NBC Claimed Bush Allowed Al-Qaeda in Iraq Before War, Media Now Ignore Pre-War Presence

  • Bookmark and Share

While it is currently conventional wisdom in the media that there was no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before the 2003 invasion, as evidenced by the media's failure to correct Barack Obama's recent claim that "there was no such thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq," for several years dating back before the Iraq invasion, there have been media reports of former Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's connections to Osama bin Laden, and his use of Iraq as a base to plot terror attacks against other countries before the war. In fact, four years ago, the NBC Nightly News claimed not only that there was an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before the invasion, busy plotting attacks against Europe, but that the Bush administration intentionally "passed up several opportunities" to attack terrorist bases in Iraq "long before the war" in 2002 because of fear it would "undercut its case" for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. (Transcripts follow)

On the March 2, 2004 NBC Nightly News, Tom Brokaw introduced the report: "[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] is widely believed to have ties to Al-Qaeda, and the Bush administration apparently passed up several opportunities to take him out well before the Iraq war began."

And on the January 27, 2003 NBC Nightly News, after revelations of a plot to attack targets in Europe with the poison ricin, which was believed to have been hatched by Zarqawi in Iraq, correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported that "U.S. Special Forces had plans to launch a covert raid against the Kirmadara complex [in northern Iraq], but Pentagon officials say it was called off because the Bush administration feared it would interfere with upcoming UN weapon inspections."

Although some have tried to argue that Zarqawi did not declare allegiance to bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization until after the Iraq invasion, as far back as April 4 and May 16, 2001, AP's Jamal Halaby reported that Jordanian authorities suspected Zarqawi, also known as Ahmad Fadeel Al-Khalayleh, of plotting attacks in Jordan, and relayed that Zarqawi was "believed to be in Afghanistan."

On November 9, 2002, a London Times article by Roger Boyes and Daniel McGrory, citing Hans-Josef Beth of the German secret service BND, claimed that Zarqawi "used London as his base until Osama bin Laden ordered him to move to Afghanistan in 2000 to run one of al-Qaeda's training camps."

On December 18, 2002, after the arrests of several terror suspects in France amid fears of a chemical weapon attack, Sebastian Rotella of the Los Angeles Times reported that "A top Al Qaeda suspect said to be commanding a campaign targeting Europe is Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian reputedly knowledgeable about chemical warfare, according to German and Italian intelligence officials."

On December 19, 2002, Knight Ridder's Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson reported, citing Jordanian Prime Minister Ali Abu al Ragheb, that Zarqawi was behind the murder of American diplomat Lawrence Foley, and was believed to be "an ally of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden." Ragheb further contended that Zarqawi "was probably in northern Iraq working with Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish Muslim extremist group." Jordanian officials were also cited as claiming that the men suspected of carrying out Foley's murder met Zarqawi "in Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan."

Months before the Iraq invasion, on January 7, 2003, after revelations of a ricin terror plot targeting London was uncovered, NBC's Miklaszewski contended that U.S. officials "report that Islamic extremists tied to al-Qaeda had produced ricin in a terrorist lab at Kirma in the Kurdish-controlled area of northern Iraq."

On the February 9, 2004, World News Tonight on ABC, correspondent Brian Ross relayed reports that Zarqawi "fled the U.S. bombing of Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and moved on to Iran and then into Iraq," and, referring to the same ricin terror plot, further contended that "intelligence officials in Britain and France say Zarqawi also had a hand in a thwarted plan to use the chemical poison ricin, produced by his followers in northern Iraq."

On the April 26, 2004 Nightline, in light of the revelation of a bomb plot targeting Amman, Jordan, ABC's Chris Bury described Zarqawi as "a long-time associate of Osama bin Laden," and correspondent Michel Martin contended that Zarqawi "ran a camp for Jordanian recruits in Afghanistan."

On the September 26, 2004 edition of CBS's 60 Minutes, Ben Bradley, citing Jordanian terror expert Oraib al-Rantawi, contended that, following his release from a Jordanian prison in 1999, Zarqawi left the country and "went to Pakistan and Afghanistan where he trained with al-Qaeda and then set up his own training camp."

And on the May 1, 2007 The O'Reilly Factor on FNC, a clip of which was replayed on the February 28, 2008 show, former CIA director George Tenet argued that after Zarqawi left Afghanistan, "he shows up in Baghdad in May of 2002" and "creates a safe haven for Al-Qaeda" in northern Iraq with the terror group Ansar al-Islam.

All three of the February 27, 2008 broadcast evening newscasts reported on the exchange between John McCain and Barack Obama over Al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq, as McCain picked up on Obama's missatement from Tuesday's debate that seemed to assume Al-Qaeda was not currently in Iraq. McCain: "I have some news. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq.'"

Each show then played a clip of Obama claiming that "there was no such thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq," but did not clarify that, while eventual Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Zarqawi had not yet publicly coined that name for his terror group before the invasion, there has been plenty of reason to believe that Zarqawi not only was already in Iraq using it as a base of operations, but was already associated with bin Laden.

Below are transcripts of relevant portions of the Wednesday February 27, 2008 CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, followed by the relevant March 2, 2004 story by Jim Miklaszewski from the NBC Nightly News:

From the February 27 CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: And a line, by the way, from the debate had John McCain and Barack Obama trading barbs today. Last night, Obama repeated his pledge to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, but said he'd send them back, quote, "if Al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq." Today, McCain jumped on that, and Obama answered right back.

JOHN MCCAIN: You know, I have news for Senator Obama. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. And that's why we're fighting in Iraq, and that's why we're succeeding in Iraq.

BARACK OBAMA: I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.

From the February 27 NBC Nightly News:

ANDREA MITCHELL: But the debate also had its pitfalls for Obama, answering a hypothetical question about whether he would send U.S. troops back into Iraq if Al-Qaeda re-emerged after a U.S. withdrawal.

OBAMA: And if Al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.

MITCHELL: John McCain pounced on that today.

JOHN McCAIN: I have some news. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called "Al-Qaeda in Iraq."

MITCHELL: And in a preview of what might be the fall match-up, Obama immediately responded.

OBAMA: But I have some news for John McCain. And that is that there was no such thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.

MITCHELL: So did anyone win the debate?

HOWARD FINEMAN, Newsweek: Politically, it was a draw. And the draw goes to the champ. And at this point, ironically, the champ, the person wearing the belt and wearing the crown is Obama.

From the February 27 World News Tonight on ABC:

DAVID WRIGHT: Today in Columbus, Obama was brimming with confidence.

