I hate to do this, but.....this is part of a comment I just posted on the previous thread

Everytime some nut job Repug, especially shotgun Dick, spouts off about Democrats being soft on terra, the nation needs to be reminded who chose to fail to decapitate the AQ leaders [by invading Iraq]. It needs to be a bumper sticker mantra as "tax and spend liberals" was during the 1980s and 1990s.

Bush screwed up so Ben Laden is still out there inspiring, if not actually leading, our mortal enemies. What a tragedy.

Fight fire with napalm.

It is the Democrats that have dug the hole they are in. And Kevin, shame on you! This blaming your problems on others is so typical of liberals. No wonder you attack Mr. Bush and the culture of responsibility he brings to Washington. Rudy Guiliani is just asking a very good question. Why won't the Democratic party let Joe Lieberman go on offense against the terrorists?

Democrats have to make it absolutely clear, every single time somebody spouts this rubbish, that supporting the Iraq war doesn't mean you're "on offense against terrorism."

Of course it means that. As reported in the National Post, Saddam had been paying money to Palestinian suicide terrorist bombers.

"Saddam has paid out some US$20-million of it (US$35-million by some estimates) to Palestinians according to a cold calculation: US$25,000 for the families of suicide bombers, US$10,000 for families of those otherwise killed by Israeli forces."

By liberating Iraq from Saddam, America gave a devastating blow to the Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah type of suicide terrorism.

Nor does opposing the war also mean you oppose fighting jihadism.

Of course it means that. Jihadist mastermind Musab al-Zarqawi was being protected by Saddam and by overthrowing Saddam, it allowed Bush to kill al-Zarqawi.

Link

"The UPI reports today that King Abdullah of Jordan told a Saudi newspaper that Jordan wanted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi extradited to Amman prior to Saddam Hussein's removal by US forces. Saddam refused to extradite the terrorist mastermind, providing him sanctuary instead"

"Jordan's King Abdullah revealed Thursday that Iraq's former Baath regime had refused to deport Abu Musab al-Zarqawi"

Add Al to my list of nut jobs along with Rudy.

BTW Al, since you are infavor of invading states that support terrorism, when do you propose we start our sweep of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? They have given much more sustenance to terrorists than poor ol' Saddam could have ever dream of.

"This blaming your problems on others is so typical of liberals."

Pot. Meet Kettle. Look black to you?

I'm not sure that the second was parody Al, although the Zarqawi line gives me pause. The first one was pretty silly, though. The Lieberman who thought things in Iraq were perfectly peachy doesn't sound quite like the hard-eyed realist you'd want at your side in a difficult fight.

Pretty much anyone who ever advocated this war has to admit they were ignorant or deluded. Those who continue to support it can't be expected to make such an admission, but the rest of us can hardly fail to impute to them those same failings.

The Dems shouldn't allow the GOP to spin this terrorist act. This isn't about Iraq, it's about Homeland securty. and we all know in what shape that 'agency' is. Instead of letting right wingers hijack the public debate, Dems should counterattack with right now:

Why is there currently a chaos at US airports? Is DHS unprepared for the kind of attack that was prevented in London?

Why weren't liquids checked before? Did no aircraft security expert warn of that danger after 911, or have there been concerned voices and the Bush administration ignored them?

Has the unsuccesful reorganisation of DHS contributed to the chaos at the airports?

Did budget cuts, for instance for the FAA, play any role in the current state of unpreparedness?

Homeland security should be even more importat than the war in Iraq. It's the last line of defense. However, Bush's record on that matter is less than stellar. The chaos at the airports show that the US is still alarmingly unprepared for the dangers of international terrorism. The Dems shouldn't hesitate at pointing the finger at those who are responsible for the pity state oh Homeland Security!

The meme in here that really drives me crazy is the part that says the Democrats are intolerant and Republicans broad-minded. That it defies the other goofball meme, that the Democrats aren't 'united' makes me even crazier.

But then, I can't get past the fact that Republicans call themselves the Grand Old Party even though they came along about 75 years after the Democrats.

No you see we are fightin' 'em over there so we don't hafta fight 'em over here. We might fight 'em someplace else too if you don't vote for the Democrat in November.
Like I told that guy after he read me the August 6 PDB about AlQaeda attacking the US, 'All right. You have covered your ass now. I am going to chop down some brush. Think it might be that foreign kudzu stuff.'

Good point Kevin.

Lieberman also had many other troubles leading to his defeat, too many to mention.

Let's just say he's shown his true colors.

On the TV last night, I heard him say "cut and run".

Game over.

FWIW, I agree with you on this.

It's a good talking point and no worse than the Democratic line that opposition to abortion means you don't care about women's rights or that opposition to quotas makes you a racist. But it doesn't drive the debate in a useful direction.

We got rid of Lieberman because he didn't do minority politics correctly. The neocon tsunami was relentless, and multi-fronted, and Lieberman wouldn't help his own party get a grip on an opposition stance.
When we see bush screwing up, we want to get a unified voice that can be heard over Hastert's "majority of majority" legislative agenda. Lieberman would be over there huggin'and kissin' before we could start a protest.

supporting the Iraq war doesn't mean you're "on offense against terrorism." Nor does opposing the war also mean you oppose fighting jihadism.

This assertion of Kevin's may have been true at the beginning of the war, when Saddam was in power, depending on whether or not Saddam's regime had a relation to terrorism.

However, we're now fighting al Qaeda in Iraq (among others). Opposing the Iraq war now means opposing the battle against one branch of al Qaeda.

The truth is closer to the exact opposite, and chapter and verse should follow if necessary.

