Captain's Quarters -

The AP is merely advancing the DNC narrative: "Al Qaeda was not a threat until GW Bush invaded Iraq, now it's a threat."

First they demolished our schools and dumbed down an entire generation of kids. Now they invent reality and no one is the wiser.

And I thought the Fort Dix Six arrests were supposed to keep us lemmings in fear and distract us from the worst economy since Herbert Hoover. Please please lead me oh sage media, for I know not where to turn.

Re: Angry Dumbo at July 14, 2007 7:50 AM

Angry Dumbo wrote: "And I thought the Fort Dix Six arrests were supposed to keep us lemmings in fear and distract us from the worst economy since Herbert Hoover."

What happened? Did your rent go up? I can see how you'd long for the good old days: Flophouse on lower Douglas Street, Omaha, Nebraska, November 1938
http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/fsa/8a03000/8a03900/8a03950r.jpg

You know how the truthers always think terror alerts are meant to distract?

Well, Angry Dumbo causes me to wonder if this terror alert is a DNC distraction away from the historic stock market surge last week, an event that was mysteriously blacked out by libstream media.

Bastards!

OK - a couple of questions.

1. If Al Qaeda attacks this summer, is it still Clinton's fault? (After all Cliinton did get a BJ in the oval office.) Or, Kennedy's? (He got one, too.) Or, LBJ's? Or, Carter's? Or, Truman's? Or, FDR's?

2. If no attack occurs, is it proof our Al Qaeda strategy surge in Iraq is . . . . working
. . . . . and needs additional troops to complete the mission?

3. If an attack occurs, is it proof our Al Qaeda strategy surge in Iraq is . . . . not working
. . . . . and needs additional troops to complete the mission?

RE: Continuum (July 14, 2007 8:56 AM)

OK - a couple of questions.

Hmm. I see math isn't your strong point. ;)

To 1a-1f: Actually, I think it's still Al Qaeda's fault.

To 2: Not necessarily.

To 3: Not necessarily.

I hope that clears things up.

What I don't understand is that we know where these fucks are. We had them surrounded. But for the past couple years, they've been working freely in Pakistan and able to build their strength back up to the point of reportedly trainging recruits and send them off the US and other western nations.

WTF?

This is their command center. OBL and that other dickhead are there. We know where they are. I know it's in the mountains where the Russionas got their ass kicked. I know it would be a very hard battle for us... but this is a fight Americans are willing to fight. this is why people signed up after Sept. 11.

I know there's political implications. We don't want to lose Musharef and have his nukes up for grabs, but can't we figure out a way to get in there? Really take the battle to them?

Can we really believe anything our intelligence guys say? I mean, they're all pretty much like Joe Wilson and Val Plame, right?

AnonymousDrivel

Try Google - use search term "DEFINE COUPLE"

Definitions of couple on the Web:

a small indefinite number; "he's coming for a couple of days"

If we are attacked or if we're not attacked I'm sure the dems will continue with their have it both ways arguments which they've engaged in the whole time.

If we are attacked "We told you al qaeda was a threat, the biggest threat. Just ask Richard Clarke. THe Bush admin was incompetent or worse, knew about the attack becuase he wanted to galvanize the public around the war or justify starting a new war. ABC said jihadists were determined to attack all along and we have been saying so. Bush just hasn't listened."
Or if we're not attacked "Bush is hyping the threat. Bush has OBL and is waiting to spring it on the eve of the election. There is no terrorist threat. Every time the threat level is raised its just to provoke fear and is one step closer to a nazi state".

Tom Shipley wrote:
This is their command center. OBL and that other dickhead are there. We know where they are. I know it's in the mountains where the Russionas got their ass kicked. I know it would be a very hard battle for us... but this is a fight Americans are willing to fight. this is why people signed up after Sept. 11.

