Saturday, April 7, 2007 - Bush: Enemies Will Follow Us Here? I Think Not!
Posted in Unspecified

Would the Enemy Follow Us Here if We Left Iraq?

For far too long, George Bush’s absurd arguments for war in Iraq were repeated by the lap dogs in the news media without serious questioning. It is good to see that Bush’s statements are receiving increased fact checking. McClatchy reviews Bush’s claim that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so that we don’t have to fight them here:

Is there any truth to "the enemy would follow us here?’

It’s become President Bush’s mantra, that and "oceans no longer protect us" they used to get huge applause lines, but no longer as evident in his latest visit to Ft. Irwin where his speech was greeted by deafening silence...  his main explanation for why he won’t withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq anytime soon.

In speech after speech, in statement after statement, Bush insists that "this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here."

The line, which Bush repeated Wednesday in a speech to troops at California’s Fort Irwin, suggests a chilling picture of warfare on American streets.

But is it true?

Military and diplomatic analysts say it isn’t. They accuse Bush of exaggerating the threat that enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland.

"The president is using a primitive, inarticulate argument that leaves him open to criticism and caricature," said James Jay Carafano, a homeland security and counterterrorism expert for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy organization. "It’s a poor choice of words that doesn’t convey the essence of the problem - that walking away from a problem doesn’t solve anything."

U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush’s own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States"

James Lewis, a U.S. foreign policy analyst at CSIS, called Bush’s assertion oversimplistic, but added that there’s a slight chance a few enemy combatants could make their way to the United States after a U.S. troop withdrawal.

"There’s a grain of truth in Bush saying it’s better to fight them there rather than here, but it’s also overstated," Lewis said. "It’s not like there’s going to be gun battles in the United States."

Daniel Benjamin, the director of the Center on the United States and Europe at The Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank, agreed.

"There are very few foreign fighters who are going to be leaving the area because they don’t have the skills or languages that would give them access to the United States," said Benjamin, who served as the National Security Council’s director for transnational threats from 1998 to 1999. "I’m not saying events in Iraq aren’t going to embolden jihadists. But I think the president’s formulations call for a leap of faith."

"The war in Iraq isn’t preventing terrorist attacks on America," said one U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he’s contradicting the president and other top officials. "If anything, that - along with the way we’ve been treating terrorist suspects - may be inspiring more Muslims to think of us as the enemy."

The last line presents the ultimate problem. As we cannot kill every potential terrorist, the real battle is one for the hearts and minds of those who are more moderate. Rather than winning them over, the war has led to radicalizing many and turning more Muslims against the United States. This is something the extremist right wing neocons just cannot understand.

Share |
:: Send to a Friend!

Sunday, April 8, 2007 - Untitled Comment
Posted by regman68
You have got to quit listening to the kooky liberals telling you that everything that happens to us is our fault. I cannot imagine a parent telling their child they can't respond to the schoolhouse bully because he/she might "upset them even more". No, you show that person you will not be pushed around solely for their pleasure and you put a stop to it! That is very elementary.

Let's look at your boy Clinton and see how he handled things and what was the result of it all.

Point number 1:

Clinton did not protect America from terrorism, in particular Usama bin Laden. Usama bin Laden heads the terrorist group Al Qaeda. Bin Laden explained the purpose of the group in an interview in May of 1997, he declared a jihad, a holy war, against the United States government because it is, according to him, unjust, criminal, and tyrannical.

What? Clinton did not do anything to Bin Laden. Why would a very nice, gentlehearted, and amicable man like that say such things. We just want peace, happiness and joy for everybody! Hugs and kisses! Please like us!

Point number 2:

Al Qaeda was busy during the Clinton Administration; the group took responsibility for the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks on two U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of two U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the attacks on United States soldiers in Somalia. Throughout these attacks, Clinton did nothing to protect America or her citizens; in fact he sabotaged America's ability to protect herself.

Why were we attacked numerous times during Clinton's tenure? I'm sure he had tea with Saddam, Bin Laden and all his gang. I'm almost positive he told them of the virtues of his adminstration's "don't attack, don't condemn" policy toward terrorists. He was always very nice to them, how could this all be?

Point number 3:

The Central Intelligence Agency suffered greatly under Clinton. According to CIA agent Robert Baer, by the mid-1990s, the CIAÕs headquarters throughout the world lacked the officers to go after the rising epidemic of radical Islam. Clinton often ignored the CIAÕs advice, he considered them irrelevant. The CIA warned Clinton that without proper funding, it could not properly supply the White House with current, honest intelligence.

He only did these things to prove to Al Qaeda we were serious about not caring what they did. That we would look the other way.

