Good thing we haven't diverted the resources necessary to capture or kill bin Laden.

"...suggests that al-Qaeda is extremely eager for the war in Iraq to continue...."\

That settles it then. Obviously the best strategy is to continue doing exactly what your enemy wants you to do, especially when, on the strategic stage, they have outplayed you at every turn.

Our small-man complexed, chimp-for-brains will "stay the course". Gosh, he is just sooo right!

I'm telling you, Bush and Cheney are al Qaeda sleepers. Nothing else makes any sense.

Are we due for some Osama messages between now and the mid-term elections?

Christ, way to bury the lede.

From powerline:

The path is long and difficult, and the enemy isn’t easy, for he is great and numerous and he can take quite a bit of punishment as well. [Ed.: This is very different from how al Qaeda wrote about the U.S. after the flight from Somalia.]

I command you, my brother, and I am your brother and I have nothing except these words that are between the two of us and God as the third party, that you send messengers from your end to Waziristan so that they meet with the brothers of the leadership, and the rational and experienced people and the shaykhs here, because you have a greater chance to send messengers (brothers that you choose) than your brothers have here. [So al Qaeda's leadership is so pinned down that they can't even send messengers to Iraq.]

I am now on a visit to them and I am writing you this letter as I am with them, and they have some comments about some of your circumstances, may God guide you, with due confidence, affection, respect, and esteem. They wish that they had a way to talk to you and advise you, and to guide and instruct you; however, they too are occupied with vicious enemies here. [That would be us, I assume.] They are also weak, and we ask God that He strengthen them and mend their fractures. They have many of their own problems, but they are people of reason, experience, and sound, beneficial knowledge. [Note: al Qaeda's leadership is "weak."]

Know that we, like all the mujahidin, are still weak. We are in the stage of weakness and a state of paucity. We have not yet reached a level of stability. We have no alternative but to not squander any element of the foundations of strength, or any helper or supporter.

Al qeade admits it's weak because of George Bush. And Osama endorsed Kerry, and promised a truce with blue states. Voting Democrat = Voting Al Qeada.

Iraq has been so mismanaged that almost anything we do now will be disastrous.

Not true! Droping Bush into Iraq with his "Mission Accomplished!" banner will do a world of good! And not just for me - for the country as a whole.

Are we due for some Osama messages between now and the mid-term elections?

I hear he's coming out for Prop 87. Chevron is seeing to it.

And Osama endorsed Kerry, and promised a truce with blue states.

I accept! Right now, the red states aren't at risk, since there's nothing in any of them worth blowing up. No wonder they're all for this madness.

Oh, and Hawk: if you stay up all night posting gibberish on blogs, instead of studying, you won't get the grades you need to graduate from High School.

if you stay up all night posting gibberish on blogs

He just copy/pasted a fundraising letter from the Family Research Council. No big whoop.

Ya know, I eventually learned to stop pulling my uncles finger. This administration doesn't have the savvy of a seven year old.

...Voting Democrat = Voting Al Qeada.

Posted by: American Hawk on October 4, 2006 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

American Hawk unwittingly -- or is it witlessly? -- becomes a tool in the hands of Osama. Just like his equally (un)intelligent leader.

Point proven, my little chikadee!

Pathetic - Dems want to see Bush get defeated even if that means Al Queda prevails in Iraq.

And Kevin - you wonder why some people question your patriotism?!?!

Actually, it's hard to think of any other possible US policy that would have played more into al Qaida's hands. Hell, I would not have believed this sort of criminal incompetency even possible a few years ago. Probably actual sleepers wouldn't have been able to do us much hare to US interests. Such an interesting spectacle of an administration...

I have to ask, Hstb, what color is the sky in your world, and does it change when Nurse Ratched brings 'round the meds?

Only the pathologically delusional can possibly believe that this fiasco is a good idea.

some people question your patriotism?!?!

Going out on a limb here but I'm guessing that that some people would be wannabe-Havlicek-who-in real-life-couldn't-steal-a-ball-from-a-ninety-year-old hypothyroid-midget?

Personally though (and certainly not speaking for Kevin!) patriotism is for saps.

1. biosphere
2. humanity
.
.
.
.
1,129. group I'm nominally part of because of some accident of birth

Since withdrawing from Iraq will not diminsh al Qaeda's desire to attack American civilian targets, the question becomes is it better to fight them in their backyard or ours? Since they are killing many more Iraqis than our soldiers, they are, overtime, reducing any support from the civilian population. Fighting them in Iraq keeps them over there instead of establishing cells throughout the Western world. Pressuring governments in the reigon into not providing al qaeda with finanical support or safe harbor deprives them of a secure HQ to better coordinate 9/11 types or even worse attacks. Eventually, the goal is to strave them out and destory them.

The alternative is to withdraw and to rely on our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, now that they can share information, to prevent future attacks. Attacks that we can all agree will be attempted by al qaeda. Are you prepared to accept another 9-11 or worse should they fail?

The American people will decide which strategy to follow in five weeks.

For the record, I still believe that the GOP will hold both Houses.

Pass the kool-ade.

Fighting them in Iraq keeps them over there instead of establishing cells throughout the Western world.

Right, because the London bombers, for example, were sent from al Qaeda HQ to Britain to ... oh, no, wait, they were homegrown.

Damn that real life - it just won't cooperate with conservaloony fantasies. Nice try though.

Since withdrawing from Iraq will not diminsh al Qaeda's desire to attack American civilian targets the question becomes is it better to fight them in their backyard or ours? Since they are killing many more Iraqis than our soldiers, they are, overtime, reducing any support from the civilian population. Fighting them in Iraq keeps them over there instead of establishing cells throughout the Western world.

Yep. Sure worked in London.

What delusional planet are you living on?

Oh, that's right. You're a Yank.

(but to let a little reality seep in - for the most part it's not Al Qaeda you're fighting in Iraq. Please repeat as many times as necessary until you understand).