I know there's political implications. We don't want to lose Musharef and have his nukes up for grabs, but can't we figure out a way to get in there? Really take the battle to them?
But what about the QUAGMIRE, Tom? Don't forget about the QUAGMIRE. You suggest that we know where they are because we think they're somewhere in the Pakistani region where the Russians got there ass kicked. That is a very big inhospitable region with tons of caves and mountains and hostile areas, and there's a reason that the Russians got there ass kicked there, and there's a reason the Pakistanis aren't sending their troops in there either.
IF we sent in our troops it would obviously be a QUAGMIRE. And you're asking why we're not sending troops into the meat grinder after the sh*t your side has pulled about us being in Iraq and the QUAGMIRE there. Your side coudn't be trust to not stab Bush in the back if things didn't go according to the Tom Shipley timetable. i.e. after a month we haven't caught OBL and start losing troops and spend a lot of money having troops in the area, we'd then get the NYT leaking stuff, we'd have the dems and libs saying that the army and Bush are incompetent or worse, that we're only there becuase of the UNOCOL pipeline. Don't think we forgot that smear from Michael Moore. Would we be warmongers,and would anyone not signing up be a chicken hawk? Would it all be about blood for oil.
The fact of the matter is your side has been engaging in blood libel against the neocons for so long (smears as outrageous as the Jews are using Palestinians blood to make matzoh) we're now supposed to trust you that you'd be on the side of winning the war, the same war that your side said Bush has been hyping all along?

Sorry, not buying it. And if you suggested that to the dems were they to win in 2008 they similarly will not go into Pakistan and risk QUAGMIRE and falling poll numbers and their antiwar base starting to use the blood libel against them. or run the risk that the public will grow tired or bored of the effort and start saying they're incompetent or worse.

Are you suggesting that we should redeploy all the troops who heretofore have caused so much money that could have been spent on schools in a war that's lasted longer than Vietnam, and which is stretched too thin according to your side, and then suggest that they should be sent to a region that kicked the Russian's ass because its such rough terrain, and deploy them for that much longer till the get OBL. What if it takes a few more years? What then?

We don't believe you, because every argument you and your side have used to defame Iraq would and could be used to defame sending troops in anywhere. Wars are automatically quagmires that take a long time by their very nature, why would deploying our troops anywhere else in the Middle East be any different. And the dems and libs don't have the track record nor the will to actually fight this if it takes longer than a week and costs more than a few soldiers life. You only want to wage wars that are on the cheap, don't require a bit of effort on our part, and finding the needle in the haystack will not be easy. Therefore, your side wont do it.
So dont bull sh*t us that you're suddenly behind THAT effort Tom.

Well, believe what you want, JR, but I would be behind that. These are the guys who attacked us on Sept. 11. These are the guys who declared war on us.

I want us to draw down our presence in Iraq because I don't think that country will come together with a large American force in the country.

I would be behind a fight to the end if it meant going after AQ in their nest.

Well, believe what you want, JR, but I would be behind that. These are the guys who attacked us on Sept. 11. These are the guys who declared war on us.

I want us to draw down our presence in Iraq because I don't think that country will come together with a large American force in the country.

I would be behind a fight to the end if it meant going after AQ in their nest.
And yet, a large presence in any other middle east country would not produce the quagmire that is in Iraq. It wouldn't require spending huge amounts of resources, it woudn't require us having our troops on the ground getting killed in a quagmire that was difficult for the russians to overcome, that we would have to spend years there, maybe even as much time as we did in Iraq or longer, that all the while terrorists would be using the fact that we were in afghanistan to galvanize support, that we would undermine Pakistan and potentially cause it to fall, and thus have the fundies there waging war against us. Are you kidding me? And you think the democrats would support this? Murtha wouldn't be demanding redeployment to Okinawa? CNN wouldn't be showing the nightly death counts and saying we still havne't caught OBL? The anti war crowd woudn't similarly be spreading the libel about the warmongers trying to steal resources and wage war against yet another country (Pakistan) that didn't attack us and isn't a threat.

It's not that I don't think we shouldn't do something, if we can,to get OBL in that region. I just don't trust you dems, who demagogued the last war to actually continue to support the effort if it gets the least bit tough. After leaking plans, saying Bush is the greatest terrorist, that all neocons are akin to Nazis, sorry Tom but screw off.

