Bush Attacks Critics Of ‘War On Terror’ As ‘Naïve’
Bush Attacks Critics Of ‘War On Terror’ As ‘Naïve’
Former senator John Edwards (D-NC) said yesterday that the “war on terrorism” is a “slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe.”
By framing this as a “war,” we have walked straight into the trap that the terrorists have set — that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam.
Edwards is not alone. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) has stopped using the phrase “global war on terror” in committee budget documents, and the British government has banned the phrase “because it gives militant groups a shared identity.”
During a press conference today, President Bush attacked these critics of the phrase. “This notion about how this isn’t a war on terror in my view is naïve. It doesn’t reflect the true nature of the world in which we live, you know?”
Watch it:
The “true nature of the world” is that global terrorism has exploded under Bush’s watch, and his statement today is pure hypocrisy. In August 2004, President Bush said, “We actually misnamed the war on terror,” acknowledging it was more accurate to describe it as a struggle against “ideological extremists” who “happen to use terror as a weapon.”
UPDATE: White House Office of Strategic Initiatives chief Peter Wehner has published a full column condemning Edwards’ views. Ezra Klein responds HERE.
Transcript:
BUSH: And they will fight us. And the fundamental question is will we fight them?
I have made the decision to do so. I believe that the best way to protect us in this war on terror is to fight them. And so, we’re fighting them in Iraq; we’re fighting them in Afghanistan; we’ve helped the Philippines fight — Philippine government fight them. We’re fighting them.
And this notion about how this isn’t a war on terror in my view is naïve. It doesn’t reflect the true nature of the world in which we live, you know?
The lessons of September the 11th are these: We’ve got to stay on the offense. We’ve got to bring these people to justice before they hurt again.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Funny, I was just about to attack Bush as being blitheringly stupid.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:08 pmAnd he would be correct. Other words he could have used. Appeasers, cowards, idiots, fools, surrender monkeys.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:08 pmFunny Dumbya.
If you’d just COME CLEAN as to why we’re invading other countries to steal their oil, you’d probably begin to understand why YOU think we’re naive.
But you keep peddling the same bullsh*t about spreading democracy and fightin’ “terrrrr”.
IDIOT.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:08 pmSpeaking of John Edwards.
John Edwards has claim to part of a $500 million sunken pirate treasure. Thus comes the obvious question: What’s John Edwards’ pirate name?
Silky Beard the Pirate?
Captain Fabulous?
Long John Edwards?
It’s too bad I don’t think he has much of a chance in the primary. With the Pink Sapphire beauty treatments and his managing hedge funds to learn about poverty, the guy is pure comedy gold.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:09 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/12/rumsfeld-iraq-terror/
May 24th, 2007 at 12:10 pmWhere are the massive protests and phone calls and e-mails flooding Congress telling them to surrender Iraq to the Islamists? I thought that was what the 06 election was about? What happened moonbats?
May 24th, 2007 at 12:10 pmOkay, I know he’s the president and all that, but really, why should we listen to what he says? The “intelligence” he’s declassified for political purposes doesn’t smell any different than what he used to justify going into Iraq in the first place. His concept of the “War on Terra” has proven mistaken at every turn and has created MORE terrorists, and on top of all that, he’s not very bright.
It’s sad. Sad for him, sad for America.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:13 pmQuestion:
If Patrick, Cheney and Shrub all jump out of an airplane with no parachutes, who’ll hit the ground first?
Answer:
May 24th, 2007 at 12:13 pmWHO CARES.
right. everyone who opposes bush’s criminal “war” is naiive, with the terrorists, a communist, anti-american, hates america or whatever other slander these people spew out.
The reality, though, is that it’s bush and the rest of them that are acting with pure hatred towards everything that America stands for…peace, prosperity, and of course, liberty,
The time for this insanity to stop is now.
Some reading:
May 24th, 2007 at 12:14 pm“The America-Haters Strike Again”
http://www.populistamerica.com/the_america_haters_strike_again
The United States is not engaged in a twilight struggle against a concept. The United States is fighting Al Qaeda, an organization with political and military goals, one that declared war on America in 1996 and attacked its homeland in 2001. Bin Laden’s organization and its network of loosely affiliated cells and followers must be beaten back politically, diplomatically, ideologically – and militarily.
For more, see:
May 24th, 2007 at 12:15 pm“The Global War on Error.”
And so, we’re fighting them in Iraq; we’re fighting them in Afghanistan; we’ve helped the Philippines fight — Philippine government fight them. We’re fighting them.
But, we don’t have 160,000 troops in Afghanistan and the Philippines. How are we going to stop those terrorists from coming here? Don’t we have to occupy a country forever to keep its terrorists from following us home?
May 24th, 2007 at 12:16 pmpatrick, since you’re so quick to call other people cowards, how come you’re not fighting them over there then? Are you a coward? Maybe it’s because you don’t meet the minimum intelligence standards for the military? maybe it’s don’t ask don’t tell? it has to be something patwit.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:16 pmFour years into the Iraq Debacle, Bush still can’t think of any reasons why framing the fight against al Qaeda and the like in terms of military actions strikes some people as inappropriate, other than a lack of appreciation for the fact that terrorists are dangerous.