You're a Yank

Some of us aren't so bad. Some of us even speak some French.

We are 300 million in a world of 6 Billion. Of whom about four billion are pissed at us.

And be careful starting a maritime shooting war with Iran. The revolution didn't happen until the U.S. was through helping them build the modern naval facility at Bandar-e Abbas. They have some really nifty anti-ship weapons systems, as someone else and I were discussing recently.

GC, you are of course absolutely right.

I use the term for wingnuts alone because so much of their thinking is marked by Yankee exceptionalism. You have to admit they are extraordinarily delusional. And no matter how many times their black UN helicopter fantasies are proved wrong, they persist.

cheers

Thanks my northern friend. So, if I have to flee, can I sleep on your floor?

Absolutely.

(anyway, English Canada for the most part began with the arrival of refugees from the American colonies - it's why we share traditions like Thanksgiving)

I'll sleep easier tonight. I had an uncle in Montreal but he passed on about eight months ago and shot my escape plans all to hell.

I accept! Right now, the red states aren't at risk, since there's nothing in any of them worth blowing up. No wonder they're all for this madness.

I dunno. Georgia has good barbecue. So does NC, Texas and Kansas. Alabama makes "No Child Left Behind" sensible...after all the average IQ in Alabama is over 60...unless you factor in black people, which raises it to 110. It's the inbreeding. I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation. Still, I hope the terraists don't commit agroterrorism and radioactivate the collard crop. What would we do with the bacon grease?

Well, I gotta sign off and go to bed. See you all tomorrow. Sweet dreams to those who are headed taht way themselves. Witty reparte to the rest of you night owls.

If Bush's poll ratings in the U.S. track with Bin Laden's in the Arab world, doesn't that mean that Bush's decline in popularity should be matched by Bin Laden's? But isn't Bin Laden as popular as ever in the Arab world?

Maybe I'm just being nitpicky--I think it's clear that Bin Laden wants the U.S. to say in Iraq--but this particular claim doesn't sound right to me.

,i>Witty reparte to the rest of you night owls.

Who you calling a night owl? I'm just about to leave work - 30 degrees today and blue sky...

The travails of globalization. I forget if I ever knew Floop's down under.

Most of the people I meet in my little corner of California are manifestly sane. It's hard to understand why my county continues to elect right-wing representatives, and harder to understand how my country gave this excuse for a president a second term.

Electoral shenanigans are only explanatory at the margin. I doubt that a better accounting would have given Bush less than 49% of the vote.

American Hawk: "Al qeade admits it's weak because of George Bush. And Osama endorsed Kerry, and promised a truce with blue states. Voting Democrat = Voting Al Qeada."

Amerikanische Falke: "Al Qaeda läßt zu, daß es wegen unseres großen und furchtlosen Führers, George Bush schwach ist. Und Osama Sortierfach beladener indossierter John Kerry und einen Waffenstillstand mit blauen Zuständen versprochen. Folglich Demokraten ist zu wählen, für Al Qaeda zu wählen."

I was right! American Hawk's posts are better in the original German!

Are you prepared to accept another 9-11 or worse should they fail?

Are you prepared to accept the 2700 Americans killed in Iraq, which is already worse than 9-11? Are you prepared to accept another 9-11 or worse which was CAUSED by the American presence in Iraq? Are you prepared to accept that you and your kind are responsible for the contempt and hatred which now greet American throughout the Muslim world?

No, I thought not. So, no, I'm not prepared to accept any blame for the next 9-11 either. Your shithead was in charge, and the next catastrophic terror attack on US soil will be his fault, just like the first one was.

"Al qeade admits it's weak because of George Bush. And Osama endorsed Kerry, and promised a truce with blue states. Voting Democrat = Voting Al Qeada."

At least now we know Al's last name.

Next, we just need to find out who Osama is betting on for dog catcher in Peoria.

Bin Laden said that he wanted a holy war from the beginning. Republicans didn't (want to) hear that. Hawks cherish their revenge and will have it regardless of the cost or boneheadedness of it. What a bunch of losers.

Osama wants George to stick around. George wants Osama to stick around. They both benefit from each other's presence. They are two spoiled little rich kids. They both preach fundamentalism. They both think that blowing other people up in the name of their cause is just fine. They have a lot in common.

Nobody's ever seen Osama and GWB in the same place at the same time. They share many of the same policy positions. And that beard you see in photos of Osama is obviously fake.

My theory is that they are the same guy.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
Napoleon Bonaparte

I'm not going to read all the other comments and while I suspect someone has already pointed this, it bears repeating. You read that whole letter and the only thing you can find to talk about is that Al Qaeda wants to continue the war?

Good grief, man, where's your sense of proportion?

The gist of that letter is that Al Qaeda's tactics in Iraq are a failure and that the organization is in pretty dire straits. Dove tail that with point from the NIE that terrorists around the world will be discouraged if foreign "jihadists" leave Iraq convinced they're losing, it paints a very interesting picture indeed.

One thing that's been lots on the increase in sectarian violence in Iraq is that both sides are increasely intent on killing foreign fighters. It's not safe to be Al Qaeda there for all the reasons the letter mentions.

Despite that, of course, Al Qaeda inside Iraq wants to continue the war. They want help to come to them as much as the men it the Alamo did.

Facinating analysis on your part, I must say. What's the opposite of looking for a silver lining? You've just done it.

"At least now we know Al's last name."

LOL, Kenji.

...it's well to keep in mind that al-Qaeda seems pretty certain that a continuing war there is in their best interests. Is it in ours?

Careful not to read too much into "prolonging the war." What would be the opposite of that? A quick end. And what would bring that about? Either A) Withdrawal of allies from Iraq, or B) Defeat of the bad guys.

Naturally, the bad guys want to avoid B, and they have little control over A.

How much of this is true is beyond me. The who, what, where, and when are always conveniently (for both sides) cloudy when al-Qaeda enters the picture.

