? Cairo? Jeddah?
Let there be competing caliphates in all these places. Followed by war. Support Israel militarily in staying out of such a cross-fire, but other than that, just watch from a distance. With any luck, the wannabe caliphates and their citizens should all get killed.
As for oil, new reserves are now discoved in the Gulf of Mexico, which will take 10 years to go online, but will support half of the US current needs. In the meantime, work feverishly on nuclear energy for commercial power requirements, and solar/bio-fuel hybrids for transportation requirements. Support Prop 87 in CA. In a few months, not years, the whole customer base of Islamic petroleum should be migrated to Infidel alternatives. Once that happens, it shouldn't take long for dar-ul-Islam to acheive an economy as prosperous as that of Cameroon.
Robert, I take from your post that you are not in favor of pulling out of Iraq, where as jihadwatch board Vice President, Hugh Fitzgerald, is resolute on that subject in the affirmative. Ever argue about this over the proverbial water cooler?
I can't make up my mind if pulling out of Iraq is wise or unwise.
These people state very plainly what they intend. Yet we still have fools who fear 'reconstructionists' taking over the US (and, with the Zionists, the World). Not only that, but the vast majority of them favor appeasement.
We are in for some very bad years if such people continue to ignore reality.
Infidel, that was just One companies' discovery in the Gulf. May there be Many More.
"President Bush vowed on Tuesday to prevent al Qaeda from setting up a violent, radical Islamic empire based in Iraq, which he said was Osama bin Laden's ultimate goal."
-- from a speech by Bush last Tuesday
"If we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty 50 years from now, history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know why we did not act," Bush said.
-- same speech, different paragraph
How would Al Qaeda, a Sunni organization, many of whose members are in complete agreement with Al-Zarqawi that the Shi'a in Iraq are "Rafidite dogs" and who regard them as the worst kind of Infidels, manage to "take over Iraq' -- especially with Iran next door, its agents already within Iraq, and its appeal not dependent on whether or not Al-Sistani or anyone else necessarily approves of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but on a more visceral feeling, a feeling that the Shi'a are being deprived of their rights by the Sunnis who refuse to acquiesce in the transfer of power to the majority Shi'a Arabs. And how would Al Qaeda somehow take over the lands populated or controlled by the Kurds, whose ethnic identity works to subvert or at least to put some kind of mild brake on, their identity as Muslims, for there is nothing like being on the immediate and recent receiving end of Arab supremacism, a natural part of Islam, to dampen one's pan-Islamist enthusiasm.
Why is withdrawal from Iraq called "retreat from Iraq"? Why not call it a sensible move, or if it pleases you, a diabolically clever and ruthless move, or if it pleases you, something else, not a "retreat" but a move designed not to expend the lives of Americans, not to further demoralize and weaken the necessary long-term resolve of the military and support for counter-Jihad measures among civilians, but to ensure that the sectarian and ethnic fissures will not be dampened (in any case, sooner or later it will be understood that they cannot be, and cannot be because of the violence, aggression, and refusal to compromise that are the natural condition of societies suffused with Islam) but will, rather, work in the same way that the Iran-Iraq War worked, to use up men, money, and materiel, and for eight years to preoccupy the two most unpleasant regimes of Iran and Iraq.
Bush can't understand this. We, however, who can, are furious that he posits a messsianic view, and will not drop it, despite all the evidence, because of something or rather a blend of somethings: inability to admit that he never understood the fissures in Iraq, iinability to admit that he is too timid to be ruthless in the exploitation of such fissures, because of course some people in Iraq would suffer (so what? all kinds of innocent people suffered, even in the enemy camp, during World War II -- suffered so that we, the Allies, would suffer less in the end. And that was the right attitude to take. One is not impressed with this sentimentalism of Bush, any more with his notion of what constitutes democracy. And the more one hears invoked, by him or by Rice, either the American Revolution, or the American Civil War, as if these provide any kind of apposite analogies for what is going on among various groups of Muslims in Iraq, at this point simply amazes. A President, and a Secretary of State, who do not know much about American history, or about the United States, or even about democratic theory.
No matter what Bush says, if the Americans do not withdraw from Iraq soon, the continued damage done to the American military, the widening split between the United States and what should be its natural allies in Western Europe, a split encouraged by the army of Muslim Arabs so adept at exploiting the divisions within the Camp of the West, while the Americans are so un-adept or unwilling to exploit the divisions within the Camp of Islam (sectarian, ethnic, and economic, as detailed at JW on many occasions), then in 2008 it is very likely that a policy of real appeasement of Islam will be so attractive to some, sick of the mess in Iraq -- a mess that is entirely unnecessary, for the true "victory" in Iraq was won, the legitimate goals of Iraq War #1 attained, within one year of the invasion, by March 2004, but remains unrecognized by the Administration, and of course will not be pointed out by any of its political enemies, dead-set on not identifying or recognizing that victory.
I've explained how the war in Iraq was won, by the scouring of the country for major weapons, and the removal of Saddam Hussein that insured the reemergence of those sectarian and ethnic divisions that are not to be suppressed but encouraged, as is the help of co-religionists from outside Iraq.