This mindset is why bin Laden walked out the back door at Tora Bora.
“There aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan. There are lots of good targets in Iraq!”
Fools fighting the last war.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:18 pmnews flash angry one, we stopped fighting al queda when we went into Iraq. the pentagon estimates that foreign fighters in Iraq are between 5 and 10 percent of the the insurgents. not all of them are al queda. If bush wanted to fight al queda, he would have sent US forces into tora bora, he would have followed through in Afghanistan, he would have secured our ports, he would have not bothered to invade a country that had no ties to “terror”.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:21 pmThe people who took Ahmed Chalabi’s claims at face value are in no position to call anyone “naive.”
We don’t have to surrender, Patrick1. We can just keep following your advice, and losing.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:21 pmSomeone give smiirky a gun and let him go fight his demons in Crawford. the taxpayer will gladly pick up the tab for the ammo.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:22 pmOMG, who is he calling naive? What an a**hole!
May 24th, 2007 at 12:22 pmPatrick, I called you a pussy yesterday for crawling away and hiding when Goodling admitted she broke the law. I see that you are still a pussy today.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:22 pmBush wants you to know that they are “evildoers” and that they “hate us for our freedom.” And, if we think the situation is any more complex than that, why we’re “naive.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:25 pmPatrick1 brings-up some interesting points about the lack “protests and phone calls and e-mails flooding Congress.” He presents no evidence of any such vacuum in dissent, I suppose we are just expected to accept his word on the matter.
Most interesting is that he sees any suggestion the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq are a failure, as tantamount to “surrender” to “Islamists.”
There has yet to be a Democrat, or a hard-core leftist anti-war activist for that matter who has called for “surrender.” The idea simply hasn’t come-up. What has been talked about is ending the occupation.
Patrick1’s comments are a classic example of how there are those who are so ideologically loyal that they are willing to misrepresent their opposition in order to change the landscape of a debate, and make them into easier targets to hit. Hence we are “surrender monkey’s.
Obviously Patrick1 has an extremely hard time dealing with the on-going facts concerning Iraq, and the Bush failure there. In his comments he has failed to deal with one substantive point made in the original post of this thread. He can’t because it concerns how the Bush administration spins the complete failure of its policies.
That is what this debate is about. The “Islamists” are only a party to it in that Bush fulfilled their wildest dreams when he chose to have US forces invade, thus creating a “cause celeb” for the enemies that he claims to oppose.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:25 pmAnd this notion about how this isn’t a war on terror in my view is naïve. It doesn’t reflect the true nature of the world in which we live, you know?
Oh yes, tell us about naive, Mr. “How could I possibly know al Qaeda would fly planes into buildings even though the PDB told me it was going to happen?”
Tell us how naive we are. I want to hear it from the guy who said that Iraq’s oil would pay for the reconstruction. I want to hear it from the guy who said Gen. Shinseki was full of crap when he said we’d need at least 200,000 to occupy Iraq. The guy who believed all the stories about WMDs from a lying asshole named “Curveball” is calling someone else naive? That’s amusing.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:25 pmWe’ve got to bring these people to justice before they hurt again
Really? How’s that search for Bin Laden and Zawahiri coming along?
May 24th, 2007 at 12:25 pmQuestion:
If Patrick, Cheney and Shrub all jump out of an airplane with no parachutes, who’ll hit the ground first?
Answer:
May 24th, 2007 at 12:26 pmNone of the above. They are all so full of hot air that they would float.
patrick would become a friendly fire incident.
It’s wrong for the President to assume the only way to fight is his way. He’s also wrong to not learn from the mistakes of his own administration in executing the mess in Iraq.
He started this all wrong and then ignores that while insult those who see his folly.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:27 pmI’d rather be naive and right than be an idiot and wrong.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:27 pm#2 ~ It takes more than just naivety to follow a warmonger like Bush. You also need to be enough of an idiot to make decisions without facts, cowardly enough to not challenge his constitutional crimes, and foolish enough to think you’re any safer as a result of it.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:28 pmI wasn’t convinced by this failed, idiot President until he threw in that last “you know.”
May 24th, 2007 at 12:28 pmBush makes me long for the days when kings led their troops into battle when they tried to conquer another kingdom
Calling it a “war” on terror also limits the frame under which interventions, such as diplomacy and police work, tend not to be considered.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:29 pmWe are all idiots for not forcing the political will to impeach these criminals and throw their sorry lyin’ asses in Levenworth for 20 to life.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:29 pmbush looked and sounded more like an evangelical minister than president of the united states. arms flying up and down, trying to hit all the talking point symantics of his sermon. bush has truley lost whatever was left of his mind.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:30 pm“Surrender”. Isn’t that what Bush did instead of going after bin Laden? O yeah, that’s why al Qaeda’s still around and Bush can try to use it to scare people.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:30 pmI can’t find Terror on the map. Where does Terror keep it’s Army, Navy, Air Force and it’s battleships and fighter jets. Once we find Terror, then we can fight it and defeat it.
