Is it just me, or does it sound like Zawahiri is saying “Oh, noes, they’re running away! How will we ever overcome this obstacle now thrown into our path by those thrice-blessed-by-Allah Democrats making the decisions...?” Fortunately for him, sarcasm isn’t easily discernable in printed text, else even the allies he has in the MSM wouldn’t be able to just pass it off.

Please don’t throw me into that briar patch, Farmer Reid…

Ya, Jim, you are going to have to explain your headline “Ayman al-Zawahri loves Democrats”.  Am I missing something, or does al-Zawahri pretty much seem to be supporting the idea of leaving more troops in Iraq as long as possible? 

Unless they removed something in the article you linked to?

Up4, did you really read that and take him at face value?  You think he wants the US to stay in Iraq and it’s all a grand trap of AQ’s design?

Dude.  You’re way smarter than that.  He’s hoping that we are as stupid and simple as the morons that he leads, and we’ll do the opposite of what he says.  You know...like the Democrats have been advocating. ;)

Secondary explanation - when we bicker so publically and prove to the world that 50% of the country hates the other 50%, we get laughed at by backwater goat fuckers that live in caves and think a magical man in the sky is going to give them sweet virgin pussy in the afterlife because they blew up a bunch of schoolchildren.  I don’t care what your party affiliation is, that’s just embarrassing.  It’s like Larry The Cable Guy laughing at your for your score on the home version of Jeopardy.

I dont know if he personally believes what he is saying.  But I do really think that is the message he wants to represent. 

I think if the US were to say they were sending 1million troops in, he would say they are falling right into his plan.  If there is a withdrawl, he is going to say the US is scared and they are winning.  He doesnt agree with Democrats or Repulicans.  He just needs to spin it the right way for “the morons that he leads”.  If that spin happens to be in-line with a certain Dem message, or a Republican message, its not really important to him.  IMHO.

He’s hoping that we are as stupid and simple as the morons that he leads, and we’ll do the opposite of what he says.

Possible, I guess.  I have to give him credit for being smarter than that though.  Smarter than thinking that would really work.  I still think sending the right message to his followers is his main goal.  Again, IMHO.

He doesnt agree with Democrats or Repulicans

Perhaps not, but tell me, if you’re enemy wants you to do something, do you really think that its a good idea that you do it?  That’s exactly what the lying treasonists are doing.

Perhaps not, but tell me, if you’re enemy wants you to do something, do you really think that its a good idea that you do it?

I think its a good idea to not base your actions on what you think your enemy wants.  You leave yourself open to being manipulated.

That’s exactly what the lying treasonists are doing.

Im assuming you are refering to democrats here?

I think its a good idea to not base your actions on what you think your enemy wants.

Which is why he is advocating that we remain only until they have a chance to kill a few hundred thousand of us. He’s thinking that there will be those among the Dem leadership who will point at this and say, “See? We should pull out now!!”, and get Useful Idjits all across the country who will immediately start bleating the same message (while decrying the rest of us as “sheeple").

You leave yourself open to being manipulated.

See above.

Im assuming you are refering to democrats here?

Who else is giving aid and comfort to the enemy by saying that a war that is still being fought is “already lost”?

Interesting that the only war that counts as a “loss” in American history is the one war that the Dems want to recreate - cutting support to the troops, cutting support to the enemy, pulling out to leave a power vacuum, leaving the enemy that we had been defeating for years in charge of an entire region of the world, and reinforcing the image of America as a “paper tiger”.

That is what they are advocating, like baking a cake. What else would you call them, except for liars and traitors?

(Interesting sidenote: the Americans in Vietnam never lost a battle to the North Vietnamese - not one - yet because of the actions of the Democratic Congress under a Republican President, it is still listed as a loss.)

“cutting support to the enemy” should be “cutting support to our allies”.

We regret any inconvenience.

Who else is giving aid and comfort to the enemy by saying that a war that is still being fought is “already lost”?

Jim, you may have something there with your secondary explanation.

Yes I am referring to the democrats.  Go find quotes from the dem leadership before november 2006.  You’ll see them saying how setting timetables for withdrawal is a bad thing and they won’t do it.  What are they doing now?  Then you’ve got queen nancy going to foreign countries that are deemed enemies of the US, and terrorist supporting nations, undermining US foreign policy.  Do you really think anything will be accomplished with Iran or Syria in the next two years now because they think in 2 years they’ll have a bunch of cowards in the whitehouse who will be exactly like the pussies in Europe with no balls to actually back up anything.