Presumably Kevin means that support for fighting the terrorists who are a threat to the US is close to the opposite of support for fighting in Iraq. However, the correlation doesn't work that way.

Fighting domestic terrorism requires intelligence. It requires imprisoning and killing terrorists. So strong support for fighting domestic terrorism means favoring:

-- the Patriot Act,
-- domestic spying,
-- harsh treatment of prisoners who may have useful intelligence,
-- keeping terrorists in Gitmo locked up.

The Democratic Party tends to oppose these key steps and to oppose the Iraq war. They come across on weak on defense.

When the Dems try to show that they strongly support the fight against domestic terrorism, their main argument seems to be their desire to give out more Homeland Security money. The trouble is that this looks more like pork barrel spending than fighting a war.

P.S. - another issue on which the Dems may be vulnerable is that they often seem more interested in undermining the President than in winning the war. E.g., their misguided opposition to John Bolton as UN Ambassador.

Interesting that the Americans seemed to have had nothing to do with this foiling of the attack. It was all done by the British and Pakistanis. So much for the Republicans being on the offense.

We are doing everything possible to fight terrorism, by having Mr. Bush clear brush, invading Muslim countries for no good reason and bankrupting the Treasury by giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

Thank you for your cooperation.

I don't get it. Why do you want to stop Giuliani from supporting on offense on terrorism.

:P

You're in this perceptual hole because you have sought it out in two fundemental ways: one, no democrat has yet managed to effectively criticise the war without sounding muddled, unsure of what they really believe in when it comes to the use of military power; two, related, liberals can't seem to grasp that the perception of strength is superficial by definition - you have to act the part. Ironically, given their hatred of Hollywood, republicans seem to produce better actors - or at least that type of actor [this wasn't always so - Kennedy would have laughed at the likes of Edwards etc]. Imagine liberals think themselves too clever to engage in such show. If Rudy can paint you in above terms it's because you have chosen that part for yourself and are just too removed from mundane reality to see it.

Democratic party activists learned a great lesson on Tuesday-- when someone like Lieberman insults you, condescends to you, and disdains you, you bring out the big guns and take him down. Now that they've learned to do that to Lieberman, they need to learn to do that to Cheney, Giuliani, and the rest who deign to use Lieberman's loss in this way.

When we do withdraw from Iraq, whether in 1 year or in 10 years, there will be islamic terrorists who claim that the U.S. "surrendered" and "cut and run".

And they'll be able to quote asshats like Cheney, Guiliani, Lieberman, and half the Republican leadership in support.

Let's take Bush's Iraq policy to its' obvious conclusion:
1. Iraq is the central front on the war on terrorism.
2. We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
3. We will stand down when the Iraqis stand up.
4. We will then bring our troops home and turn over the central war on terror to the Iraqis.
5. Iraq will splinter into 3 countries.
6. Shiite Iraq will side with Iran.
7. Stong men will take control of each of the three Iraqi nations.
8. We will try to figure out how to contain 3 Iraqs and the terrorism they support.
9. China will get the oil out of Iraq.

Funny how fighting Bush's central war on terror will turn out.

When we finally withdraw from Iraq, most of those forces will no longer have a large anti-jihadist role, unless we intervene militarily in some other country. No one in the military will think it a good idea to send large numbers of troops into the Hindu Kush, that killer of armies.

We cannot go back to Saudi Arabia, which refused permission to use their airfields and ports in the Afghanistan campaign, anyway. Our permission to be in Saudi Arabia disappeared when Saddam was removed from power.

And, if the biggest reason for the presence of jihadists to be in Iraq is the presence of US forces, they are likely to follow us wherever we redeploy in the region. So it will not be so simple as leaving small garrisons in Kuwait or the UAE. It will mean a fighting retreat, probably to countries who are not prepared for the influx of jihadists to follow.

Dear Rudy,

It will take a few more years for the rest of the truth to come out, but you probably know enough of the facts already. So you're not mistaken; you're lying.

If the Democrats had been in charge of national security in 2001, you might have missed the most "heroic" moment of your life. The Republican administration, led by Incurious George, aggressively ignored the intelligence that might have saved 3,000 lives in New York and postponed their adventure in Iraq.

Shut up.

Giuliani's false concern gave me a big laugh. It would not even work at the college I teach at. I mean, I would love to say, "And I don't know why the V-P Acamemic won't allow us the kind of flexibility...." But I can't. Everyone would just laugh at the falseness of it.

Just laugh at the fools.

It an unwillingness to fight fire with fire - 'we were attacked on 9/11 because the President is too incompent to do his job.' 'we continue to face threats from OBL because the President was too much of a coward to go into Tora Bora' etc. etc. repeat repeat repeat These statements have the advantage of being true. But Dems don't use them. Why? Why!

Rudy G. of all people. He used to be a moderate Republican and a decent fellow. But then the rightwing of the GOP would routinely attack Rudy. So Rudy decided - if you can't beat them, join them. Now he's Karl Rove's clone.

I think there are two things that make fighting this kind of attack difficult:
1) Any defense would likely be just a bit longer than sound bite length. You could explain why Lieberman's stances would hurt our national security interests, but such an explanation would too long to get the kinda circulation that Guliani's did.
2) Democrats aren't on the same page in a way that republicans are. It isn't just Guliana. Several coservative politicians/commentators are saying similar things. There is no unified message to go against this. Is there a national defense strategy that all democrats could believe in? Who has articulated it?
I think that until someone finds an alternative that can be expressed simply and succintly, (something more than: the president and his supporters are wrong) we are going to continue to get beat up in these sorts of fights.