Having disovered for the American government the victory they have been unable to locate, I think I have a right to claim a Finder's Fee. To what government office shall I send my claim?
Easy on the Doublemint, Hugh ;)
Aug 22:
Actually, I have no disagreement with Hugh on these matters. I am sorry to have given you any other impression. Hugh is not in favor of "appeasement minded withdrawal" either.
Hugh and I see eye to eye on most things, but I will never get used to his taste for leisure suits and velour turtlenecks.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Ouch!
Looks like the new PR firm is paying off already. 'Bout freakin time the GOP got some "messaging" out.
It's a start.
More Gadamn the Ameriki:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22452_Adam_Gadahn_the_MEMRI_Cut&only
Meanwhile, in other news- http://www.westernresistance.com/
lots of news that doesn't make it here.
And of course LGF!
Bin Laden has declared Iraq "the capital of the caliphate," said Bush, who has often faced criticism for trying to tie Iraq into the broader "war on terrorism."
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the losing presidential candidate in 2004, responded that if Bush had killed bin Laden in late 2001, "he wouldn't have to quote this barbarian's words today."
"Afghanistan is slipping back into chaos, Pakistan is one coup away from becoming a radical Islamic state with nuclear weapons, Iran is closer to a nuclear arsenal, and Iraq has become a recruitment poster for terror," Kerry said.
Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism, but Afghanistan is? How hypocritical is that... especially considering how we daily see true reports about fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq?
Clue in people: This is a war we are fighting with Islamo-Fascists. I am sorry it took Bush so long to say it outloud. But that is as good as we can expect from our Presidents to date. Far, far better then what men like Kerry or Clinton would ever do.
Iraq is part of this war. Iraq is centrally located in the Middle East. We are fighting Islamist Sunnis there. Yes, Iraq is a mess. Yes, Afghanistan is sort of a mess. But, yes, our enemy is clear. Our enemy is the terrorist, the Islamo-Fascist.
This is the same kind of confusion we had over Vietnam. The same people then are here today with their brainwashed little converts from later generations. The Viet Cong were Communists. They were dogs. They were murderers. They instigated the war for the sheer pleasure of vile evil power. Upon our leaving the true nature of our enemy was proven in Southeast Asia... in Cambodia, in Vietnam, in Laos. Their nature is still there today.
We have a lot more to lose here. I am saddened to see our administration is still so weak. I am far more saddended to see our own people and the people of other Free World countries likewise weak against the Islamist threat.
GWB is finally taking up the evil Islamic empire speaking offensive, one which is about 30 years overdue for any American president. If only he were as eloquent as the Gip or as martial as Patton. One wonders how much more progress would have been made in liquidating jihadists since 2001 if the current administration hadn't gotten all touchy feely on the Social Security and Medicare reform kicks while letting Sharia creep into Iraqighanistan.
It's also pathetic that about half the American population has to have the reasoning for capturing and killing jihadists outlined like a basic logic problem. I guess this is what happens when Couch Man's offspring and the Stingray Hunter are the nightly top stories on the Caliphate Broadcast System.
On Hugh's Post:
"How would Al Qaeda, a Sunni organization, many of whose members are in complete agreement with Al-Zarqawi that the Shi'a in Iraq are "Rafidite dogs" and who regard them as the worst kind of Infidels, manage to "take over Iraq' "
The quote did not say Al Qaeda would take over Iraq.
I would like to see such a statement that anyone is saying Al Qaeda is posed to take over Iraq.
In one sense, of course, retreating ("withdrawal", "running away", whatever you want to call it) would allow Al Qaeda to take over Iraq: because Al Qaeda is evil and chaotic and they would ensure Iraq was destroying in evil and chaos.
We are fighting Al Qaeda and company in Iraq. Everybody knows this. Why would anyone suggest we should run away from this? Because of the villiany of the Shiites? That is not a plausible reason.
This is a war. Iraq is one of the fronts.
I do not understand the "run away" mentality. If anything we need to be engaging on more fronts.
Say it again... if anything we need to be engaging on more fronts.
Sadly, the American people and the Free World, in general, are too weak to be dealing with this problem now, effectively. Sadly, nothing can increase our resolve short of more terrorist attacks.
We can only hope, then, that will not be too late.
The question I’m asking myself tonight is whether our government understands the divide between Sunni and Shia. The evil side of me sees this as posturing for the public ahead of the November elections. But statements like:
...to prevent al Qaeda from setting up a violent, radical Islamic empire based in Iraq,...
make one wonder. Condelesa Rice should have caught this as it crossed her desk (giving her the benefit of the doubt).
The clear statement of threat and the word ‘caliphate’ were refreshing though. Let's hope that Karl Rove is behind the speech and that the real plotting is going on behind closed doors.
August22 wrote:
"Robert, I take from your post that you are not in favor of pulling out of Iraq, where as jihadwatch board Vice President, Hugh Fitzgerald, is resolute on that subject in the affirmative. Ever argue about this over the proverbial water cooler?