I’ll also call the democrats stupid because a majority of them actually believe that either bush knew about the 9/11 attacks or are not sure.  And john kerry doesn’t have the balls or conviction to tell a truther that they don’t know what they’re smoking at an event.

OK, let’s see if this makes sense. 

Terrorists attacked us a few times, so we went into Afghanistan to remove the gov’t that sheltered them.  But even before we went into Afghanistan, certain folks (you know who they are) starts chomping at the bit to go into Iraq, invents some phony excuses, and the next thing we know, we’re in Iraq, too.  It’s only by cooler heads that we didn’t go into Iran and Syria too.

Before Afghanistan was stabilized.

So what do we have now?  We’re completely off-track in the “War on Terror” because we stuck our hand into a bear trap of a civil war.  Some idiots thought we’d be greeted with flowers, and everybody’ll live happily ever.  No planning for what happens afterwards.

Yeah, that’s right, we’re stuck in a CIVIL WAR.  The casualities from terrorists are actually a SMALL percentage.

In the meantime, we have the Taliban making a comeback in Afghanistan, and can’t do much about it because, ya know, too many of our troops are in Iraq.

You know, those troops?  Haven’t you been listening to the reports about how they’re at a breaking point?  Tours being extended, reserves being called back again and again?  The military dollars (with NO Oversight, so a big chunk of it is wasted) breaking our budget.

So basically, YOU TRAITOR, you’re saying, let’s keep pouring our money into a black hole with no hope of recovery, waste the lives our our soliders, and while we’re at it, train a new generation of terrorists to strike at us.  Worldwide terror attacks are UP.  Something Rice wanted to hide.

And wasn’t it El Presidente’s own benchmarks that the bill used?  Are you saying those benchmarks are phony?

Can we PLEASE get back to the REAL “war on terror”?

certain folks (you know who they are) starts chomping at the bit to go into Iraq

Yes, we know who they are. The entire United States Government, dating all the way back to 1991, when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Iraq was THE number one national security concern in that part of the world - and had been for almost a decade - and you expect us to act surprised that a nation which had been providing material support to international terrorists for YEARS, would be considered a secondary target in the new war on international terrorism?

Are you truly that naive, or just deluding yourself that people don’t really remember how thing used to be?

Before Afghanistan was stabilized.

Isn’t that a bit like whining that we went into France before Italy was stabilized? And on into Germany before France was stabilized? (France didn’t have a stable government after being “liberated” - as opposed to the more accurate description of “conquered as a German ally” - during WW2 for almost fourteen years!! Not until 1959 did they have their present form of government...)

So basically, YOU TRAITOR, you’re saying, let’s keep pouring our money into a black hole with no hope of recovery, waste the lives our our soliders, and while we’re at it, train a new generation of terrorists to strike at us.

No, YOU TRAITOR, I’m saying we quit fucking around with half measures, and start letting our soldiers fight this war like a real war - make the enemy see that the only thing he will guarantee by attacking us is that he gets hurt.

Badly.

Have you been paying attention to the actual figures of those killed and wounded in combaT? Has it ever occurred to that microcephalic abacus you call a brain that this has been the most successful, and least deadly “war” we have ever fought in our entire history? The percentages of wounded are lower than in any previous conflict. In order to reach the “Vietnam levels” so bandied about by those who are actively seeking another American defeat, this war would have to continue at present rates for the next FORTY YEARS!

But you want us to run away, and for no other reason than because you don’t like Bush. Because it is his election in 2000 that marks the turnaround in policy by the Democrats regarding the removal of Saddam and his regime, from ecstatically in favor of having a CIA-trained sniper take him out (a tactic I recall being bandied about by those hoping to appear tough on national security issues) to “Saddam was a Prince Among men” in a single year.

As Ace would say: Nuance.

And wasn’t it El Presidente’s own benchmarks that the bill used?

Can you show me where Bush was pushing for a scheduled pullout date? And which military leaders recommend broadcasting that schedule to the enemy?

Because no one is arguing that Iraq doesn’t have certain benchmarks to meet - the same that ANY emerging nation should meet - we are just saying that we shouldn’t be basing the pullout of our troops on any particular pass/fail implicit in those same benchmarks.

Tough distinction for anyone who hasn’t gotten past the standard talking points, but I’m sure you can wrap your BB brain around it.