There is a brilliant NY Times editoral, and an exceptional column by Krugman, on this very point today.

Don't forget Sully. I nearly threw my computer against the wall after this:

"But, for all Cheney's and Rumsfeld's flaws, they are at least proposing something serious, however ineptly carried out. I have yet to hear anti-war voices on the left propose a positive strategy for defeating Islamist terror at its roots, or call for democratization of the Arab Muslim world. Indeed, I heard little but scorn or silence when Bush announced this vision in London. Do the Democrats stand for democracy in Iraq? Or in Iran? Do they favor Beinart-style containment of Islamism? Nuclear deterrence against Tehran? Certainly, the Kossites seem utterly uninterested in any of these subjects. That's their prerogative; and it's equally my prerogative not to take them seriously until they do."

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/08/the_war_and_the.html

Let's examine Sore Loserman's recent comment:

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

It doesn't seem like the continued US military presence in Iraq was any deterrent for a group of British-born radicals, does it?

If anything, the disastrous Iraq policy of George W. Bush and Joe Lieberman has been a boon to Al Queda. First of all, by pulling US troops out of Tora Bora in preparation for the Iraq invasion, George and Joe allowed Bin Laden and his stooges to escape. Second, George and Joe could not have given Bin Laden a better gift than the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. In one stroke they eliminated a secularist government that Bin Laden and his stooges hated and, in the view of the Muslim world, it strengthened the Islamic extremist propaganda claim that the US is an enemy of Islam.

Here's a bit of advice for the Lamont campaign: between now and November 7, use the phrase, "the failed policies of Joe Lieberman and George Bush" at every opportunity.

I love how the repubs. tell you how and what to think. It really pisses me off, makes me feel like a child. Again, Iraqis are not terrorists, Iraq is not a terrorist, yet the repubs. seem to want to mesh them all together into one. Its funny to me. They are kind of thinking along the lines that all Arabs or in this case Iraqis are terrorists which is flat wrong. The "war on terror" is fishy to me to begin with but the to win this war it definately cannot be done conventionally. It has to be done through securing our homeland and through intelligence. That is the only way to win this shitty war on terror. Conventional war just creates a never ending cycle that just replunishes the terrorists. Wake up repubs.

Kevin - you goofy Democrats are shooting yourselves in the foot. It's a little late for you to whine that Guliani and Cheney are noticing.

And, if the biggest reason for the presence of jihadists to be in Iraq is the presence of US forces,

The presence of US forces in Iraq, that is.

they are likely to follow us wherever we redeploy in the region.

Why? They fight us in Iraq because we invaded Iraq. If we don't invade another country, they won't have the same motivation to defend it.

So it will not be so simple as leaving small garrisons in Kuwait or the UAE. It will mean a fighting retreat, probably to countries who are not prepared for the influx of jihadists to follow.

What sort of nonsense is this? 95% of the rebels in Iraq are Iraqis, who are fighting us solely because we invaded and attacked their country. When we leave Iraq, they'll stop fighting us. After all, the VC didn't exactly come after the US Army when it cut and ran from Vietnam under Nixon.

Idiot.

"Any defense would likely be just a bit longer than sound bite length." So where's Osama? (That's a very short sound bite.)

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

I'd like Weepin' Joe to explain exactly how the occupation in Iraq by the United States prevents, in any way, the plotting of Pakistani-born British subjects in Britain. Is there some cause and effect I'm not seeing, or is he even more of a delusional old man than he appears to be?

Don't forget Sully. I nearly threw my computer against the wall after this: "But, for all Cheney's and Rumsfeld's flaws, they are at least proposing something serious, however ineptly carried out. I have yet to hear anti-war voices on the left propose a positive strategy for defeating Islamist terror at its roots, or call for democratization of the Arab Muslim world. Indeed, I heard little but scorn or silence when Bush announced this vision in London."

You're sure that's Andrew Sullivan? Sounds more like Kevin Drum to me.....

For the Giuliani's of our republic (meaning the entire leadership of the Republican party) America winning takes a back set to winning in America. Success over country - a modern Republican to his core.

Harry Reid says the Democrats have defeated the Patriot Act.

And I don't know why his political party won't allow him the kind of flexibility to have that viewpoint.

The party doesn't decide who gets the nomination, the voters do. (Its called a "primary")

I guess Giuliani isn't familiar with the democratic process.

Why won't the Democratic party let Joe Lieberman go on offense against the terrorists?

Same goes for Al.

After their main water carrier, John Breaux, went to his mega-bucks lobbyist reward, the GOP needed another 'useful idiot'.

They slobbered all over Joe, played to his seemingly pathological vanity, and he swooned into their embrace.

What a pathetic farce.

Now I'm going to go look for a discussion of something with real global ramifications: the series of typhoons which have hit SE China.

Hint: what's coming soon to a grocery store near you and what's not coming to retail shelves everywhere for the annual 'Holiday' debauch.

This assertion of Kevin's may have been true at the beginning of the war, when Saddam was in power, depending on whether or not Saddam's regime had a relation to terrorism.

However, we're now fighting al Qaeda in Iraq (among others). Opposing the Iraq war now means opposing the battle against one branch of al Qaeda.

No, it doesn't. The group that renamed itself al-Qaeda in Iraq was a separate extremist group that has and still has its own agenda largely unrelated to al-Qaeda's; it nominally joined the loose al-Qaeda organization only because that was useful in defining itself in opposition to the United States, which was and is only useful to it because of the US occupation of Iraq.