I can't make up my mind if pulling out of Iraq is wise or unwise."
I do not see where he states this. He does point out the constitution is Sharia based.
I agree with him there.
I will further point out the Sunnis are rabid dogs... the Shiites are rabid dogs.
Even if we leave ten years from now... they will probably mess it up.
This is not even Germany or Japan we are discussing here. These are largely Islamists. Their culture has produced little. If it were not for oil they would be tending goats right now, and they would be doing that very poorly.
It has nothing to do with the race. It has to do with the poison of Islam. Islam is chaos, nonsense... it is a poison for civility.
None of this matters. Iraq is a front on the war on terror. We are fighting terrorists there. Bottomline. We give up that front, we are sending a message to terrorists. We need more fronts, not less.
Iraq is strategically crucial. This is stupid obvious. It is in the center of the Middle East. Look at our global troop placement pre-Iraq. We were very ready for an invasion from the Soviet Union in 2001. We still are today.
I wish the government would be more aggressive in speaking about such things... but they do. And the media, whatever media, shows us it is Al Qaeda we are fighting. We all know this.
Yet, people want to turn tail and run?
Is this an American new tradition? I have to say it is not part of my generation, post-babyboomers. Maybe it is a babyboomer tradition. I hope it is a tradition which dies now.
Have we learned nothing from Somalia and Lebanon? Nothing?
It appears so.
Limes, perhaps this is the pre-attack-on-Iran PR blitz.
11/8 is a date to keep in mind. It's the day after the election when GWB has no further political noose around his neck. As of that date, whether Republicans win or lose across the fruited plain, he can proceed with a strike or series of strikes on the Persian Pariah. The war of words is heating up between Iran and the US and one has to believe it may end in a midnight flattening of the military and industrial heart of Iran. Hopefully we have moved all our MOAB's to the central Asian theater.
Have we learned nothing from Somalia and Lebanon? Nothing?
it seems the older baby boomers mainly in the Democrat party, kerry, algore, clintoinds, only want to pull out when it threatens their poll numbers. sick politicians, no backbones.. l have hope for the younger crowd.
Whoa! Hold hard!
Let's just deal with the really important things here - the anti-jihad can wait just a moment.
"Velour turtlenecks"!
Bad taste. Bad taste. BAD TASTE, OR WHAT!
Velour is so yesterday! Turtlenecks are just so sixties!
No-one, but no-one, wears either today. This is just so..., so...., so... - Startreck. Oh, good grief. Time warp!
Hugh, you have some serious sartorial explaining to do.
Alternatively, of course, one can always remember Lillian Hellman - "I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions".
Dominic.
Madras; Hope springs eternal. But I'm still trying to figure out what to do with all the ammunition in my basement following August 22nd...
Regardless of the result of the elections, Bush will be a very powerful man for the next two years. A man with nothing to lose is very free.
His intentions were refreshing.
Hugh, you have some serious sartorial explaining to do.
isnt he like 85-95 yaers old?
'years
Patriot8/
Hmmmm! Of course, at that sort of age 'turtleneck' takes on a whole new meaning (but there would still be no excuse for velour - believe me, I'm gay, I know these things!).
Dominic.
LOL
There is never an excuse for velour.
D.
I have many friends and even family still in the box, some are completely safe and others are at extreme risk. Iraq and Afghanistan are complicated places. I think our nation is much the same. We have the clueless who just can’t get past the fact that evil people wish us harm. We have those that count on them to be clueless so they can exploit them. We have those that are so blinded by hate they would support anyone who attacks us. We have many who think it wise to just become isolationists and let the rest of the world fall. We have the PC types who believe all people will eventually become so enlightened that they will follow their lead. We have fence setters who will go with the winner. We have a select few who unquestioningly follow the leader. We also have those who are committed to fight this to the end.
We also have a few like me who say 100% or nothing. If we as a nation can not be convinced that our nation is worth saving than like all imperialistic societies our time will come. I am not dumb enough to really expect a 100% effort but we need much more than we have now. Unless we change our laws to slow the spread of terror, enforce our existing laws and pass new ones giving us the ability to fight as closely to 100% as possible we could lose. I think that is the theme the Americans and the rest of the free world need to understand WE COULD LOSE. Then they need to think about what that really means. Then and only then can they decide 100% or not. Unless we fight this with all our power, why fight? Arabic is a perfect language and you will start to find it rolls off your tongue. Make your choice, I will be seating over here, eating a pork BBQ sandwich, washing it down with a beer and admiring all my clean weapons.
The main thing rich kid Yalie + Harvard Man Georgie failed to address in his mind numbing speech is Islam. Although refusing to address the root problem, Dubya raises the rhetoric, but at the same time does nothing to improve the rhetoric.
* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *
So long as Dubya's supposedly dropping gonads, then he should look at deployment of Pershing IIs on the ground (various tactical nuclear cruise missiles are already deployed offshore).