Can we PLEASE get back to the REAL “war on terror”?

So there are no terrorists in Iraq? How about in Syria? Iran? Lebanon? All those places completely terrorist-free, are they?

Where would you suggest the “real” War on Terror actually is? I think that going after the nations that are paying the bills and providing the support is a good first step. (You don’t attack the weed by chopping off the flower at the tip - you go after the root.)

Of course, your vast knowledge of military tactics of a global campaign must be causing you to see things differently. Share that background with us, so that we may be adequately awed to be in your presence. I mean, since you have made it so plainly clear that we are doing it all wrong…

I’m guessing “WisDem” there considers the “real war on terror” to be against those who disagree with him… Republicans, those not far enough on the Left, religion, etc.

Either that or it’s just empty rhetoric. Much like you started seeing “Well I’m not a Michael Moore fan but-” around the time that he became utterly indefensible, I’m guessing we’re going to start seeing “Can we get back to the REAL war on terror?” This allows them to avoid looking soft on terror… after all, they not only want to fight terrorists, they want to fight the REAL terrorists, not these fake ones that are killing so many of the belooooved troops. If a Democrat gets the White House, look for such phrases as “The war on terror is back on track” or “We’re redirecting the war on terror to where it should have been” as they pull everyone out of Iraq, and send them… nowhere. The Democrat war on terror will consist of a lot of posturing, some lame attempts at diplomacy, and the occasional bombing of a middle-eastern pharmaceutical factory when some prominent Democrat gets themselves in trouble.

Rann & Drumwaster;

I’ve twice tried posting responses, & lost my internet connection (don’t ask-ATT DSL isn’t working right at the moment).

In the interest of keeping my post short, take a look at Kevin Drum’s post which I think illustrates some of the points I was trying to make;

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_05/011270.php.

Why not just address the points made by us in response?

Just because we don’t believe any of your bullshit doesn’t mean we don’t understand it. We don’t need it further explained (it wasn’t that complicated), we want it defended against the points raised in opposition to it.

Or do the DNC Daily Talking Points not bother to cover likely responses?

Why not just address the points made by us in response?

Why not look up things your own self?  You claimed Bush never talked about a scheduled pullout date. Using simple keywords for Google, I got 1,850,000 results of Bush talking about timetables and removing the troops.  I told you my DSL link isn’t working right...I already tried twice to post lengthy responses that went *poof*.  I’m not going to waste more time on that.

Benchmarks are meaningless without force behind them.  The Iraqi Parliament just took a 2-month vacation while our troops die daily.  Do you think they’d do that if they believed they needed to get their act together ASAP?

We keep hearing “turning the corner” and “another 6 months” so often it’s become a parody.  At what point will you conclude that the people in charge of Iraq are simply incompetent and/or delusional? Most people have decided that already.  When will you?

You claimed Bush never talked about a scheduled pullout date. Using simple keywords for Google, I got 1,850,000 results of Bush talking about timetables and removing the troops.

Hm. Just a little experiment… lemme try putting “Democrats love Hitler” in Google. Hm, about 1,110,000 results. Obviously Democrats love Hitler.

Here’s some fun, let’s try “I fucked your mom”. Hm, about 1,560,000 results, obviously I’ve fucked your mom.

And if you’ve noticed that I’m not even bothering to do anything but mock you, well, one reaps what one sows. When you can at least pretend to be capable of rational thought rather than just spewing out what other people on DU have told you to, then maybe, just maybe, I’ll consider you worth more than farting in your general direction. Until then, you’re just more proof of why the Democrats are a party of failure… because they’re made up of, and pandering to, people like you. People that think arrogance and condescension are talking points, people whose only understanding of the opposition is “They only disagree because they don’t know any better”.

Why not look up things your own self?

Because it isn’t up to me to defend and advance your claims. You present something, you get to back it up.

Using simple keywords for Google, I got 1,850,000 results of Bush talking about timetables and removing the troops.

Yet you couldn’t provide a single one that actually says Bush wants timetables based on the benchmarks of progression into a free and democratic society?

Should I do that part of your job for you, too?

Benchmarks are meaningless without force behind them.

No, deadlines (like the ones we kept giving Saddam, and the ones that Akmed-DinnerJacket keeps getting) without force behind them are meaningless.

Benchmarks, on the other hand, are simple descriptions, and a recipe to grow a country and a people into a stable form of government. You would include things like “women getting the right to vote”, and “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech”, and the like. Those are benchmarks - standards, if you will (which is how the rest of the world uses the word) - that should be met.