The best way to fight "al-Qaeda in Iraq" isn't to continue to "stay the course" of conducting raids in Iraq that inflict harm on civilians and are often loudly opposed by the government we are nominally supporting, which just radicalizes the population against us. The way to fight them is to starve them of people willing to die for the al-Qaeda cause by removing the motivation that makes them willing to do so.

The party doesn't decide who gets the nomination, the voters do. (Its called a "primary")

The voters in the party are the party.

This assertion of Kevin's may have been true at the beginning of the war, when Saddam was in power, depending on whether or not Saddam's regime had a relation to terrorism.

Hussein had no relation to terrorism directed against the United States, and all Repubican claims to the contrary have been lies.

Stephen:

The voters in the party are the party. BTW: how is said Democratic party preventing Al from going on offense against the terrorists?

Why won't the Democratic party let Joe Lieberman go on offense against the terrorists?

He's too old to enlist and Homeland Security and the FBI haven't hired him because he didn't apply.

Making silly noises in the Senate and White House is not "going on the offense against the terrorists." It is posturing and politics-as-usual.

An aside to Secretary Chertoff and the AG: Stopping terrorists takes careful, competent police work, not early morning press conferences and self-congratulations for something that you had nothing to do with. PR stunts do not make us safer.

Stefan:

American fighter pilots would tell you a different story. Also, is it just a coincidence that a couple of these London terrorists are named Hussein?

I think the past few day's events make it very clear what we as nation must do to combat terrorism and the dangerous jihadist movement that threatens the lives of freedom loving people everywhere.

We must liberate England.

Too long has England been allowed to harbor terrorists, such as the 24 recently arrested. For months or even years, these jihadists were moving freely around England, listening to Oasis, eating fish and chips, and watching soccer or football as they confusingly call soccer - an obvious reference to British shoe bomber Richard Reid.

England has been America's enemy since America first fought them when we first broke free from them when we first left there. They are still led by an unelected monarch and religious leader that they refer omninously to as 'The Queen'.

When America liberates England, we will doubtlessly find many many Muslims there including the particularly dangerous and offensive 'Ali G', as seen on HBO. Some of these Muslims will be terrorists, too. And after we bring them to a nearby newly created island detention facility we are now calling O'Gitmo, some of them will be found to be terrorist leaders.

And then we will be able to show the world that our liberation of the U.K. was justified. England will once again relive it's glory days of being the center of terror for the world. It's better to fight them in York than in New York, isn't it?

Ned Lamont just did--"Lamont Fires Back at Cheney"--and in the CT press, where it belongs.

Zogby reports a snap poll showing 79% of U.S. Democrats are glad Holy Joe got beat; want anti-war candidates. Tactically, I think this means nationalizing the race as anti-Bush, so it plays even in GI towns. Rahm is right on the money with "rubber-stamp Republicans."

Demographics strongly favor Lamont's bringing the Dems home--Lieberman's base in the primary was traditional hard-core Dems, probably voting Name ID. Joe's got wicked bad negatives and they are not getting lower. And pro-choice Lieb ain't getting ALL the GOP vote; they either vote for Schlesinger or stay home.

--sh

Links

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1155
http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/scn-gt-a1cheney8.11aug11,0,3163081.story?coll=green-news-local-headlines

This nonsense needs to be fought at every turn. Democrats have to make it absolutely clear, every single time somebody spouts this rubbish, that supporting the Iraq war doesn't mean you're "on offense against terrorism."

This topic is actually pretty pointless. Basically, Kevin is saying that the left needs to use a certain PR and spin approach to make sure people don't equate the Iraq war with fighting terrorism. The first comment from Keith G. reinforces this.

The reason that's all pretty pointless is because the American people already have an opinion on the War on Terror. Everyone on this board believes it increases terrorism and spawns more terrorists. People on the right believe it is necessary in a changing world.

Basically, people have made up their minds on this issue one way or the other, and no amount of word-spin is going to change that.

freelunch:

Perhaps once you read the full story of how British and American intelligence agencies worked this case, you will realize it was not just silly noise.

Stranahan:

Nice try, but the Bush Doctrine does not apply to our ALLIES!!

Steve High:

God forbid there's another terrorist attack in the U.S., Lamont's anti-war stance will come home to roost.

The reason that's all pretty pointless is because the American people already have an opinion on the War on Terror. Everyone on this board believes it increases terrorism and spawns more terrorists.

No, everyone on this board doesn't think that.

Many of us think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq do that, and that they undermine the War on Terror and demonstrate why this administration and its followers are not to be trusted running any war on terror since they don't seem interested in fighting it.

"This nonsense needs to be fought at every turn. Democrats have to make it absolutely clear, every single time somebody spouts this rubbish, that supporting the Iraq war doesn't mean you're "on offense against terrorism." Nor does opposing the war also mean you oppose fighting jihadism. The truth is closer to the exact opposite, and chapter and verse should follow if necessary."

It's not "chapter and verse" that is going to convince people of your "hawkishness" on terrorism, it's "plans and actions".

The left as no viable, logical plan to fight jihadism and has actually attempted to handicap our current efforts by opposing the NSA and the Patriot Act.

"Chapter and verse" will get you nowhere. First of all try recognizing this battle for what it is and come up with a PLAN. Incidentally, had the Lamont-Lieberman primariy been held today, Lieberman would have won considering the Heathrow scare.

"Many of us think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq do that, and that they undermine the War on Terror and demonstrate why this administration and its followers are not to be trusted running any war on terror since they don't seem interested in fighting it." - cm

The following is called a PLAN, cm. And also, all invasions and occupations are not "quagmires", in fact our invasion and occupation of Europe during WWII turned out pretty well didn't it? And we lost quite a few more soldiers in that effort.

