Captain's Quarters -

Increasing my suspicions that Obama really is hiding out in the States. Because he can't use the Internet, or a cell phone, without our government's "devices" listening in.

And, this scolding?

It gives me the impression Osama thinks HE'S PAID FOR THE DONKS to STOP THE WAR. And, he just doesn't know what window to use, to get his money refunded.

The product the Bonkey's delivered, seems to be less than this freak thinks he's bought.

How much dough did he spend?

YOu think Osama got "serviced" for free? What'da ya nuts? It costs money. And, the fees are established in advance.

How do I know? Because for a business to be around, as long as the 2nd oldest business in the world has been around; they'd have gone out of business long ago, if they gave out "free samples."

Of course, those Soddies sure misjudge what money can buy.

Hmm? And, the senate now wants to make it difficult for the cops to arrest "vagrants." I can hear the lawyers all shouting "where's the indecency?" Heck, today a naked man, arrest for being naked, was just a nudist on the job. And, he was working ... well, in the nude.

So, he got a pass.

I guess it's much cheaper just to buy the judges, huh?

for all you trolls who claim that your Dems are looking out for America's best interests, Osama (like most other non BDS people) can tell what you stand for. If it wasnt for GWB and 40+ Republicans and Joe Lieberman in the Senate, we would have surendered by now.

Hopefully the 75% of Americans who dont want to live under dhimmitude are paying attention also.

Hmm, sounds like Osama got the new Democratic Party talking points memo.

Wow, time to make up some popcorn. It should be fun to watch the leftists spin this one! I'm sure they're all waiting for their talking points this Friday afternoon, but I'm sure Begala will come up with something for them by Chris Matthews Hardball time...

Let me guess...it's really not bin Laden in the video, but Karl Rove in a fake beard?

Or, it really is bin Laden, but his voice was overdubbed by Karl Rove...

That 2.5% tax thing sounds pretty good to me. Since Osama and the dems seem to be on the same page about so many things maybe we can get them to adopt that part of his playform as well. We might as well get something in return for our dhimmitude.

It sounds like he wants to make a run at the Democratic nomination. Perhaps he can be invited to their next "debate."

If it wasnt for GWB...

If any other Republican, like McCain, had executed the war, you're right, the US would have left Iraq by now. A competent commander in chief would have been able to declare victory a long time ago.

My goodness, Osama sounds like Edwards!

Naughty naughty Bayam, you are straying from Osama's talking points.

General Bayam,

Perchance you can enumerate the various areas where a "competent commander in chief" could have done things differently in the fact of the facts on the ground and brought things to an end quicker.

I'd suggest you read Paul Bremer's latest that talks about things like disbanding the Iraqi army before you go too far though.

The inmates at Democrat Underground are jumping out of the windows:

"OBL is being paid off to make these videos. He's been making them for profit ever since the one he made in November 04. They're timing these things. BushCo needs OBL, OBL needs BuschCo. Simple as that.

Mark your calandar for the last weekend before the election next year. There WILL be another OBL tape saying vote Republican or you will die a horrible death by beheading, or words to that effect"

"So Bin Laden supposedly makes a video...the U.S. supposedly gets a leaked copy...then all the Islamic militant Web sites that usually carry statements from al-Qaida went down and were inaccessible, in an unprecedented shutdown.

Nothing fishy here."

"Obviously this is a BushCo planted video...

If it was real perhaps Kos ought to invite him to give the keynote speech next year!"

More from the fever swamps here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2981996&mesg_id=2981996

Liberals must be so proud that Osama is on their side. Aside from the "Oh Allah the merciful" he sounds no different than Harry Reid or other Democratic Party leaders. I wonder if the Democrats ever really think about why their talking points are always repeated by Bin Laden and Zawahiri.

Even though I think this video is complete BS and that Bin Laden died along time ago, it looks like Al Qaeda is trying to cement their alliance with the left.

Osama must have signed that stop the war petition and now he's getting e-mails from Dean and McMahon. I think that's word for word what their last e-mails to me said./s

it must be embarassing for the dems to hear Osama spem his bile and note that it sounds exactly like democratic talking points (except for the thing about the low taxex)

Ad at the beginning of Osama's video:

"The following message is brought to you by Combe Incorporated, makers of Grecian Formula: fine hair care for kaffirs in liquid gel, cream, or foam. Do it Grecian style!"

I knew there was someting wrong with that picture it was Schmuck Schummer in disguise. Read the words they are almost verbatim. Glad Chuck came around to tax cuts at least as for the rest of it... stuff it!

Don't miss the part where Osama thanks Chuck Schumer for the kind words of support and Ted Kennedy for the moral guidance.

Maybe CNN can get their friend OBL on the questioner's panel for their next Democrat "debate." OBL flirting with his chums Wolfie and Amanpour could prove distracting from the candidates yet may boost CNN's dreadful ratings.

Bayam, we still aren't out of the Balkans yet. Heck, we still have troops in Germany, and that war ended two generations ago. You think the Iranian regime and al Queda wouldn't have been able to make as much trouble if someone else was CIC?

Or do you mean "declare victory and go home" regardless of the situation on the ground.

Perchance you can enumerate the various areas where a "competent commander in chief" could have done things differently

Why don't you try reading a book, such as Cobra or State of Denial. The unimaginable strategic mistakes of Bush and Rummy are outlined US military and other leaders.

It's amazing that some readers are so dim as to believe that the war in Iraq really is tougher than WWII, and that's why it's lasted longer. If you didn't know, Bremer is an idiot- why you replace U.S. General Jay Garner with a former State Dept hack should be an obvious question to ask.

Let's face reality- where would Osama and Iran be today without Bush and his policies which have done so much to help both of them?

Dear bayam,

I'll wager you're the center of attention at sporting events: always second-guessing the coaches, cat-calling the players, and loudly telling everybody else "I could do better than him."

Then again, I'll also bet you get a lot of drinks thrown in your face, don't get many dates, and your car gets "keyed" a lot.

You think the Iranian regime and al Queda wouldn't have been able to make as much trouble if someone else was CIC?

Any expert on Iran will tell you that the only reason the Iranian economy hasn't collapsed under the current inept regine plus Western sanctions is high oil prices. If not for Bush's policies, the state of Iran would be bankrupt and you'd see rioting in the streets. It would be a perfect formula for regime change. Does that answer your question?

Adelman, Perlman, and many other neocons have agreed that al Qaeda has benefitted from the war in Iraq. One well known expert on al Qaeda predicted that the war would be like a 'Christmas gift' to al Qaeda. Support for worldwide terrorism has skyrocketed under Bush.

al Qaeda was not the first anti-Western, Islamic terrorist organization. But it was the first to survive all-out extermination once the U.S. had determined to take it out.

MarkJ, is that the best you can do, an ad hominem personal attack? Would you say the same about all the military leaders quoted in State of Denial?

bayam. what has been needed and still is needed is total war against all islamic countries. it is the only way to destroy the vile evil that is islam. btw, osama is dead.

The war was over in three weeks. This is a counter-insurgency and pacification effort. It's now succeeding, slowly. It'll probably take several more years, so get used to it.

Not even Mrs. Bill Clinton is going to turn around and let al Qaeda and Iran carve up Iraq.

I still think Osama is in Iran, not Waziristan—another reason to go after the mullahs.

/Mr Lynn

Old White Guy- you might be right about Iran, I wouldn't rule war out.

Then again, I think we can win in the Muslim world. This kind of success is pretty amazing. Without local support, al Qaeda will fail. You don't see any terrorist attacks in Jakarta or Bali these days:

"whatever else you think of the U.S.'s Iraqi adventure, it's "not winning us any friends in the Muslim world." But, he noted, when we rushed into Indonesia to help after the Tsunami, the favorable impression of the U.S. soared from 35% to 65% and the popularity of Osama bin laden plummeted from 58% to 28%"

http://time.blogs.com/global_health/2005/11/the_bills_take_.html

Richard Perle has said that Osama's beard might be a fake. Based on the video's content and the latest imaging technology, I've created a composite of what a clean-shaven Osama bin Laden might look like:
http://exurbanleague.com/2007/09/07/osama-bin-lefty.aspx

Putting aside the current events covered in the video I'm still not so sure that's the real Osama.......look at all the Elvis impersonators around.....it was only a matter of time before ALQ came up with one ;-)

Bin Laden has been in US custody since 2003. Rove must've written this and they probably water-boarded the guy until he'd read it.

Right?

Oh well, one thing is for sure...Bin Laden is bi-partisan supporting both Kucinich AND Ron Paul dogmas at the same time

impressive.

Osama must be becoming concerned about an American pullout from Iraq, an eventuality that would not suit his purposes. His comments about the Dems may persuade a few moderates in the party to oppose any deal to begin a pullout. Osama's ability to influence domestic public opinion from his cave is amazing.

The Democracts can spin this all they want. Osama's their guy, plain and simple. I mean, come on. No one's heard from the dude in over a year and he surfaces somewhere with a halloween beard on and a big shout out to the Dems. If he wasn't droning away in Arabic who would be able to tell that he wasn't running for the Democrat party nomination? Well, except for the tax bit. I don't think he's gotten the DNC memo on that yet.

It's almost like an SNL skit, it's all so funny. He's a mass murderer and crazy as two bats in a hatbox, but he is funny. And he's their guy. Republicans have Larry Craig and the Democrats have Osama. Maybe things aren't so bad for the GOP after all.

Del Dolemonte, thanks for the link. My first thought was the same -- how is the left going to spin this???

Another quote from DU:

Why in tarnation does anyone give OBL ANY ATTENTION WHATSOEVER?
It certainly isn't for the good of citizen or country, not that that has been a requirement for any actions taking since 2000.

