I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Wow! This was a really enlightening article.

Recently I took a trip to the Bahamas and used some of your advice. Cheers.

Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Your blog makes very interesting reading. I’m sure others will think so too I look forward to reading their comments.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

1.) U.S. provokes Iran to retaliate against any number of air strikes, cruise missile attacks not published or known by the U.S., and ’sinks’ or
otherwise renders one or both aircraft carriers we have in the Persian Gulf ‘damaged or sinking’ with any number of anti-ship cruise missiles (silkworms).

2.) Bush crime cabal lies thru it’s teeth and declares, due to the Iranian
retaliation for missile and bomb strikes by the U.S. that he won’t tell us about, that “by my inherent powers invested in my be Alberto ‘V05′ Torquemada Gonzales, I am already nuking them into prehistoric times with our military” in a speech.

3.) Martial Law declaration by Bush to quell the unrest in U.S. cities due to the Congress and Senate having not stopped him from illegally attacking yet one more country that did not harm us till we provoked them or goaded them into it.

4.) world wide depression due to Persian Gulf oil not being able to make it out of the Straits of Hormuz.

5.) Bush, under attack by millions of pissed off Americans, demanding his head, flees to Paraguay, to the ranch the bobsey twins bought for him, the 100,000 acre ranch, bought with stolen Treasury money.

…

No, that can’t be it. How dangerous could it really be to release classified information? Besides, isn’t it an axiom in conspiracy theories that everything that isn’t known must be true?

[A witness to Exley's dishonest smear, dlet issues a clarification - before Exley attempts to also twist his words]
#9 was sarcastic. Just to be clear.
Do you mean to tell me that Saddam was actually a evil and murderous tyrant???? I’m shocked! SHOCKED! Comment by Exley
First I don’t know who here liked Saddam or even shook hands with him. And as for the situation being worse now in Iraq than it was under ASaddam how do you think the Iraqi people like there freedom given to them by bushie. Think they have a good feeling towards the US yet. Its hard for me to take that someone as horrible as Saddam is a lesser evil to the Iraqis that the President of the US. Sad. Comment by dlet — September 22, 2006 @ 12:16 pm

Deal with the vipers; start playing hardball with Iraqi politics.

The Kurdish area to the north has been fairly calm; give ‘em what they want, an independent country. That’ll scare the pants of the Sunnis, fearful of being left out in the cold. If anyone can stop the Sunni insurrgency, and the cover it gives al-Qaeda, they can. They just haven’t been given a good incentive.

Musharraf’s “surrender” in the North Territories offers another opportunity. We haven’t been able to pursue al-Qaeda and the Taliban as they cross back into Pakistan after attacks for fear of engaging the Pakistani military and putting Musharraf between a rock and hard place, as if he isn’t there already. But he got kicked out, and the people in the Territories can’t blame Musharraf anymore if we start making incursions into the Territories.

Remember, this is a democracy. Friends let friends vote. Whether you agree with them or not.

Jay ( & other readers following the exchange )

Responded to your post ( or at least I thought I did ) – but it didn’t take.

I’ll try again tomorrow.

It couldn’t be because there is an election coming, and the voters wouldn’t like it – could it?

The Reptiles are putting politics above the lives of our troops in Iraq. What a bunch of snakes.

Remember: Friends don’t let friends vote Reptilian
No Mo(R)e

First of all, I did not say you called me a troll. That was “self-inflicted” sarcasm. Don’t be so sensitive, so trivial, so anal.

Ok, enough of that.

Second, the increase in the amount of sectarianism, as you must admit I have already opined on, is the result of jihadists exploiting the situation in Iraq. As others have noted in the wake of this NIE “expose”, Iraq is not a breeding ground for terrorists, but a dumping ground.

Third, “who are they”??

The jihadists may in fact be only 10% of those fighting in Iraq, yet they are responsible for a far larger (nay, majority even) share of the violence than all of the militant Iraqis, and those foreign jihadists in Iraq have committed the most egregious violence specifically to foment the insurrection. The Iraqi Sunnis and Shia don’t want their country up in flames; they just disagree who should run it. They were close to an (American-brokered) understanding, until somebody started blowing up mosques and holy shrines. With Iranian explosives.

The presence of the US military has not inflamed the situation in Iraq; it has been the provocations of the foreign terrorists and their Iranian and al-Qaeda sponsors, as the NIE pointedly, well, points out.

Fourth, would Iraq have been as much a hospitable terrorist haven as Afghanistan was in providing a rear area to plan, train and provide logistic support? No. Never said that. Again, you infer your argument in my mouth.

Yet, Saddam had shown a willingness to work with, and host, Islamic militants when their purposes converged. To imply Iraqi support would have, could have, should have been worthless to jihadist operations flies in the face of common sense, and history. As I (again) have already indicated, Saddam was more than willing to provide succor and protection to the bin Laden of the 1980s, Abu Nidal. Saddam also hosted other terrorist organizations in his foreign policy against Iran.

That al-Qaeda is rebuilding their rear echelon in Pakistan is not surprising. After all, that is the home ground to their founding ideologists. After Afghanistan, they had Pakistan, Sudan, Iran, and Indonesia to fall back on. And Iraq. Oops. Not anymore, huh? Two down and counting. Anyone see Bush with Karzai and Musharraf recently? Wonder what they be talking ’bout? I bet al-Qaeda/Talibanis be wonderin’ too.

Fifth, in the past five years, how many major attacks have there been on American soil, or for that matter, against American-controlled assets throughout the world, excluding Iraq? None that come to mind.

How many in the five years preceding 9/11? Simultaneous US embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998 killing over 200; USS Cole in 2000 killing 17 sailors; a 1996 truck bomb in Dhahran, killing 19 serviceman and injuring hundreds others.

Oh, and let us not allow 9/11 to get lost as our point of inflection in history. How many? 3,000? So, how has the conduct of the War on Terror NOT been effective?

That the only two major terrorist attacks in the past five years that you could site have been on European soil is more indicative of European waffling with their own defense and preparedness, and lack of commitment to defeating terrorists in favor of procuring, well, favors with the sponsors of terrorism, Saddam and Iran, than it says anything about the effectiveness of America’s War on Terrorism.

Again, assuming we are talking about jihadists as the enemy, where would you like to fight them? Shall we just pick up and leave, and wait for them at our own shores?