"WASHINGTON, Aug. 9, 2006 – The Iraqi army is halfway to its goal of 10 divisions as the 4th Division assumed command of the area north of Baghdad yesterday.
The division assumed primary control of its area of responsibility from the 101st Airborne Division. This is the fifth of 10 division headquarters in Iraq to assume the lead in regional operations.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman called the development a key benchmark in the effort Iraqis are making to take control of their own country. The division will be in the lead for security in Salah Ad Din, Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk provinces. This area includes the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Samarra and Iraq’s northern oil fields.
Overall, Iraqi security forces are in the lead with five army divisions, 25 army brigades and 85 army battalions, Whitman said. The Iraqi national police have two battalions in the lead in other areas.
In northern Iraq, 33 battalions, nine brigades and two divisions have demonstrated their ability to operate independently and now lead the fight against terrorists and anti-Iraqi forces. The 5th Iraqi Army Division assumed the lead in Diyala province in July."

On this particular issue, he believes that we have to be on offense against terrorism.

"On offense" is code for Bush's failed policy of containing and appeasing terrorism. They didn't stay in Iraq, and giving bin Laden what he wanted didn't make him go away.

GOP: "support failure or we'll say you're not respectable."
.

Krugman today:

'Many of those lamenting Mr. Lieberman’s defeat claim that they fear a takeover of our political parties by extremists. But if political polarization were really their main concern, they’d be as exercised about the primary challenge from the right facing Lincoln Chafee as they are about Mr. Lieberman’s woes.'

Bingo.

Saying that supporting the Iraq War is being on offense in the war on terror is like saying that putting a gun to your head is being strong on self-defense.

Thomas --

You need to read something other than Republican press releases. You need to stop watching Republican press briefings (they aren't press conferences, since they never answer inconvenient questions). America's misconceived and ill-managed 'war on terror' did nothing to break this case. Chertoff and Gonzales were not responsible for the arrests and shouldn't be grandstanding.

On tonight's episode of "Strawman Theatre", we present the twelfth and final chapter of You Can't Fool All of the People All the Time.

I think the proper response to this is simply to ask Mr. Giuliani or Mr. Lieberman exactly where and how they intend to "go on the offense" against terrorism. Sure looks like they're playing a prevent defense in Iraq and attacking Iran with hot air, if you ask me.

It's reached the point where Republicans are endorsing Joe Lieberman against their own party's candidate, and hawkish pundits have been reduced to waving their hands in the air and yelling "McGovern! McGovern!" over and over again, as if it's a protective mantra that they fear has begun to wear off.

I love the smell of my enemies' fear and desperation in the morning. It smells like... VICTORY!

Taking down the hornet's net and tossing it in the fire makes sense. Throwing rocks at the hornet’s nest because one stung you does not. Burning down the barn is not a good option either. Know your enemy, and confront them aggressively. Don't pursue actions that can only work as a recruitment tool for your adversaries. A clumsy inept policy is not better than marshalling your forces and looking for an opportunity to make a positive difference. "Do something even if it is wrong" is a cute phrase but not a good foreign policy.

You wanna know what being on offense in the war on terror would have looked like? It would have looked like 50,000 American soldiers swarming Tora Bora and coming back with a hog-tied Osama bin Laden. Even if it had cost us 3000 men it still would have been infinitely more successful than the Iraq distraction.

What's frustrating about this is the responses to Guiliani's drivel are so obvious. Guiliani, Cheney, and Rove are employing a tactic aimed at gullible and uninformed voters (God they've got nothing but contempt for their base). But because of a lack of articulate and aggressive Democrat response, it sticks, at least among the target audience.

Oh, I am sorry, Kevin, that the truth from Rudy kept you up late last night.

Cut 'N Run Jay: WASHINGTON, Aug. 9, 2006 – The Iraqi army is halfway to its goal of 10 divisions as the 4th Division assumed command of the area north of Baghdad yesterday....

I Googled the text C'N Jay posted above without a link and, suprise surprise!, it's from the Department of Defense web site www.defenselink.mil -- i.e. not a news item but a government propapanda piece. Real unbiased source there....

"Know your enemy, and confront them aggressively. Don't pursue actions that can only work as a recruitment tool for your adversaries. A clumsy inept policy is not better than marshalling your forces and looking for an opportunity to make a positive difference" - bushburner

You, and most of the left, don't have the slightest idea who the enemy is.

November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.

1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.

April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.

October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.

December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.

September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.

December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.

June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.

October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.

December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.

April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.

December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.

Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

How does one fight spin?
The GOP tells endless tales of semi-truth or semi-lie, and the Dems have to rebutt each one? Like a game of Ya-ha, Na-ha, Ya-ha, Na-ha my two 6-year-olds play. The GOP are far more able to tell lies to benefit theimselves than the Dems are willing to, and one ounce of lie can bring into default bucketfuls of truth these days.
How does one fight spin, PR, fight personal opinion being passed as objectivity, fight a bias media?

"I Googled the text C'N Jay posted above without a link and, suprise surprise!, it's from the Department of Defense web site www.defenselink.mil -- i.e. not a news item but a government propapanda piece. Real unbiased source there...." - Stefan

This is how the left feels about the military. A puffed up propaganda organization. And you want to be Commander in Chief???????????

The Fool:

Then Bush would have had a dozen Cindy Sheehans to deal with.

Del Capslock:

You probably think every Reagan Democrats was a "gullible and uninformed voter" too.

me: government propapanda piece.

Or, I suppose, a government propaganda piece. But those pro-panda items our government puts out are just as bad! Damn pandas.....