Nevertheless, if al-Qaeda finds it useful to prolong Bush's war on terrorism, it speaks volumes about what we're doing. They may believe that they are right and we are wrong, but they are rational enough to recognize that we are big and they are small. If they had any inkling that we could or would bring our bigness to bear on them, they would be singing an entirely different tune.

Whaaaa!?!? Where do Kevin's conservative posters score the crazy weed? What to do they know about it's cultivation and when did they find out?

If they had any inkling that we could or would bring our bigness to bear on them, they would be singing an entirely different tune.

Hah! Take that mr. suicide bomber jihadist. You won't be laughing after we blow you up with a bomb!

Careful not to read too much into "prolonging the war." What would be the opposite of that? A quick end. And what would bring that about? Either A) Withdrawal of allies from Iraq, or B) Defeat of the bad guys. Naturally, the bad guys want to avoid B, and they have little control over A.

Yes. We've almost killed all the Iraqi civilians that hate us. Just a few more to go.

Twenty one service personnel killed since Saturday - Eight killed on Monday -Thank the Lord George that we have Clinton's PENIS and STUDDS to talk about.

Paul - did you hear about Helen Chenoweth? She died in an auto accident yesterday.

"Twenty one service personnel killed since Saturday - Eight killed on Monday -Thank the Lord George that we have Clinton's PENIS and STUDDS to talk about."

You say that as if in the minds of sexually repressed Republicans are capable of detecting
the absurdity in that statement.

We have succeeded in unifying the Iraqis in one way - they may hate one another, but they can all agree on one thing - they hate the Americans more.

Global Citizen,

No, I did not - Thanks for the update.

She and the former Congressman to the immediate west of Idaho swept to power in 94 largely through the efforts of the 2nd Amendment organization in Bellevue, WA. They were heavily funded, as were many other Pubs, to help overturn the Brady bill. The NRA was able to regroup and bring their base into the election blazing away.

Must say that she upheld her pledge to abide by term limits, although there was a small tryst to overcome.

The Congressman who defeated Tom Foley to the west of her district decided to withdraw his similar pledge because he had learned the ins and outs of Washington and felt that "his experience" was sorely needed by the good citizens of Eastern Washington.

Best of Chenowith - "Why should we protect salmon, when you can buy cans of it in the supermarket."

Paul - go visit me. I quoted that very quip.

The Iraq war is al-Qaeda's best recruiting tool, and as Ron Suskind noted in The One Percent Doctrine, the CIA has known for some time that Osama bin Laden wants the war to continue and deliberately times public messages to help George Bush's electoral chances.

Not to mention the GOP fundraising cocktail parties that bin Laden has been throwing. (Though he did just cancel a joint appearance with Hastert and Boehner -- some things, even a mass murderer won't stand for).....

"We have succeeded in unifying the Iraqis in one way - they may hate one another, but they can all agree on one thing - they hate the Americans more." - global

Global, you clearly don't understand the Iraqi's. Get off of your left wing talking points.

"In the previous PIPA poll, taken in January this year, 99% of Iraqis said they disapproved of attacks on civilians, with 95% disapproving strongly. Since then opinion has swung away from those supporting attacks on civilians. The figure is now 100%.

Other findings include:

Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are rejected by overwhelming majorities of Shias and Kurds and large majorities of Sunnis: 94% expressed an "unfavourable" view of Al Qaeda, with 82% expressing a "very unfavourable" view. The "unfavourable" figure included 77% of Sunnis. 93% expressed an unfavourable view of Osama bin Laden, with 77% very unfavourable. The unfavourable figure included 71% of Sunnis.
Some support remains for a US presence in a non-military capacity, with 63% approving of the US continuing to train Iraqi security forces, and 68% supporting the US in "helping Iraqis organize their communities to address local needs such as building schools and health clinics". Again, this is linked to the withdrawal of US forces. Of those expressing disapproval of a non-military US role, more than half said they'd be more likely to support such a role if a timetable for withdrawal was agreed."

http://asher813.typepad.com/dreams_into_lightning/2006/10/iraq_opinion_po.html

"...that al-Qaeda is extremely eager for the war in Iraq to continue:" - Kevin

"The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God's permission." - OBL

um.....Kevin, OBL did not mention Iraq, you interjected that because of your blind partisan hacking. OBL is talking about the overall global jihad which has been on-going for decadses now that you, and most of the left, STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND.

al Qaeda also thought hijacking planes and kiling lots of people on U.S. soil was in there best interest.

Is the idea we pretend they're rational now?

My considerable bulk is the only thing standing between America and terrorism! If I have to resign, then the terrorists might as well walk in and take over.

I understand Iraqis a hell of a lot better that Jay does, that is for damned sure. What is not to understand when over 2/3 of the population now are in favor of attacking the American presence with IED's and insurgent attacks? That pretty much speaks for itself.

But troll away. It's always fun to watch you deconstruct into foam-flecked ravings that make Manson sound lucid. So carry on...Lemme get another cup of coffee. And hurry up with the coming melt-down because I want a good laugh before I have to run off to class.

I'm telling you, Bush and Cheney are al Qaeda sleepers. Nothing else makes any sense.

While, of course, that would explain things, I don't think its the only thing that makes sense, and given when al-Qaida seems to have been founded, its pretty hard to explain how it works out.

I think its a lot simpler to suggest that the Bush Administration is the mirror image of al-Qaeda—a faction whose goals in the US are parallel to those of al-Qaeda in the Islamic world—and for whom, therefore, the war serves the same purpose as it does for al-Qaeda, serving as the visible evidence of the ongoing struggle against the external enemy that is the centerpiece of the propaganda effort to get the targets of each sides efforts to put aside their differences and submit to the authority offered as their defender against the enemy.