The truth is Bush uses a mystical dragon called terror, to fool the idiotic Americans while he really is trying to steal and control Middle East oil for his petro cronies.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:30 pmThere in no reason to trust anything Bush says. He has no credibility.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:31 pmWhy do we not here about all the time the repubs were so hard on clinton getting out of somalia.Let’s do the same thing to them they do to us.Bush is a crime boss and he needs to be brought to justice.We dumb ass americans won’t stand together and bring this regime down.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm#10 Angry One — let’s say we ARE fighting an organization called al-Quaeda.
Can you explain how invading Iraq was a good move in that struggle? I mean, as far as I can see, all we did was open the place up to their operatives and give a boost to their recruiting efforts.
We had them on the ropes in Afghanistan and the Chipmperor decided that Saddam had “better targets”. So he forgot about bin Laden, pulled troops out of Afganistan and left it to fall back into Taliban hands and went after his number one boogeyman.
How exactly is that prosecuting the “War on Terra” with whatever is the opposite of naiveté?
May 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pmDear Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid,
May 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pmYou’re both doing “one heckuva job” and the Republican Party and I want to thank you.
signed – your draft-dodging bubble-boy President
I agree words can’t describe the struggle with Al Kayduh and the flim flam going on in Iraq. I think the struggle should be renamed the
The Global War on Terror that does NOT extend to Osama or Zawahiri lol
May 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pmYa Dubya… we are naive! “Your doing a good job Browny!”
May 24th, 2007 at 12:33 pmBoy Bush is calling all 75% of Americans naive. What makes him think that he is so smart when 75% of Americans know that boy Bush “dumkopp iss”. He should just shut up and go back to cutting brush.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:34 pmKiacyclic hits it on the head.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:35 pm#31 ~ Oceania.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:35 pmThat’s what happens to a fish out of water…. flip flop flip flop
May 24th, 2007 at 12:36 pmApparently, what he wasn’t warned of, was that his entire administration would be viewed as the most corrupt and evil governmental entity since Attila the Hun. (With apologies to Attila’s descendants)
May 24th, 2007 at 12:39 pmMore “stuff talk” from the chiken hawk. This republican war is killing america and we should not be surprised next time we get hit. There will be BLOW BACK for this.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:39 pm#31 – I can’t find Terror on the map.
That’s because it’s wherever King George want it to be.
I personally think we will turn the corner in this war on terror when Bin Laden declares war on mechanized infantry. At least then we’ll know their commander in chief is as dumb as ours.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:40 pmAfter Bush let 9/11 happen, instead of asking European countries what they do to counteract terrorism he decides to build “the mother of all coalitions” and bomb the hell out of a country that was not responsible. This just shows how removed from reality he is and how he is not afraid to waste American lives to feed his ego and his barbaric cowboy diplomacy.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:40 pmI love how Patrick1 gets to just come here and talk smack. I went to Redstate a while back and tried to engage in a polite intelligent debate and was banned after two posts. Three cheers for TP not being fascist.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:40 pmJust 606 days and boy Bush becomes insignificant.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:41 pmEverytime this Moron speaks and drags out and dusts off the Osama Bin Bush card I shudder to think that this Moron is President of the United States.
I keep wondering what trouble is afoot behind the scenes. Chimpy says August is going to be a bloody month. Is he foreshadowing a violent month here in the US? What dastardly deeds is Darth Cheney designing?
I keep wondering what horrific crime are they hatching against their own people?
This is so damn Orwellian. Every time he says the enemy I insert This Adminstration.
I have met the enemy and he is us.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:42 pmBush calling people naive is like Karl Rove calling someone fat.
Whatever, dumbass. You’re still the biggest loser ever to stain the oval office. Oh, and your rug sucks, too.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:43 pm.
MORON
May 24th, 2007 at 12:43 pmwell if there’s someone who knows a thing or two about naivete, it would be someone who ignores both the saudi money flowing to sunnis in iraq and the “truce” the pakistani gov’t made with al-qaeda in the tribal areas. heckuva job, w.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:44 pmBush and his ilk, including the sycophant defenders are the enemy of the USA. He has done more to create a more dangerous world for us and our kids than any person in history.
If I could go back in history and scrub one human out, it would be Boy George.
No terrorist, no Osama, Sadam or any of the others could ever come close to the horror that pathetic little puke has brought us.
And you troll defenders of Bush continue to eat his smag. May you rot in hell with the blood of our soldiers and the souls of innocents on your conscience.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:45 pmEveryone should take a listen to “Land of Confusion”…. genesis/disturbed.
sums it up.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:47 pmOur troops are finally going to receive the re-up in funding they very badly need so they can continue tp aid in protecting innocent women and children from the ravages of the suicide bombers all of you here seek to label as “freedom fighters.”
Subsequent naysayers to my posting: You’re contentions are all wrong.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:49 pmjmiles sez:
Yup…that’s the difference between us and them. We may not like what they have to say, but we let them say it, confident that truth will emerge from dissent, and that truth is on out side, They, on the other hand, can’t abide truth, and so will ruthlessly squelch dissent at all costs.