And you want to be Commander in Chief???????????

Er, no, I don't. If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.

Stefan:

I think it's legal as long as the DoD web page is hosted outside the U.S. Now, do you think it is just a coincidence that a couple of these London terrorists are named Hussein or not?

Actually, Jay, I was aware of all of those terrorist incidents and I agree that the people involved are, in fact, our enemy.

Now please explain how maintaining 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely and encouraging Israel to destroy Lebanon's civilian infrastructure are an effective strategy for preventing those attacks.

How does one fight spin, PR, fight personal opinion being passed as objectivity, fight a bias media?

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? As Mark Twain said, "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."

You realize, Stefan, when asked by Fox News whether he would pursue the Presidency in 2008, Vice President Dick Cheney quoted Sherman's statement as well?

Thomas, do you think it's just coincidence that one of the most bloodthirsty tyrants of all time was named Joseph?

"Now please explain how maintaining 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely and encouraging Israel to destroy Lebanon's civilian infrastructure are an effective strategy for preventing those attacks."

It is effective because they think that all arabs / muslims are terrorists. The conserv. repubs. do not distinguish between good and bad arabs. It is very dangerous. Although I do not agree with this way of warped thinking I can recognize it and notice it. This "grouping" together nonsense has to be the reason because the reasons we were given originally were not true. Its the thinking that an arab life is worth less than an American life. Disgusting.

Right on, Kevin. Bush, Cheney and others have managed to link Iraq with terrorism. We need to be on the offensive to break that link. Keep on truckin'

JerryB

"Now please explain how maintaining 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely and encouraging Israel to destroy Lebanon's civilian infrastructure are an effective strategy for preventing those attacks" - ajl

It's not an indefinite engagement (strawman), and as laid out by the DOD (Stefans propoganda organization) the transfer of gov't and military power is well under way.

Israel is not "destroying Lebanon's civilian infrastructure" (another strawman), they are attempting to do what the UN failed to do for them, disarm hizbollah.

Please pay attention to the facts, not the spin.

It's clear the war on terror is a failure and at some point the republicans need to be held accountable and stop trying to run away from their responsibility.

The republicans need to be forced to account for this massive failure that has increased jihadism and terror, cost the loss of lives, the respect of the entire world, put us into debt to China, inflamed the entire ME, turned the relatively peaceful and secular societies of Iraq and Lebanon into wastelands of despair and hate, pissed the military down the drain and exhausted them, wasted billions on republican cronie contractors, spied on and turned into suspects college students and Quakers and grannies on airplanes, appointed two boobs like Rice and Bolton who can't negotiate their way out of a paperbag to be in charge of "peace".

Instead of telling us how strong y'all are on terrists and calling dems weak, you republicans got a few questions you need to answer up to and a few things you need to be be accountable for to the American people and the world.

Israel is not "destroying Lebanon's civilian infrastructure"

No one disputes this, not even the U.S.

Damn, a little defensive there. Truth hurts, don'it?

Well, atleast you're fighting something. That's a start.

"Although I do not agree with this way of warped thinking I can recognize it and notice it." - dee

You don't recognize or notice ANYTHING. Did you miss the recent meeting between Condi and the Lebanese, or how about Bush and Al-Maliki. Do you think they both are considered "bad" Arabs?

Facts, not spin!!!!!!!

We can't allow the Rudy Giulianis and Dick Cheneys of the world to get away with this.

Too late.

Jay --

- Please tell me when, exactly, our troops will be out of Iraq. If you cannot, then it is quite clear that the engagement is indefinite.

- The DOD has a long, bipartisan history of presenting misleading press releases.

- Bombing highways far away from Hezbollah does not disarm Hezbollah.

Placing Rudy in the context of the recently foiled terror plot (which is clearly how he intended to be taken) makes his statement looks even more ridiculous.

By all appearances, the terrorists were stopped by good police work. The flypaper theory ("fight 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here") was once again debunked. These terrorists were already in Britain. And I sincerely doubt that any of them contemplated taking off for Iraq.

The Fool wrote:

"You wanna know what being on offense in the war on terror would have looked like? It would have looked like 50,000 American soldiers swarming Tora Bora and coming back with a hog-tied Osama bin Laden. Even if it had cost us 3000 men it still would have been infinitely more successful than the Iraq distraction."
____________

It would have taken weeks to get that many US troops in country and even more to build a logistics support infrastructure for them. By then, the big targets would have long since departed Tora Bora.

Deploying massive numbers of conventional troops into the mountains would be a matter of helicopters, not easily ambushed and blocked ground convoys. We only have two good airfields in Afghanistan and both are still being upgraded. Afghanistan has no fuel and no pipeline. Everything we need, food, fuel, even building materials, has to be flown in or trucked in from Pakistan, over 600 miles of bad road.

If we deploy three or four divisions in the Hindu Kush, they will become relatively immobile and give up most advantages of technology. 3000 KIA might be a low estimate of what they'd lose inside a single year.

Hizbollah destroyed Lebanon's infrastructure by constructing and employing hostile weaponary from within that infrastructure.

FACTS, NOT SPIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"- Bombing highways far away from Hezbollah does not disarm Hezbollah"

But it does prevent them from re-arming, do you suppose?

on the 'logical plan' gap, I would suggest that this administration has no logical plan for fighting terrorism either, they have a series of slogans that are totally disconnected from reality and a colossal failure of their grand vision in Iraq. It's enough for Dems to say 'we'll fight terrorism by emphasizing the right things in the current approach and dropping the wrong things like Bush's massive blunder in Iraq'.