Frank J, maybe it was a good idea for them from their point of view. Without any further attacks, they got us to start a war-with-no-end in Iraq that is serving as a most effective recruiting tool for them. They got us to abdicate our civil liberties and abrogate the constitution and revoke the protections of habeus. In five years we chucked 219 years of constitutional authority and 791 years of the rule of Common Law - the things that defined us. Pardon me if I get a little pissed off about my country being hijacked.

"...when over 2/3 of the population now are in favor of attacking the American presence" - global idiot

Still hanging onto that favorite poll of yours?

"....that make Manson sound lucid." - global idiot

Are you still talking to Charlie? How's he doing?

".....before I have to run off to class." - global idiot

Still trying to figure out the world from your innoculated perch? Good luck on that.

"I think its a lot simpler to suggest that the Bush Administration is the mirror image of al-Qaeda—a faction whose goals in the US are parallel to those of al-Qaeda in the Islamic world...." - cmdicely

This is perhaps the most brain dead, dishonest statement I have ever read. This statement reflects attitudes of people who are off-the-charts stupid, extremely dangerous and have no concept of Islamism.

"Without any further attacks, they got us to start a war-with-no-end in Iraq that is serving as a most effective recruiting tool for them. They got us to abdicate our civil liberties and abrogate the constitution and revoke the protections of habeus. In five years we chucked 219 years of constitutional authority and 791 years of the rule of Common Law - the things that defined us. Pardon me if I get a little pissed off about my country being hijacked." - global idiot

um.....none of this has happened. Only in the little damaged brain of a liberal does complete hysteria exist.

My innoculated perch? I'm a grad student, jerk. And you know my backstory so don't even try it - And I have been called worse things than idiot by better people than you, bank on that.

If my sensibilities were tender or I lacked the courage of my convictions, I wouldn't say anything.

And by the way, I was the one who said "hold on folks, what was the methodology...and argued for an analysis of the analysis before siezing on the cool pie charts in this forum. Look it up, chump.

That study hasn't been discredited by any credible source.

And I appologize to all for cavorting with a troll.

Carry on - you are almost all the way to shrieking. I have fifteen minutes, so proceed.

Since withdrawing from Iraq will not diminsh al Qaeda's desire to attack American civilian targets, the question becomes is it better to fight them in their backyard or ours?

First, by what sort of magical process does our being in Iraq prevent an al Qaeda operative in Frankfurt or London or Jakarta from striking at America? Do we have some sort of giant Baghdad-based magnet that is mysteriously pulling every Qaeda man into its orbit?

Second, withdrawing from Iraq will certainly diminish the Iraqi resistance's desire -- and ability -- to attack American targets.

al Qaeda also thought hijacking planes and kiling lots of people on U.S. soil was in there best interest.

It was.

Is the idea we pretend they're rational now?

Perhaps you think that massive, successful and coordinated attacks against the US are so easy to organize that they can be pulled off by a bunch of madmen and idiots? Most people on this earth, particular successful ones, know their business reasonably well. Al-Qaeda knows that the more the US makes war on Muslims, the more recruits Al-Qaeda gets. Duh. Is it that surprising that they hope (and scheme) for the re-election of the war party in the US?

Ashcroft wa briefed on July 17 about a planned terror attack using commercial airliners as weapons. He immediately started flying charter. That didn't happen in a damaged liberal brain - that happened on KMBC-TV.

"I'm a grad student, jerk." - global

Oh, excuse me. Elevated innoculated perch.

"And you know my backstory so don't even try it -..." - global

um, no I don't. And honestly, I don't care.

"hold on folks, what was the methodology...and argued for an analysis of the analysis before siezing on the cool pie charts in this forum." - global

Oh well that changes everything. Pie charts are definitely the answer.

I'm with Jay, I suggest pumping human waste into their mosques and slapping around their religious and cultural leaders until they all just give up.

um.....none of this has happened.

For $12 an hour, the RNC expects you to do better than that. Get to work, lard-ass.

"In the previous PIPA poll, taken in January this year, 99% of Iraqis said they disapproved of attacks on civilians, with 95% disapproving strongly. Since then opinion has swung away from those supporting attacks on civilians. The figure is now 100%.

Well, as long as we're now quoting polls (which I though wingnuts didn't believe in?), I'll see your nine months out of date PIPA poll and top you with the latest PIPA poll from last week, reported by ABC News (emphases mine):

New Poll Says Majority of Iraqis Approve of Attacks on U.S. Forces

Sept. 27, 2006 — The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland has conducted a poll on the war in Iraq.

Here are a few of the poll's findings:

Six in 10 Iraqis approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, up from fewer than half in an earlier PIPA poll in January.

Nearly eight in 10 say the U.S. presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it's preventing (as opposed to being "a stabilizing force.")

Forty-seven percent say the country is headed in the right direction, down from 64 percent in January.

Sixty-three percent say the Maliki government is doing a good job (17 percent "very good.")

Most have confidence in the Iraqi army (64 percent) and police (71 percent) to protect their security. More than eight in 10 lack such confidence in U.S. troops.

Thirty-seven percent want U.S. troops to withdraw within six months; an additional 34 percent want them to withdraw within the next year.... [that's 71% want us out, for the math challenged]

You didn't get what I said, or you are trying to spin - so lets try again - I argued that we should not just sieze on the cool pie charts, we should evaluate the study first and determine it's credibility.

I would think that the elevated perch would be the tenured profs at the University - not the grad students teaching two at the associated community college in order to take two at the U. But you would know oh so much better than I...

Back in 75 - gotta jet.

"Al-Qaeda knows that the more the US makes war on Muslims, the more recruits Al-Qaeda gets. Duh. Is it that surprising that they hope (and scheme) for the re-election of the war party in the US?" - brooks

um.......it seems as though they were able to recruit pretty well all throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's. And, a little news for you, they DON'T CARE who our President is.

Cut 'N Run Jay: Still hanging onto that favorite poll of yours?