What did we do to deserve 9-11? Nothing. You can believe all the reports about us causing more Muslim hatred for us all you want, but even if it is true, so what. Passiveness in the past has gotten us nowhere. There are people in this world who hate us just because of who we are, and for no other reason. It has been 6 years since the last attack and we have forgotten and become soft. We had better wake up to the threat we face from Islamic Fascists because they are ever vigilant and want to hit us again, and with the Democrats rooting for them, they probably will succeed.

Permanent Link

Sunday, April 8, 2007 - Untitled Comment
Posted by regman68
Necon - a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs including through military means.

In the sense that I put U.S. national interests ahead of, say, Syria or Iran, then yes that term applies to me. I do not beleieve in the U.S. being imperialistic, however. But I do firmly believe that we have the best thing going in the world right now. I would not want to live anywhere else. I believe in the vision our Founding Fathers had when they founded this country.

I do not mean to resort to name-calling, but when I do, it is only because I get so frustrated with what I see the Dems doing at times it just sends me off the edge.

I think it criminal the way they are playing chicken with our troops' funding right now. The men and women serving over there in Iraq are not happy about it either, I have heard numerous reports of them slamming the Democrats for even thinking about holding up their funding. This is not a game, it should not be treated as such.

Do you not think it odd that the very week Congress rammed an Iraq spending bill through with a cut-off date, Iran seemed to get emboldened enough to capture British soldiers for no reason whatsoever? And who tells an enemy the exact day they are going to leave, win, lose or draw? To my knowledge, that has never been done before. I'm sorry, but that is kooky! John Murtha and his "slow bleed" plan, he should be brought up on treason charges for that disgraceful display! Our troops deserve no less than our full support while in harm's way, they should not be used as pawns to try and score political points with any far-left, out on the fringe, anti-war groups. On this issue, yes my mind is not open. I will always be one who supports our troops and want to see them succeed. I believe we can win the War in Iraq. (i.e. create an environment where Iraq can have a stable government and be free from tyranny). I also believe that if the Dems get in the way, they can secure our defeat over there and that will allow them to score political points by blaming it on Bush, when it would in essence be their fault.

Saddam Hussein and his two sons are dead. Numerous Al Qaeda leaders have bit the dust, including the one who was Saddam's right hand man. Over 75% of Al Qeada insurgents, who were present at the start of the War, are now either dead or captured and in custody. The raperooms have been shut down, the gas chambers have been demolished, ethnic genocide is no longer happening in Iraq. In my book, these are good and noble things. I thought liberals cared about human rights and suffering around the world? Why not in Iraq?

Kooky - showing or marked by a lack of good sense or judgment.

As that applies to the current liberal Democrat Party, then yes, it is very fitting.

Homeland Security is an extension of the Federal Government that has only existed for just a few years now. It was created because of 9-11 and the terrorist threat that has followed. Any money that is applied to it now is still that much more than we had before 9-11. It is not a department that was meant to be cemented forever in the annals of Congressional Funding. As a liberal Bush hater, you should be glad at any cut in the defense budget.

I am glad you have core convictions and beliefs. You are better than most politicians if you stick to them. I may disagree with them, but I can respect anyone with core convictions who are not swayed this way and that way at the drop of a hat. My views only sound extreme because of the distance the Democrats have driven away from common sense in the past 40 years. FDR, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy would line right up with the majority of what I believe.

But as far as having an open mind on things, you say you have one. I just wish you would utilize it to maybe see that Bush is not 100% evil. I vehemently disagree with him on many things, but overall he has been a decent President (mostly because of the War on Terror), but because of his illegal immigration, free trade, and anti-union views, I would have to think hard about voting for him again. He has been a disappointment in many areas.

Edited by regman68 on Monday, April 9, 2007 at 5:22 AM

Permanent Link

Monday, April 9, 2007 - G'day Heather,
Posted by DAWNIE
I have been perusing your journal and reading with great interest.
I received your lovely e-mail and nice greeting...thank you so much. I left some messages on msn messenger because I played with it for a good while and wallah it worked but alas you were not at home, so we fail to connect again, but never thee mind. We will catch up soon. Love and ((((HUGS)))) from Dawnie. xxxx

Permanent Link

Monday, April 9, 2007 - Untitled Comment
Posted by regman68
Well then, I didn't realize the dictionary was off limits to a liberal, but o.k. How about this definition then:

According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism:

1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits.

2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, politically allied with religious conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture.

3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, statesmen should have the ability to accurately distinguish friend from foe, protect national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.

Does that more closely coincide with what your liberal professors taught you? Your arguments are the same old tired, obfuscating the issue remarks that can be found on any liberal website.