BARACK OBAMA: We had a terrific debate last night in Cleveland.

WRIGHT: But one of his debate answers drew fire today from the likely Republican nominee. The question was hypothetical. After President Obama withdraws all U.S. troops from Iraq, if Al-Qaeda resurges there, would he re-invade?

OBAMA: If Al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.

WRIGHT: Today McCain mocked Obama's answer.

JOHN MCCAIN: I have some news. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called "Al-Qaeda in Iraq."

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I do know that Al-Qaeda is in Iraq-

WRIGHT: Obama didn't hesitate to fire back.

OBAMA: -but I have some news for John McCain. And that is that there was no such thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.

WRIGHT: A preview, perhaps, of the contest to come. But first, Obama has to get past Ohio and Texas.

From the March 2, 2004 NBC Nightly News:

TOM BROKAW: The spiritual leader of Iraq's Shiites, the Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, was among those blaming the United States for the attacks, saying American forces have not done enough to secure the borders. But the real suspect in the attacks is a well-known terrorist: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He is widely believed to have ties to al-Qaeda, and the Bush administration apparently passed up several opportunities to take him out well before the Iraq war began. More on all of this tonight from NBC's Jim Miklaszewski, who's at the Pentagon.

JIM MIKLASZEWSKI: With today's attacks, al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaeda, is blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq. But NBC News has learned that long before the war, the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist group, Ansar al-Islam, perhaps kill Zarqawi himself, but never pulled the trigger. June 2002, U.S. government officials say intelligence revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaeda had set up a weapons lab at Kirma in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide. The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp and sent them to the White House, where, say government sources, the plans were debated to death.

MICHAEL O'HANLON, Brookings Institution: Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties or risk casualties after 9/11, and we still didn't do it.

MIKLASZEWSKI: Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe. The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then, the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

ROGER CRESSEY, NBC Terrorism Analyst: People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the President's policy on preemption against terrorists.

MIKLASZEWSKI: January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq. The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and, for the third time, the National Security Council killed it. Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight. But the administration feared that destroying the terrorist camp inside Iraq could undercut its case for going to war against Saddam. The U.S. did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late. Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone.

CRESSEY: Here's a case where they waited. They waited too long, and now we're suffering as a result inside Iraq.

MIKLASZEWSKI: And despite the Bush administration's tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi's killing streak continues today. Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News, the Pentagon.

—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sounds like the MSM are

Sounds like the MSM are using the old Clintonian tactic: That explanation is no longer operative.

Obama says IF they come in after we leave, and set up bases.
Oh, they're there now? Well they weren't there before you guys went in, but they're not there now, but they might come in after we leave....

My head hurts.

It's a new day...forget everything you've heard before. Start fresh.

It's a "50 First Dates" world.

A Religious Movement

The beauty of the MSM is their ability to muster only those arguments that support its causes du jour.  

Obama's original debate answer was just sillyness.  McCain pointed that out -- and Obama's reply did not answer the policy question. That is of little consequence to the MSM or to Obama acolytes. Obama is leading a religious revival not a political campaign.

The evolution of politics

MB, we're witnessing the "evolution" of politics, like wrestling evolved.

Wrestling used to be a respectable sport. On the college level, it still is. However, at some point among professionals, the event stopped being a real competition and disintegrated into a series of staged posturing. The posturing made better TV than the sport, so out went the sport.

Obama is bringing a similar wave. The substance of politics (i.e., reasonable proposals to address real-life problems) is giving way to mere posturing. It no longer matters that Obama has no new policies, other than the socialistic-liberal policies that have been rejected in the past. What matters is that Obama is posturing as if he had new policies, and the MSM treats that as “good enough.” As long as he talks the talk, that’s all he needs. Walking the walk is just an annoyance. 

Obama is a complete lightweight. His foreign policy amounts to apologizing for Bush, and “hoping” that the world will like us. His domestic policy is to feel our pain, and tax the rich. Rich = evil. (There’s a successful strategy, wouldn’t you say?) His social policy is anyone can do anything they want (except make money of course).

But he can strut, as if he had something. And the MSM eats it up.

NBC is shilling for the

NBC is shilling for the left with the Democratic playbook. No surpise here.

 

I think that one of the

I think that one of the things that frustrate me the most is the blatant repeat of lies. NYT, CBS, MSMBC etc. etc..

It seems like now that Fox and the internet is around, that the left in the MSM can go full bore with out even pretending that they are journalist rather then the propagandist that they are.

They will repeat lies over and over fore example: Tax cuts for the rich, line over and over and over and over.. When the top 10% carry 2/3 of the load. OR..

Some how we got into Iraq with out any help from the Democrats. That somehow magically our troops got dropped in Iraq via Bush without a vote or any say so by anyone with a “D” next to their name.

But the MSM just pounds it non-stop and the general public just laps it up.

I was talking to some guy the other day while pouring liquid gold into my diesel F250, (he looked intelligent), drove a nice car, had all ofhis teeth, but the things that came out of his mouth sounded like every DNC talking point, it started with its Bush’s and Halliburton’s fault that gas is so expensive, then tax cuts to the rich, (we need to cut that out..) to Bush is responsible for terror, to we need to take guns away from every one..

The combination of stupid people, the MSM with the Republican party that: is doing every thing to piss the base off. It makes me feel like Sisiphys rolling the rock back up the hill just to watch it roll back down again, and again, and again.

Oh yea, it seems the fence is going a “little slower then they predicted..” roll the stone back up the hill...

 

 

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

I understand your

I understand your frustration, I work in a pretty liberal environment, and most of these folks just simply do not know. They read headlies and very little of the evening news. Throw a few facts in their way, send them a few links and you might be surprised how many minds you change. It is also good for the long gone as well, keeps their mouth shut when in your presents. I love contradicting the nonsense some of these misguided folks believe. Very few people want to believe this country is so terrible, take advantage of that.

 

"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

I started to but after a few

I started to but after a few minutes just gave up. I told the guy, do you think its fair for 10% of the population should pay ¾ of the taxes, his come back was, well..they can afford it.

My next line is: well from the look of your car you can afford more expensive gas while the guy in the run down car should pay only 1/3 of what you pay, because.. you can afford it. He stomped away and I got in my truck and drove away. It did not fit his template..     

 

 

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

Your experience is similar

Your experience is similar to mine, but every day. The libtards don't even want to hear anything that doesn't fit their emotion-based, fact-deficient mindset. That's why I have a sign on my door that says: 

  IGNORANCE IS BLISS. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.  