Anyone who hasn’t already done it should go to Red State and try to engage in a little polite dissent from the groupthink there. You’ll get banned so fast your head will spin.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:49 pm“This notion about how this isn’t a war on terror in my view is naïve
Yeah. This coming from a person who cannot even spell naïve, let alone define it.
Truly. Worst. President. EVER!
May 24th, 2007 at 12:50 pmI’m so ashamed that this man is the president.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:51 pmBush said, to expect more lost lives and bloodshed in the coming months…
May 24th, 2007 at 12:51 pmSounds familiar…
If you disagree with me, you’re naive.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:53 pmWe’ve always been at war with eurasia
Comment by Its_Me_Ya_Krazy — May 24, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
CompTROLLER V-1 sez:
Including my contention that you don’t know the difference between “you’re” and “your”? ^_^
May 24th, 2007 at 12:55 pm“What’s John Edwards’ pirate name?”
According to the Pirate Name Generator on gangstaname.com, it’s Cap’n Jim Knifenose.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:55 pmI would be Pirate Thomas The Malformed
Yeah. This coming from a person who cannot even spell naïve, let alone define it.
Comment by DRxJ — May 24, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Whaddaya call them two little dot things over the ‘i’? Didn’t Blue Oyster Cult use that thingie too?
May 24th, 2007 at 12:56 pmhehehe. Moron.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:58 pm#59 ~ And in the video, Reagan wakes up from his bad dream to push the button for maid service and accidentally starts WW3.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:59 pmOur troops are finally going to receive the re-up in funding they very badly need so they can continue tp aid in protecting innocent women and children from the ravages of the suicide bombers all of you here seek to label as “freedom fighters.â€
Subsequent naysayers to my posting: You’re contentions are all wrong.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
It’s hard to protect other’s when you’re under attack every day yourself. And there were NO suicide bombers in Iraq before we invaded. You’re whole argument is just trumped up Bushwad doublespeak.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:59 pm#33. I totally agree with you.
My main point is that not only was invading Iraq a horrible mistake, but the notion that we’re fighting the abstraction of terror in the Phillippines, Gaza, Algeria, etc. is dangerously misguided.
Victory against Al Qaeda will be achieved over years, even decades and at great cost in both blood and treasure. But it can be achieved by first understanding the nature of the enemy’s grievances and where American policy changes are possible or impossible.
Defeating Al Qaeda will be difficult enough without, as John Quincy Adams famously said, going “in search of monsters to destroy.” Russia’s war with Chechen separatists is not our war. Abu Sayyef in the Philippines and Kashmiri militants are not a threat to the United States, at least not now. The Chinese assault on its Muslim Uighur population is not one we should condone. And critical though Israel’s security may be as American foreign policy objective, its conflict with Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine is not our conflict. Not all terrorisms are our terrorisms.
The sooner Americans come to grips with that, the better our prospects for beating back the Al Qaeda threat. Until then, the policy of the Bush administration should bear a more accurate name – Global Struggle for the Political Opportunity of Terrorism (G-SPOT).
May 24th, 2007 at 1:01 pmJohn Edwards: ‘By framing this as a “war,†‘
Yeah, John, destroying two of our largest civilain office buildings, attacking the headquarters of our military, and killing 3,000 innocent people weren’t acts of war….
God, he is such a lightweight. “Naive” is too kind a word for him.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:02 pmGWB sez:
It’s called a diaeresis.
And no, it’s not the same as the thingie Blue Oyster Cult used, although they appear the same. That was an umlaut.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:02 pm#53 CompTROLLER V-1
Subsequent naysayers to my posting: You’re contentions are all wrong.
Sorry, you’re too late. I had already pre-emptively declared all further posts from you irrelevant. I’ll let you know when that changes, though.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:03 pmDRxJ
Yeah. This coming from a person who cannot even spell naïve, let alone define it.
Yah, but that’s just cause it’s so hard to get a computer to do an ungluat(?).
May 24th, 2007 at 1:03 pmDM sez:
Yes, the two identical buttons next to each other labeled “Nurse” and “Nuke”. That was priceless. ^_^
May 24th, 2007 at 1:04 pmWhat’s wrong with you people? It’s the war on TERROR! Can you possibly be in favor of FEAR?
I for one think we should declare war on MORE techniques and/or abstract concepts. Here’s a comprehensive list:
- The Fosbury Flop
- Hubris
- Verisimilitude
- Abstract Expressionism
- Adjunct Brewing
- Split-Finger Fastball
- GIS Mapping
- Variable-Rate Mortgage Lending
- Ignorance
- Object-Oriented Programming
- Melancholy
- Not-Signaling-Before-Chinging-Lanes
- Those Little Plastic Stickers on the Edges of CDs that Never Come Off Right and Always Leave Little Bits and/or Adhesive Residue on your Nice New Jewel Box (my iPod is broken ok??)