I did not say that John Murtha could or would be brought up on treason charges, but what he suggested with "slow bleeding" the troops, was treasonous. He is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and he is broadcasting our war strategy by making those comments, that is treason. Too bad members of Congress are exempt from any charges of that nature while on the Senate or House floor. I don't care what war he served in, or for how long. That does not make his statements any less appalling.

Bush lied, people died. Common mantra of the libs. If that is true, then Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards, John Kerry, et. al. lied as well. They all said the same thing, but I guess you will not want to hold them to the same treasonous standard as you do for Bush. Hillary Clinton was bragging about her vote for the War all the up until just two years ago when the poll number started going down. Was she lying? Is she treasonous?

McCain speech? Why, McCain is a decorated war veteran, why would you slight him in any way? Hmmmm? Different standard when it is a Republican, huh?

I'm not redefining victory, that has been clearly stated for years now, it has not changed. I did not say we had achieved it yet. There is not peace in Baghdad yet, as I so clearly have stated before. The Iraqi troops have not been fully trained and equipped yet, but it is getting better, as I have so clearly stated before. Now who is cherry picking? I'm glad you find an intelligent discussion of the facts so amusing. Being college educated I would have expected more from you than just the talking points of Bush bad, any Democrat good philosophy. Is that all they teach now in the hallowed halls of academia?

Permanent Link

Monday, April 9, 2007 - Untitled Comment
Posted by regman68
Calm down, it's going to be alright. Don't make Nancy Pelosi have to use her mommy voice on you. It is very simple, I stated it already but you didn't listen, evidently. I'm beginning to wonder if someone else is not writing your Blog because you are not responding to a lot of what I say.

Victory in Iraq - create an environment where Iraq can have a stable government, where that government can survive on its own, and be able to defend itself from the tyranny of terrorists.

My strategy is to achieve victory by whatever military means is necessary. That doesn't mean carpetbombing, or nuclear war. You libbies only go there because you love to try and polarize the issue. The surge the President is implementing right now is working, we just need to let it play out and see what happens.

Permanent Link

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - Untitled Comment
Posted by dutchboy
This is something we Europeans barely understand. America has never been occupied by foreign forces, so obviously you guys haven't got the first beginnings of a clue what it's like. You guys have little to fear, unless all of Latin America join together and launch an assault from Mexico. If the enemy has to come by sea or air you'll have more than adequate defenses in place. All you have to reckon with is terrorism, but if the CIA and FBI do their jobs properly, there is little that can happen. Calm down, Reggie, and more importantly, calm down Bush.

Edited by dutchboy on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Permanent Link

About Heather ™
I have suspeneded my blog site
I may come back to it at a later date
I am sorry that my blogs and site were not appreciated and lacked participation
It just seems like my JH Colleagues have little interest in this format
I have to devote my time and energy where it is appreciated
It seems thats not the case here.
I wish JH and My Colleagues here well...Love and blessings to all

Click Videoplayer Below

This Clip Is From Youtube...Rarely shown on mainstream news

A delightful version of
the real warm loving Hillary,
not the "monster" media portrays

I am not Neocon or Republican, not "liberal but progressive"Rather, I like to say "progressive Independent" and independent of ideology, which really means: I think for myself.

My goal is to vanquish Neocons / Bush from this Land near and far...
To make women wake up, get angry, protest and act!
Aw come on . . . it shouldn't be that hard!......

About Me:

Orientation: ~ Straight

Hometown: ~ New York

Body Type: ~ 6'0" / Slim

Ethnicity: ~ Irish

Zodiac Sign: ~ Aquarian

Smoke/Drink: ~ Yes/No

Children: ~ One Daughgter I Cherish

Occupation: ~

Mom, Healer,Teacher & Work Force Goddess

My Favorite Things:

Shoes: ~ Charles Jordan High Heels

Activities: ~

Mountain Biking, Forest Nature Trails, Gourmet Cooking

Sports: ~ Tennis

People ~ Compassionate, Kind, Respectful

Recent Posts
«  February 2017  »

  • My Wall

  • Poll Answers


    Cost of War - MilitaryWidgets
    Get this Widget

    [*] Humane Society
    [*] Habitat For Humanity
    [*] ABC News
    [*] Bloombergnews
    [*] C-Span
    [*] Congressional Quarterly
    [*] Financial Times
    [*] International Herald Tribune
    [*] MSNBC [*]BBC
    [*]Crooks and Liars
    [*] The Huffington Post
    [*] Daily Kos
    [*] Think Progress
    [*] Crooks And Liars
    [*] Talk Left
    [*] Talking Points Memo
    [*] Instapundit
    [*]Daily Kos

  • Political Patriot Opinions & Editorial

Entry 1 of 902
Last Page | Next Page
Please Feel Free To Take Part
Due to lack of participation
My blog site will be suspended indefinately
My Time is too valuable to devote to futile causes
farewell all

Hide Box