If you're confused here, you can't deploy Navy without each ship's attendant nukes; you can deploy soldiers and marines without such weapons, but not sailors.
* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *
I'm not going to allow this to happen and no future American president can allow it either.
The forthcoming election of Hillary almost certainly ordains by the heavy front work being done right now by the MSM (including FoxNews).
Of course Hillary will fail to deploy tactical nukes and and to use them.
She will appease the Moslems and acquiesce to a gradual devolvement to an Islamic Republic there, at a pace that US legislative and electoral politics allow
The main thing Dubya has failed to address is Islam. He refuses to address the problem, raises the rhetoric, but has done nothing to improve the rhetoric.
* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *
So long as Dubya's supposedly maybe dropping gonads, then he should look at deployment of Pershing IIs on the ground (various tactical nuclear cruise missiles are already deployed offshore).
If you're confused here, you can't deploy Navy without each ship's attendant nuke weapons, they're part of the package; but you can deploy soldiers and marines without such weapons.
* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *
I'm not going to allow this to happen and no future American president can allow it either.
The forthcoming election of Hillary (almost certainly ordained by the MSM), once elected, Hillary will of course fail to deploy tactical nukes and will issue executive orders to not use them in Iraq, whether army or naval.
She will appease the Moslems and acquiesce to the gradual devolution of Iraw into two Islamic Republics, maybe three, but will do this so at a pace as allowed by natinoal new, US Congress, US electins.
OK. OK. I'm just a bit fixated here. I mean, I can cope with a little bit of brushed cotton - if one really must, you know, if the occasion really warrants it. I'll even stretch a point to include decidedly retro-chic cheesecloth - but only when the Factor 45 has run out in the late afternoon on the beach on Fire Island.
But never velour! It's just so, so, so - well ... so Louisa May Alcott!
Dominic.
Maybe if Bush had taken the time to address the American people more often to discuss specifics in the "war on terror", instead of referring to vague enemies and "ideologies", there would be more support for Iraq and the overall effort to fight maniacal muslims. We have been engaged in a war with an abstract enemy who cannot be seen, but who adheres to an "evil" ideology "bent on our destruction." This vernacular is simply too nebulous to accurately depict our enemies.
Bush understands what we're up against, but he has done a dismal job of getting the message across, and his Secretary of State and other spokespeople have failed as miserably, if not more so, than he has. Much of their failure can be attributed to political correctness, which must be jettisoned if they want the support of the American people.
The best advice Mr. Bush could give the American people would be this: Learn about islam, read Robert Spencer's books, all of them. Then you will understand what and who we are fighting, and I think you will agree that we're in the fight of our lives.
Susanp, I think I know which side you are on. Have a back up plan just in case "susan's house of burkas" I'm looking hard at a camel caravan business. And on that note, night all. I have to get my rest, I have a world to save tomorrow.
RE: Hugh
Good deal -- Let's withdraw, and leave it to the different factions of the Muslims to fight it out for control in Iraq. The spin can be that a compounded "destabilization" of the region was truly the goal, and that objective has been accomplished and reinforced (much more so than with Hussein in power!).
Another consideration -- We need to rest our troops and retool for our next phase of destabilization, testing our technology in Iran. Or should we do Iran while we are in the region? Wars, and rumors of wars ... where will it end?
But perhaps better yet, if we give Iran enough lead time, they can possibly garner a coalition of Islamic nations (along with their good neighbor, Russia), to once-in-for-all get rid of those pesky Jews. How have they remained in existence all these years surrounded by Muslims bent on their total annihilation, especially when they are outnumbered by at least 300 million Muslims? Guess Allah has just been playing possum with those apes and pigs! Or maybe Allah isn't god, but YHWH!
Let those Muslims set up their grand caliphate in the Middle East. Maybe this would spawn a re-gathering of Muslims out of the Western world back to the Middle East (a religious pilgrimage of sorts) to finally live under unrepressed Islamic Shariah law! A dream come true for Muslims, isn't it?
Just think -- the Jews are history, the Muslims are pacified temporarily until they get that notion again for worldwide domination, and we have all our troops home and secure, and stationed at all our borders to handle that immigration issue.
What am I missing? Oh, Hillary Clinton is President and busy implementing her "It Takes a Village" program throughout America. Liberal humanism is allowed to finally extinquish all vestiges of the Judeo-Christian value system in the US, and with the elimination of those historical demons, true peace can finally be realized by the masses called Americans (at least until the Muslims decide to infiltrate our paradisiacal society).
Somehow I sense that I am employing faulty reasoning here, Hugh? Maybe my eighth-grade education isn't cognizant of all that it needs to be, and my understanding of the Middle East leaves a lot to be desired.
So, is the call just to suppress Islamic Jihad and hopefully contain it to a certain region of the globe? Or is it a real and evident threat to the security of the planet as we know it? Wonder if they would be amicable to the "Hillary-Village" theory within the framework of Shariah Law?