You're not trustworthy, your side are demagogues to get yourselves in power. Your side says there is no threat, that we're all warmongers and only in the war for profit, that the neocons are all liars, that every threat is hyped and that Bush was actually holding OBL for electoral purposes. And some go so far as to say that 911 was known before hand and even planned by Bush McHaliburton to start wars for Cheney's stock portfolio.
After listening the utter crap and demagoguery and conspiracy and villification spewed by your side, you now expect us to believe that the left and dems could be relied on ot wage an extended war against Al Qaeda and perhaps Pakistan and endure the QUAGMIRE after the crap your side has pulled.

Please don't insult our intelligence.

JR,

I can only speak for myself. You can lump me with whatever group you want in order to make banal attacks on the left, but that's rather pointless.

Personally, I would be behind going after the base of AQ, it's leadership in Pakistan because

A) They attacked us.

B) They continue to call on it's followers to attack us. They continue to plot to attack us.

We have every right to go after them.

I was not in favor of invading Iraq. I don't think we had the right. And I think that's why we need to get a large presence out of there so Iraqis can start to own the country.

And you think the democrats would support this?

Yes, I do. Mainly for the reasons I stated above. If we drew up plans to bomb the shit out of whereever the hell they are holed up, then send in our troops to smoke them out, I would be behind and I think democrats would be too.

Myself and democrats are willing to send our troops off to fight if the mission is right.

Now that we have been warned three times I guess it is time to seek safe harbor. I suggest if you live in the Washington DC area to seek shelter in the Senate and House chambers. In New York City, the NY Times building. al Qaeda will not attack their closest allies.

Tom,
It's too bad then that the dems and the left have villified the Iraq war with all the points they did, and villified the war against terror the way they did, and its too bad that the democrats are not actually offering the invasion of Pakistan as part of their platform, what with all their talk of quagmire and defeat.
The war is a quagmire. The war has lasted longer than vietnam and cost more, and our boys are a target and democracy will never work, might as well withdraw and let the genocide ensue. What's different about going into Pakistan? Would the dems sign on for a draft and send in hundreds of thousands of troops into the region that is obviously a quagmire. By the way, the tribal leaders didn't attack us. Neither did Pakistan.

You make the point I know there's political implications. We don't want to lose Musharef and have his nukes up for grabs, but can't we figure out a way to get in there?. Are you willing to forgo those political implications and potentially destablize Pakistan to achieve those results. Er, isn't Musharaf, also fighting against extremists? If he falls and we, the great imperial power is stuck in the middle of the Afghanistan mountains, do you think the extremists would attack us there or not? If we caused Pakistan to collapse would that increase or decrease threat of radicalism against us?
THe point being, you're talking a big game now, but your side, left dem whatever, has been spending the better part of the last 6 years or so not supporting a fight against al Qaeda, but in fact suggesting that there is no threat at all, or that its not solved by waging war, but is a police action, that wars are quagmires and we can't afford them, that we're targets.
There is no democrat on any platform saying we should withdraw from Iraq and move into the mountains of Pakistan/Afghanistan because it's inconsistent with their mantra of Bush being the real enemy, bush hyping the threat, the US being an imperial power who attacks countries that dont pose a threat that we're overextended. ANd then you're going to suggest that thedems and the left are going to have the constitution to escalate the war on terror? Oh sorry, can't say that anymore, terror is a tactic. You yokels can't even acknowledge that there is a war on terror. And as for me lumping you in with the left, sorry but if the cap fits....
You might be well advised to tell your allies, if you don't want to be lumped in with the lefties, to get their heads out of their asses and stop pretending that Bush is the second coming of Hitler and recognize that Bush however flawed is dealing with real threats and is not hyping any threat, and that us neocons are not for a war in Iraq or afghanistan or even Pakistan because we're trying to up our Haliburton stock.