This is a direct play to RW nutso fear mongering. I cannot say enough nasty things about this fiasco, so I'll stop now.

lol

Gee, our enemy sounds a lot like Dean, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Reid, Pelosi ... some commenters here.

It's okay with me if the media doesn't air the obl video 24 hours a day. Sorry it doesn't work to your party's favor ... well, i'm not too sorry.

Did I hear right? Did Osama say he is donating the money given to him by Hsu to charity?

I guess Hillary has even better competion for the Democratic nomination. It's not Obama- it's Osama.

It is interesting to compare Osama's early speeches where he was, from my readings of them, almost exclusively appealing, in very emotional and flowery language, to his fellow Muslims to rise up against the crusaders and heretics against these recent speeches where he is also directing some of his appeals to Western leftists.

I think it's unfair (mostly) to say that the Left is in anyway allied with OBL and the Islamists. But he clearly thinks they are. Or some of them.

The question is, "Why?" Why the change of audience?

It seems to me that he sees that the Islamic world is not rallying around his call and that the best hopes for his cause is a retreating West (or anti-Islamist) and not in a revitalized Islamic world.

That tells us something, I think.

Bayam,
Which war should we compare IRaq to that doesn't have the major strategic errors; that was fought the right way? WWI? WWII? Vietnam, the Civil War?

Why did Bush let Osama escape at Tora Bora? Why didn't he send in the troops?

Man, Republicans sure are good at losing wars...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/09/17/070917fa_fact_packer

The Dem spin: "2.5% tax rate? He's not one of us!"

I'll bet a lot of liberals thought to themselves upon reading the transcript ... "Damn! I wish this guy were running for President!" Admit it Dems, this mass murderer shares your politics. Be honest, quit whining, and welcome Bin Ladin into the loving arms of the Democratic party. Besides, he has a lot more charisma than Hillary, and more money than Norman Hsu.

Why do comments on these blogs always turn confrontational between commentors by the fifth post? From then on the whole thing is a mud slinging debate. Stay on TOPIC, respond to Ed's work, not Bayam's, Carol Herman's, etc. If they have so much to say they start their own blogs and you can comment there.

SHEESH.

I can see the signs: "Osama for President 2008" LOL!

If trolls like bayam can agree with that demonic entity, then Democrats are in serious trouble.

You're judged by the company you keep, Dems! Keep it up! The message is getting through! Nice job! ;-)

"Why did Bush let Osama escape at Tora Bora?"

Because he's a Democratic party operative and the President didn't want to be accused of targeting his political opponents?

Ok, that's clearly a joke. I don't really think the Dems are buddies with OBL. Fellow travelers perhaps in terms of their governing philosophy, some of it anyway, but not actually friends. I don't think he's going to get to make a keynote speech at the Dem convention next year. Maybe a seat in the box next to Jimmy Carter, but not any time at the podium or anything.

Ok, another joke. But they've left themselves open to this. I think OBL is adhering to that old saw, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and the Democrats have spent so much time in the last 6 1/2 years demonizing Bush, the US military and the GOP that it's understandable someone like OBL would believe that the Dems think like he does, that they have a common cause. And you know, maybe they do.

Too bad we can't take Scrappleface seriously.

September 7, 2007
Bush Mulls Bin Laden Offer to Convert to Islam
by Scott Ott

(2007-09-07) — Just hours after the release of al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden’s latest video message inviting all Americans to convert to Islam, U.S. President George said he would “seriously consider the offer, because it sure would simplify the war in Iraq.”

“If I convert to Islam and order all of our troops to do the same,” said Mr. Bush, “we can stay in Iraq indefinitely, drop the restrictive rules of engagement, save a lot of money by using cheap, unguided bombs, clear neighborhoods flat out, blow up mosques with impunity and still go to heaven — not to mention that I’d get more favorable coverage from the U.S. news media.”

The president added that he might convert to Islam just to “find out what it’s like to be a man who wears a dress and a bonnet and dyes his hair like a girl.”

crossdotcurve said:

"Why did Bush let Osama escape at Tora Bora? Why didn't he send in the troops?

Man, Republicans sure are good at losing wars...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/09/17/070917fa_fact_packer"

George Packer is no military "expert".

He also gave $750 to the Democratic National Committee in August 2004, and then $250 in 2005 to Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, an anti-war Democrat who campaigned unsuccessfully for a seat in Congress from Ohio. Both donations occurred while Packer covered the Iraq War as a supposedly "objective" journalist.

"Leftnomore" shows skills in counting on one hand. Hmm? How do I know? Because he gets to 5. Must make his mother proud.

The most pressing question is whether OBL has active cells in the U.S., and there seems to be evidence that he does (the unclassified evidence provides discrete pieces of the puzzle, and although it's somewhat speculative, the consensus seems to be that they're here). Then there are the splinter groups, and the so-called "sanitized" terrorists--caucasian proxies.

So, if we step outside the political equation for a moment, which is admittedly difficult to do, it's likely that the U.S. will sustain another major attack on its soil.

And that, perhaps, is what it will take to regalvanize us, blur the political differences, and make us all finally realize that we're Americans first and Democrats or Republicans second.

But, given the left's obvious unwillingness to make reasonable, time-limited concessions on civil liberties, such as warrantless wiretaps when one party is a suspected terrorist outside the U.S., we remain needlessly vulnerable.

It seems as though mass carnage is what it will take for the Democrats to understand that we're at war with a shadowy, asymmetrical foe, one that is both sleepless and teeming with malice. Just watch the video of Nick Berg being beheaded or any number of photographs of Iraqi children on makeshift operating tables with their heads set neatly next to their bodies.

It's a savagery and barbarism that we ignore at our peril.

Phil Mella
ClearCommentary.com

i hate to tell you guys, but most sane people see bin laden for the manipulator he is. attacking your fellow citizens based on something bin laden supposedly says is giving him exactly what he wants. but keep up the good work, your insane hatred of people who disagree with you will ensure the long term and much anticipated demise of the republican party. thank god.

don't you guys ever think for one second that if we had actually brought this guy in, bush wouldn't be in the mess he's in?

Nate writes:

I'll bet a lot of liberals thought to themselves upon reading the transcript ... "Damn! I wish this guy were running for President!" Admit it Dems, this mass murderer shares your politics. Be honest, quit whining, and welcome Bin Ladin into the loving arms of the Democratic party. Besides, he has a lot more charisma than Hillary, and more money than Norman Hsu.

-----------------------

Well, this leftist read that and thought "screw you Nate" and the rest of the ignorant people on this comment page who equate Osama Bin Laden with the Democrats. Eric Rudulph is pro-life and shares all the same beliefs that the so-called Christian right does. Does that mean that you believe in bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors in cold blood? Admit it, Republicans, that killer shares your politics. Do you want him to run for president?

Some of us are able to seperate the statements of mad men from those of reasonable people. It is too bad you don't have that skill Nate.

When I hear from Osama bin Laden I think why the hell is he still alive. Bush promised after 9/11 to bring him back dead or alive but the right seems happy to keep him alive in order to bash Democrats. Don't you care that he killed 3,000 Americans or is making cheap political points more fun?

While Bin Laden says he agrees with the Democrats, it would appear that what he's really good at is manipulating the likes of CC commentators, as almost all of you appear to believe his statements implicitly.

Meanwhile, speaking only for myself, I doubt it's him. Bin Laden has been dead for some time, and they just manufacture videos to keep the war in Iraq going and support for Bush policies firm.

The bottom line is that Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri have never been brought to justice by the Bush administration, Iraq has turned into a wonderful recruiting tool for AQ by the Bush administration, the US military has been run into the ground by the Bush administration, and we're spending the US economy into a recession, thanks primarily to the Bush administration.

In short, the Bush administration has been the best friend AQ and their goals have ever had.

wishing for another terrorist attack so that people will be convinced to agree with you? that is sick. you think innocent people should die so you can feel good about being right? again, another sterling example of why the republican party is on the verge of electoral collapse. you people are not effing rational. except of course the captain, with whom i disagree. you guys again should pay a little more heed to your host. don't talk so crazily... it turns people off.

The easiest way for the Democrats to disassociate themselves with Bin Laden is to demand his immediate resignation and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate OBL's connections to Noam Chomsky's "capabilities" and Fat Albert's cheer leading for the Kyoto Accords.

The global warming / global terrorism connection. Inquiring minds want to know.

"Eric Rudulph is pro-life and shares all the same beliefs that the so-called Christian right does. Does that mean that you believe in bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors in cold blood?"

Huh? Are you actually conceding that you agree with OBL? That the only difference is in methods, not your goals?

Wow!

Well his message (if it really is him) shows that he clearly has a messianic complex and he overestimates the importance that Americans will put on his words and he thinks you can hit a person over the head and turn them into a Muslim...perhaps if he beats their brains out but only then. See the story on Sweetness and Light about the way the Japanese prisoners were treated in order to turn them into right thinking Muslims. He's nutz of course as are his followers...nutz and dangerous fanatics (inhuman)

just gotta love the trolls!!

Osama Bin Laden gives a speech that would be right at home at the Democrat National Convention (and would draw APPLAUSE!), and they call him a pawn of the Bush Administration!!

But for a tiny bit of phrasing most of the DNC leadership HAS given that speech!!

Basically what OBL / OBL clone is saying is he wants to be Hillary's running mate. It's Bubba's turn to get jilted.

Blaming Bush for OBL's Democrat Party video endorsement is like Ray "School Bus" Nagin blaming Bush for the levees breaking after Karl Roves's secret weather machine arrived.