I have a bulletin board with facts and needling slogans guaranteed to piss em off. They shake their heads when I explain the graph showing the 44% increase in tax revenues since the "Bush tax cuts for the rich." My current faves are the baby crying, "Help! I'm a Democrat human shield." and, "Monica Lewinski's ex-boyfriend's wife for president.

I guess its best to laugh,

I guess its best to laugh, which has been a little hard lately..  

 

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party,the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

Revisionism at its best...

Revisionism at its best can always be found on or in the msm. Mainstream media have been and will remain irresponsible news sources, unworthy of our attention. The electorate of the United States cannot make proper choices based on the quality of the information provided be television and print news. Uncle Wally's "insightful" analysis is proof of that.

Which is it?

Either there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until after President Bush invaded Iraq or there was al-Qaida in Iraq and President Bush ignored them before invading Iraq.

It's true, liberalism is not affected by facts but accepted soley on faith. It really is a religion.

"That's just my opinion. I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller

It's "all of the above."

It's "all of the above." LOL

 

I mentioned this ealier.....

 I had posted this earlier but it applies here as well. The medie ingores what they want and only reports items that fit their agenda. This fits to the NYT's case for McCain not being a citizen as I point out below. Sorry to be redundant but it fits so I reposted...

 If some one out there has the power, this point needs to be brought up. The NYT just messed up big time.

 First the the term natural born citizen has never been legally defined. It is just accepted that those born of TWO US citizens is considered natural born.....therefore McCain meets the universally understood idea of natural citizen. McCain meets this, as well as being born on US Sovereign land at the time. Barry Goldwater met this in the sixties since he was born in Arizona while it was a US territory. It was accepted that he met the natural requirments because Arizona was US soil and his parents were citizens.

Here is the good stuff folks:

 BHO was born to a Kenyan father(father was legal citizen of Kenya, but enrolled as a foreign student at the University of Hawaii at Monoa). Now more goodies.....Non-Citizen father and Citizen mother means Barrack is not a natural citizen but rather natralized citizen as determined by this Supreme Court case

  • Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth. (Note that the relevant laws have changed considerably since 1906, so this decision does not necessarily apply to later cases)

    Here is a more credible link: http://supreme.justia.com/us/366/308/

    This sets the precedent, and later cases have declared that the children in these cases may not be natural born citizens but rather fall under the same criteria as "naturalized citizens". I am still searching for more recent cases. But if the NYTs wants to open this door go ahead. All Supreme Court precedent is in favor of McCain but goes against BHO. So technically His Holiness Barrack should not be eligible to run.......irony at its greatest.

    Now I am no legal guru so this could be wrong, but it falls under the same line as the NYT's story and should be addressed.

    “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”  - Thomas Jefferson

  • Very interesting. He could

    Very interesting. If he brings it up without researching his own status first, he could end up hoist on his own petard.

    Again irony is fun, you

    Again irony is fun, you think Obama's people have contacted the NYT and asked them to tone this down? You think any Rupubs will bring this up, neither do I. We are fighting honestly. So much stupid crap to come before the general election, will anyone bury themselves. Who is more likely to do it, my bet is on McCain, he refuses to stand up to the opponente, huge dissadvantige

    "Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

    Good point gc,

     that's exactly why we need our conservative friends with media connections that come here to step in and bring this up. We need to start fighting back with the same tactics. That is the only way to get the truth out there. I know if some one can get this to Hannity, Boortz, Limbaugh, Wilkow, Levin, Savage....you get my point. Get these people to bring it up and the MSM will talk about it, they can't help it. We all know the Repubs won't say darn thing, heck they have declared using Barrack's middle name off limits.....but I bet if McCains middle name comes up they won't say a word either.

    Fight fire with fire, then throw water on it to put it out.

     

    “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”  - Thomas Jefferson

    good post,

    Navy, good post,

    we have some sharp folks here. 

     

    Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party,the party left me.

    Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

    I take solace in the fact

    I take solace in the fact that the msm, regardless of how much they try to rewrite historical facts, ultimately will be long forgotten when history records the actual facts.  Obama is clearly not cut out to be PROTUS and gaffs like this one are embarrassing regardless of the cover the msm will try to give him. 

    It's all victory-phobia!

    It's all victory-phobia! Man these liberals get to me...

    The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

    Quick Question for you MSM Haters

    Al Qaeda member(s) were in Iraq prior to our invasion...in the north.  Much like Al Qaeda is in London...training in the woods.  Did the British government collaborate with the terrorists?  Should we invade the country harboring terrorists.

     

    Could it at least be considered that Al Qaeda was in Iraq without anyone knowing at the time...including the regime.  Much like every other country on the planet.

     

     

    Al Qaeda member(s) were in

    Al Qaeda member(s) were in Iraq prior to our invasion...

    Not according to the Democrats, moveon.commies, Huffington Post, John Kerry, Barack "the H word" Obama, Howard Dean, the New York Times, the MSM, et al.

    I think we should invade Hollywood first, convert them, and see how that goes.

    Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

    Recent documentation

    Recent documentation unearthed by US forces in Iraq and finally translated indicate that the Saddam Regime did have "Conversations" with the AQ.

    On top of that, we have well defined proof that Saddam did in fact provide support to my old nemesis, the Abu Sayyaf Group in the Sulu Archipelago.

    Ergo, the point of his actual location with in the country is moot.

    BD, So we're pissed that

    BD,

    So we're pissed that Saddam supposedly provided support to Al Qaeda, but who was it in the 80s that provided support to Saddam?

    Exactly. 

    PS are you actually a soldier or just a PR rep for the Pentagon?  Your "I heart Rumsfeld" t-shirt is cute but not too discreet.

    Leon: We were not

    Leon:

    We were not technically at war with anyone while we were supporting Saddam.  You can make the argument that we SHOULD have been at war with Iran from the time of James Earl carter, but since the conflict was not recognized it is immaterial.  You might as well be upset that we provided minor support to Ho Chi Mihn, Joseph Stalin, Josep Broz Tito, and Enver Hoxha when it suited our national interests.

    Regarding my current status.

    I am an MI LTC with over 22 Years of service in the US Army who is almost undoubtedly heading for retirement in the coming years.  Following my retirement I expect that I will take a job as a civilian essentially working in Intelligence (We are in a shortage following the cuts of the 90's) and will continue living here at the Intelligence Center.

    Regarding the Pentagon.  I have no love for the place, and have always disliked my time spent in the National Capital Region that comprises Washington DC.  I prefer to stay out with the troops, training the kids who will be the future leaders.