WIth friends like you Tom we don't need enemies. Great you're on board to get involved in another quagmire. Suddenly you're the second coming of Jack Kennedy or Scoop Jackson or even Joe Lieberman, who last i heard had to give up being a democrat because of his support for the war in Iraq. Why don't you,instead of trolling conservative sites troll the democratic underground and let them know that there is a real threat, that Bush isn't Hitler and that they should stop with the quagmire rhetoric because Tom plans on sending our boys to Pakistan instead of Iraq.And it will be a quagmire there, and it will take time and effort, and we will make countless errors, and our boys will be a target, but none of that should have any political impact because after all Tom Shipley is on board and this is a fight that he can support.
Something tells me we're not going to get a bunch of dems or libs suddenly signing up to join the army. And if not, then you Tom Shipley are simply advocating a war mongering position, and would be a chicken hawk if you didn't suddenly enlist.

Lets have one democrat say "I want to strategically withdraw from Iraq so that we can ESCALATE the war in Pakistan (who didn't attack us)" and see how far they get with their base.
Your support for such an action is meaningless, because we all know as soon as the shots start firing and people start dying, that the dems are going to run for cover and demand another strategic redeployment.
They can't even have a debate on Fox news they're so gutless, they are demanding that we say in no uncertain terms that we're not going to war with Iran, and undermining any diplomacy there that's the least bit tough, but they somehow are gcing to commit to a known quagmire in an inhospitable region in Pakistan for who knows how long until they get the bad guys.

Also, I bet when they take office they're going to make sure to check 100% of all cargo coming in and out of the country, while at the same time poopooing all threats as simply Bush's boogey man.'

Sorry Tom, but I don't believe you're sincere. And I don't believe it because I've been following the debate put out by your side since this whole thing started. And your heads not in the game. Because Bush is the threat. He's just too much of a nazi for your side to get over your fearmongering of the evil neocon threat. Yeah, we want to look at your library book records because we're just so evil. Patriot act - must undermine, Secret prisons - must undermine, terrorist threat warnings - must undermine and minimize, secret programs to monitor terrorists - must undermine. etc etc etc.
Sorry if I don't want you to have our back tom. Afraid you'll stick the knife in it.

JR, I find it just a tad ironic that you accusse me of thinking Bush is more a threat than AQ while you've spent three long posts pretty much showing that you feel democracts are, to borrow your phrasing, the real threat.

I'm sorry your undies are in a bunch, but I won't talk with someone who ignores what I say and goes on to tell me how I really feel.

Have a good one.

and tom also wrote:
Myself and democrats are willing to send our troops off to fight if the mission is right.
Right, just like both Clinton and Edwards and a majority of democrats in the sentate signed off on giving Bush authorization to wage war against Iraq. Just like Clinton, when he was in office was willing to sign off on the Iraq Liberation Act which called for regime change and a push for democracy long before Bush ever took office, using the exact same rationale that Bush used 4 years later.
The dems are willing to send troops off to fight if the mission is right. They're just very fond of the do over. They're just very fond of pretending that they don't say what they said, and if they did say what they said they were tricked into saying it. They're very fond of the I was for it before I was against it brand of decision making. All that nuanced crap which means essentially, don't expect us to stand behind our convictions and stated policies.

And the same is true for their support on the war on terror Tom which you say you'd support, which is why I call bullshit on your claim that you and your buds would be behind this war that you're now advocating. Yeah, until the polls turned against you, because it lasted longer than a week and we started suffering casualties and still hadn't found Osama.

The dems and libs are very fond of arguing both points at once while not adhering to either position. Which is why they trot out Richard Clarke to say that Bush ignored the real threat of al qaeda, but then turn around and say that Bush is hyping the threat every time there's a potential threat that appears on the news. And as mentioned had no problem suggesting Bush would hold OBL until the elections because that's how evil a guy BUsh is. ANd anyway he also had a hand in 9/11 anyway because he and his neocon cabal wanted to start a war in Iraq.

With all the dissembling and demagoguing do they even hold a position at all, that isn't filled with about a dozen inconsistencies? How about sticking to one position. Is Al Qaeda a threat or not. If no, then you wont be supporting an incursion into Pakistan, if yes, then hows about stop your side from villifying every action Bush takes as a caricature of the mustache twirling diabolical villain.
Don't expect that to happen Tom, so keep trolling away like you always do.

RE: Continuum (July 14, 2007 10:54 AM)

Don't fret. I was just kidding with that throwaway line.