OBL has taken sides with the Liberals who may as well invite him to the convention next summer.

"Meanwhile, speaking only for myself, I doubt it's him. Bin Laden has been dead for some time, and they just manufacture videos to keep the war in Iraq going and support for Bush policies firm."

Ah, the grassy knoll folks weigh in. Bush, the (otherwise) clueless dope, down in the White House basement putting the beard on Cheney and whipping out the ole vcr. So fiendishly clever, this President of ours. Except when he's not.

Speaking only for myself, you're needed in Roswell Charles.

I think lefties are a little weak in the humor dept. It's all in good fun guys. We know you don't really like, admire, respect or agree with OBL (well, except for Teresa maybe on that last one).

Looks like Osama is upset that the Democrat Congress will fail to meet the benchmarks al Qaeda laid down for them.

nutz and dangerous fanatics

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

And

Who Disbanded the Iraqi Army?

He's nutz of course as are his followers...

OBL is obviously playing us against each other. Of course the thing that people like bayam choose to ignore is that the Democrats have made that all too easy to do. That is what scares them, their own demagoguery is coming back at them. Not pretty.

bayam, the US military won this war in record time with very few casualties. The problems we have encountered since then have been exacerbated by the back stabbing, parasitic, politically driven nonsense from the left which has done everything they could to use this conflict for their own political purposes. They have given aid and comfort to the enemy, they have chosen to view the other political party as their real enemies rather than AlQaida and have in the process helped to keep this conflict going.

One thing is for sure they have done nothing to help bring the conflict to a conclusion...unless of course you consider surrender and disgrace a successful conclusion. And I guess you do.

And Teresa:

yes, I care but the truth is the same Democrats who are more than willing to go after Bush for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, for wiretapping or for Gitmo or for anything else that might be construed as mean to terrorists had a chance to get Osama before those 3,000 Americans were killed and they did not. Clinton did not, even after Osama was named in the 1998 indictment for the attacks on our African embassies.

So while Obama might think we should just invade Pakistan or whatever in search for this man these same Democrats have done nothing constructive to actually help bring Osama in, not now or a decade ago.

Not only that Daudi they took a month long vacation in August instead of working on the problems.

And here is Chimpy helping out his buddy OBL with a little more propaganda.

Btw, back in 2000 before Bush took office, Zinni said that Saddam had weapons. It would seem to me that if the Clinton administration had been more on top of things a lot of things might be different.

The sad thing is how many people on the left sound like Osama and mourn for Saddam. Says a lot about them.

"whatever else you think of the U.S.'s Iraqi adventure, it's "not winning us any friends in the Muslim world." But, he noted, when we rushed into Indonesia to help after the Tsunami, the favorable impression of the U.S. soared from 35% to 65% and the popularity of Osama bin laden plummeted from 58% to 28%"

Leftnomore----when Bayam cuts and paste such an asinine quote, (that he/she appears to agree with)that implys that this is some how a popularity contest and we should buy-off our enemys to attain favoritism for some precieved peaceful status, it would not matter if the post was the fifth or the last. Ignoring such stupidity should be the road taken, but some times others need a little release. Besides, there have been rare occations when Bayam actually says something that make perfect sense. This is just not one of them.

And it's not really a good day for the left with Osama's endorsment of their party.

Bennet writes: "Eric Rudulph is pro-life and shares all the same beliefs that the so-called Christian right does. Does that mean that you believe in bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors in cold blood?"

Huh? Are you actually conceding that you agree with OBL? That the only difference is in methods, not your goals?

Wow!

_------------------

I was being sarcastic. Sorry it went over your head.

There's a grievous typo in OBL's script. He knows full well that Teddy Kennedy would never settle for taxation rates below 25 percent.

Hillary / bin Laden '08
They're a blast!

Wait, wait, wait. Which President was it who didn't even find time to meet with Tenet? Too busy with under the table activities. And which President was it who put the kibosh on secret negotiations to hand over Osama for trial by throwing millions of dollars of missiles at an aspirin factory and a tent compound which might have been used for training activities on the eve of the Monica trial?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/intern.../08ATTA.html? or WORLD November 1,2003:'Clinton did not have the will to respond'

I can't believe that even a troll would defend Osama bin Laden on this thread and clearly he is the one (and his followers) that I was calling nutz and a dangerous fanatic. I stand by that and make no apologies for it.

"I was being sarcastic. Sorry it went over your head."

Well, at least you didn't claim it was satire. So okay, you're sharing in the good times here, too. Got it.

We're all Americans first, right? Before we're Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative. And you are as appalled as anyone that OBL would be encouraging the left on ANY issue lest anyone think you have anything in common with him at all. Because he's the enemy, yours, mine, all of us.

English Teacher nailed it.

Anyone who starts attacking fellow citizens based on the words of OBL is playing into his hands.

And hear, I'll give you all what you want to hear... I agree with Osama bin Laden that the US should start withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Now, my reasons and his reasons for wanting that are different. I think lessoning our presence there is the best way for Iraq to start coming together (if they will at all). And an open-ended occupation is not going to leave a stabalized Iraq.

And I've given up hope that we'll exit Iraq during Bush's administration. He can't even figure out a way to exit a stage correctly...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/07/international/i073619D05.DTL

"Anyone who starts attacking fellow citizens based on the words of OBL is playing into his hands."

And what are you doing when you agree with the words of OBL?

english teacher: i hate to tell you guys, but most sane people see bin laden for the manipulator he is.

Well, I'm pleased to tell you that most commenters here are perfectly aware that obl is trying to manipulate American voters.

It's just that we're not anxious to do your PR work for you as it's more entertaining to watch ideological opponents squirm. And maybe it's a little more enjoyable to watch because, generally speaking, your side has more contempt for the average voter than ours does and that means you're apt to worry that all those supposedly dim-witted swing voters out in corn huskerville won't understand what crafty OBL is attempting to do.

I can be serious for a moment. Why do you think obl is trying to give encouragement to the anti-war, anti-Bush dems? I'm told Iraq isn't an important objective, that we shouldn't be there, that's not where al qaeda is, etc.

Could you have been wrong about that? Then again, maybe al qaeda isn't interested in Iraq and obl is being extra crafty and just trying to make us think that he wants Americans out of Iraq when he secretly wants us to stay? The ollld Maxwell Smart strategy.

Chimpy said:

"Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq."

Sorry, Curious George, but quoting Clinton sycophant Symphony Sid Blumenthal certainly doesn't help your case. After all, his boss said that Saddam not only had WMDs, but also was allied with al Qaeda dating back to the 1990s.

Charles said:

The bottom line is that Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri have never been brought to justice by the Bush administration, Iraq has turned into a wonderful recruiting tool for AQ by the Bush administration, the US military has been run into the ground by the Bush administration, and we're spending the US economy into a recession, thanks primarily to the Bush administration.

In short, the Bush administration has been the best friend AQ and their goals have ever had.

Hey Charles, you're not the least bit troubled that Osama could replace you in the comments section here and none of us would notice... That doesn't bother you?

(credit the question (for those with BDS) to Paul at Wizbang)

Sorry, Bennett, for challenging your not-too-strong reading skills, but the "they" in my sentence referred to AQ.

That you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I meant the Bush administration says worlds about you.

"Sorry, Bennett, for challenging your not-too-strong reading skills, but the "they" in my sentence referred to AQ. That you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I meant the Bush administration says worlds about you."

Well, at least you didn't claim it was satire. Perhaps it's your syntax that needs work and not my reading comprehension. Try Strunk's "The Elements of Style", very helpful.

Now, this "embrace Islam" thing Osama mentions.

Is there a particular stance involved?

Does it hurt?

Rovin,

That you cannot tell my comments from those of Bin Laden does not make them less true.

Do you really think you made some kind of clever argument? How childish.

Yep, the squirrels are out tonight.

We always suspected...now we KNOW:
Bin Laden is a registered DEMOCRAT!

FDR is spinning in his grave!

This is not something we should argue about or be divided by. We should all agree that if OBL wants to influence us with his video, we should ignore him and do whatever we were going to do anyway whichever side of the political fence one is on.
I expect and accept that all Americans want OBL brought to justice one way or another.

(BTW, Neither Clinton nor Bush got OBL so neither side has any brag or blame coming on that score.)

I do not think OBL thinks like an American and thus his attempts to influence our debates mostly come off as creepy to the point of almost being funny. Does anyone really think he suddenly cares about global warming? I guess dragging us all back to the 8th century would address any concerns in that regard as societies he produces would never qualify as a developed nation under Kyoto; but it will not really sell radical islam. Poor people damage the planet by deforestation, lack of sewage treatment polluting rivers etc. The solution to pollution is not the grinding poverty of radical Islams perpetual jihad.

He may well oppose loaning money at interest but his concern about subprime mortgage issues causing foreclosures that hurt the poor sounds like an odd concern for someone who blows up women and children in markets shopping for the families food; and besides all Americans would revolt if he took away our credit cards.

His advocacy of a flat tax at 2.5% reflects his willingness to use government to help the people under his control. He isn't going to help so he doesn't need much money.

I think his offer of peace in exchange for conversion and submittal to his dictatorship is not for our consumption; but instead is a nod to Islamist notions that you have to offer a target a chance to accept your offer of peace before you can legitimately attack him. By repeated offers of peace (on obviously unacceptable terms) he leaves the impression that he has tried the honorable route of reason but we are obstinate and thus he has no choice to attack.

The Democrats owe Osama big time...he has caused the other Hsu to drop and by tomorrow that Hsu will probably be stale news. In the meantime Hillary Hsends her thanks.