- Malaise
This is a comprehensive list. If you oppose wars on any of the above, the terrorists win. As do the high-jumpers, Odysseus, Jackson Pollock, predatory lenders, and Roger Clemens.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:04 pmAnd he would be correct. Other words he could have used. Appeasers, cowards, idiots, fools, surrender monkeys.
Comment by Patrick1
Hi Pattie
I guess it’d be technically correct to refer to you as “blitheringly stupid” too, but seeing as you are, you probably won’t understand the observation.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:05 pmComment by Exley — May 24, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Which nation are we at war with, Exley?
When did Congress declare war?
May 24th, 2007 at 1:06 pm“struggle against ‘ideological extremists’ who ‘happen to use terror as a weapon.’”
The neo-conservatives, for one, come to mind.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:06 pmNAIVE
is believing ANYTHING that this AWOL coward WAR CRIMINAL coxucker PUNK says…
He is a WAR CRIMINAL, LIAR, and TRAITOR to the USA,
God will put his azz in hell REAL QUICKLY when his time comes.
patprick1, the PUNK who will only replace “the right KIND of deserter”,
will be among the ETERNALLY DAMNED.
Bush Nazis, you better REPENT, or YOU will be there, too…
See YOU in hell patprick1 (cause I’LL be THERE and BURNING in agony),
May 24th, 2007 at 1:06 pmMr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM–BushCrimeCo, Inc.)
Since our congress is too cowardly and corrupt to stop the travesty known as the “Iraq War”, and it seems that includes the “new course” democrats, then it now falls upon the people to force the change.
Unless you think we should wait a few more Friedmans.
or,
Unless you think that we should focus our efforts on the 2008 election and hope for a change then in 2009. (Einstein note: same approach as in 2003 through 2004 and 2005 through 2006.)
Of course, any delay only guarantees that more Sgt. Johnsons like the one profiled in a previous thread will be created and numerous others will be killed and maimed.
Seems the choice is up to us now. And for the sake of the Sgt Johnsons and countless innocent people in danger of harm or death due to our nation’s actions and the inaction of the opposition, I hope that we do not shirk our responsibility like our representatives have.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:06 pmOkay, so libs don’t like the term “war on terror”. Let’s go back to the term Clinton was using in the 90’s, “fight on terror”. You remember, when it was just tough talk with no fighting. Meanwhile, Iraq and Al Qaeda were declaring war on us.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:09 pmDubya is a liar…always has been…always will be…smear, fear…the boogey man is going to get you if you don’t allow me to be the emperor. The Bush Crime Family is a phony bunch of crooks.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:10 pmYeah, John, destroying two of our largest civilain office buildings, attacking the headquarters of our military, and killing 3,000 innocent people weren’t acts of war….
Comment by Exley
Karma is a bitch.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:10 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey
Including my contention that YOU’RE a cyber-nuisance and a wannabe English professor. Really, kid, who offered you tenure? Repeat, Repeat, Repeat. Your same useless junk commentary gets a little old, doesn’t it?
Rebuttals involving opinions on English grammer, who would think?
May 24th, 2007 at 1:10 pmThis disgusting waste of protoplasm makes me increasingly more ill each and every day. What i dont understand is why American kids are put in harms way because of this moron’s ego while Bush and Cheney and the rest of the cabal sit around watching their Haliburton stocks go through the ceiling. If there is a heaven and a hell I hope Bush is sent the other way when he meets his “god.” If as I suspect there isn’t one, then I hope Bush spends his years after retirment in a very painful and slow decline. That would be too kind for him, I know, but the punishment needs to fit the crime some how.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:14 pmExley, we’ve covered this before but you keep forgetting. Al Qiada attacked us. The man in charge of Al Qiada is still out there along with it’s operation intact. Iraq didn’t attack us but we destroyed the country. Iraq has been a diversion on the “War on Terror” and now has to be a major drain on our resources (in blood and treasure) to attempt and correct the massive f%#k up that this president has caused.
You want to have a real war on terror. Kick Bush’s ass to the curb, focus our military might on the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan, mimimize our troop presence in Iraq, give our soldiers the rest and respect they so richly deserve, replenish equipment, regain focus and let the world know if we are attacked again all things unholy will be unleashed.
Can you stand behind that? Or listen to the missleader? Stand behind the president and you stand behind failure.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:16 pmWhich nation are we at war with, Exley?
When did Congress declare war?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
These are fair questions, Exley. What do think about it?
May 24th, 2007 at 1:16 pmComment by chimpeach
Sorry, you’re not the technical administrator of the website. You are too radical, even Thinkprogress.org wouldn’t hire you.
Next:
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
I’ve been on plenty of conservative websites posting dissenting commentary, and I didn’t find any more aggressive treatment than the seemingly immature commentators on this page. Insults and personal berating are worse, if anything.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:16 pmKarma is a bitch.
Comment by Juan C — May 24, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Point, click, and SHIP!
May 24th, 2007 at 1:16 pmGood Morning all but the troll’s..May I emphasize, it is now past time to respond to the black hearted troll’s at all..Skip past their tripe…I am..