Um, weren't you the one who was quoting the poll from the exact same organization at 10:23 AM above?

"Um, weren't you the one who was quoting the poll from the exact same organization at 10:23 AM above?" - sfb

Yes, I was. You cherry pick your information, I cherry pick mine.

It's interesting that you cherry pick the information that makes our country look like were at fault. It must be your self loathing nature.

um.......it seems as though they were able to recruit pretty well all throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's. And, a little news for you, they DON'T CARE who our President is.

Ummmm....Since al Qaeda didn't exist in the 70s and 80s I don't think their recruitment efforts were all that good....

strick writes: "The gist of that letter is that Al Qaeda's tactics in Iraq are a failure and that the organization is in pretty dire straits."

The letter was written, according to the date at the bottom, on or about 12 December 2005. Nearly 10 months later and we see how failed Al Qaeda's tactics are and the dire straits of the organization.

Attacks against US forces are approaching all-time highs with 74 American deaths in September, the second highest monthly totaly this year. So far in October, 16 more dead. The best estimate of Iraqi security forces and government personnel killed in September is 1579, up from 779 for January 2006, the month after the letter was written.

Senior American military commanders and civilian leaders in Iraq are openly complaining about the failure of the Iraqi government and it security forces to actually bring security to the country.

Good thing the bad guys are in such dire straits and are sticking to failing tactics.

Keep looking for that silver lining.

Yes, I was. You cherry pick your information, I cherry pick mine. It's interesting that you cherry pick the information that makes our country look like were at fault.

Or, alternatively, I cite the most recent one week old poll from September 2006, you cite the long outdated nine months old poll from January 2006.

It must be your self loathing nature.

No, no, my self-loathing nature is why I drink too much and can't maintain stable romantic relationships, not why I cherry-pick polls.....

"Ummmm....Since al Qaeda didn't exist in the 70s and 80s...." - sfb

Great example of the left not getting it as they continue to argue the exact date when Al Qaeda filed their formal articles of incorporation.

Al Qaeda is only a small part of the problem sfb.

"No, no, my self-loathing nature is why I drink too much and can't maintain stable romantic relationships, not why I cherry-pick polls....."

Now, that's funny. Good sense of humor.

um.......it seems as though they were able to recruit pretty well all throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's.

Yeah, it seems that way to you, because you're a moron living in a fantasy world. Al-Qaeda did not exist in the 1970s. In the 1980s, it recruited well because its primary mission was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. The genius who is currently our C-in-C had the bright idea of handing them a new interminable guerrilla war where they could test their tactics against the enemy, score propaganda victories, and jack up recruitment worldwide. Now they can blow Americans apart in Afghanistan AND Iraq. Heckuva job, Shrub.

I assume that if you were born yet, you spent the 70s in a brain-dead stupor similar to the one you're experiencing now, so you'll just have to take my word for it: in the 70s the Arab terrorists were the PLO and various Palestinian Marxist groups. No religious fanatics, no suicide bombers, and almost no terror directed against Americans (except for a hijacked airliner or two, generally tied to specific demands). Spectacular suicide bombings by Shiite Islamists against Americans started with the US intervention in Lebanon in '82.

Of course none of this makes any difference to you, because you don't understand the difference between Al-Qaeda, Iran, the PLO, Hamas, the Saudis, the Syrians, the Taliban, or the Sudanese. "They" recruited well in the '70s. Who is "they"? Oh, you know -- the bad guys. Whatchamacallit, the terrists or whatever.

Global,

Still having problems trying to get the serum into the perch. Have tried drilling with my DeWalt - Broke the drill bit - Any suggestions as to how to properly inolculate the wood?

Great example of the left not getting it as they continue to argue the exact date when Al Qaeda filed their formal articles of incorporation.

No, it's a great example of the RNC hiring fucking idiots who spent high school history class smoking weed behind the gym to do their trolling for them.

"....because you don't understand the difference between Al-Qaeda, Iran, the PLO, Hamas, the Saudis, the Syrians, the Taliban, or the Sudanese" - brooks

I understand that they are very willing to kill innocent people in order to achieve their goals. Beyond that, I don't care to understand them.

"The genius who is currently our C-in-C had the bright idea of handing them a new interminable guerrilla war where they could test their tactics against the enemy, score propaganda victories, and jack up recruitment worldwide" - brooks

They grew in ferocity, without consequence all throughout the 90's. Or did you miss that? Were you distracted by the blue dress?

"...no terror directed against Americans (except for a hijacked airliner or two, generally tied to specific demands)" - brooks

Oh well we can except the occassional hijacked airliner right? What is an acceptable death rate brooks?

We know that the acceptable death rate for Bush is somewhere around 2000, before he decides to actually do anything about Bin Laden. Although what he chose to do is to attack and occupy a country that had nothing to do with al-qaeda.

Thankfully, we'll soon have a Democratic controlled House to hold Bush accountable for all his misdeeds and incompetence. Maybe bad for me and my fellow wingnuts, but very good for America.

"....because you don't understand the difference between Al-Qaeda, Iran, the PLO, Hamas, the Saudis, the Syrians, the Taliban, or the Sudanese" - brooks

You know, you're right brooks. All of these groups were doing just fine with the occassioanl hi-jacking, beheading, and random car bombings. Who were we to interrupt their fun?

"I understand that they are very willing to kill innocent people in order to achieve their goals. Beyond that, I don't care to understand them."
~Jay, on an assortment of Middle Eastern groups.

Jay, I'd like you to consider George W. Bush for your list.

I understand that they are very willing to kill innocent people in order to achieve their goals.

Well hell, so are we.

I understand that they are very willing to kill innocent people in order to achieve their goals.

So is the US, witness the war in Iraq.

Beyond that, I don't care to understand them.

And that's one reason why you'll never be a positive part of the process of defeating them.

They grew in ferocity, without consequence all throughout the 90's.