KW64, everything you say is thoughtful and entirely rational. It's just fun to tease those on the left every now and again, mostly because they take themselves so seriously. The left is very good at mocking and ridiculing its political opponents, but not so adept at self-deprecation. They bristle very easily when the tables are turned and the joke's on them.

They could have had a lot of fun with this themselves if they weren't so terrified that the rest of us would actually think they were in OBL's pocket.

Finally .. a Democrat in favor of tax cuts.

Bennett says:

"They could have had a lot of fun with this themselves if they weren't so terrified that the rest of us would actually think they were in OBL's pocket."

Another point: I've noticed one thing the leftists keep bringing up-they claim that Bush directly tied 9/11 to Iraq, which he never did. And for the past 6 years, they have kept hammering this as a sacred talking point.

It almost makes you wonder-why would they waste so much time on this one non-issue?

"Another point: I've noticed one thing the leftists keep bringing up-they claim that Bush directly tied 9/11 to Iraq, which he never did. And for the past 6 years, they have kept hammering this as a sacred talking point."

I think because they recognize (reluctantly) that for most of us 9/11 is a "casus belli". And if they convince enough of us that Bush exploited 9/11 to justify the war in Iraq --a justification he would not be able to sustain-- it is easier for them to convince us that everything else the President has said is a deliberate lie, an intentional deception.

But what the heck do I know? Most of what I understand about how the left thinks is what I can glean from their comments when they pop in here from time to time. I don't visit them in the fever swamps of Huff Post or DU or wherever it is they hang out because I haven't had my shots updated. (just a joke people, just a joke)

Another point: I've noticed one thing the leftists keep bringing up-they claim that Bush directly tied 9/11 to Iraq, which he never did. And for the past 6 years, they have kept hammering this as a sacred talking point.

That was during the 2004 election, when polls showed that a strong majority of Republicans believed that there was a link between Saddam and 9-11. Perhaps attributing this belief to info coming out of the White House was inaccurate.

Bush has played right into Osama's hands, so I would agree with prior commenters that anyone who falls into believing his remarks about the Democratic Party is being grossly manipulated. One of bin Landen's strengths is playing allies against each other. Despite differences on the Iraq War, Americans of both major parties are united behind the war against al Qaeda and the war in Afghanistan- and you can't say that about many other people in the world.

"...so I would agree with prior commenters that anyone who falls into believing his remarks about the Democratic Party is being grossly manipulated. One of bin Landen's strengths is playing allies against each other."

Grossly manipulated into what? Bush has been played by Osama but he's really Osama's puppet master?

Generally speaking, we Americans don't really think of each other as "allies"...do we?

This OBL utube thing may be what it finaly takes to get the Dems to understand that they need to get on board with stopping the Islamists from taking over. 2.5% tax rates should scare the bejebbers out of 'em.

The bottom line is that Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri have never been brought to justice by the Bush administration, Iraq has turned into a wonderful recruiting tool for AQ by the Bush administration, the US military has been run into the ground by the Bush administration, and we're spending the US economy into a recession, thanks primarily to the Bush administration.

Ok, Lets try this another way so that Charlie can understand. There's piles of blame to go around for OBL and Zawahhiri still breathing. The "recruiting tool" has been developing in the middles east for decades, and Bush just saw the writing on the wall that your dear friends on the left are so blind to. The U.S. military stands taller than any other military in our history with the sheer numbers vs. our enemys. Over the past five years the growth of this nation has been at a pace never recorded. GDP is up, unemployment has been at an all time low. Even the deficit reduction increased with all the revenues coming in.

All because of George W. Bush

And every statement you made, Charles might as well have come from an Alice in Wonderland novel. (and that's what I call childish)

Nobody mentioned the victory. We got the video before they released it. What does that mean?

Actually, I think that I'm on the Islamists side in regards to music. It has sucked enough for the last 15 years that outlawing it outright is at least an option worth considering.

Bayam, that "One well known expert on al Qaeda...", would that be our buddy Noam Chomsky?

Future NYT's above the fold article:

Michael Moore's seat of honor next to President Jimmy Carter will be ursurped at the '08 Convention by none other than the highly esteemed Osama Bin Laden. Harry Reid plans to kick off the Convention with his always crowd pleasing "I believe that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, ..." speech.

While Reid is renowned for his motivational speaking, our prediction is that Osama will steal the show.

Many delegates are sporting their Obama hearts Osama bumper stickers on their rears.

Bayam, that "One well known expert on al Qaeda...", would that be our buddy Noam Chomsky?

Iraq has turned into a wonderful recruiting tool for AQ by the Bush administration, the US military has been run into the ground by the Bush administration, and we're spending the US economy into a recession, thanks primarily to the Bush administration.

Well, the DNC talking point faxes are flying fast and furious.

Another moron furiously attempting the shape the historical narrative.

The left has really taken the Florida 2000 recount results personally.

So I put off a trip to see the remake of 3:10 to Yuma until Saturday night.
My popcorn was much better suited to witnessing the ravings at DU.

There are two divergent opinions in the majority of DUBats posting.

1. OBL is following evil Bush and Co. directives to undermine the Dems by embracing their talking points.

2. Admitting that OBL does raise some good points.

In the minority are assorted theories and musings that made me almost choke on my popcorn.

Here's an inkling as to how the warped wheels spin in a Lib's flitty brain:

A. Does this really prove that Osama Bin Laden really ever existed ?

B. It really isn't OBL speaking because a true Muslim wouldn't embrace Chomsky who is pro Gay.

c. It really isn't OBL speaking cause why didn't he taunt Bush for not catching him.

D. That if it was Bin Laden speaking, he is just like Ann Coulter because they both want to convert people against their wills.

E. OBL has a legitimate interest that Repigs get reelected because of his investments in the US.

I am guilty of being friendly with some dunderheaded lefties and am bracing myself for our tete a tete over OBL's tapes tomorrow.
I already am reeling from my far left neighbors. Most are either local University Professors or NYC expats.
They parroted the DU party line and crowed that this was Cheney/Rove concoction or they couldn't disagree with some of OBL's thoughts.
One did admonish OBL for being 'pushy on touting Islam' but otherwise said she was surprised he is so interested in America's 'well being'.
This from a woman with several advanced Ivy degrees.

I think I may home school my future kids until grade 18.

bayam: You state as fact that "Polls" during the 2004 election showed that people thought Iraq was tied to 9/11. I just did a search and found exactly ONE poll that said that, the Harris Poll.

Can you name some other polls that had the same results?

Come on, we all know that OBL is a Democrat strategist! At the very least, he is the bank roll for MoveOn.org! Unbelivable! It is absolutly amazing that this terror thug, hiding in a cave somewhere in either Afghanistan or Pakistan, has such access to information and knowledge of the Democrat agenda. Oh, and if one remains a Christian or Jewish in Allahland, ever heard of the jizya? That is the tax on us heretics who would never covert to OBL's perversion of Islam. How else would these people pay the bills but if not on the backs of Christians and Jews?

"One well known expert on al Qaeda...", would that be our buddy Noam Chomsky?

No, quote from Richard Clarke, one of the few Americans who deeply understood bin Laden and worldwide terrorism long before 9-11.

Over the past five years the growth of this nation has been at a pace never recorded... Even the deficit reduction increased with all the revenues coming in.

Very interesting interpretation.

Teresa writes:

"Some of us are able to seperate (sic) the statements of mad men from those of reasonable people."

I'm all ears; separate away! With which OBL statements do you disagree?

So what seat is this guy running for, Democrats will be sprinting to the polls to vote for bin Laden. Take that, Bush!

Less corrupt than Reid and better looking than Pelosi. What's not to like, Dems?

Teresa writes...

Well, this leftist read that and thought "screw you Nate" and the rest of the ignorant people on this comment page who equate Osama Bin Laden with the Democrats."

We ignorants have not equated you with OBL. We're just having some easy fun at your expense, which you are apparently unable to stand.

Seriously though, why do you think OBL has tried to EQUATE HIMSELF with you leftists, and not the with us on the right? The answer is plain. It is because you have shown yourself to be very useful tools for him in this war.

You also said ...

"Some of us are able to seperate the statements of mad men from those of reasonable people. It is too bad you don't have that skill Nate."

Well, I'll admit lefties are less prone to blowing up innocents and beheading people than OBL, but that sure as hell doesn't make you reasonable people. I've given up on that.

Despite differences on the Iraq War, Americans of both major parties are united behind the war against al Qaeda and the war in Afghanistan- and you can't say that about many other people in the world.

Nonsense. The war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan are two fronts in the same war yet Democrats pretend otherwise and oppose the war in Iraq because opposition offers partisan advantages.

Democrats claim that the war in Iraq is a great recruiting tool for al Qaeda- as if driving al Qaeda out of their sanctuary in Afghanistan is not. Perhaps Bayam might explain how removing the Islamist government in Afghanistan and driving al Qaeda out of their santuary is not a great recruiting tool but removing the "secular" govenment in Iraq somehow is.

To Iraqis al Qaeda in now enemy number one. It is in the proccess of being routed by American and Iraqi forces fighting together. As a result of its deranged strategy of killing innocent civilians in a vain attempt to ignite a civil war al Qaeda’s reputation among Muslims is now in the toilet. Anyone who wants to to throw this away for partisan political advantage needs to give their head a shake.

bin laden understands the damage being done to the al Qaeda brand name in the Muslim world as a result of their daily outrages in Iraq and how American victory in Iraq will devastate his cause. This explains why on the eve of Petraeus' testimony before Congress he has reached out to Democrats by repeating their talking points.