But timetables are suicide in a war.

At what point will you conclude that the people in charge of Iraq are simply incompetent and/or delusional? Most people have decided that already.  When will you?

See? That’s part of your problem right there. You seem to think that we have the power to tell the Iraqi people what kind of government they are going to get “and they had just better get with the program, mister!”

Iraq is a sovereign and independent state, with a freely-elected representative government. They have the right to ask us to leave. When they do, we will, just like we did in France and the Philippines.

Deciding that they should be “punished” for not meeting some arbitrary deadline (solely as a means of damaging a President you don’t support) is an invitation to genocide in the resultant vacuum.

Say, how about that humanitarian crisis going on in Clinton’s quagmire, Kosovo? The one where Billy Jeff committed American lives (that are still being lost nine years later) without either Congressional authorization nor UN resolutions to back him up? Surely you’ve managed to Google up an Exit Strategy for that by now? How about for the 40-year-old failed “War on Poverty”?

Or (to be Fair And Balanced) the worse-than-failed War On Drugs? (Although I have no doubt you would cheer if we lost this one, too.)

Rann: LOL

Here’s some fun, let’s try “I fucked your mom”. Hm, about 1,560,000 results, obviously I’ve fucked your mom.

Rann, youre normally a tool to me, but man, Ive got to give credit where credit is due.  That was gold!  Made me literally LOL at my desk when I got that email.

Thanks. ... I think.

Rann;

Good response (at leat until you got shrill at the end); that’s exactly why I never want to try to recreate something I said that got wiped out; something always get left out.  As I remember, there was a Washington Post article right near the top that said exactly what I said.  And why am I not linking to it here?  Because you don’t really care, do you?  Certainly nobody seemed to read the link I provided earlier.

As for Democrats being the party of failure...haven’t you noticed that right-wingers are so consistently wrong about everything lately? How is that not a failure?

People that think arrogance and condescension are talking points, people whose only understanding of the opposition is “They only disagree because they don’t know any better”.

Huh.  That’s funny, a conservative talking about arrogance and consdencation.  I don’t even know what to say...the irony is so...overwhelming.

As for you, Drumwaster...you’re all over the place, man.  I’ll try…

Iraq, benchmarks, deadlines, type of government, et al...Wasn’t it Bush who said we’d go in there for Democracy? (Oops, that was a rationale he later invented when his previous ones crashed & burned).

Our of curosity-the majority of Iraq people want us out.  How is it “punishment” if we started moving our troops out?

Kosovo...not sure exactly what you’re talking about but what I found at http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030330-public-opinion01.htm reprinting of a Chicago Tribune Article shows:

KOSOVO
1999
DURATION IN DAYS: 77
DEPLOYED U.S. TROOPS: 7,000
U.S. BATTLE DEATHS: 0
TOTAL U.S. DEATHS: 2

Hmm.  Why do I get the feeling that even if we’re stuck in there, the total # of deaths is probably oh-so-slightly less than a single week, even a single day, in Iraq?

Interesting you brought up War on Poverty-poverty rates always rise under Republican Adminstrations. They dropped under Clinton.  As for War on Drugs, the big problem is that Republicans are more interested in tossing people into jail & locking them up rather than treatment.  Oh, and that people who were tossed into jail have a heck of a time trying to find a job or a place to live once they get out.  At least, those who are not a right-wing talk radio host.

And gotcha, here’s the article I tried to link in my original post that disppeared; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501635.html which clearly shows that Bush talked about benchmarks.  And we all know what happened when Congress tried to hold him to it?  He got all hissy and brought out his big VETO stamp, didn’t he?

haven’t you noticed that
right-wingers are so consistently wrong about everything lately?

Just because you say it doesn’t make it so.

As for Democrats being the party of failure...haven’t you noticed that right-wingers are so consistently wrong about everything lately? How is that not a failure?

Have you ever heard of a Tu Quoque argument? Or why it is a fallacious argument? It basically says that you do not excuse bad behavior by pointing at other bad behavior.

Wasn’t it Bush who said we’d go in there for Democracy? (Oops, that was a rationale he later invented when his previous ones crashed & burned).

You keep trying to rewrite the History books. But you are in the wrong venue for that, because we remember what actually happened.