I listened to bull shit bush again today and he is still the blathering idiot self imposed dictator he has been all along with one exception he is screaching the same reterich and flailing around more…He realy looked like the pupett he is…Cheney must of been one floor up pulling his strings.
I spent my morning making long distant call’s and sending out more email’s for the democrat’s to vote NO on this miserable bill and eternal genocide of our troop’s and the people of Iraq….In fact I told them all in no uncertain term’s they will be voted out and that I would join another party if they went against my wishes..I also made a note to tell them I wasen’t crazy, cutting off my nose to spite my own face by jumping ship, told them it will get worse before it get’s better if they don’t pay attention…Was civil but emphasized I was enraged they were caving…He vetoed so end of funding…Said stop the madness, do what you are there to do or we will boot you all out…Told them to put investigation’s and impeachment back on the table to rid our country of all this evil corruption….I nearly used up all my minutes on my phone, don’t care, people are dieing and I will do all I can to save even one life….Have you all called.? Emailed.?…I send out Blessings today to all in need.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:16 pm#31 – I can’t find Terror on the map.
OK, now I know why we’re “turning the corner” so much in this war. We’re trying to find out where Terror is.
This all reminds me of a breed of dog – the Bull Terror.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:19 pmYeah, John, destroying two of our largest civilain office buildings, attacking the headquarters of our military, and killing 3,000 innocent people weren’t acts of war….
God, he is such a lightweight. “Naive†is too kind a word for him.
Comment by Exley
One more time Exlax, there were no terrorists in Iraq until we invaded. How does a war on terror equate to occupying Iraq? And how is it making us safer?
May 24th, 2007 at 1:20 pmComment by Shane
That’s right Shane, blame our young men and women out on the field! Regardless of whether they are agitated by our presence, I don’t believe it’s constructive to blow up innocent women and children to “let some steam out.” We made it clear to the Iraqi people in the beginning that we were there to make a noble effort.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:21 pmOkay, so libs don’t like the term “war on terrorâ€. Let’s go back to the term Clinton was using in the 90’s, “fight on terrorâ€. You remember, when it was just tough talk with no fighting. Meanwhile, Iraq and Al Qaeda were declaring war on us.
Comment by memphis minnie
Just a quick note: CLINTON IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. HE WAS NOT THE PRESIDENT WHEN WE WERE ATTACKED ON 9/11. BUSH WAS PRESIDENTWHEN WE WERE ATTACKED – EVEN AFTER HAVING BEEN WARNED ABOUT IT. Sorry about the caps, but this is ridiculous. Can you folks stop blaming somebody who has been out of office for YEARS. Your guy is the failure – not any other past president. Your gut is an imbecile – not some other past president. Please try and climb into today’s reality. Your leader is an idiot. You painfully trying to blame somebody else is pathetic and junvenile. YOUR GUY IS TO BLAME – NOBODY ELSE.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:21 pmAnd who was it flew the planes into our buildings Exley? Was it Iraq or Al Qaeda?
When Bush acted against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan he had the whole country and world’s support. When he used 9/11 as cover for his personal vendetta against Sadam, he lost both.
But you and the rest of the puketrolls understand that. Your support for Bush doesn’t stem from facts, logic or reason, it stems from your shared faith, and you are nothing but an empty headed pawn that KKKarl shuffles to the voting booth.
Keep supporting him bitch. Your faith in this evil man is disgusting.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:22 pm** Such harsh words from a man whose the very definition of “naive.” The Idiot Boy President strikes again. **
May 24th, 2007 at 1:22 pmRebuttals involving opinions on English grammer, who would think?
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. You’re an idiot. Case closed, awaiting executioner. Now would you STFU, please?
May 24th, 2007 at 1:24 pmI can’t find Terror on the map. Where does Terror keep it’s Army, Navy, Air Force and it’s battleships and fighter jets. Once we find Terror, then we can fight it and defeat it.
Comment by Fools on the Hill
Great post.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:25 pmI spent my morning making long distant call’s and sending out more email’s for the democrat’s to vote NO on this miserable bill and eternal genocide of our troop’s and the people of Iraq
Comment by Sharon — May 24, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
Way to go Sharon!! I’m working right now so have not made any calls – may I take a small handful of your Blessings anyway? Always in need of those! I promise to earn them this evening with some emails.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:26 pmI’ve been on plenty of conservative websites posting dissenting commentary,
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
What an effing liar. Dissenting commentary on a conservative website, ahahahahaha. Sure, we believe it.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:27 pmBush says we are naive if we are not on his side. Or did he say he needed a shiv in his side? The audio was bad.
I’ll go with the shiv.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:28 pmKudos Sharon, I’ve been writing my congressmen and will continue to do so.
I’ve said this before about the trolls. They serve a purpose. Different angles, viewpoints, facts and better understanding come from the rebuttals to these single issue dolts.