If you can't do better than "we were only kidding!" as an excuse for obnoxious behavior, it's pathetic. Has that worked for you any time since you were in the 6th grade?

Making fun of people by pretending (we hope) to confuse them with terrorists is a sign of an infantile sense of humor.

BTW, to the stalwart Democrats who support the war in Afghanistan but oppose the war in Iraq I ask "where exactly do you think those al Qaeda volunteers will go if freed from their missions in Iraq"?

Terry Gain. Good points. Thanks.

Good thread...

Come on lefties; you get all in a huff over the similarities between OBL and yourselves; over the ideology of the enemies of America and how they compare to your own ideology...

How dare we compare you to OBL! You little minded whack job nuts; what in the hell do you expect us to think when you take direct orders from the likes of George Soros; when you idolize phony people such as Sean Penn and George Clooney; when you bow at the knees of an absolute lying idiot such as Al Gore; when the best you can offer us is a woman created in the swamps of hell.

Can you imagine what this world would look like if "God" and all forms of spirituality were to be removed from the human spirit... That is exactly where modern day Liberalism is trying to take our world.

I Pledge Allegiance To The Flag,
Of the United States of America,
And To the Republic For Which It Stands,
One Nation, Under God, Indivisible,
With Liberty And Justice For All

Which party is it that would have these words changed forever? Which party is it that would have the word "God" removed from any and all teachings in our public school systems? Which party is it that is pushing our nation towards Socialism, and away from it's original design? Which party is it that consistently trashes our sons and daughters in uniform?

That would be YOU lefties.... Wonder why we can't stand your kind?

Charles says ...

"Making fun of people by pretending (we hope) to confuse them with terrorists is a sign of an infantile sense of humor."

Perhaps so. But it is still the left which has allowed themselves to become the useful idiot tools of the terrorist, fighting his propaganda war for him here at home. Derision is all you deserve.

Terry,

The AQI fighters, who, according to the Pentagon and CIA figures number around 1000, are motivated by different things. Some will stay in Iraq to try and continue to stir up sectarian violence, hoping to bring about a war between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis. Some will simply go home, once there is no more US presence in Iraq. The rest may very well head off to some other battle, where they won't make much difference.

Their strength in Iraq comes from the sectarian violence, which is fed by the US presence. They may try to stir up sectarian strife in Saudi Arabia (which is home to most), but likely they'll be crushed by the Saudi secret police.

Undoubtedly, some would like to come and terrorize the USA, especially since 9/11 was so successful for them in creating an arena in Iraq. The job of our intelligence and security apparatus will then be to deny them the means and opportunity. Same as always.

Keemo,

I don't recall expressing any admiration for any of the people you claim I idolize, nor do I care what George Soros says.

When you have to place words in the mouth of those you argue with in order to make points, you really should reexamine your arguments.

When you equate dissent from what you regard as the only patriotic path with being in league with our enemies, you have dropped the veil of democracy and exposed yourselves as jingoistic authoritarian followers.

This one's for your Charles...

A high-ranking official in Gov. Blagojevich’s office spent nearly two years in a federal prison for refusing to aid a government terrorism probe into a series of bombings in Chicago and New York City.

Steven Guerra, Blagojevich’s $120,000-a-year deputy chief of staff for community services, was identified by federal prosecutors as a member of the Puerto Rican separatist group, FALN, which was behind a wave of violence and killings in the 1970s and early 1980s.

In 1983, Guerra, now 53, was among five people convicted in New York of contempt of court for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating the group. The felony conviction resulted in a three-year prison sentence for Guerra, who was released in 1986 after serving 23 months.

Federal prosecutors labeled Guerra and his four co-defendants “a danger to the community,” and said they advocated armed violence, kidnappings, hijackings and prison breaks in the name of a “free” Puerto Rico.

The lead prosecutor in Guerra’s case, James D. Harmon Jr., said it is clear to him that the man he helped convict has no business working for state government. “He had his opportunity to help the government. Someone who refused to help the government, in my opinion, forfeits his right to earn a living from any government at any time,” the former prosecutor said.

Another proud moment for the Democrat Party. You vote for these people Charles; you support their vision for America; you argue on their behalf. Yes Charles, Geroge Soros does speak for you, as he speaks for those whom you vote for. Speaking indirectly for others, is an art that Soros has perfected.

Capt: one of your most brilliantly sarcastic, and TRUE posts, ever!

Well done....

The AQI fighters, who, according to the Pentagon and CIA figures number around 1000, are motivated by different things.

AQI are leading what's left of the Sunni insurgency.

Some will stay in Iraq to try and continue to stir up sectarian violence, hoping to bring about a war between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis.

It seems more likely that if the U.S. leaves prematurely al Qaeda will continue to wreak havoc until they are acommodated with a sanctuary.

or will simply go home, once there is no more US presence in Iraq. The rest may very well head off to some other battle, where they won't make much difference.

How disingenuous of you not to mention that the battle to which they will head off might be Afghanistan

Their strength in Iraq comes from the sectarian violence, which is fed by the US presence.

Their strength (such as it is, and they are being decimated) comes from leftist attacks on the noble and effective coalition mission to enable Iraqis to choose democracy over tyranny.

And your claim that the sectarian violence is being fed by U.S. presence is complete bullshit. The only people wanting the U.S. to leave before pacification is complete are those like al Sadr and the reason he wants the U.S to leave is so he will have free reign to engage in more sectarian violence.

Premature withdrawal from Iraq would no doubt have decisive electoral benefits for the Democrats but it's not going to happen. U.S. combat forces will remain in Iraq until they drive al Qaeda out and broker a peace deal between Sunnis and Shiites.

There's another angle. OBL or his body double may be inviting Democrats who promised to leave the country if Bush was elected to finally keep their word.

Of course, most of the Leftys who said they would did so with validity of a Clintoon promise. I think Alec Baldwin in a burqua might be an improvement. He could also knock around poor Kim without fear of penalty.

C'mon Alec. Quit the fake Hollywood patriotic Democrat act and become their envoy for OBL. IranAir is allegedly having some one-way ticket "Death to America" airfare specials to Tehran this month. Check 'em out, Dems. Tell 'em Ward Churchill sent you. You'll be glad you did.

There's a reason that Osama Bin Laden not only spouts the democratic talking points, but even characterizes repubs as neocons. Because he recognizes natural allies when he sees them, who he can appeal to. The useful idiot raises his idiot head yet again,and supports yet more totalitarian thugs through their willful ignorance.
But OBL can get away with this without batting an eye because, I'm sure Gaddan, who is a left wing hippy is telling him what buttons to push in his rhetoric, but also because he's operating under the age old principle of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The useful idiots hate bush so much they find a natural affinity for, and fall in lockstep with someone like OBL who killed 3000 US citizens in one attack alone. Even if they don't agree with converting the world to islam, thats all thrown aside because Bush is the evil one. If assisting OBL achieve his results causes Bush to lose face then its not that they agree with the results, its just that making Bush look bad is more important.

So, while I'm laughing about how the dems and OBL sound exactaly the same at this point, and use the exact same language the fact of the matter is, if you libs feel uncomfortorable about us "neocons" pinging you for this association - GOOD. Because you deserve it. Because you are useful idiots, worthy of nothing but contempt.

"Making fun of people by pretending (we hope) to confuse them with terrorists is a sign of an infantile sense of humor."

I don't think anyone here was confused. OBL expressed views that are consistent with those frequented espoused by many Democrats. It may not mean the latter are terrorists but it does mean they are simpatico with one. And that IS funny, in a Rabelaisian sort of way.

But I can see why those on the left might be a little touchy about all this. And that makes it even funnier.

Keemo,

You still don't get it, do you? I didn't vote for Soros, I didn't donate anything to him, I didn't vote for your mister Blagojevich. And, please note, I haven't defended either of them.

Since you have demonstrated so clearly you do not understand the concept, here it is: When you invent something which you then argue against, it's called a "strawman" -- and it is a logical fallacy. It's not going to impress anybody except those as weak in their grasp of logic as you.

If you want to argue with me, point out where my beliefs are incorrect, if you can. Don't bother asserting that some third party speaks for me and then argue with them -- not that you even did that, apparently the mere mention of their name in conjunction with mine is sufficient for you.

Gotta go, can't stay here explaining simple logic to you. Later.

Oh, please stay. Don't run! We need to see just how simple your logic is! PFFFFT.

Note to Dems: OBL's concept of getting stoned may differ from your own. Slightly.