    Bravo Delta

    If you overlook the vitriol, the hatred, the snide remarks and the condescension, Leon is just demonstrating the typical respect(?)concern(?) and compassion(?) the left constantly tells us they have for US military folks just like yourself. 

    As far as the story goes, even though Hussein and his demented base would have us believe al qaeda was in every country in the ME except Iraq, al qaeda is really irrelevant our presence in Iraq.

    Had Saddam simply adhered to the terms of the ceasefire post GWI we wouldn't be having this conversation....al qaeda in Iraq or not. 

    Do Some Research

    If you do even a modicum of web research, you'll find plenty of evidence of cooperation netween al Qaeda and Iraq in the late 1990s. It was reported at the time by ABC News and the BBC, and in 1998 Bill Clinton's Justice Department, in their indictment of bin Laden, specifically cited a working realtionship between the two, particularly on weapons of mass destruction.

    A warning, though-don't expect Google to be of much help in your research. They tilt left as a search engine, particularly when it comes to this stuff...

    The Left's worst possible nightmare, other than Bush somehow getting to be President for a 3rd term, is that Iraq and al Qaeda did work together prior to our invasion and prior to 9/11. They would rather be waterboarded and then fed into one of Saddam's people-shredding machines than admit that al Qaeda could be in Iraq, because that would mean that the evil Bush wasn't lying.

    Since Google is off limits,

    Since Google is off limits, how about a link to kickstart our research project.

    Jer

    Oh, goody, a new troll to play with.

    And this one appears to right feisty, too.

    Did the British government collaborate with the terrorists? Should we invade the country harboring terrorists(?).

    If present trends continue unchanged in that unfortunate country, in a couple of decades, maybe even sooner, the British government is going to be the terrorists.

    John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.

    "Al Qaeda member(s) were in

    "Al Qaeda member(s) were in Iraq prior to our invasion...in the north.
    Much like Al Qaeda is in London...training in the woods. Did the
    British government collaborate with the terrorists? Should we invade
    the country harboring terrorists."

    The answer to your ridiculous question is found within it.

     

    Wasn't Al Qaeda in New York

    Wasn't Al Qaeda in New York City in 1993 when they tried to blow up the WTC? 

    Sheeesh!  Why can't the Left simply say they disagree with the current policy?  Why must they resort to lies and distortions for the purpose of character assassination? 

    Could it be because they have no legitimate argument?  I'd have to say so.

    mattm

    I noticed you didn't answer my question. could it be you don't know?  Should we invade a country that harbors terrorists whether they know it or not?

    I disagree that invading Iraq has helped us fight Muslim extremist...there...I said it without resorting to "lies and distortions for the purpose of character assassination."  Not that I did any of those things.

    here's the leftist argument...Al Qaeda delcared war and attacked us on 9/11 and before.  So let's kill Al Qaeda.  Clear enough for you?  Occupying a Muslim country creates more terrorists.  Hunt and Kill leaders of Al Qeada like we were trying to do in Afghanistan before we put 140K troops in Iraq and left 20K to actually kill they group that killed 3000 on 9/11.  Do you agree with current US Intel, including our Intelligence chief that Al Qaeda is gaining strength and operational capabilities, and guess what, not in Iraq but Afghanistan/Pakistan? 

    While you harangue the rhetoric of the MSM and Dems....let me be clear.  Our government took our eye of the ball!  You hear anything about retreat or surrender in any of the above?  No!

    You'd better ratchet back

    You'd better ratchet back your arrogance a bit there, pal. 

    I wasn't even responding to your post, or referring to it or commenting on it at all.  I was making an independent statement.  I never even read your post...and it's pretty damned arrogant of you to assume I had. (and stupid, too)

    My point has nothing to do with whether or not the policy is justified...you might try re-reading it without your self-focused blinders.  But, frankly I don't give a crap whether you do or not.

    Al Qaeda are not the only

    Al Qaeda are not the only terrorists who want to destroy our way of life; all terrorists share the same goal, and are our enemies.

    "Al Qaeda are not the only

    "Al Qaeda are not the only terrorists who want to destroy our way of
    life; all terrorists share the same goal, and are our enemies."

    Bingo. It's the war on terror, not the war on al qaeda. And saddam was associated with, and funded terrorism.

    What I do find interesting though, is why al qaeda would send members to die in a country that they supposedly weren't in beforehand, didn't like, had no relationship with, and that has nothing to do with the war on terror, or al qaeda. Just seems to me that if Iraq is so irrelevant to the war on terror, then al qaeda wouldn't invest and risk losing so much there. Seems to me they would do just the opposite and sit it out and do what they do best, which is plan and carry out devastating terrorist attacks around the world, especially in the US.

     

     

    I noticed you didn't

    I noticed you didn't answer my question. could it be you don't know? Should we invade a country that harbors terrorists whether they know it or not?

    Why should he respond to such a silly question? I mean, it's pretty inane isn't it? Even as a piece of rhetoric, it's not very good. Pedestrian, sophomoric, childish... things like that.

    By the way, when exactly did you stop beating your wife?

    Why don't you ask an intelligent question, maybe you'll get a response. Or maybe not, as it isn't actually anyone's job here to answer your questions.

    Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

    Ok JB

    Here's my question that all of us should try to answer without blinders.  Has our Iraq policy made Al Qaeda stronger or weaker? 

     

     

    Weaker.

    It remains to be

    It remains to be seen.

    Jer

    Seriously, Jer?

    "Remains to be seen?"

    Violence is down in Iraq by an order of about 70%.  Al-Q's last best hope was to win in Iraq.  And our fine military has kicked them to the curb, Al-Q can barely lick their wounds.  If we keep the pressure on, they are done, toast, stick a fork in 'em.

    It's VICTORY for us....or withdraw, per Obama and HRC.

    I, for one, am in no mood for losing.

    Care to rethink your position?

    We can win this, if we have a national spine. 

    Are you with Cindy, or are you with us on this? 

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    Blonde...no, my position is

    Blonde...no, my position is the same as it has been since 9/11 [and before]:  I want our government to pursue policies which are most likely to achieve victory over our enemies in the war on terror.

    I felt the invasion of Iraq was untimely and potentially counterproductive to our larger objectives.  But, I am heartened by our recent successes there, and if a stable, model Islamic democracy can be established in Iraq--which would serve as a positive, moderating, and even pro-American influence througjhout the Mideast, then Bush will deserve enormous credit. 