And, escaping, Jay.

Trashhauler --

Your analysis reminds me of the old joke about the drunk who lost his keys. He kept looking for them under the streetlight. When asked why he kept looking there, when it was clear that they weren't anywhere near the streetlight, he answered that the light was better.

Bush attacks where the fight is easier, even if he isn't attacking those who need to be attacked.

Thomas: Bush would have had a dozen Cindy Sheehans to deal with if he had captured bin Laden?

This is actually pretty funny. First of all its funny how much Cindy Sheehan gets under the skin of the neocon retards. That in and of itself makes Cindy Sheehan an American hero.

I love arguing with neocons. Its like a Dick Cheney hunting trip on a stocked game farm. You just sit there shooting them down one after another. It's fun!

So Thomas is "arguing" that Bush couldn't afford to go after bin Laden because there would have been a dozen Cindy Sheehans. Wow, Thomas. You must think Bush is really, really, really scared of Cindy Sheehan. It's fucking hilarious.

For more laughs though let's examine the logic of neocon retard, Thomas. Its like an analogy question on the SAT:

If a disastrous war in Iraq that costs 3000 men and counting, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars and America's reputation around the world -- all for no apparent gain -- results in 1 Cindy Sheehan...

...How many Cindy Sheehans would an operation costing the same number of men but far less money and that would improve America's reputation around the world, while bringing the world's worst terrorist to justice produce?

Logic would suggest that the 2nd scenario produces fewer Sheehans than the first. But to a retarded neocon it increases the number 12-fold!

Thanks for the laughs Thomas.

The Fool - "You wanna know what being on offense in the war on terror would have looked like? It would have looked like 50,000 American soldiers swarming Tora Bora and coming back with a hog-tied Osama bin Laden. Even if it had cost us 3000 men it still would have been infinitely more successful than the Iraq distraction."

As much as I agree with this, it is still hindsight. Unfortunately, we are where we are and no amount of hindsight will get us out.

I wish the energies of our collective were less interested in W's lack of IQ and more interested in using there own to fix things.

Arrogance and cockiness expressed in the wisedom hindsight is not leadership...its backseat driving.

Formulating a vision for the future and communicating it to the American People in a way that they can understand and embrace is the key to the Presidency and Congress.

Looking backwards and saying, "I would have done better!" isn't what wins hearts and souls.

But it does prevent them from re-arming, do you suppose?

You are implying that the Lebanese Army and Lebanese Government has been complicit in the arming of Hezbollah. Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

To whom are you comparing Stalin, freelunch, and then I can answer your question.

trex wrote:

(Quoting someone else) Israel is not "destroying Lebanon's civilian infrastructure"

No one disputes this, not even the U.S.
________________

It depends on what infrastructure you mean. The transportation infrastructure is taking a real beating. However, Israel has not yet attempted to destroy power generation or much of the distribution grid, waterworks, or any industrial capability to speak of. Most non-transportation related infrastructure is intact.

Sorry, The Fool, but this is no laughing matter (which is why you will keep losing elections). My reference to Sheehan was simply the end result of your side exploiting war dead, which I agree with Trashhauler that 3000 KIA would be a low estimate of what they'd have lost. Try growing up, or at least listen to ArchModerate2006.

Now, do you think it is just a coincidence that a couple of these London terrorists are named Hussein or not?

Probably; its hardly an uncommon name in the Muslim world.

We shall see, Chris.

Thomas --

Anyone with the name Joseph: McCarthy? Kennedy? Biden? Lieberman? Goebbels? Mary's husband? Verdi? Garibaldi? Conrad?

If you don't get my point, Joseph is a name that is common to the culture of the West. Hussein is a name that is common to Arabic Moslem culture.

freelunch wrote:

Trashhauler --

Your analysis reminds me of the old joke about the drunk who lost his keys. He kept looking for them under the streetlight. When asked why he kept looking there, when it was clear that they weren't anywhere near the streetlight, he answered that the light was better.

Bush attacks where the fight is easier, even if he isn't attacking those who need to be attacked.
______________

Freelunch, none of my posts have been about why we are in Iraq. My coments today have been about what the military implications of different options will be.

The military will fight wherever you put us. We just know that when it comes to fighting, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Until the Democratic Party can take the presidency, control congress and sustain them both, I wouldn't dismiss those "retarded" neocons lightly. Calling the opposition stupid doesn't make them stupid and doesn't will elections. Gore may have gotten better grades in high school, but W. was smart enough to take Florida.

Disagree with all your heart, but disrespecting the intelligence and the motivation of the opposition is truly foolish.

Wow. More dishonesty, and character-assassination from the Right.

How

Refreshing.

Not.

Everytime some nut job Repug, especially shotgun Dick, spouts off about Democrats being soft on terra, the nation needs to be reminded who chose to fail to decapitate the AQ leaders [by invading Iraq].

Yeah.

Osama been forgotten alright.

I know everyone knows this, but the trolls are absolutely uninterested in a constructive dialogue, and their comments are designed to piss you off. Best thing is to ignore them.

being on "offense" against terrorism doesn't mean that we have to be engaged in an occupation of Iraq and stuck in the middle of a civil war.

that's not offense, that's actually just fanning the flames of terrorism. In that regard, we're doing a great job.

It's just too bad that the Democrat party sounds so much like the terrorists and Islamo-facists.