Charles,
Ah so in your commentary, which contains the same dem talking points we've heard countless number of times from countless numbers of trolls on this site, as well as prime members of the democratic party as well as many/most leading liberals, we should glean some degree of nuance which separates your trolling anti Bush commentary from the other commentary. Where exactly is the distincintion?
And I don't recall people having to vote for Soros. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a lot of influence. But, if Soros doesn't speak for you or your friends, where are all the opeds and commentary disassociating yourself from his views? Or Rosie's views, or sean penns views or Kucinich's views. It's the same problem with radical islam versus moderate islam. if radical islam is not the true face of Islam and if Islam is being hijacked from its more moderate stance by radicals, then its up to the moderates to fight the radicals to get their religion back. And we're not seeing it. There are countless demonstrations around the world whenever there is something as banal as a cartoon that depicts islam in a bad light, yet the demonstrations against the demonstrations by the more enlightened are few and far between. And draw about ten people.
One problem with you on the lunatic fringe is that you are blatant about your demagoguery. You argue everything at once. So we have on one hand outrage every time there is a terror threat, and the charge that bush is hyping the threat (which implies that it doesn't exist), but then at the same time argue that we were negligent in letting OBL go in Torah Borah as if it was deliberate and that this is a trememdous threat to the world. ITs trying to have it both ways. If you believe that Bush is hyping the threat then you shouldn't also be arguing that we have to send our entire army into afghanistan to search for one man, because the threat isn't really that big to begin with. Nor should the dems argue that we have to check 100% of all cargo that comes into this country, as if this were even feasible, while at the same time poopooing any and all threats brought up by DOHS as fear mongering. And don't get me started on the argument that Bush had OBL and was holding him for the election. Or that BUsh knew about 9/11 before it happened and was using it so that he could get involved in a war over a pipeline. Or that 6 WTC was blown up by demolitions, or that it wasn't really a plane that hit the pentagon.Etc ad infitum.
This is your side saying this. DOn't hear many on the left telling the truthres and Rosie O'Donnell that they are full of hot air and morons,because the silent majority on the left use those conspiracy theories in their endless attack on Bush. Even if you don't personally believe it, the point is not to refute those arguments if they are effective in hobbling Bush or neocons so it gets added to the arsenal, even if its contradictory to hundreds of other competing narratives.
So, why should we expect some nuance from you when you spend time trolling a conservative website with the default talking points. This is your side that sounds exactly like Osama Bin Laden. This is your side that Osama is mimicking and who's language he is using. If its uncomfortorable for you, then I'm sorry that your side has been using that language for the better part of 6 years.
You now want us to distinguish your rhetoric from the masses, when of course your side counts on all those voices to hurl as many bombs as possible (rhetorical not literal) that will destroy your true enemy (Bush, not Osama). If you want to have your arguments distinguished from the bomb throwers (ie the truthers) it might be nice to have you maybe tell the truthers to shut up because they're insane. But since your side hasn't done that, don't see why it has to be us neocons, to parse your language and find some nuance that most likely insn't there.

Own up to the language of your side. Its' the same as Osama's. Because your side are his useful idiots. Deal with it.

finance our homes at a flat 2.5% fee

Quick point - I don't think Osama was stating a mortgage rate of 2.5%, but an income tax to fulfill the Muslim obligation to give alms to the poor. He seems to think Muslim government needs no tax - perhaps tariffs would provide revenue?

There is no interest in strict Islam. They are forbidden to charge usury.

Bin Laden is dead! He owns a piece of real estate
in the Tora Bora area.Bush and the Boys in the hood believe he is dead as well.Bush and his boys won't state this publicly because the demons
will demand proof and when the administration fails to provide same...well you get the picture.

Now,the two parties who will benefit the most from him being alive is..you guessed it,Demoncrats and Al Queda.Dems use it to continually pound bush about how he has failed to capture or kill him because of his focus on Iraqi where we should not be in the first place!
After all it was the Saudis who attacked us ..not Iraqi.Al Queda wants Americans to believe he is alive for the fear factor.He brought the Towers down once and can do it again also shoring up the Dems position that we should get out of Iraqi!So,IMHO if anyone has a motive for producing these fake videos...Correct!! the Dems and/or Al Queda .

I thought you all might be interested in this. There was a famous Phillipine terrorist (AQ inspired) with the last name of Bayam. I wonder if our leftist Bayam knows this?

Jim C

jr565,

Wipe the foam off your lips, and the flecks of spittle off your monitor, and get something to calm you down. And please remember, as Captain Ed says, "brevity is the soul of wit". Your rant was illogical, nearly incoherent, and without basis in fact.

I've seen a lot of comment here that simply asserts, without a shred of supporting evidence, some fact or other. Like Terry and his "AQI are leading what's left of the Sunni insurgency." This is not true, according to the latest NIE, but apparently he has no regard for the truth.

He prefers to make up his own facts, just as many of you prefer to make up your own ideas of what other people believe. It's easier, after all, make up facts to support your position than to accept the facts and then figure out a position, and it's easier to create a straw man which can be easily demolished than to deal with the real (and possibly justified) beliefs of real people.

Meanwhile, remember, Bin Laden remains able to (probably posthumously) influence your views and actions. This remains a notable failure of the Bush administration.

Charles,
are you kidding me? With the democratic undergrounds, DKOS''s bush is responsible for 9/11 bush didn't help new orleans because he hates black people, bush knew about 911 was responsible for WTC and planted explosives to bring down 6WTC, bush was holding OSamafor the elections, there is no terrorist threat, we just fought iraq for oil, Bush lied about the 16 words, little eichmanns, bush stole the election (even though recounts show he won), Bush manipulated the second election with voting machines and deliberarely heldb people back from voting, etc etc etc (and I'm only stopping because I'm tired of typing), and you are complaing about straw man arguments?
THe left has constructed a straw world, and have constructed straw man upon straw man. So sorry if you are offended that we don't take your argument seriously. Especially since you are a troll on a website, engaging in nothing but talking points that we've heard countless times.

And you pad off your argument with yet more of your straw man talking points. Ah, we lost OBL in Torah Borah. That old argument. How soon till we hear about war in iraq is a diversion from the real war on terror. Of course, since half the people ont he left can't even acknowledge that there is a terrorist threat at all, its kind of funny to hear how Bush is doing everything wrong. Yet at every turn Bushismerely hyping the threat,and there is no threat. Don't you get tired of the bull being spewed from your side. Don't you get tired trying to even make sense of the contradictions, or are you just on board because it all adds up to one big bush bash.

What we do know is that OBL just released his latest speech and it sounds exactly likesomething you'd hear at DKOS.HE even goes out of his way to say that the dems are failures for not ending the war quick enough. Sorry if pointing that out makes your side uncomfortorable.

But to have a troll indignant that people are using straw man arguments against him is the height of irony. Buddy, you're a troll. You're coming onto this site, strictly to engage in hyperbole not actual debate. And you come armed with democratic talking points. And yet you are somehow indignant that people (RIGHTLY) are treating you like a troll.

I've seen a lot of comment here that simply asserts, without a shred of supporting evidence, some fact or other. Like Terry and his "AQI are leading what's left of the Sunni insurgency." This is not true, according to the latest NIE, but apparently he has no regard for the truth.

Charles, I read your NIE link. Is that the whole report? The reason I ask is I couldn't find anything to support your allegation that I'm wrong about al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency. However, I did find the following statement:

Perceeptions that the Coalition is withdrawing probably will encourge factions anticipating a power vaccum to seek local security solutions that could intensify sectarian violence and Intra-sectarian competition.

This statement is of course only common sense. Incidentally it is at odds with the absurd assertion contained in your 9:58 am post:

Their strength in Iraq comes from the sectarian violence, which is fed by the US presence.

So who is making things up?

Terry,

Read the NIE again. Notice that, wherever the insurgents or AQI are mentioned, they are both mentioned -- implying strongly that they are separate groups.

It wasn't me making the assertion that AQI was leading the sunni insurgency, it was you -- since this is not mentioned in the NIE, it's clearly false, as it would be notable and mentioned, don't you think? I mean, I kinda think the CIA or military intelligence would have noticed.

That sectarian tensions would be increased if the US military leaves hardly contradicts that the US military presence fuels sectarian tensions. What you are saying is equivalent to saying "if I drain the oil out of my car and run it, the fact that I've thrown a rod already will no longer be true."

Charles

You accused me of lying when I said al Qaeda was leading what's left of the Sunni insurgency and cited the NIE as proof. You now claim that since the NIE doesn't make this claim it must not be true. Your reasoning is illogical and your argument fatuous and dishonest. Your blown rod example is incoherent.

I think you've blown a gasket and are leaking antifreeze (leftist notions) into your engine block (brain). Continued sputtering is inevitable so long as you continue to abuse youself by unthinking accepting of leftist garbage.

Terry,

So you are asking us to believe that AQI has assumed leadership of the sunni insurgency in Iraq but the NIE, produced by the CIA and military intelligence, failed to mention this astounding fact?

OK.

It seems you are impervious to logic, and therefore there is no more point in continuing this discussion.

You'll forgive me if I still think that it's not true.

“It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations.”

Damn! That inane p*ckerhead George Soros is a circus chimp compared to Osama bin Laden. And this release makes it perfectly clear who runs the donkey show: Osama friggin' bin Laden! That's where those jackasshats get their talking points.

So when the Dems start saying exactly the same damn thing that bin Laden is saying against America, at what point can we start hauling those pieces of crap out of their offices and trying them for high treason? Anyone? How about you America-hating weenie trolls? What say you about this? Or are you going to defend this murdering bastard by deflecting the blame for 9/11 like you always have?

I hope there's room enough against the wall for you seditious pieces of garbage, too, when this all plays out.

It may not mean the latter are terrorists but it does mean they are simpatico with one.

Nice, let's start equated fellow Americans of terrorism.
bin Laden doesn't like high taxes and believe religious morality should be the guiding light of society, thus republicans are simpatico with bin Laden.

I know you're looking for any piece of evidence to back up your belief that you and your kind are superior "leftists," but this kind of thinking -- despite your "noble" attempts to not stoop to the level of lefty trolls -- really does show you as a partisan hack.

Actually, this kind of a fun game to play...

Who said this?

Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven’t made a move worth mentioning.

Fred Thompson?

Trent Lott?

Karl Rove?

Nope, OSAMA BIN LADEN

Republicans are like terrorists!