No, the point was that Al Qaeda was and is at fault for our heavy footprint in the ME. It was their calculus and our subsequent problem solving (and not actually your math) that was of interest.

RE: Tom Shipley (July 14, 2007 4:13 PM)
I can only speak for myself. You can lump me with whatever group you want in order to make banal attacks on the left, but that's rather pointless.

Sorry, TS, but the conclusions drawn by jr are neither pointless nor banal. I'm glad you would support getting OBL whatever domain he infests, but so many on the Left would be charging "Vietnam quagmire" the instant anything at all goes south. Recall two weeks in to Iraq when the MNF were invading that the coalition presence was already declared a quagmire. Two weeks in. Those making the charge were politicizing every moment and have never supported the troops or the mission. Nor would they support getting OBL unless there is a UN-recognized Obamanistan with the World Court meting out justice for the wayward "freedom fighter."

I just don't find your argument convincing. If the going got tough, which it inevitably would, the peaceniks would drive the Democrat party to surrender and the Liberal policymakers would acquiesce though they'd be camouflaging such surrender with proclamations of "supporting the troops and not the mission." In other words, we'd see exactly what we are seeing now from the sinister party.

Tom wrote:
JR, I find it just a tad ironic that you accusse me of thinking Bush is more a threat than AQ while you've spent three long posts pretty much showing that you feel democracts are, to borrow your phrasing, the real threat.

I'm sorry your undies are in a bunch, but I won't talk with someone who ignores what I say and goes on to tell me how I really feel.

Have a good one.
Hey sorry there Tom. Didn't quite grasp the distinction between Continuum or Monkei's demagogic and partisan trolling with your far more nuanced and balanced trolling.

so keep trolling away like you always do.

I never got this troll thing. I post on this site just like anyone else. And, truth be told, I probably agree with Cap'n close to 50% of the time... well, maybe not that high, but maybe in the 40% range.

Also, unlike a lot of people on the site, I do my best to stick to issues and not get into personal attacks. I definitely don't do "broad" attacks on conservatives, cause I think it's pointless. There are a lot of different points of view in the conservative ranks (just as there are in the liberal ranks). No one is going to get anywhere making blanket attacks on one party or the other. You find answers when issues are debated. You indulge in some sort of inner rage when you attack people and groups.

JR,

I understand your frustration, and I agree 100% that the left cannot be trusted to do what is neccessary to fight and win this war. But I don't think it's at all helpful to tell someone to "screw off".

Tom,

AQ in Iraq is attacking us. They are calling on their followers to attack us. AQ in Afghanistan/Pakistan is calling for their followers to attack us in Iraq. Should we not fight them in Iraq as well?

Jim C

Jim, I've consistently said we should keep troops in Iraq to fight AQ -- basically what the Baker/Hamilton commission suggested.

Baker Hamilton is a non starter. What makes you think the country would come together under Baker Hamilton? How about those millions who voted for the current govt. do they want Baker Hamilton?
WHat are the ramifications of baker Hamilton? Do we have to maintain troops in the area so that a partitioned Iraq doesn't collapse into a regional war. Does Baker Hamilton make Al Qaeda weaker or stop the car bombs. Do you think that maybe after going through 5 years of one thing,Iraqis being then toldthat they have to break up the country might make it seem like we can't make up our minds. What of the Sunnis in Shiite areas or areas where there are mixed populations. Are we going to force people to move.
What democrats are suggesting Baker/Hamilton as opposed to withdrawal, and if we are still in the region does it get the antiwar base which governs the democrats at the moment to stop the caterwauling?

Does it require more time and effort to transition from what's there now to get to Baker Hamilton? And will we not be targets while tranisition takes place?

also regarding Baker Hamilton,it opens up dialogs with countries like Iran,who have been sending in weapons that have killed US troops as well as SYria, as well as negotiating with Sadr all over again. Certainly some of Baker hamilton will have to be upgraded to the current history in Iraq (ie Sadr and his militia have been decimated and he's fled off to Iran). That will take some time. Also negotiations with any countries are slow. Getting things passed when countries are negotiating things takes a long time. We've been dealing for example with "negotiations" between Israel an Palestine for years and years and years. Its give and take.Throw in the UN and it gets even more drawn out.