    My concern--which has been echoed by some Mideast scholars and statesman--has been the radicalization of young Arabs and Moslems [potential terrorists?] which our Iraqi policy, including military occupation, may have caused.  If true, it is a threat that could manifest itself for years to come.

    Not with Cindy now...nor have I ever been sympathetic with her views--just her loss.

    Jer

     

    Fair Enough, Jer,

    Your post, however, brings up subsidiary issues to the whole war in Iraq....which, actually, I've not seen discussed here, and really, I haven't really considered.

    In the larger picture, our occupation of Iraq, and the entire war there, has caused a shift in the relationships in the ME.  Specifically, we have always been allies w/the Saudis.

    But after 911 and it's aftermath (the war), they now understand that they cannot continue to fund madrassas, and "radicalized Islam".

    Turkey is concerned about a separate Kurdistan, and the Kurds are the key to normalizing Iraq.  More reasons for Turkey to strenghten their alliance with us....they need us more than they ever have (basing considerations included).

    The Iraqis are beginning to understand what freedom is truly all about.

    And Al-Q is beginning to understand what a democracy in a non-radical islamist state smack dab in the middle of Iranistan (yes, I said that on purpose) would mean....a true problem for radical Islam....the Imams.....and the further radicalization of all of the "Stans".

    I am beginning to believe that in the long view of a few decades, our policy in Iraq MAY be viewed as genius....if we can maintain our national spine.

    I am seeing the glass as being close to full, these days. 

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    I think the visual flaw is

    I think the visual flaw is seeing only a single glass.  The one you view as being "close to full" may be so only because the contents of another glass nearby were emptied into it.

    The Kurdish question is an excellent example of the precarious balancing act in which our Iraqi policy has forced us to engage.  A strengthened Turkish alliance will not sit well with Kurdish nationalists who will view it as an alignment by us with Turkish interests vis a vis the Kurds.  And a tilting in either direction can have serious destabiliziang effects on a fragile Iraqi democracy.

    Furthermore, what will be the impact of potential Iraqi democratization on regimes such as the Saudi ruling family?  Do they liberalize to satisfy those favoring modernization, and, if so, would it incense and incite the fundamentalists, unleashing new waves of Islamic militants? 

    Tough questions...which needed to be addressed, but I would have rather seen the complete liquidation of bin Laden and his Al-Quaeda cadre as a preliminary step.

    Jer

    PTW, the disposition of Al Qaeda is irrelevant.

    This war began twelve centuries before this country was even founded. It has waxed and waned ever since. Right now, it is waxing in a very big way. If Western (as in civilized) society doesn't wake up right soon, the Islamo-supremecists are going to ultimately prevail.

    Whether or not Al Qaeda exists is immaterial to the outcome, as they are but one element within a far larger entity.

    Victory over Al Qaeda is essentially meaningless in the overall "big picture."

    John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.

    Weaker.  A conclusion one

    Weaker.  A conclusion one reaches by paying attention.

    Huh?!?

    "Should we invade a country that harbors terrorists whether they know it or not?"

    Huh?!?

    har·bor  -  to give shelter to; offer refuge to; to conceal; hide.

    Based on the definition of harbor, how in the world could a country harbor (i.e. - give shelter or refuge, conceal or hide) terrorists and not know?  If the country didn't know they were terrorists then what would be the point of harboring (give shelter or refuge, conceal or hide) them?

    Must be happy hour in the twilight zone....

       

    Oh great

    Now you notice nuances!  I liked you guys better when it was "with us or against us and we were cheese eating surrender monkeys."  At least that was logical and funny.  Is Pakistan giving shelter or refuge, concealing or hiding Al Qaeda? 

     

    Seems to me al-qaeda had a

    Seems to me al-qaeda had a pretty good stronghold in South Florida for a time there.

    I suspect Obama is a fool and/or a liar to spout off that al-qaeda was not in Iraq before we got there. I am also fairly certain that the type of people that will vote for Obama believe that load of crap. The rest of us sane Americans however, do not. If al-qaeda had a stronghold in Obamas fathers country, we'd be there as well. Regardless, if Obama would prefer that we fight them in say, Illinois, I'm all for it. As long as we are killing al-qaeda I do not care where we are doing it. But the fact is, we ARE killing al-qaeda, killing them by the bushel. I am glad we are doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan. Before long we'll take the starch right out of them, and make them tired of getting killed, hopefully before folks like Obama completely lose what little spine they have left.

    NBC, All the News that's Fit to Quip

    In a related development:

    NBC Nightly News will soon air a segment raising concerns about President Roosevelt and his actions towards Japan prior to WWII. This segment will show that Roosevelt had passed up several opportunities to use America’s air and naval power to launch limited, surgical attacks on the Japanese military regiments stationed in China and the Far East in 1937. Despite having the option of the selective use of military force, the administration decided to forgo the use of limited strikes as it would have interfered with Roosevelt's embargo of American oil and steel exports to Japan.

    A former Pentagon official is quoted as saying; "President Roosevelt KNEW that the regiments were vulnerable to selective air attacks and that such a limited response could have prevented the Japanese from expanding their empire. Had the President followed our recommendations, Pearl Harbor could have been prevented.” The retired official claims to have documentary proof that the Secretary of Defense was aware of President Roosevelt’s eagerness to invade Japan and that the President vetoed any suggestions of limited, surgical strikes against Japanese regiments in the Far East.

    (on edit: exports, not imports)

    Ridiculous

    Folks, there is such a thing as being overly pedantic.

    Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist as a sustained presence untill after the invasion -- not to mention it is almost totally made up of "Iraqi" Sunnis, and exists as a function of the civil war.

     

    You also don't seem understand how this goup of people were able to develop a base there in Iraq in 2002.

    Northern Iraq was under a no-fly zone which hampered Saddam Hussein's ability to control that area.

    The Kurds benefitted from the no-fly zone but were not able to secure the area to the extent they have now.

    So there was some no-mans land in that area.

     

    Thank you ever so much

    For enlightening me about a two-year old's view of the world.  It all makes sense now. 

    Voting for Obama, are you?

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    out of Iraq

    invade Pakistan

    No Poofdas

    Wow

    Wow, I can't compete with that -- whatever it means.

    sorry

    must have lost ya at enlightening.

    Blonde, no more than two syllables when talking to the yutes.

    No Poofdas

    Thanks, Brucie

    I need a blonde translator when communicating with the newbies here, apparently.