Tom
What is your point exactly? OBL made that statement as a denunciation of the democrats, who (according to him) aren't able to end the war, and as an appeal to the left wing.
This is a charge made by the Democratic Underground and DKOS, and this is exactly why Cindy Sheehan is running against Pelosi. Because the argument is that the dems aren't listening to the nuts roots, er, libs, despite being elected under a so called mandate.
Fred Thompson is not mad that the dems are not able to end the war. Fred Thompson rightfully recognizes that the dems are inconsequential weenies who wont be able to end the war, because they are innefectual cowards who are unfit to lead and who based their whole moral objection to the war, to some calculus that would get them elected (since as we all know, the vast majority of democrats gave Bush authority to go to war, and also were on board when Clinton was holding Iraq accountable for violating UN resolutions, and building WMD's). But this is not something that Thompson has a problem with. He is running against the dems after all.
Thompson might for example, debate the argument that in fact the dems have a mandate that is based on us getting out of Iraq. But the DKOS folks sure believe this. So why did you leave them off your little list?

So, how are you getting that based on OBL's statement, that republicans are like terrorists?

My point, JR, is that OBL may say things that sound like something democrats or republicans may say. He may actually believe the same things that democrats or republicans believe.

I've seen post after post on this site by the Captain and other posters talking about the worthlessness of the democratic Congress. And yes, many democrats have made that claim as well.

Many republicans have called for low taxes ,,, even a flat tax ... and lament high taxes. Many also promote the use of faith when governing.

Many democrats are against the war in Iraq, and would like to see us starting to withdraw our troops.

My point, i guess, is that you have to do what you believe in and promote what you believe. Osama bin laden is going to say what he's going to say. Because he says something that's similar to what you or I or anyone has said, does not make it wrong.

Assuming you are for lower taxes, are you going to change your stance and be for high taxes because Osama bin laden is against high taxes?

If I believe that real political progress will not be made in Iraq until we start withdrawing troops (not all, and I think we should most definitely keep troops there to battle AQ, among other things), because Osama bin Laden is for American troop withdrawal doesn't mean I'm wrong, or will change my opinion.

Of course bin Laden is going to say this. this has been his what he's been calling for since the 90s... the US out of the Middle East. I happen to believe we should be in Afghanastan right now. And I believe we should keep troops in Iraq.

If the opposite of what Osama bin Laden says is always right, then Osama bin Laden is making our decisions for us.

Tom,
Whether OBL is for lower or higher taxes doesn't impact in any way on what happens in this country. It's inconsequential. But we are fighting him and his organization both in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. Thus his belief that it would be in his interest to have us withdraw from the theater of operations directly impacts us.Further, he doens't want us to withdraw from Iraq because it gives Harry Reid and the dems an advantage. He wants to withdraw because it gives him and his organziation an advantage. HIs argument is that we are a paper tiger and will give up after having casualties inficted against us. And once we are removed and by inflicting damage on us he will then continue with his plans, and gather more forces to his side, because he'd have the symbolic as well as actual victory under his belt agasint the great satan. Further, he'd have the template as to how to beat us were we to ever again get in his way.
Furhter, our allies would know we are not to be trusted beucase when the going got tough, we'd get going (out of the area).Further, reformers in the area would know that reform was too risky an edevaor, what with all the great powers hiding behind their bordrers, and those chopping off heads having free reign.
So, since you think OBL is right to get us to withdraw (albeit for different reasons) its fair to ping you for it, considering the objectives so benefit our enemy. Even if that's not your intent, how can you look at it rationally and not recognize that it benefits Al Qaeda and assists Al Qaeda in achieving their objective, otherwise Al Qaeda wouldn't be issuing fatwahs proclaiming it. And if I were counseling the exact same thing that Osama Bin Laden was, when it affected our military and benefited our enemy who we were fighting at the time I would maybe question my views.

Just because you want us to withdraw for different reasons doesn't mean that it wouldn't produce the same results. And since al Qaeda has their own agenda, and is demanding us withdraw so that they can achieve a victory (symbolic or otherwise) maybe your reasons are not that valid. Maybe you are working for the enemies purposes. Maybe you're a useful idiot.

JR,

Just because you want us to withdraw for different reasons doesn't mean that it wouldn't produce the same results

But no one knows what the result is going to be, so you can't say I'm proposing an action that will benefit AQ. Most Iraqis are against al qaeda. I'm all for leaving troops in Iraq to battle al Qaeda. I'm not propsing that we slink away from them. I'm proposing that the Iraqi people are not going to come together with a large US military force occupying the country. The real problem in Iraq is not al qaeda. It's the sunni/shi'ite rift. By our own government's account, AQ is responsible for something like 15% of the violence in Iraq.

The surge is doing a great job in fighting al qaeda. But there are many shia who are angry with the US for arming sunni militias and tribes in this fight, because once AQ is taken care of, there's going to be more people with more guns trained and willing to fight.

We're really in a shitty spot in Iraq. If we leave quickly, yes, things will get worse. We're going to have to be there for a while. I think the best way to go is slowly and gradually and I think we should start now. Because if we stay indefinitely, Iraqis are not going to feel they own their country, they are not going to come together as a country. And even if they do, signs are that they are going to look more like Iran and the USofA.

If we left right away, yes, it would be chaos. If we leave slowly, they are going to figure out pretty quickly that they need to get their act together or the sh*t is gonna hit the fan. This open-ended US military is providing a tenuous stability while not much political progress is being made. US forces staying in iraq is NOT going to solve the problem. We need to start putting the onus more and more on the Iraqis. The best way to do that is by starting troop withdrawal.

Now, you can cite bin Laden's rant about wanting the US out of Iraq, and cite my above reasoning for why I think we should start a troop withdrawal. If you really believe that I'm unwittingly helping bin laden because of this, then go ahead and think that.

And if you're so concerned about US actions helping al qaeda, how do you feel about our governement's analysis that invading Iraq has been a boon for al qaeda. that it has swelled it's ranks and provided a training ground for battle US forces and suicide attacks on a populace.

You have supported an action and support an action that has benefitted al qaeda.

I really loathe the "useful idiot" thing, but if you're going to play that game, why don't you look in the mirror.

Tom wrote:
And if you're so concerned about US actions helping al qaeda, how do you feel about our governement's analysis that invading Iraq has been a boon for al qaeda. that it has swelled it's ranks and provided a training ground for battle US forces and suicide attacks on a populace.

Well the same could be said for Afgahnistan couldn't it? Why hasn't our invasion of Afghanistan not also been a boon for afghanistan?Al Qaeda's command structure has been decimated and its leadership scattered into caves. But you're also counting any other jihadists around the world who have joined al qaeda out of sympathy. And the same could be argued when we invaded Afghanistan. The same could be said were we ti get tough with Iran. Also, if you go into an area and fight someone, people will come to fight you. therefore there will be an increase in the amount of jihadists as well as instances of terror attacks.But by the same token we are also able to kill jihadists that we otherwise wouldn't have acces to as well as get much intel that would otherwise be off limits from those we capture. So I discount completely your characterization.
There's no way that one can determine the % of jihadists who joined al qaeda because we are in Iraq, or because we are in Afghanistan or because we supposedly dumped korans down the toilet, or because we're the great satan or any combo. It's only you leftists who are glomming onto IRaq and Iraq only as the reason that jihadists are mad at us, as if their raison d'etre is the same as yours.
What swelled Al Qaeada's ranks prior to 9/11, and led to us being targeted by Al Qaeda? Were you and your buddies consulting the NIE to see how much containment of Iraq was increasing the terrorist threat around the world, or how our containment of Iraq was galvanizing terrorism. Of course not. So I don't want to hear your pablum, which is yet more manufactured, cherry picked pablum.
If we are going to fight a war against Al Qaeda, anywhere in the world, then those who are supportive of Al Qaeda will use it as justification to attak us back either on the battlefront or anywhere else around the world. So is the argument then that we should not attack Al Qaeda anywhere? Yet note when we weren't at war with al Qaeda we still had 9/11. I note when we weren't at war with Iraq we still had 9/11.
And I'd be willing to bet that striking a blow at the great satan increased the number of jihadis wanting to be with OBL's crew a thousand fold. So where was the lefts cherry picking of the NIE after 9/11. DId containment really work if it increased terorrorism? If OBL issues a fatwah because we have troops in saudi ariabia, and we have troops in Saudi Arabia because we have to contain Iraq, what then, should we not even contain Iraq? So both containment led to an increase in terror and war led to increase in terror, is your solution then to have neither war or contaiment?OBL said the attacks would stop if we submitted to Islam and got out of the US. Anything else will increase terrorism. So then really, what you're saying is that any rsponse other than doing exactly what OBL suggests will lead to an increase in terrorism therefore we shoudln't do it.
Now, you can cite bin Laden's rant about wanting the US out of Iraq, and cite my above reasoning for why I think we should start a troop withdrawal. If you really believe that I'm unwittingly helping bin laden because of this, then go ahead and think that.
Yes I do think that. We have been increasing the involvement of Iraqis for sometime. It takes time to train an army, it takes time to grow a govt and write constitutions, so the argument that Iraqis haven't been doing anything is flat out false. It's taking longer than some of us would want, but that doesn't change the incredible amount of progress already made. Adn there would be no way to get to where we are without going through the turmoil. also,