This is a great place to hone skills and gain from others knowledge. But it’s not the only place.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:29 pmThat’s right Shane, blame our young men and women out on the field! Regardless of whether they are agitated by our presence, I don’t believe it’s constructive to blow up innocent women and children to “let some steam out.†We made it clear to the Iraqi people in the beginning that we were there to make a noble effort.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
I didn’t blame any of our men and women. Nice try though.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:31 pmWe made clear our noble effort to the Iraqi people. Sure we did. And those ungrateful bitches and brats just don’t appreciate their democracy enough to want to die for it. Go figure.
Attention retards, er, I mean trolls:
Since both objectives HAVE BEEN MET, (i.e. Mission Accomplished), it’s time to come home – at the VERY LEAST, re-deployment is LONG OVERDUE.
I know, it’s hard for you tools to deal with FACTS, but here they are, nonetheless.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:31 pmComment by shane
You live in a small world.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:32 pmI have never listened to any of Bushies press conferences, state of the unions or read any articles based upon something this brainless, fool has said. Why start now?
May 24th, 2007 at 1:35 pm“It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. You’re an idiot. Case closed, awaiting executioner. Now would you STFU, please?”
Comment by shane
Actually, you would blend in perfectly with these conservative chatrooms you seek to denounce.
I will ask thinkprogress to ban you for foul language the next time you use it. You have not a right to silence anybody in here.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:36 pm#74, TripMaster,
We are at war with Al Qaeda — a war they started. Actually, to be technical, international law no longer uses the term “war.” The correct term is “armed conflict.” You seem to be relying on antiquated notions of international, which traditionally held that war could only exist between two nation-states. That is no longer the case under international law, which has been moving towards recognizing ‘dissident armed factions and authorities’ as quasi-states. (See: APV Rogers, OBE Fellow, Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge, “Terrorism and The Laws of War-September 11 and Its Aftermath”).
As for Congress, the Authority to Use Military Force was passed on September 14, 2001.
However, the AUMF is not the point in which we were at war. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of cases, has held that a state of war exists when an act of war is perpetrated against the United States and that no formal congressional declaration of war in required. (See The Prize Cases, 2 Bl. (67 U.S.). Thus, the United States was at war with Al Qaeda starting on 9/11/2001.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:37 pmActually, you would blend in perfectly with these conservative chatrooms you seek to denounce.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
The BIG difference is that anyone not speaking out against this bozo, look at the picture above, is a MURDERER SUPPORTER. So we have all the right to be angry for what is going on and against the sheeps that support unjustice.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:38 pmCompT,
TP doesn’t have the technology to ban anyone.
All they can do is live-monitor and delete.
Alas, they only seem to delete anything to do with 9/11 conspiracies and the state of Israel.
Gee, what could be the connection there… ?
May 24th, 2007 at 1:39 pmComment by shane
You live in a small world.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
May 24th, 2007 at 1:40 pm__________________________
While you, apparently, live in a very large fantasy one.
I wonder if thinkprogress.org is interested on Edwards flip-flop and hypocrisy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yvg4utL07o
Ah this Democratic politicians, they aren’t good car salesman like I used to be.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:40 pmHiB and Shane,
This is not a discussion of the war in Iraq and its impact. It is a discussion of whether we are at war with Al Qaeda. John Edwards seems to think not. And that is, as Bush said, naive. (I would actually say it is delusional).
May 24th, 2007 at 1:43 pmBack at ya Margret and hellinabucket…Blessing’s are sent your way with out condition’s, do what you can, when you can to save our country and our planet…I make the sugestions about avoiding the troll’s and not respond to them because they are just more repeat of one another and a total distraction of my time and space here..Once in awhile I get enraged and fight them back here but not today, not now…More important thing’s for me to do to try and get our country back and save our troop’s and future generation’s of the Iraq people….You all do as you choose…Blessings still.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:44 pmI’ve been on plenty of conservative websites posting dissenting commentary,
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
OK, so give us a LINK to one of your “dissenting posts”.
By the way, Bush is a COXUCKER PUNK TRAITOR to the USA.
Who will BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY for his WAR CRIMES.
Report ME to TPM, too, Nazi.
Otherwise, go back to licking the AWOL coward Bush’s azzhole…
See YOU in hell troll (cause I’LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
May 24th, 2007 at 1:44 pmMURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM–BushCrimeCo, Inc.)
destroying two of our largest civilain office buildings, attacking the headquarters of our military, and killing 3,000 innocent people weren’t acts of war….
Comment by Exley — May 24, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
And what exactly did Iraq have to do with those acts of war, Exley?
May 24th, 2007 at 1:44 pmComment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
I know, the existence of terrorism is total, utter fantasy. You should call in the rates of Al Qaeda’s catering services the next time you have a birthday party or some other special occasion. If you’re super lucky, they might accidently bring balloons.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:47 pmExlley # 104:
That’s an impressive job of typing. Unfortunately, it did nothing to explain why we are in Iraq, since you acknowledge we were attacked by al-Queada.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:49 pmComment by Mr. Bush Goes To Hell
So….everybody has to SPECIFICALLY provide you the wonderful proof, yet your loony speak should automatically be treated as fact, no contest allowed.