Or should I be looking for The Evident Smoke of a mushroom cloud on the horizon? Certainly someone has some answers! Why haven't we humans "evolved" out of our "animalism" (perhaps Eric Burdon was right -- "animal life, animalism"!).
"The main thing rich kid Yalie + Harvard Man Georgie failed to address in his mind numbing speech is Islam. Although refusing to address the root problem, Dubya raises the rhetoric, but at the same time does nothing to improve the rhetoric."
Here's a few lines from yesterday's speech:
"The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without conscience -- but they're not madmen. They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil, but not insane. These al Qaeda terrorists and those who share their ideology are violent Sunni extremists. They're driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women and children in the pursuit of political power. They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" -- where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology. Osama bin Laden has called the 9/11 attacks -- in his words -- "a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous… [Caliphate]."
He addresses Islam severaltimes in that speech.
He just doesn't yet understand that the 'hateful ideology' to which he refers is the official 'version' of Islam.
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the losing presidential candidate in 2004, responded that if Bush had killed bin Laden in late 2001, "he wouldn't have to quote this barbarian's words today."
Does Kerrie-boy think Georgie-boy shoulda gone to Tora-Bora himself and put a gun to Osama-boy's head himself and pulled the trigger?! YES.. I for one would have loved a Western Leader to demonstrate that kind of personal involvement and courage akin to a King Arthur or a Jan Sobieski or a Charles Martell!
I, too was agonized that bin laden-bitch got away not only once, but twice during our attack on Afghanistan.. BUT.. I do NOT believe that John Kerry would have anything but less to show for in this Global War than what little we have now. John Kerry and his cohorts seem way more focused on undermining what little efforts our present leaders are putting forth toward stamping out this enemey than they are to the defeat of this current and imminent threat of Islamofascism. They even resist and fight against the use of that very term! They don't even wish to name the enemy by its name!
The present administration [and the rest of the Western World] are doing badly - and not nearly - enough in prosecuting this struggle as it is!
John Kerrie-boy should keep sucking packs of Heinz Ketchup or whatever he needs to do to keep his rich wife happy. BUT.. please *DO* stay out of nationally sensitive issues!
Robert:
Can jihad be separated from islam? If it can be, would you describe the President's "War on Terror" as a War on Jihadis?
If jihad is an inseparable component of islam, can President Bush try to defeat it without being torn apart by his political enemies? Can he call a spade a spade by publicly describing islam as a religion that commands its followers to murder or conquer the rest of the world?
Speaking for myself, I believe he knows that jihad is integral to mainstream islam, but is reluctant to say so publicly. I think he should go for it, but the political blow-back would be enormous, well funded, and ruthlessly effective. It would jeopardize the progress that has been achieved so far in countering jihad.
Hugh:
America doesn't have a Minitrue office, so you'll probably have to send your finder's fee claim to the nearest Department Of Sanitation. They'll know what to do with it.
Well, there is one bit of good news here. Kerry actually referred to an enemy of the United States as a "barbarian." H
Barbarians aren't parlayed with. They're destroyed, and their bones are left for the Carrion birds.
Such statements, even if made in falsehood, carry a certain momentum. If enough Democrats start speaking that way, branding the enemy sick, "barbaric," then sooner or later, the logic of that branding will begin to inform our war effort. It will be an inexorable process.
Minitrue? Minitrue? Ah, yes! I see! The Bargholzs' Ministry of Truth. The facts the way the Bargholzs want them to be, not necesarily the way they actually are.
Coupled, of course, with the usual, and oh so very boring (yawn, yawn, yawn) scatalogical insult directed at this site's owner. How pathetic! But then, the Bargholzs are the 'Thought Police' - aren't they? - and we do have to obey them, don't we? Well ... they certainly tell all of us how to think and where we think wrongly (according to them) - and, of course, we all agree with them, don't we?
Sanitation, anyone?
Dominic.
And just remember, by their own admission, who pays them.
(If you're new to this site then use the search engine of your choice to check out the posters calling themselves Jeff Bargholz and find their own admission that they are paid operatives.)
Dominic.
Jeff; I took a cheap shot the other night and apologize. The President had a good day today.
I wish that he would look to President Reagan’s 1980-1988 Iran Iraq War for future guidance.
Limes:
Fugeddaboudit. It's no big deal. You're obviously a good guy.
Don't put too much faith in Reagan's Iran Iraq war. Guys like Hugh are quick to point out that America strengthened Saddam Hussein in that conflict, but what they overlook is that Iran and its terrorist proxies inflicted 6 major terrorist attacks against America in retaliation.
This should come as no surprise. Muslims have been murdering themselves in internal squabbles since the day islam was spawned, but that has never prevented them from murdering infidels en masse. Fights between Sunni and Shia have never prevented jihad, and it never will.
The following description of Iran's attacks on America from 1980 to 1988 comes from an article by Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine:
"In April 1983, Hizbullah—an Islamic terrorist organization nourished by Iran and Syria—sent a suicide bomber to explode his truck in front of the American embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Sixty-three employees, among them the Middle East CIA director, were killed and another 120 wounded. But Reagan sat still.