If you are taking the broad view you claim to be of extremist Islam, rather than the narrow view of one particular organization, you can hardly say "without consequence"; the Russian campaign against various Islamic extremists (including components of al-Qaeda) in the 1990s was hardly restrained.

Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the propaganda value of that campaign and the war with Russia was a significant part of the reason that al-Qaeda chose to open up a front with the US to make the clash of civilizations more concrete in the minds of its recruitment targets.
Or did you miss that? Were you distracted by the blue dress?

What is an acceptable death rate brooks?

I dunno what an acceptable death rate is, but I do know that there are more Americans being killed in what this administration calls the "War on Terror" than terrorists ever managed to kill an an equivalent period of time; so, if the worst we have experienced under other anti-terrorism strategies is an "unacceptable death rate", than clearly this supposed anti-terror strategy is even more unacceptable.

Unfortunately, my hero George W. Bush understands some of those groups that I don't care to--he's allies and best buddies with the Saudies. Want to see a pic of him holding hands with their king?

I understand that they are very willing to kill innocent people in order to achieve their goals. Beyond that, I don't care to understand them.

Well, there you, folks, the modern GOP: pig-ignorant and proud of it.

Our Muslim allies Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Uzbekistan are also willing to kill innocent people to achieve their goals -- why not just invade them next? Hell, why not just invade China, which is also willing to kill innocent people to achieve its goals?

If that's all it takes, well, we'll be at war for the rest of time -- which, truth to tell, is really the Republican end-goal: a perpetual state of war to justify their perpetual grab at unlimited power.

Our Muslim allies Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Uzbekistan are also willing to kill innocent people to achieve their goals -- why not just invade them next? Hell, why not just invade China, which is also willing to kill innocent people to achieve its goals?

Well, Stefan if that's the rational to invasion, perhaps we could convince you guys to start chasing your own tail :)

(at least then, Al, Jay and all could feel a little more involved)

I understand that they are very willing to kill innocent people in order to achieve their goals.

How can you even write a line like that? Don't you at least have a fleeting "whoops" moment, where an Iraqi child killed or maimed in a US airstrike flashes before your eyes? You are the thing you profess to hate, Jay.

What is an acceptable death rate brooks?

500 over 4 years. GWB flunks again, just like in flight school.

First, this message was captured, not "released" by al Qaeda, a distinction that seems to have escaped some people.

"prolonging the war is in our interest." I've never seen anyone stretch one phrase to mean so much, while ignoring everything else in the letter.

Al Qaeda as an organization thinks they'll be served better if they keep fighting instead of disbanding the organization and going home to raise chickens? You think?

Yeah, we'll leave, and let al Qaeda and the rest eat Iraq like radical Islamists are currently eating Somalia and western Pakistan, and this will greatly enhance peace in the world. What? You really think that if the U.S. pulls out al Qaeda and the rest will just say, "guess that's it" and go back home?

You wonder why people say "don't let the Democrats be in charge of our defense" when the Democratic Big Idea is "Hey, guess what! If we surrender, the war will be over!" I imagine a general or two came up with that idea in previous wars just before the rest of them beat him up and threw him out a window.

Can we also remember the other items in that same letter, 4,000 foreign fighters dead, the Anbar tribes declaring war on al Qaeda, and last, but not least, the minor fact that this letter, this pep talk to Zarqawi, head of al Qaeda in Iraq, was pried off Zarqawi's slowly cooling corpse?

You wonder why people say "don't let the Democrats be in charge of our defense" when the Democratic Big Idea is "Hey, guess what! If we surrender, the war will be over!"

No, the Democratic idea is to stop making the situation in Iraq worse by being a visible occupier and thereby providing a propaganda tool for the opponents of democratic governance there.

The "surrender to win" idea is the one embraced by Republican Bill Frist toward the Taliban (you know, the people actually allied with al-Qaeda at the time of 9/11 and who protected them against the US after 9/11) in Afghanistan.

Ashcroft was briefed on July 17 about a planned terror attack using commercial airliners as weapons. He immediately started flying charter. That didn't happen in a damaged liberal brain - that happened on KMBC-TV.

This is a complete myth, one of many. Read the Commission report.

jay: Oh well we can except the occassional hijacked airliner right? What is an acceptable death rate

your chances are....

1 in 7 of dying of cancer..

1 in 100 of dying in a car crash...

1 in 245 of dying from a fall...

1 in 88,000 of dying in a terrorist attack...

terror attack involving an airplane? 1-in-245000

also..

more people killed themselves by suicide in 2005

than died by terror attacks..

You wonder why people say "don't let the Democrats be in charge of our defense"

No, I don't wonder why Repbublicans say that. They say it in order to get re-elected and continue handing multi-billion-dollar defense contracts to the firms which they used to be executives at, or which provide them with massive campaign donations, personal slush funds, and the use of private planes and prostitutes, and which will again offer them employment once they leave office. I don't wonder why Republicans say that at all.

Urban myth, huh?

Ashcroft Flying High WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001

Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.

"I don't do threat assessments myself and I rely on those whose responsibility it is in the law enforcement community, particularly the FBI. And I try to stay within the guidelines that they've suggested I should stay within for those purposes," Ashcroft said.

I guess KMBC perpetuated this "Myth" with some doctored footage? That was a delta flight with the logos photoshopped. yeah that's the ticket.

What the hell good is that incomplete report, by the way - the players rold varying versions of the truth and often outright lied, and didn't get called on it? I'll go to the videotape, thanks.

hank says:

This is a complete myth, one of many. Read the Commission report.

You're falling behind, hank. Read the news and the blogs. The Commission report is rapidlly becoming obsolete.

Well hank?

still waiting...Bubbles and I live in a state that the uptight jackass calls home. We know from Ashcroft watching.

Yeah, we'll leave, and let al Qaeda and the rest eat Iraq like radical Islamists are currently eating Somalia and western Pakistan, and this will greatly enhance peace in the world.