    Like, um...wow, dude, thank you for expanding my mind, I would never have guessed it if you, the new, wonderful, insightful dude hadn't shown up here to ENLIGHTEN me about the REAL worldview, buddy.

    Ooops, sorry, Bruce...I'm having a hard time with that two syllable thingy tonite.  Must have been all of that work I did this week, or somesuch. 

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    quite alright Blonde

    time for sleep for me, adieu mon amie

    No Poofdas

    Bon soir, B.

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    6 months

    From what I can gather, people here think the "surge" means the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are going to hold hands and sing Kumbayah together.  And that somehow a civil war between these three groups, which is neceasssary for a stable government to form, is a "victory" for Al Qaeda and a "defeat" for us.

    It that makes me a 2-year old, you people aren't passed the 6-month mark.

    strawman

    and a poor one at that.

    btw it's: 'you people aren't past' -- passed would be gas.

    No Poofdas

    ?

    Is that as bad as using that well-known english expression "thingy?"

    No, newbie

    That's a well-known term here.

    But I am not here to give you an education.

    Too bad, so sad, you look like an idiot (again).

    Read and learn, KosBot. 

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    Sorry, BlakeR

    You presume.

    Better go back to KOS and review the talking points.  You're not doing too well, here.

    I'd be happy to demonstrate the "Surge" right here, right now.  On your sorry liberal trolling.

    Wanna play?

    Keep it up. 

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    Anti neocon is not liberal

    Not a single thing I have written here is remotely liberal.

    But since the Republican Party seems to have lost its collective mind, why should I be surprised that it would be called such.

    Not remotely liberal?

    Shirley, you jest.

    Civil war?  No A-Q in Iraq?

    Is your name Cindy Sheehan, perchance?

    Oh, and BTW...your idiotic question about the Republican party kinda, just sorta, seals the deal here, Sparky. 

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    Better go back to KOS and

    Better go back to KOS and review the talking points.  You're not doing too well, here.

    Bah-zing!!

     

    Hey Pesky!

    Long time no see.

    Care to join me in playing with the newest Kosbot? 

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    Hey, Blonde.  I had to

    Hey, Blonde.  I had to stay on post this weekend.  Stayed up late to research some articles for my thesis. 

    I should get some sleep, but I'm curious to see what else he has to say.  On the other hand, to paraphrase HAL 9000, I calculate a 65% probability that BlakeR is Blarsen coming back for another thrashing.  LOL.

    Like I said, PD

    Wanna play? 

    I see another post...attempting pseudo-intellectualism.

    Blarsen....sheesh, I haven't heard that one in eons!

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    Simmilar approach -

    Simmilar approach - condecending, intellectual pretentions... may not be him, but the signs point to a meltdown in about a dozen more posts... name calling... words like "Haliburton" coming...

    Would love to stick around to see it, but I have to get up early... [sigh]. 

    Later, PD

    We'll have to do the crashing plane thing(y) again one of these days....although BlarsenLite seems to be managing it quite well on his own. 

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    Seriously.

    Seriously.

    "Governments that lack

    "Governments that lack political consolidaton do not function, and do not form functioning police forces or armies.  Almost without exception the political consolidation for functioning governments is is achieved through civil war."  William F. Buckley.

    Let's just put it this way, I'll stick with George Will,  William F. Buckley Jr., Ronald Reagan, and the real Conservatives who built the Republican Party.

    You people stick with.....whatever it is your sticking with.

     

    I can assure you that Al Qaeda is quite comfortable with the current non-funtioning national unity government being propped-up indefinitely.

    Dude - you seem to be

    Dude - you seem to be putting together some pretty incongruous thoughts.

    ?

    That is because you are not a Conservative.

    You reveal yourself through

    You reveal yourself through you condecension.

    Huh?

    Wait a second, you read the comments here, and then claim I'm the one being condescending?  Priceless.

    Priceless

    How typical.

    Since you lefties always require someone else to pay....priceless doesn't mean a thing to you. 

    More empty words, from you.

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    Ah, KosBot Dodge #2

    Not an original thought.

    And cherry-picking quotes from recent conservative blogs.

    BlakeR....that is horribly unoriginal.  Pathetic, in fact.

    Final stake through your heart, dude...."you people".....I fire people for that! 

    I'm voting you off the island.  Better luck next time.

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    Do you agree with the quote

    Do you agree with the quote or not?  I do.

    If you're claiming that makes a Conservative a liberal, then I guess I'm a liberal.

    You claim to be conservative?

    You people stick with.....whatever it is your sticking with.

    That quote?  Your quote?

    Yeah, I agree with myself...go figure. 

    So, little "conservative"....do tell, what is a neo-con?  Since you have so LIBERALLY sprinkled the word around here tonite?  Hmmmmm?

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    Now Blonde, if Ashley

    Now Blonde, if Ashley Simpson can claim to be a singer...

    al-Qaeda in Iraq...

    BlakeR, you are either profoundly ignorant, or you are a liar.


    Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist as a sustained presence until after the invasion
    .

    That statement is demonstrably false, and you know it.

    And if you would pull your ignorant head out of your a$$ for more than three seconds, you would also know that Al Qaeda is only one small element in what Western society is now up against, which is the same thing that civilized society as a whole has been up against for fourteen centuries.

    John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.

    Oh Brother

    Thanks for the gibberish. 

    One of Osama Bin Laden's life-long goals was to overthrow Saddam Hussein.  Now I know that there is a saying over there that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but that doesn't quite apply to people who are trying to overthrow you.

    To the extent there were training camps in Iraq, they settled there after the no-fly zones were put up which impeded Saddam Hussein's ability to control those areas.

    I don't have a real problem with getting rid of the guy for other reasons.  But the only feasible plan I saw was making somebody else the head of the Baath Party.  That way you have a new ruler without a break-up of the country.

    Osama Bin Laden's life-long

    Osama Bin Laden's life-long goals was to overthrow Saddam...

    Life long goal?  Dude, that's a heavy presumption.  You have something he or someone with some analytical gravitas wrote that can definatively support this? 

    But the only feasible plan I saw...

    And you were involved in those policy meetings?  Another revealing line.  Delusions of grandeur.  Most of us around here can admit that were just a bunch of Monday morning QBs.  But you?  You actually saw a feasible plan.  This is getting amusing.  Maybe I will stick around.  

    ?

    Well I'm hardly claiming that I came up with it.

    It's the only thing I ever saw that made any sense.

    Don't tell me you still think the current plan was any good.

    To claim that you did not know that osama bin laden wanted to overthrow saddam hussein is a little hard for me to swallow. 