Al said:

By liberating Iraq from Saddam, America gave a devastating blow to the Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah type of suicide terrorism.

~~~

Actually, AL international terrorism events more than tripled in 2005: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

Moreover, hello? Hezbollah is firing more than 100 rockets per day into Israel currently and they live in air conditioned and fortified underground bunkers. You call that a "devasting blow"? How did this come to pass? Well, by invading the U.S. we strengthened Iran to extreme heights of power and influence. They have taken advantage of the chaos in Iraq and now their sphere of influence is much greater. When we leave Iraq they will be leading the Shiite's to create yet another theocracy with even more radical islamic fundamentalists nutjobs (its already happening, read the Iraq constituion and check out their Presdent's support of Hezbollah).

Al, you are a fracking idiot, you always have been, and always will be. I would suggest you get over there and fight in some of these wars you support, instead of acting like a moronic coward here at home.

"Disagree with all your heart, but disrespecting the intelligence and the motivation of the opposition is truly foolish."

To quote King Bush " I reject that. " We do disagree and that's why Leiberman just lost in connecticut. It is time to put heart into action and that's what just happened in CT primary. Respect is something you earn it is not force fed as repubs. would like to have it. Bush stole FL he isn't and wasn't smart enough to do it. That was funny, hearing Bush and smart in the same sentence. Its hard to respect anyone who mixes Iraq with the war on terror because there is no connection.

"It's just too bad that the Democrat party sounds so much like the terrorists and Islamo-facists."

Have you listened to the Republican Party's mumbo jumbo lately?

Both parties just "cut and paste" the same crap and pass it around until someone comes up with new "cool" sound bite. My kingdom for an original idea.

Jay, you didn't answer this question:

Now please explain how maintaining 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely and encouraging Israel to destroy Lebanon's civilian infrastructure are an effective strategy for preventing those attacks.

~~~

Not only a coward for not fighting yourself in these idiotic wars, but a coward for avoiding the logical fallacies behind Iraq War = War on al Queda.

What stopped this latest attack Jay? The Iraq war? No good police work and intelligence by the British. How did they do that, INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION with Pakistan (because they still value international cooperation and intelligence sharing). Despite the fact that the US was a target, any indication they knew anything about this before the UK informed them? None.

I would suggest you get over there and fight in some of these wars you support, instead of acting like a moronic coward here at home.

he can join Jay and Charlie/Thomas in the 101st Sqwawkin' Chickenhawks. : )

Today Kevin writes:

"This nonsense needs to be fought at every turn. Democrats have to make it absolutely clear, every single time somebody spouts this rubbish, that supporting the Iraq war doesn't mean you're 'on offense against terrorism.' Nor does opposing the war also mean you oppose fighting jihadism. The truth is closer to the exact opposite, and chapter and verse should follow if necessary."

Hmmm. But only yesterday, Kevin quoted Jacob Weisberg thusly:

"The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it. Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously. They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict. Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism."

And how did Kevin respond to that?

When Weisberg conflated opposition to the war in Iraq with "oppos[ing] fighting jihadism" by declaring that those who "see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11" thereby "appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously" and have "a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism", did Kevin denounce this "nonsense" and "rubbish" and respond with "chapter and verse"?

No. Instead, Kevin wrote:

"... much as I'm reluctant to agree with him, Weisberg has a point: aside from kvetching about Bush's policies, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it."

No, Kevin did not denounce Weisberg's "nonsense" and "rubbish" and respond with "chapter and verse". He did not point out that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was planned long before the 9/11 attacks, from the earliest days of the Bush administration and before; he did not point out that multiple former White House insiders (e.g. O'Neill, Clark) have confirmed that fact, and have confirmed that immediately following the 9/11 attacks, the principals of the Bush administration "cynically" began moving to exploit that tragedy for political gain and to justify their long-planned war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq; nor did he point out that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has nothing whatever to do with "fighting jihadism" and indeed has exacerbated anti-American sentiment not only in the Arab/Muslim world but throughout the entire world, thereby fueling "jihadism".

Instead, he legitimized Weisberg's "nonsense" and "rubbish".

Why?

The Bush admin. isn't very good at bird hunting.

Cheney shot his hunting partner in the face.

Dubya said he was gonna flush out Osama bin Laden and he had a chance at Tora Bora, but hasn't done anything since then except go on vacation.

Man, it must be hot as H*** in Texas in the summer.
I figure it fries their brains, so they just hallucinate about their greatness all the time.

In fact, the Bush administration has been an abject failure, a disaster of historic proportions.

The Fear Offensive won't work this time. The American electorate has come to the conclusion that this administration, the Republican Party, and all its fellow travelers are destroying everything that makes this country work. Plain and simple. So come November, they're going to get their tushes kicked. They're out.

Nothing that happens in the next 2 months can change this. If a plane blows up, people will come to the obvious conclusion that the Bush Administration didn't protect us.

They're incompetent. They're corrupt. It's Katrina all over again. They're out.

ArchModerate2006: Gore may have gotten better grades in high school, but W. was smart enough to take Florida.

No.

The Bush crime family's political machine in Florida -- Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris -- were ruthless and dishonest enough to engage in a criminal conspiracy to deliberately disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible, black Democratic voters by purging them from the rolls by falsely identifying them as "felons" who were ineligible to vote.

Then, when Gore won Florida anyway, the Bush machine in Florida was ruthless and dishonest enough to steal the election again by preventing all the legitimately cast ballots from being counted in accordance with long-established Florida law, ultimately turning to right-wing partisan Republicans on the Supreme Court to stop all the votes from being counted.

It is, however, as Florida proves, a bad idea to underestimate the ruthless criminality of the Bush crime family and the Republican Party that it dominates.

The terrarists hate us cause of us our freedom. So I'm busy gettin' rid of our freedom, sos we won't have no more terrorists no more.