Perhaps, then, (a) we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place, thereby opening that country to al Qaeda, and (b) once we did invade, we should have provided adequate security to prevent al Qaeda from expanding its foothold -- you know, the Democratic approach.

Oh, and by the way, what exactly is Bush doing about those radical Islamists who are currently eating Somalia and western Pakistan? Anything? Anything at all?

And you wonder why voters don't trust the Republicans when it comes to national security....

"Don't you at least have a fleeting "whoops" moment, where an Iraqi child killed or maimed in a US airstrike flashes before your eyes" - brooks

Not at all brooks, I stay away from moral relativism.

Do you ever blink an eye at the loss of just one innocent unborn baby in your zeal to protect "womens rights"?

Not at all brooks, I stay away from moral relativism.

Actually, to say that it's all right for the U.S. to kill innocents to achieve its ends but it's not right for Al Qaeda to do so IS the morally relative stance -- you dimwit.

All right:

From Ashcroft's testimony:

BEN-VENISTE: I agree with you, sir.

The problem was in the communication of information which did not reach those who might have made a difference.

Let me ask you, as my time is expiring, one question, which has been frequently put to members of this commission; probably all of us have heard this one way or another.

And we are mindful that part of the problem with the Warren commission's work on the Kennedy assassination was the failure to address certain theories that were extant and questions and much of the work was done behind closed doors. So I would like to provide you with the opportunity to answer one question that has come up repeatedly.

At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.

Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?

ASHCROFT: I am very pleased to address this issue.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

ASHCROFT: Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel.

ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft.

I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.

The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation. It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general, given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft.

These were not private chartered jet aircraft. These were aircraft of the United States government. And it was on such an aircraft that I was on my way to an event in Milwaukee on the morning of September the 11th.

This was about a threat to Ashcroft personally, not a terrorist attack, he was warned by the FBI, and he acted accordingly. There is absolutely nothing in the news story you cite that contradicts this, (a story about this trip, incidentally, although CBS tries hard to make it look like he's just going fishing) and certainly nothing about a secret report on planes being flown into buildings.

Now, if you want to assume that everyone is lying except the conspiracy theorists, go for it. But you're the one concerned about the perception of "damaged liberal brains."

Actually, to say that it's all right for the U.S. to kill innocents to achieve its ends but it's not right for Al Qaeda to do so IS the morally relative stance -- you dimwit.

The difference is only one of these groups does it on purpose.

Bullshit. Planes were grounded in europe during the G-8 summit for the same fucking reasons. If you want to keep drinkin' the kool=aid feel free to do so. They did not say it was a threat against Ashcroft personally, and the timing is just too flippin' convenient.

I think the Haditha travesty - if the troops are found guilty of rape and murder of civilians in trials of courts martial - might qualify as "on purpose."

Invading Iraq knowing full well from the weapons inspectors it had no WMD's also qualifies as "on purpose."

I support pedophiles because I are one.

I support closeted Republicans - ditto.

I support chickenhawks- see above.

I spend all my time at the special school writing "Mrs. Jay Bush" inside little hearts.

Like my boyfriend George, I'm afraid of Osama. But then I'm afraid of everything outside Mommy's basement.

Ed,

Word.

duh: Actually, to say that it's all right for the U.S. to kill innocents to achieve its ends but it's not right for Al Qaeda to do so IS the morally relative stance -- you dimwit.

rjj: The difference is only one of these groups does it on purpose.

Really? We didn't attack Iraq on purpose? Was it all just a terrible accident?

"Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are rejected by overwhelming majorities of Shias and Kurds and large majorities of Sunnis"

Well, yeah--but you could have said that in 2001, too. I doubt very much that the invasion of Iraq has changed these figures in our favor . . .

Oh, and by the way, what exactly is Bush doing about those radical Islamists who are currently eating Somalia and western Pakistan? Anything? Anything at all?

Again, what if anything is Bush doing about those radical Islamists who, in your words, are "eating Somalia and western Pakistan"? When exactly do we invade Somalia and western Pakistan?

When do we invade Burma/Myanmar and install the Democratically elected Ang Son Su Ki (sp?) to her rightful leadership mantle? Oh right - the crude factor isn't a factor, is it?

"Jay" is a parody. He's clowning around to make fun of Republicans. No real Republican could be as stupid and ignorant as "Jay" pretends to be. That's how you can detect the parody clowns.

"Actually, to say that it's all right for the U.S. to kill innocents to achieve its ends but it's not right for Al Qaeda to do so IS the morally relative stance -- you dimwit."

Please point to any war in history where innocent people were not killed.

How many unsuspecting car bombs have been placed by the United States.

oh and sfb, the Democrat stance is not to secure Iraq, it is to leave Iraq.

There are too many dim liberal bulbs on this site.

"Ed,

Word." - global idiot

That grad school is paying off. Majoring in ebonics I see.

There are one too many parody trolls. Where is Red State Mike? At least he is an honest conservative, not an issue-conflating, fact-twisting, self-professed cherry-picker. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing. And it is vying for space with your jingoism, ethnocentrism and sheer unadulterated stupidity.

add racist to that last post. And for evidence I offer Majoring in ebonics I see.

And if there are too many people who disagree with you here, and we so offend, get the fuck over to Powerline and join in the screeds there.

"And if there are too many people who disagree with you here, and we so offend, get the fuck over to Powerline and join in the screeds there." - global idiot

But I thought grad students welcomed diverse opinion and debate? Apparently they're teaching fascism in your particular institution. Also, I hardly find it offensive in as much as I find it juvenile and completely void of any intelligence and common sense.

And for my proof of my previous statement, I offer the following"

"And for evidence I offer Majoring in ebonics I see" - global idiot

This comes from someone who probably thinks Jesse Jackson is a stand up character.

"There are one too many parody trolls" - global idiot

It just sucks when people disagree with you doesn't it?