The point of course is while this negotiation is going on does it in fact stop the raging warfare going on or do we have to bring in even more troops to keep the peace until the kinks are worked out and all parties are satisfied. Baker Hamilton suggests having almost no troops in the area and only there for training purposes, but Baker Hamilton is not a solution but rather a dialogue. While that dialogue takes place Iraq has to deal with the present, which involves various factions trying to destroy it or take over including Al Qaeda. I like the idea of dialogue as much as anyone, but you have to have some stability to have a dialogue. Withdrawing all troops and then engaging in a dialogue with various parties who are not at all desirous of a stable IRaq is not a recipe for success. Even if all parties to the negotiation are completely serious about working something out, if there are no troops to say keep Al Qaeda in line then whatever negotiations are being discussed are largely irrelevant.
Its like Israel negotiating with Fatah about an end to a war when Fatah says they can't control Hamas and Hamas says they are going to escalate attacks. Why on earth would Israel negotiatie with one party who can't control the situation at all and stop violence from escalating.Its a fruitless dialog, because whatever is being negotiated can't or wont be delivered by either party. So too with Baker Hamilton.

What makes you think the country would come together under Baker Hamilton?

I don't know if the country will come together under any Iraq policy, but I think most Americans support what Baker-Hamiltoin suggested. I refer you to a March 2007 poll...

A solid majority of Americans say they want their congressional representative to support a bill calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) say they would like to see their representative vote for such legislation, compared with just 33% who want their representative to oppose it.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=313

This is basically what the Hamilton-Baker plan called for, troop withdrawal by 2008 if not sooner.

How about those millions who voted for the current govt. do they want Baker Hamilton?

I assume you're talking about the new democratic majority. Yes, I think they would want that. I think most of the frustration with Iraq comes from having a large force there with seemingly no end in site coupled with the feeling that we're not really accomplishing anything. If we keep some troops there, while drawing most down in an effort to put Iraq back into the hands of the Iraqis, I believe this would be supported by most Americans.

also regarding Baker Hamilton,it opens up dialogs with countries like Iran

Did you miss this, JR?

U.S. Ambassador: Talks With Iran Were 'Successful' and 'Businesslike'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275836,00.html

Tom,
Your withdrawal plan doesn't resolve any issues that were or are pressing. You say that you would support fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, yet Al Zawahiri has said again and again that the main battlefront with the west is in Iraq, and not currently in Afghanistan. So if you want to fight THE battle against Al Qaeda,like you say you do you would fight the battle on the front where you're fighting them and which they recognize as the front where they're fighting you.Whether or not Al Qaeda was the primary spot for Al Qaeda prior to the war, they obviously recognize its importance now. The logic of your argument makes no sense at all.
At the very least you'd be giving a victory, both actual but certainlly symbolic for Al Qaeda in Iraq but wouldn't it also galvanize Al Qaeda where you next intended to fight them?
Say everyone was on board to fight Al Qaeda but in Afghanistan/Pakistan, not in Iraq. So you'd have to pick up and move all hundred thousand plus troops out of one country and into another and leave behind al qaeda with both a victory and a safe haven with which to expand operations. Then we'd have to go into pakistan, into the rough terrain that is extremely difficult to traverse, and you freely acknowledge that to do so might destablize Pakistan. So going in we know it will be a quagmire and we'll, in addition to butting heads with Al Qaeda, also have to contend with militants in Pakistan as well as tribal leaders in Afganistan, and if we violate the Pakistani terrirtory, will draw the ire of the entire Muslim world yet again. SImilarly, while we'd all prefer it if Musharaf was even more cooperative, having Musharaf toppled would certainly not make our job any easier. He would then have to not only fend off the militaints trying to assassinate him, but also his populace who would accuse him of allowing the infidel to invade their country.