Six months later, in October 1983, another Hizbullah suicide bomber blew up an American barracks in the Beirut airport, killing 241 U.S. Marines in their sleep and wounding another 81. This time Reagan signed off on plans for a retaliatory blow, but he then allowed his Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, to cancel it (because it might damage our relations with the Arab world, of which Weinberger was always tenderly solicitous). Shortly thereafter, the President pulled the Marines out of Lebanon.
Having cut and run in Lebanon in October, Reagan again remained passive in December, when the American embassy in Kuwait was bombed. Nor did he hit back when, hard upon the withdrawal of the American Marines from Beirut, the CIA station chief there, William Buckley, was kidnapped by Hizbullah and then murdered. Buckley was the fourth American to be kidnapped in Beirut, and many more suffered the same fate between 1982 and 1992 (though not all died or were killed in captivity).
These kidnappings were apparently what led Reagan, who had sworn that he would never negotiate with terrorists, to make an unacknowledged deal with Iran, involving the trading of arms for hostages. But whereas the Iranians were paid off handsomely in the coin of nearly 1,500 antitank missiles (some of them sent at our request through Israel), all we got in exchange were three American hostages—not to mention the disruptive and damaging Iran-contra scandal.
In September 1984, six months after the murder of Buckley, the U.S. embassy annex near Beirut was hit by yet another truck bomb (also traced to Hizbullah). Again Reagan sat still. Or rather, after giving the green light to covert proxy retaliations by Lebanese intelligence agents, he put a stop to them when one such operation, directed against the cleric thought to be the head of Hizbullah, failed to get its main target while unintentionally killing 80 other people.
It took only another two months for Hizbullah to strike once more. In December 1984, a Kuwaiti airliner was hijacked and two American passengers employed by the U.S. Agency for International Development were murdered. The Iranians, who had stormed the plane after it landed in Tehran, promised to try the hijackers themselves, but instead allowed them to leave the country. At this point, all the Reagan administration could come up with was the offer of a $250,000 reward for information that might lead to the arrest of the hijackers. There were no takers.
The following June, Hizbullah operatives hijacked still another airliner, an American one (TWA flight 847), and then forced it to fly to Beirut, where it was held for more than two weeks. During those weeks, an American naval officer aboard the plane was shot, and his body was ignominiously hurled onto the tarmac. For this the hijackers were rewarded with the freeing of hundreds of terrorists held by Israel in exchange for the release of the other passengers. Both the United States and Israel denied that they were violating their own policy of never bargaining with terrorists, but as with the arms-for-hostages deal, and with equally good reason, no one believed them, and it was almost universally assumed that Israel had acted under pressure from Washington. Later, four of the hijackers were caught but only one wound up being tried and jailed (by Germany, not the United States)."
The notion that America should cut and run from an amazingly successful campaign in Iraq--on the assumption that sunni and shia will waste all their energy killing each other instead of Americans--is short-sighted, and doesn't take into account what happened the last time that was tried.
Don't buy into Hugh's B.S. about the mission in Iraq. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Like most doctrinaire ideologues, he tries to tailor the facts to fit his theories, rather than the other way around.
Dom:
If you don't stop blowing my cover, I'll use the deadly resources of BUSH (Bush Undercover Spy Headquarters,) to put a hit on you. I'll order agents of our pet organization BLAIR, (Bush League American Imitation Relatives,) to do the wet-work.
Your tin-hat ramblings are coming too close to the truthe.
you've been warned. Bargholz X-7, agent of BUSH.
From Jeff's post:
"The notion that America should cut and run from an amazingly successful campaign in Iraq . . . ."
Is this comedy hour? How do you define success? How do you define the continuing American campaign in Iraq? What are the goals? The elimination of terror? Is this part of the war on terror?
It's such a bunch of Orwellian nonsense. What is the mission that is so successful? Are 'they' standing up as 'we' stand down? Good god. I don't get it. I thought I was smart, but I guess I miss something fundamental here; for when we leave(and someday we will), we will be called cowards. 2008 or 2018. The whole concept of introducing democracy to reform Islam is without merit or justification.
As for the Gipper's withdraw from Lebanon or Clinton's withdraw from Somolia: we know that was 'cutting and running.' Or do we? Would we have been any better fighting the good fight, letting hundreds, thousands of young Americans die in the killing fields of Lebanon and Somolia: for a people who are happy when we die. Yes, my friend, do you think "Iraqis"--and I use the term with deliberate 'looseness'--care or are happy when Americans are killed, maimed, beheaded?
Does are continuing Iraqi campaign help bolster the confidence of the Americans? or Iraqis? Does it help us wage what must be done against Iran? or hinder it? Jeff, how about all the good that could be done for our own good--here within America--and for our true friends--without the continuing Iraqi campaign.
The only point of staying in Iraq is 'good,' is that withdraw will make us look like we're running from Jihadists. Yes, this is a good point, but if this is the sole frame of reference, we will never leave.