Where have all of the good fascist states gone?

You don't "debate" you conflate. You are not a serious commentor, you are a lightning rod, and in the absense of intellectual ability, you fling accusations, invective and GOP authorized talking-points. Keep trolling, and call me an idiot all you want - I know it is a falsehood and so do most others. "Oh I'm going to run to my mommy because Jay called me names." NOT. Big flippin' deal - that's all you got. Reality is encroaching, little troll. Cope. They make meds to help you with the process if it causes you too much psychic pain.

Now continue on your merry diatribe. What you say is of no consequence so long as you follow your current MO - now if you want to debate seriously, that would be fine. that would be welcome. But currently you are engaging in debate, so I'm ignoring you now.

*currently you are not

that should have read.

"....now if you want to debate seriously, that would be fine. that would be welcome. But currently you are engaging in debate, so I'm ignoring you now." - global

Yup, that grad school is paying off. Don't you have a volleyball class to get to?

Cellular Biology. Later.

Republicans want and need Endless War in order to stay in power. That's what Osama wants, too. So, Voting Republican = Endless War = Voting for Osama.

Why do you guys waste your time arguing with Jay (and his ilk)? Does anyone believe any amount of facts will change his opinion on anything?

Kevin you're far too wishy-washy on this blog. Just ban these guys, they contribute nothing meaningful.

Bush4Life

Jay is a clown, pretending to be a Republican, posting absurd parodies of Republican talking points, to make all Republicans look stupid.

No real Republican is as stupid as Jay pretends to be.

That's how you can tell that Jay is a clownish parody.

Maybe Clown, maybe. But I have not seen any concrete proof that there is a lower limit to Republican stupidity. I believe it asymptotically approaches infinity.

lim (Bush -> 0) = life

Bush Rules wrote: "Why do you guys waste your time arguing with Jay (and his ilk)? Does anyone believe any amount of facts will change his opinion on anything?"

Of course not -- since "Jay" is a parody, and his "opinions" are intentionally exaggerated, clownish charicatures of Republican talking points, intended to make all Republicans look stupid.

No real Republican is as stupid as "Jay" pretends to be.

Clown Detector: "No real Republican is as stupid as Jay pretends to be."

Oh, yeah?

I offer as evidence a choice tidbit from this morning's Miami Herald:

"In an interview with an NBC affiliate in Orlando, U.S. Rep. and Senate candidate Katherine Harris said this about the alleged lewd internet messages that fellow Congressman Mark Foley sent to former teen pages: 'The media would be quite disingenuous to try to make it a partisan issue. If anything, the Republicans didn’t know about these issues. And we are going to be very interested to find out who in the media or on the other side of the aisle knew about this and kept this from the public interest because our children were at stake.' "

I just read Susskind's book. It's pretty good, though tilted toward CIA activities. Maybe the DoD just wasn't very active for the time period he covered. Anyway, it indicates very very clearly there were two tracks going on: one the government showed Al Qaeda was the problem; two, the very top notables Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld played politics with it and injected Iraq out of the blue, for no clear reason. I guess we'll never find out why we're in Iraq.

"Listen, Wolf. This is the way to put it in a nutshell. If the US continues its policy and operations as they are now the situation will worsen and the enemies of the US - principally al Qaeda and Iran - will continue to strengthen. There's a number of options that are presented to Washington at the moment. They either do this or they don't do this. They either need to get serious about the battle here on the ground - physically against al Qaeda and the insurgency - and commit the troops that the commanders need, or they need to look for alternative solutions. At the end of the day what they're facing is the potential of most of this country being subsumed by a Shia-led theocracy-style government with other parts of the government left as Western al Qaeda desert training camp facilities. To avoid that something radical has to be done. So Colin Powell is right. Staying the course will only strengthen America's enemies."

Michael Ware on CNN

"Why do you guys waste your time arguing with Jay (and his ilk)? Does anyone believe any amount of facts will change his opinion on anything?"

They argue with Jay because it's easier than arguing with somebody with a brain.

At the five o'clock meeting, once various reports on latest threats were delivered, John McLaughlin opened the issue with the consensus view: "Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President."

Did bin Laden do Bush a favor on purpose? I doubt that. What al Qaeda wants in Iraq, and is not getting, is victory. The longer the war lasts, and the more of their recruits die fighting against Muslims, the less successful al Qaeda is. Most recently the Sunni tribal leaders in al Anbar province united against al Qaeda, and joined forces with the Iraqi government against al Qaeda.

Did bin Laden do Bush a favor on purpose… papago 10:33 PM

The longer the war lasts, the more Americans die, the more bin Laden's recruits and trains. The only winner in the Iraq war is Shi'ite Iran and radical anti-West groups. The intelligent response to 9-11 would have been to get bin Laden and we know that Bush deliberately failed, and to make a two-state peace in Palestine, and Bush is blocking that.

No matter how much the Iraqis hate the fundamentalist al Qa'ida, they hate America more, and in the Middle East, the enemy of an enemy is a friend. Bush couldn't be doing more to aid al Qa'ida if he put bin Laden on his payroll.

Do you guys know the backstory on Jay Shaver?

He's a perverted old man and he posts here strictly for the brutality of having decent people react in horror to the bile he spews.

If I remember this right, he was the first Republican troll on PA to call for US troops to leave Iraq--hence, we started calling him Cut N' Run Jay.

But, yeah--he's irrelevant. He's a foul-mouthed version of Wooten aka rdw.

Jay....
zzzzzzzzzzzzz....
zzzzzzzzzzzzz....
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Jay, if you think they don't care who our president is, you haven't been paying attention to the news (you know: House of Bush, House of Saud and all that), and you certainly haven't read Shakespeare.

In fact, you are clearly too busy scribbling to actually absorb anything anyone else says or does. So why not take it somewhere else. Your dogged monomania is tiresome. At least Al's idiocy has some laughs in it.