There were numerous reasons given for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam, and those on the Left have been continually trying to ignore them in favor of the one that didn’t turn out to be quite so spectacularly true. (Doesn’t mean it wasn’t true, it’s just that most of you morons on the Left can’t even spell W-M-D without an almanac and two hints, much less define it.

Our of curosity-the majority of Iraq people want us out.

The majority of Iraqis, or the majority of Sunnis interviewed in the Green Zone?

As for your link, I find it amusing that while Bush talked about “benchmarks”, he never spoke of “deadlines”. In fact, he specifically refused to answer such a question. ("The president talked repeatedly about “benchmarks” for progress in Iraq, using that word 13 times. But he did not discuss the consequences of the Iraqi government missing those targets.)

You cannot “miss” a deadline that does not exist. And why should we care whether it takes one year or three, so long as the result is a stable government?

Why are the Donks so adamant about pulling the troops out completely before Bush leaves office, up to and including announcing a war as “already lost”? Is Okinawa so overridden with terrorists?

How is it “punishment” if we started moving our troops out?

What do you suppose will happen if we summarily pull out of Iraq? Do you honestly think that the Al Qaeda types will quietly pack away their guns and go home again? Or do you think they will call the US a “paper tiger” again (like they did after Clinton “pulled out the troops” from Mogadishu), further emboldening those who mean us harm? There will be such a slaughter to make the Khmer Rouge look like a kindergarten temper tantrum.

How can any plausible outcome be called anything other than a punishment?

And why is the Left so eager to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam?

I’d be willing to put money down that wisdem is one of the people who thinks the busting of the terror group planning attacks in new jersey is all just a false scam to draw attention away from the failures of the government and not at all true.

*sigh*

You guys are hopeless.  Drummy, what WMD? Yes, we remember how Bush & Co. cherry-picked intelligence.  Yes, we remember how they all had a girly crush on what’s-his-name, the Iraqi con man...Chabali?

Drummy & Rann, if you haven’t noticed your end has been wrong so often, you’re deeply in denial. I’m serious-the evidence is staggering.  It’s not that conservatives are merely wrong, in some cases, conservatives have tried to rewrite reality to show that they’re not wrong.  Let me count the ways...scientific reports & studies that conservatives doctored to show different conclusions, studies & programs that conservatives cancelled/de-funded so they wouldn’t produce embarrassing reports anymore, environment, absentience, Iraq “it’ll pay for itself”, North Korea (why is that the recent agreement looks almost exactly like the one Clinton did years ago, but Bush refused to do?), effectiveness of condoms, abortions being a cause of cancer (a favorite talking point of religious right based on zero evidence), evolution...heck, let’s round it up to anything to do with Science, integrity (right-wing preachers doing drugs & adultery, even being gay, Newt committing adultery at the same time he was scolding Clinton), etc, etc.

But it’s more than your end being wrong...it’s your refusal to hold anyone accountable.  Come on, how many subponeas & hours did the Republicans spend on Clinton’s blow job, compared to the numbers on figuring out what went so badly in Iraq?  Nowhere close.  In fact, the Republican Congress pretty much abandoned their oversight role, didn’t they?

As much as you’d like to try & muddy the waters, we both know Iraq is a mess, that it’s your folkls that made it a mess, that conservatives have no idea how to fix it.  You can’t say it’s the Democrats that only think so-there have been some Republicans in Congress who have said so.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again, and expecting a different result.  Bush’s plans have always been more of the same.

And really...I feel so bad for you both.

And Buzzion, it’s a bit late to join the party, but let me say, unlike certain people, I’m going to wait & see what the details are.  But given the Bush Admin’s history of overhyping events…

I’m unlikely to return as I’ll be busy with some events, so please don’t take my silence from this point on as a sign of “victory” on your part.  That would really be sad.

Your moronic statements are a sign of victory.  It wasn’t about a blowjob moron or adultery.  It was about the president of the US breaking the law.  Committing PERJURY.  And he was a lawyer too so its not like he didn’t know what he was doing.  Framing it as just investigating that he only committed adultery is disengenuous.

Its also worth noting that it was comitted with an intern.  A subordinate of his.  That’s an abuse of power by the man that’s the leader of the free world.  Bush may be incompetent but Clinton soiled the office, literally.

Drummy, what WMD?

Demmy, define WMD.

that conservatives have no idea how to fix it.

Meanwhile, the only solution offered by the Dems is that espoused by Brave Sir Robin.

“Run away! Run away!”

Hell, it won us Vietnam, didn’t it?

Oh, wait.