If the withdraw of Americans from Iraq leads to the distinigration of "Iraq" . . . also a Western construct from the beginning . . . why is that bad? to see Shia fight Sunni, to see an independent Kurdistan arise, one that supports the US and is a thorn in the eyes of our enemies. To use this massive money drain back into our country, developing our alternative energy programs, our transportation infrastructure; this is 'bad?' this is 'cutting and running?' Sign me up for the cut and run crowd.
Biorabbi:
Please point out the failure of the mission in Iraq. I'm ready for some real comedy.
The terrorists in Iraq have failed utterly to achieve a single one of their self-declared goals. They tried to prevent the formation of a Governing Council and failed. They failed to stop municipal elections. They failed to stop the first General Election. They failed to stop the writing of the new democratic Constitution. They failed to keep the Sunnis out of the political process. They failed to provoke a "civil" war between the Sunnis and Shiites. They failed to shut down essential government services such as schools, hospitals and police forces. They failed to stop the production of oil. They failed to stop small businesses and farms from flourishing. They failed to destroy water electricity service. Most of all, they have failed to drive America out of Iraq.
The terrorists have been unable to prevent the democratization of Iraq despite murdering and terrorizing: Council members, political candidates, voters, Constitutional drafters, teachers, students, doctors, patients, business owners, farmers, police officers and applicants, Sunnis, Shiites, reporters, aid workers, oil field roustabouts, et al.
Where is Zarqawi? Where is a figurehead terrorist leader? Where is a large, strong, centralized terrorist organization? Coalition forces are popping them off like cans on a fence. How many were killed in the battle of Falujah alone? 1 sniper had more than 100 confirmed kills! In the last 3 months, 100,00 to 130,000 terrorists and "insurgents" have been greased by coalition troops. The IED attacks are way down, the Iraqi security forces are conducting their own successful hunt and kill missions, and it's hard for the terrorists to find jihadi morons willing to become human bombs nowadays.
The Coalition HAS been accomplishing ITS goals, despite hysterical claims to the contrary by the establishment media. The agricultural sector is flourishing. Iraq now exports food to neighboring countries, instead of relying on the U.N.'s Oil For Food Program. (Oil For Weapons, Torture Chambers and Palaces.) There are no more refugees fleeing Iraq. People are flooding BACK. The Iraqi Dinar is far stronger than it was under Hussein's reign. There is a private sector boom of small and medium sized businesses. The Iraqi economy is doing better than any other in the region. The GDP has doubled since Hussein's overthrow, with a growth rate of 52.3%. Exports have increased by more than $3 billion (American $,) while inflation fell to 25.4%, down from 70% in 2002. The unemployment rate dropped from 60% to 30%. Privately owned television stations and newspapers have emerged.
Also worthy of note, is that the security forces cant handle the volume of applicants showing up. Former "insurgents" recognize a winner and are switching sides. The terrorists are desperate, as their captured documents and communications show.
All of this was accomplished with ridiculously low casualty figures on our side. In WWII, which is usually cited as the model of a successful war, things didn't go nearly as well. America lost battle after battle for years. Casualty rates were horrific throughout the war. There were 2500 deserters roaming around Europe. Rape was so common that Gen. Eisenhower considered public hangings of soldiers as a deterrent. Intelligence failures were constant and costly. In 1944, when the war was thought to be nearly over, the Germans made a successful counter-thrust that took the allies completely by surprise. Japan was ready to fight on to the last man until the second atomic bomb was dropped. Not even the first one was able to deter them! The reconstruction effort for Germany and Japan took more than a decade, and the German and Japanese are competent, well organized people--the Iraqis are anything but.
Are things going perfectly? No. Are they going better than the public thinks they are? Yes. Astronomically better. If the President would tell the public what I just shared with you, opposition to the mission in Iraq (it's not a war,) among mainstream America would virtually end. Only the America-last moonbats would continue to oppose it.
You thought you were smart? yeah, you did miss something.
The "killing fields of Lebanon and Somalia? Are you quoting Al Qaeda? Hundreds of thousands would have died fighting those inept, cowardly losers?
How many Americans died fighting in Lebanon? NONE, Osama. They weren't even armed.
How many died in Somalia? If I remember correctly, it was 18. 18 out of a force of 100 that was completely unsupported--thanks to President Clinton. 100 soldiers fought their way out of an entire hostile city--and killed more than 1000 mighty muslims in the process.
If you want to surrender to islam, stick your own neck on the chopping block. Men like me refuse to submit.
Did you miss the fact that due to the Iraq campaign, we now have Iran and Syria surrounded by battle-hardened US troops? I've pointed this out ad nauseum at this site. Do you understand the relevance of this?
Did you even read what I wrote and relayed about the meaningless war between shia and sunni? They've been killing infidels since their feud began. Leaving them alone will allow them to do it again.
Go back and read my entire comment, moron. Don't stop at the introduction this time. I have better things to do than spank retards.
Jeff, I'm not a retard, but I know when the Java gets stale.