     

     

    Blake

    Don't tell me you still

    Don't tell me you still think the current plan was any good.

    Let's see... cleaning out the swamps where this particular brand of fascism metastasis and gets its funding?  Yeah, actually I happen to think that's a very good plan.

    To claim that you did not know that osama bin laden wanted to overthrow saddam hussein is a little hard for me to swallow.

    This is supposition.  Document, please.  Osama being a takfiri and Saddam being a secularist is not proof.  OBL was and is pretty prolific.  Give me something he wrote or put on a video tape.

     

    ?

    Iraq is worse now than it was before the invasion, and will continue to be until the resolution of civil war. 

    As for Osama Bin Laden waning to overthrow saddam hussein, it just not dispute.  You can go to CATO here

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3017

    along with just about any other source on the planet.

    Blake, I'm going to pay you

    Blake, I'm going to pay you a compliment here.  That was good a good effort.  Now with all due resepect to Mr. Healy, he fails to give a first hand reference to his assertions.  I must ask again, in what venue did OBL publish his intentions to overthrow the Baathist Party? 

    Iraq is worse now... This

    Iraq is worse now...

    This is like saying that the crime rate in China is lower the U.S. while ignoring that preponderance of crimes committed by those wearing the uniform of the "people's republic."

    The point is, the forces of the United States has kept her enemies at arm's length while atritting them down to an unsustainable level.  The enemies of the United States have come from all over the world to throw themselves onto the bayonnets of our forces in Iraq.  Here's hopping they continue to do so. 

     

    It's the only thing I ever

    It's the only thing I ever saw that made any sense.

    This must have been one of those nights you were pouring over the satellite imagery and intel reports in the Whitehouse sit room.

    Bin Ladens life long goal.

    Yeah, lots about Iraq and

    Yeah, lots about Iraq and the crusaders.  Not to much about how much he hated Saddam's or his regime.

    BlakeR

    Who, exactly, is trying to overthrow me?

    Unless it's my cat, I'm not too worried.

    I'll give you a small time out to check back in with Kos.  You haven't called me a neo-con yet.  You need the refresher course. 

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    ?

    Are you interested in kicking the neocons out of the Republican Party?

    Are you interested in

    Are you interested in kicking the seditionists out of the democrat party?

    Kicking "neocons" out of the party?

    Hardly....but I'd like to continue kicking your trolling arse.

    Are you really so foolish that you believe "neo-con" is perjorative?

    Seriously, dude, go back to KOS for your third sip at the talking points.  You are flailing.

    We need a better class of troll, here.

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    ?

    I know of no Conservative worth his salt who believes the neocon takeover of the Republican Party has been beneficial.

     

    ? ?? ???

    And your point would be?

    As a conservative, I find your continual references to "neocon" to be humorous. 

    Do you even know what it means?

    Five minutes to google, dude. 

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    Blonde,

    LOL-Only five minutes? Give the guy at least a fighting chance, will ya?

    John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.

    Gee RD,

    Maybe I should have been a little more, um, liberal in my timeframe for the KosBot to look up the meaning of the word that he throws around so often....perhaps five hours.

    I'll check back tomorrow.

    Good night.

    It was fun playing. 

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    BlakeR, you pusilanimous troll.

    I have a rather extensive library that covers history, both military and otherwise, all the way back to a time prior to the invention of the written word.

    I read books such as William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Shelby Foote's 3000+ pg Narrative of the Civil War, Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, etc., etc., etc., just for mere enjoyment.

    Do you wish to fornicate with me further?

    Having read the bulk of your comments here, you appear to be of the belief that the mere defeat of Osama's dog-washers will signal the end of the GWOT. You are rather incorrect in this belief.

    If you want to pin the blame for Osama on a US president, at least pin it on the one responsible for the resurgence of a 14 century-long conflict, James Earl Carter.

    John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.

    ?

    Having read the bulk of your comments here, you appear to be of the belief that the mere defeat of Osama's dog-washers will signal the end of the GWOT. You are rather incorrect in this belief.

    You mean my comments about agreeing with George Will, William F. Buckley, and Ronald Reagan?

    Try again

    Three disparate comments, from conservatives, do not your point make.

    But keep trying.  It's kinda cute. 

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    Okay

    Okay, here's one more:

    neoconservatives alarm almost everyone who isn't one--and especially dismay real conservatives.

    a stunningly anticonservative idea is animating the administration’s policy. The idea, a tenet of neoconservatism, is that all nations are more or less ready for democracy. So nation-building should be a piece of cake—never mind the winding, arduous, uphill hike the West took from Runnymede and Magna Charta in 1215 to Philadelphia in 1787. …

    George Will

    I agree with this quote as well.

    By the way, I have yet to hear ANYONE at this site agree with the quotes by these Conservatives which I have posted.

    Keep on quoting, Buckwheat

    But your five minutes are up...you haven't defined what you THINK a neocon is.

    You lose, Buckwheat.

    And guess what....you're going to have to search for the meaning of that.

    But, trust me when I tell you, it makes you look like a true and total fool.

    Night O'.

    Thanks for playing. 

    P.S.  Responding with a "?" is a totally juvenile thing to do....the only thing you could possibly manage that would be even more gauche would be to reply with "Response".

    Better luck next time.

    P.P.S.  Don't hold your breath about us responding to quotes....if that's all you have....forget it.  You have to make your own points here. 

    A free tip for you.

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    Okay

    Okay, here's one more:

    neoconservatives alarm almost everyone who isn't one--and especially dismay real conservatives.

    a stunningly anticonservative idea is animating the administration’s policy. The idea, a tenet of neoconservatism, is that all nations are more or less ready for democracy. So nation-building should be a piece of cake—never mind the winding, arduous, uphill hike the West took from Runnymede and Magna Charta in 1215 to Philadelphia in 1787. …

    George Will

    I agree with this quote as well.

    By the way, I have yet to hear ANYONE at this site agree with the quotes by these Conservatives which I have posted.

    ...I have yet to hear

    ...I have yet to hear ANYONE at this site agree with the quotes by these Conservatives which I have posted.

    That's because it like listening to Bill Clinton quote scripture.  Sort of makes you want to take a shower.

    ?

    Well if Bill Clinton did quote scripture and asked if you agreed with the scripture, I assume your answer would be yes.

    So let me ask you, do you agree with George Will's comments about neocons?

    Do you believe with this

    Do you agree with this quote? 

    "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -  Bill Clinton

    ?