Meanwhile while this is going on, even the Times acknowledged that most likely Iraq would turn into a bloodbath and perhaps even a genocide (but they don't care it has to be done) and we'd have to also contend with that. What will happen between the Sunni of Saudi Arabia who have sworn to protect their Sunni brethren who may well be slaughtered by the Shia, and what will happen to the Kurds and Turkey, and what will happen with Iran, will it gain influence or lose influence. Will Iraq, being abandoned by the US become even more of an ally with Iran, thus making our ability to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat that much harder?

So you'd want to go from one quagmire into another? SOrry, but I just don't believe you. YOu want to stop one war so that you can escalate another one?
Sorry but I don't believe you. And we hear plenty from your side about how we have to get out, very little from your side about what we do if the sh*t hits the fan after pullling out. You say Iraq was a diversion from the real war on terror. That may have been true, or may not have been true on the eve of war, but after fighting for so many years against al qaeda in iraq, maybe suddenly redeploying all our troops into afhganistan is the diversion from the war on terror.
The democrats have not and will not own up to the fact that we are dealing with a real threat, and with that in mind will not risk more quagmire when their Bush hating there is no terrorist threat crowd just wants to get back to discussions about free health care. And if you are the scoop jackson of the democrats, you're probably as lonely as Lieberman when you suggest we should invade Pakistan. But I doubt you are in fact suggesting that, except when arguing with conservatives on conservative web sites. Its very easy to make the snarky argument against something, the dems have yet to own tup to any responsibility for actually fighting a war on terror, so pardon me, but don't expect them to any time soon. And we've already well on our way into the election cylce, don't hear many dems rallying their base about the oncoming invasion of Pakistan/afhganistan. Know why? Because its a figment of your imagination, a cheap talking point, who's sole purpose is to find a chink in Bush's armor and attack him with it. It's as vacuous as their argument as how they're going to fight corruption in washington or cut spending. Simple sloganeering to get themselves elected. ANd certainly conservatives do so as well, but I can' t remember a time when it was so disigenous, especially when a war is going on. But here's the thing.The dems are going to have to own up to their responsibilty at some point. They're going to have to either help Bush achieve victory, or own defeat. And then the result will be on them. (Which again is why they will NEVER EVER EVER invade Pakistain/Afhganistan or even I doubt esascalate a war in Afghanistan). If they are successful in getting us to withdraw and we suffer a loss, believe me, the public will demand results. If after forcing us to leave with our tail between our legs, do they think they wont' have to deal with the consequences when they're in power?
As for the argument that there was a successful discussion with IRan, it was one discussion. Did it produce any results? Did it stop them from sending in weapons to kill troops or did they commit to halting their nuclear program, or even to reign in Muqtada next time he visits their country? Talk is cheap my friend, and if you think that somehow us completely wigging out and getting defeated in Iraq will somehow cause diplomacy to be successful, you are completely unhinged.

yet Al Zawahiri has said again and again that the main battlefront with the west is in Iraq,

If al Zawahari said to jump off a bridge, would you...

Oh, nevermind.

If you've read what I've written, you would have seen that Baker-Hamilton leaves troops in Iraq to fight AQ.

And my point with citing the Iran talks is this. You seem to dismiss the Baker-Hamiltoin report because it calls for talks with Iran... well, we're already doing that.

But going back to my first questions:

We have intelligence that AQ's main operations are set up in Pakistan near the Afghan border. They are training they. Their leadership is there. They are sending recruits to the West to attack us. We seem to know this.

If we were willing to attack Iraq over WMDs that they didn't have or ever threaten against to use us, why are we doing nothing about AQ when we know where they are and we know they are actively trying to attack. Hell, we even think they may have some sort of WMD.

That seems illogical to me. I'm honestly wondering why we aren't. Is it because we're afraid of destabalizing Pakistan. Is that the reason?

I can't help but wonder what the reaction would be if such in action was presided over by a Kerry administration.

Given the string of failures in London and Glasgow, one might be tempted to say that, clearly, Allah has NOT been willing to see infidels or innocents die at the hands of some of his arguably more educated and supposedly more technically skillful faithful...

What could be a bigger sin, in any religion, than to kill innocent strangers for the glory of your supposed god?