Maybe we should have stayed and fought the good fight in Viet Nam? Hey, while your spouting stats: how many Americans died in Viet Nam? Something like 50 thousand? And we left, but did that make us cut and runners? Were Kissinger and Nixon cut and runners? How bout those audio tapes showing LBJ and a prominent Democratic 'hawk' privatly wondering what the hell Viet Nam was about? The black wall brings tears to my eyes. Yes, the Americans fought with cunning, bravery, giving it their all, but were held back by pussified policies on the home front(not just the protesting hippies either--but the political 'brass' in DC).
Iraq is worse? If that's possible. Is Iraq a democratic bastion of Western values, a transforming agent of progress, or is is something else; a fable, a green zone construct of a Potemkin government, surrounded by good Islams who wish to kill each other, but still like the cash infusion.
Tell me: are the trains running on time? You mention success. Is success defined as being able to walk to work without getting blown up? If thousands die each month, if the doctors and engineers leave, if the Christian minority leaves, leaving only the down trodden portion of Sunnis and Shias slugging it out; that's success?
Yes, is progress being made in Kurdistan? Yes, and we should support it to the hilt. Kurds do not consider themselves Iraqi . . . they don't want Arabs in their country(I don't blame them), they have a long history of suffering from Arabs(and not just Mr. S. Hussein either), they don't even use the Iraqi currency or FLAGS. Doesn't sound like they even refer to themselves as Iraq--or as they call themselves . . . the other Iraq. In my book, the growing independent streak by the Kurds is the one good to come out of Iraq, followed in import by the destruction of the Sunni dragon Sadaam, unleashing the Sunni-Shia intra-Islamic thrilla in Baghdad. It's always been there, festering below the surface, kept down at brute force by Sadaam, but it's gaining a new lease on life. I agree as well with what you refer to might be contrued as the honey pot thesis: but why base our boys in Iraq? Why not just base them in Kurdistan, and operate out of friendlier zones, allowing "Iraq" to slip into the clannish muck it so deeply deserves.
Jeff, sorry not to buy into the Iraq success myth. The tragedy is if the wrong lessons are learned or taught from this myth. I am no isolationist. If we need to nuke Iran, fine with me, but I don't buy the Powell doctrine of, "if you break it, you own it." Bullshit. Islam was broke long before 911, and it can't be fixed, transformed, or altered by outside forces. Terrorists can be killed as can supporting governments; I'm in favor of this completely.
But if we decapitate the Iranian government in the morning, if we destroy all of the nuclear installations within Iran, if the chimp in chief goes to ground, do we then 'own' Iran? Must we then 'rebuild' Iran? Or just let it fester?? Of course, what can we really do about Iran anyway? We have 150,000 hostages in Iraq. Who knows how many Iranian agents scurry about the width of the whole "country?"
As for Sryia, same issues apply. If our country deams Assad room temperature, do it, but let the Muslims then sort it out.
The counterpoint to my thesis is, at first blush, Lebanon. Here, we have a failure of a state within a state, attacking Israel, while, at the same time, "Lebanon's government" protests Israel's response, claiming innocence. Israel, to the chagrin of idiots and Jew haters everywhere, said, "no dice, you can't play that game." But even if the distintigration of the Arab 'Nation States' is deemed bad by policy wonks, if the ripping apart of 'Iraq' is considered unwise, can we really alter it in the long run? without a thug in charge to keep the savages under control?
Islamic terrorists - do as I say or we will kill you. Convert to islam so that you can be a proud killer for allah like we are. The sword of allah is love..See the love of blood, it's hypnotic and it will get you 72 virgins if you are a male and if you are a female you might get to be one of those virgins and be abused for eternity. It all sounds so appealing...I just can't wait to be abused...where do I sign up.
I heard Times Magazine, July 2006 edition, had an article about the population of muslims in the USA...On 11 Sept. 2001 there were 7 million muslims and currently the population is 3 million. Islam has lost its appeal. Hey ole bin laden, Adam and other islamic terrorists...you've done us all a huge favour. Thank you.
I wasn't really interested in being abused female in islam, I lied.
There is only one path that we (the US and other other advanced market economy nations) must follow to get out of this crisis - it is the path of Energy Freedom. We must staunchly support and promote all policies desgned to rapidly expand the developmemt of existing energy sources and promote the rapid creation of new energy sources that we replace oil & gas long term. We must do this immediately and rapidly - in a postive way through incentives and expanded tax credits and not by shackling the energy companies with more regulations and taxes - for they are also part of the solution.
We must do this as a the most important national mission of the 21st Century and for all future generations. Energy Freedom it is not unlike the mission to the moon in the 1960s. We must be free of all unstable energy producers within 5 years or I fear a very ugly world - much worse than today.
Please support and promote the idea of a national effort for Energy Freedom as the first offensive line against the Jihad. Energy Freedom unlike continuous war - is a positive focus for society and will result in our enchanced security and the demise of our enemies.
Bottom line, anybody that states we should remove our troops from Iraq, and then "Bring the troops home" is asking for a big punch, a stingray barb to the heart.
Who they may be, look away to better ideas.