    Yes. I agree with that comment.

    Now how about an answer to my question on George Will.  Conservatives agree with both of those comments.

    No,

    Your using the link to the (libertarian) Cato Institute, among other things.

    While I am a card-carrying, dues paying member of the Libertarian Party, they are of the belief, as are too many other libertarians, that Osama's organization is the only bad guys we face in this world. The libertarians have become essentially isolationists. How sad.

    While I respect them generally, they are wrong in the assumption that Osama was seeking the overthrow of Sadam. Osama's problem was with the Saudis, not Sadam. Sadam was a huge benefactor for Osama, as well as for the bulk of the Islamo-supremecist terrorists in this world. He, like Osama and the rest of their ilk, had only one goal: The utter destruction of the nation of Israel, along with the extermination of not just the Jewish race, but of all infidels.

    We did not invade Iraq for any reason other than to remove Sadam from power. Had he abided by the UN resolutions, we would not be there now.

    John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.

    ?

    Well I did use that link, but its hardly the only one.  This just is not in dispute.

    You can go here:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

    or here

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401545.html

    or thousands of other places.

     

    But maybe you can help me out a little with your last sentence.

    "We did not invade Iraq for any reason other than to remove Sadam from power. Had he abided by the UN resolutions, we would not be there now. "

    But Saddam Hussein has been removed. What is the reason for the continued U.S. presence? (at least in its current configuration)

    If there is to be stability there, a politically consolidated government or governments must form that form functioning armies and police forces.

    Either the three main groups or even more subgroups will set up their own politically consolidated governments or one group will be able to rule over the others and set up its own politically consolidated government.

    Even when Saddam Hussein ruled, his real army, the republican guard, was Sunni. Shiites and Kurds were used as the fodder.

    A government without political consolidation, such as the so-called national unity government cannot form a functioning army or police force. Training and arms of such forces has no value if those forces are not loyal. In fact, the training and weapons enable the militias, who the troops are actually loyal to, to engage in a bloodier war than they would otherwise fight.

    BlakeR,

    Bugging out just because Saddam was out of the picture would have been irresponsible in the extreme. We have to stick around and clean up the mess.

    I agree with you that Iraq may very well break up into three separate factions, as that has historically been the condition there for eons. However, if the government is stable, it will make that split far more peacefully than if anarchy is reigning throughout the country. Our presence there will aid in that effort. Our absence will result in chaos.

    Saddam was able to hold the three factions together, but it was through sheer terror that he was able to do that. It would be nice if they could part amicably, and perhaps stabilize into something less volatile.
    There needs to be at least one more stable democracy in the region other than just Israel, as most Arabs in the region live under what are essentially dictatorships, most all of which are rather harsh.

    Our efforts there could very well fail in the end, but at least we made the effort. In the event that it does fail, we will then know that our tactics must change.

    John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.

    R.D.

    "However, if the government is stable, it will make that split far more peacefully than if anarchy is reigning throughout the country. Our presence there will aid in that effort. Our absence will result in chaos."

    I appreciate your desire.  And even with all the smack I've taken here, I know that the reason people at this site want to do what you suggest is because they, like all Americans are extremely compassionate.  But these well-intentioned efforts are causing and going to cause more deaths.

    The unity government is not stable and it is not going to be stable.  Iraq is currently a failed state.  And it will remain a failed state until a functioning government(s) forms.  The longer it remains a failed state is just fine with Al Aqaeda.  And the delay in the civil war makes it bloodier.

    Political consolidation is achieved almost without exception through civil wars. Is that not the American experience? And the English experiences with their Welsh, Scottish, and Irish clans? In Iraq, even Saddam never succeeded in breaking the clan structure, only in buying them off from time to time. The Ottomans never tried.

    Finally, I'm getting sick of people, including our own commander-in-chief, claiming that a civil war is a "defeat" for us and a "victory" for Al Qaeda when it is nothing of the sort.

    I think certain politicians just don't want to face up to the bloodshed or the types of governments that are going to form there.  They're not going to be constituional democracies.

    BlakeR,

    Look, I have many of the same concerns you have. I never said you were an idiot.

    It would be better if perhaps you didn't swerve in here screaming "neocon" and accusing us all of being 2nd graders, as many here will not take kindly to that sort of thing.

    The reason you got tagged as a Kos-kook is the fact that you started spewing neocon all over the place. Most here find that term insulting for a myriad of reasons.

    You have to realize that the overwhelming majority of people you will encounter here at NB are of well above average intelligence. There are all kinds of people here, including scientists, attorneys, doctors, engineers, all kinds of other professionals, and military people, both retired and many who are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of whom are involved in military intelligence. We don't appreciate being talked down to.

    We do not always agree on everything, but we do not resort to name calling and insults.

    If you are seeking intelligent discourse, then post intelligently. If you start getting an elevated schnoz, somebody is going to come along and cut it off.

    Trust me, you got off easy tonight. :-)

    John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.

    BlakeR, what gives you away is the repeated use of

    BlakeR, what gives you away is the repeated use of the term neo-conservative.

    I can assure you that neos make up about 2% of the members here. All of the people you are currently encountering are not neo anything, but real, no-sh*t conservatives.

    John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.

    You notice, RD

    That I've asked the KosBot at least four times to define it....but apparently it's not in the KOS dictionary...I've yet to receive an answer.

    So, keep an eye out...and see what happens, I must sign out momentarily...now that I have my little, um, plumbing problem (mom in the guest bath) solved....Yikes...at 2:00 a.m.

    Nite. 

    David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

     

    'night, Blonde.

    At least your plumbing problem wasn't as bad as mine.

    John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.

    ?

    Well in the area of foreign affairs,

    Neocons believe that America can export democracy through the use of our military and the holding of elections.

    Societal development, political consolidation, and the history of the area are irrelevant.

    They believe these elections, as opposed to the development of property rights and market reforms, will reduce extremism.

    They make NO distinction between authoritarian democracies and constitutional democracies as a result.

    ?

    Well I guess you can call yourself anything you like.  But the arguments I am encountering on this topic are not shared by Conservatives.

    A constitutional democracy involving Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds?

    Three groups of people with NO history of property rights, free markets or checks and balances?  It's the silliest thing I've ever heard of.

     

    ?

    Well I guess you can call yourself anything you like.  But the arguments I am encountering on this topic are not shared by Conservatives.

    A constitutional democracy involving Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds?

    Three groups of people with NO history of property rights, free markets or checks and balances?  It's the silliest thing I've ever heard of.