But no one knows what the result is going to be, so you can't say I'm proposing an action that will benefit AQ. Most Iraqis are against al qaeda. I'm all for leaving troops in Iraq to battle al Qaeda. I'm not propsing that we slink away from them. I'm proposing that the Iraqi people are not going to come together with a large US military force occupying the country. The real problem in Iraq is not al qaeda. It's the sunni/shi'ite rift. By our own government's account, AQ is responsible for something like 15% of the violence in Iraq.
Even if you don't know what the result is going to be you also don't know what the result of a quick pullout will be either. But you have ideas as to what would happen, otherwise you wouldn't advocate it.And Al Qaeda has ideas about what they think will happen too, which is why they are advocating it. So even if you argue that no can say with any certainty that Al Qaeda will benefit in making us look like we lost a war because of them, common sense would say that the most likely result of us pulling out and strategically withdrawing is that we would look like we lost. And common sense would say that Al Qaeda could and would use it as propaganda that would increase their membership tenfold. Because they could say they won against the Great satan. Just as after 9/11 the most possilbe name in the ME was Osama, their victory against us would increase terrorism even more. And you woudln't have to consult and cherry pick the NIE to know that. Further, the NYT, John Burns, even Michael Ware, all acknowledged that if we were to precipitously pull out that the situation would get far worse. The NYT went as far as to say that it might produce genocide, but so what (paraphrasing). This is not an absolte guarantee, but is the most likely scenario and even those oppposed to the war have recognized this. Finally, if its so difficult to get a political process going with troops there, what makes you think it would be easier if we started withdrawing. The majority of attacks now are against iraqis, not against the troops, because civilians are a pretty easy target, and soldiers who shoot back , less so. But with Saudi Arabia saying they will send people in to protect the Sunnis, with Turkey saying they will go into Iraq to deal with the Kurds, with Irans meddling and with Al Qaeda targeting civilians what makes you think it will be easier to achieve a political result. It's not in our interest, surely to creat a vaccuum in the middle east, and would we not have to deal with the result in any case? If we do pull out of iraq

The dems keep saying that there is no military solution, only a political one, but common sense suggests that a military solution is required

cont: If we do pull out of iraq, we are still going to have to deal with Iraq in the future.

The dems keep saying that there is no military solution, only a political one, but common sense suggests that a military solution is required in order to have political reconciliation, so, in my opinion at any rate, you can't just remove troops and expect things to quiet down and for people to suddenly come together. Yes, being in Iraq might cause people to target the US while we're there, but at the same time, it allows us to fight them and dwindle their numbers, while the political reforms are made.

If you argue that no matter what no political reconciliation is possilbe ever, then it doesn't end the story We're then going to have to deal with a world where Iraq has devolved into utter chaos, and try to work some political solution out of it. But if you argue that a political solution is possible, then you need troops there to maintian some sense of security until they can get the job done. If it takes longer than we'd want, so be it.
The flaw in the lefts reasoning is that they think that by simply pulling out of Iraq the story will be over and we wont have to worry about it anymore. I beg to differ.

Tom Shipley: ... I think we should most definitely keep troops there to battle AQ, among other things

Do AQ terrorists carry ID cards or wear gang colors or embroidered polo shirts so our guys can tell them apart from the other people who carry guns and shoot at people over there? (I'm reminded of Robin Williams' schtick in "Good Morning, Vietnam!": "We go up and ask people, 'Are you a VC?' and, if they say yes, then we shoot them.")

By the way, what "other things" would our remaining troops be doing over there? I mean, that wouldn't put them in the middle of a civil war, delight bin Laden, attract terrorists, make us less safe, secure political advantage for Bush, or make money for Halliburton?

The flaw in the lefts reasoning is that they think that by simply pulling out of Iraq the story will be over and we wont have to worry about it anymore. I beg to differ.

JR, go back and read my post. I in no way say this. This is not the argument I'm making. It's much easier to argue with the "left" by assigning arguments that are easy to counter. I believe it's called creating a "straw man."

And it's not just the democrats saying there's no military solution...

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus told a news conference, adding that political negotiations were crucial to forging any lasting peace.

real political reconciliation will end the violence. I don't think that US forces are capable of ending the insurgency, because the very fact that US forces are holding up the goverment is aiding in fueling the insurgency.

If Iraq doesn't have a force capable of defending it's own government, it's not because of training, but because of will. The insurgents haven't had 4 years of US training, yet they seem to be doing OK. And yes, control the an insurgency is harder than taking part in one, but my gut tells me that the lack of Iraqi military progress is because of a lack of will, rather than a lack of training.

If we start to withdraw troops, I think you'll see that will increase. Iraqis will realize, hey, this country is going to go to hell if we don't step up. I think it'll boost both the Iraqi military and political process. They will own their country. If a strong, united military force defends this government, people will get behind it and you'll see political progress made.

We need to start lessoning our precense in Iraq for this to occur. It'll be gradual, but the time has come (it actually came a while ago) to start doing this.

Tom wrote,
And it's not just the democrats saying there's no military solution...

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus told a news conference, adding that political negotiations were crucial to forging any lasting peace.
Ugh! stop saying there's no military solution or those wanting us to keep troops on the ground think that the only solution is a military one.That's so asinine. You then quote Patteus with the cherry picked statement that aha proves there's no military solution. Patreus is leading the surge, the surge of our military. Which means that whatever political negotiations are required also require a surge in the military to make easier. it's not either or. Yes a political solution is required. That's what we have been attempting, with much derision from the left to achieve since day one. Hint, setting up a constituion, holding elections, setting up a govt. Those are all political solutions, not military ones. Even the training of the Iraqi military is both a military effort, but also part of the political process.
But these things would not have occured were our troops not there fighitng the insurgents and al qaeda and would collapse on itself if we were to pull out too soon.

Tom Shipley: If we start to withdraw troops, I think you'll see that will increase. Iraqis will realize, hey, this country is going to go to hell if we don't step up. I think it'll boost both the Iraqi military and political process. They will own their country.

Using this logic, please explain the high crime rates in various American cities. Why don't the citizens of South Central LA or Detroit or Philly look around at the drug dealers and gang bangers and say, "Hey, this city / neighborhood is going to go to hell if we don't step up"? Why don't they own their own communities and cities?

Somebody posted a few days ago (wish I could remember where) a quote from an Iraqi in an area where US and Iraqi troops have done a lot to run the terrorists out. The Iraqi said something to the effect, "Thank God for the Americans! We didn't like having the terrorists here, but we were too afraid to do anything about it."

The meme that the Iraqis aren't doing anything to defend their own country is old and worn out. Iraqis ARE working to defend their own country: they ARE and HAVE BEEN joining their army and police. They are dying in large numbers, but libs like you do nothing but smear them as incompetent at best and terrorist sympathizers at worst. As I have written many times before, we are trying to build a professional military and police force in a country where the police and army were little more than uniformed thugs working for the ruling strong man or party. It takes a lot of time, especially given the significant ethnic and religious conflicts that exist in Iraq (how long does it take to convince a platoon of Shiia that they should defend a town of Sunnis, or a Sunni cop that he should try to catch the murderer of a Kurd?).

Though I hope and pray that we'll never have to find out, I wonder how much success the police force in the average American city would have against terrorists like AQI? Could the police in your town or the sheriff in your county stop a small but determined band of murderers who have no problem planting bombs in supermarkets or shopping malls, or blowing up people waiting to get on a bus? How well do you think that the State Police and National Guard in New Mexico or Minnesota or Alabama or New Hampshire would do if somebody dropped in a few thousand terrorists all intent on creating mayhem?

Face it, Tom: you've never supported the war and you never will. Anything is an excuse to cut and run as far as you're concerned, and who cares about the consequences to America or Iraq?

Tom: you've never supported the war and you never will. Anything is an excuse to cut and run as far as you're concerned, and who cares about the consequences to America or Iraq?

You just couldn't stick to what I was actually saying, could you? You were doing well for a while, but you couldn't take it anymore and just fell back of the old talking points that really have nothing to do with what I've been saying. It is easier, and lets you vent your rage against the left, but it adds up to nothing.

First off, I HAVE said Iraqis are fighting al Qaeda. And yes, there are diligent Iraqi military forces. BUT, overall, the Iraqi military forces are not capable of defending their own governement. And I think it has to do more with a lack of will to do so rather than a lack of training.

We have to force the issue, or else, you're going to have Iraqis saying "thank God (wouldn't they be saying Allah?) for the Americans" for the next 10, 20 years. And you know and I know, there will be many Iraqis who will not be thanking Allah that the Americans stay that long.

Yes, I was against the war from the beginning -- rightfully so. Saddam was not the threat we said he was. The invasion was not justified. Colin Powell's UN speech is a blight on our image that will no go away anytime soon. It was supposed to be our "Cuban Missle Crisis" moment, but ended up just being another Bush gaffe (and that's way too nice a word).

The sad thing is that even if we do stay for 10 more years (which I don't think we will), I don't know if there will be political reconciliation. You know the old saying, they've been fighting for 2000 years...

Bill Maher made a good point over the weekend. Us going into Iraq is like those Koeran missionaries going into Talban country with a cross and a smile. They really expected to convert those people. What happened? They get kidnapped.

Bush was certain that all we had to do was topple Saddam and democracy would spring forth in Iraq. He built up what turned out to be a false case for war to get his chance, and it blew up in his face.

We do need to leave. We need to let the Iraqis take control of their country. That won't happen until they stand up and take control of our country and that won't happen if the US military is providing security. We need to start the transition.

Like I said, Tom: you've been against the war from the beginning. You're "we gotta get out to make the Iraqis stand up" is nothing more than an excuse to cut 'n' run from a war that you never have and never will think is worth it.

There you go, Tom. Having never met you, and in spite of any denial you may care to make, folks like DocJim are quite comfortable arguing by assertion that you hold a particular view.

This is classic conservative thought, as exemplified in the results of a new experiment, where people are asked to echo a key that is displayed. The experiment displays four times as many of one key as another, so that a person is lulled into pressing the "usual" key rather than the "correct" one. "Conservatives" were significantly more likely to press the key they were used to seeing rather than the correct one than "liberals".

------------------------------------

Disclaimer: Before you take this as gospel you should read the study or a more detailed report. It's another conservative characteristic to take a single example or fact and extrapolate from it.