I know well, so I don’t have to prove anything to you. Why don’t you prove the merits of your loony talk for once.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:50 pmExley is a bitch. Conflates Al Qaeda and Iraq, just like her Dear Leader, then throws a strawman out to deflect the issue.
You won’t get an answer KRank, give it up.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:52 pmBush, you stupid hypocrite.
I looked up naive in the dictionary and FOUND A PICTURE OF YOU.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:52 pmThose who make an assertion, are obligated to back that assertion in some tangible way.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:53 pmExley, The president has linked Al qiada and Iraq so for you to attempt and pull it apart does your own cause a disservice.
You didn’t/couldn’t answer on if you really wanted to fight the”war on terror” and I gave a bunch of suggestions. You keep standing behind the missleader. The rest of us see the folly and are pushing for real change.
Sharon, you are admirable in your actions. You are correct in these trolls using rotating talking points without acknowledging actual discussion.
My focus is turning to the National Initiative. Look into it. We can change this direction.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:53 pmI know, the existence of terrorism is total, utter fantasy. You should call in the rates of Al Qaeda’s catering services the next time you have a birthday party or some other special occasion. If you’re super lucky, they might accidently bring balloons.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — May 24, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Very creative use of strawman technology, there. Who said “the existence of terrorism is total utter fantasy”? Can you quote anyone besides a wingnut apologist paraphrasing an imaginary liberal viewpoint?
May 24th, 2007 at 1:54 pmFunny how we have OUTSOURCED hunting for Bin Laden, paying Musharraf $1 Billion per MONTH to “find” him.
Yet, the MORONS like Bush continue to insist that we are AT WAR with Al Queda in Iraq,
Like they are a subsidiary of Al Queda in Pakistan.
Bush is a LIAR, TRAITOR, and an AWOL coward coxucker PUNK.
Who will BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY for his WAR CRIMES. With Jerry.
Praise God and Jesus when THAT occurs…
May 24th, 2007 at 1:54 pm“It is a discussion of whether we are at war with Al Qaeda. John Edwards seems to think not.”
neither does bush. he dropped afghanistan in nato’s lap and washed his hands of it. and of course, per obl’s request, bush also pulled u.s. troops out of saudi arabia.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:54 pmWhatever W says is fine with me
Whatever W says is fine with me
Whatever W says is fine with me
duhh…. slobber…. slobber…drip drip …drooool
May 24th, 2007 at 1:55 pmAmazingly, Bush supporters think in term of absolutes in our little black and white world but can’t comprehend to ridiculous inconsistencies in the administration. Now he acknowledges the briefings he never got (which he did) he did get yet never acted on the threat. So, what does this mean? He farking ignored the overwhelming evidence something was going to happen and manufactured evidence not to capture Bin Laden, but to invade Iraq. Then says he doesn’t care and now we hear about Bin Laden again. Naive? Flip Flops? The administration constantly rewrites history to respond to flak they receive in their pretense. Fact is, they’ll do what they want regardless of what the American People want.
The fact is we are a nation being jerked around by corporate sellouts. It’s not about oil, but power and a continue presence interfering in the affairs of the Middle East at the behest of a single entity which can’t be addressed. These people don’t give one shit who wins or loses in the end, it’s about making money off of war. You can be the Democrats are the left wing of the Republicans. They’re motto seems to be “Drag it out as long as possible.”
May 24th, 2007 at 1:59 pmCompTROLLER V-1 sez:
I suppose you and you ilk would consider me a nuisance…it must be terribly annoying to be constantly debunked at every turn. I’ll take that as a complement
As for being an “English professor”, I never said I was, or that I aspired to be. I’m merely a person who possesses the necessary intelligence to master the basics of the English language…a feat that is clearly beyond you, as you continually demonstrate.
Don’t sell yourself short, CT. Pointing out your errors, omissions, and faulty logic never gets old. ^_^
If you find my corrections, rebuttals, and debunkings tedious, then perhaps you ought to look to changing your own tired material.
Hang on…Irony-Meter going off again…
…
OK, I’m back.
My helpful corrections of your atrocious spelling and grammar are not ‘opinions’. Perhaps your elementary school teacher was of the opinion that these rules were optional, which would explain your current attitude, as well as your shocking inability to express yourself properly, but I assure you that they are not.
If you can’t be bothered to exercise the nominal amount of effort necessary to conform to the basic rules of spelling and grammar, you don’t get to complain when someone points out your deficiencies.
This is a flat-out lie, but sadly, I don’t really expect any better of you at this point, CT.
…just one more thing:
Can you point out exactly where shane used “foul language”?
May 24th, 2007 at 1:59 pmAh, trolls – can’t attack Edwards on his programs (they don’t know what his programs are) or his personal life (still married to his first wife, met tragedy with courage, wife is seriously ill, but brave) so they go after his wealth (which he earned, unlike Dumya) or his appearance.
Sad little trolls. Go back to your bridge.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:00 pmHere’s some fantasy. A Permanant Republican Majority.
or
Bush’s approval rating to jump into the 40’s ever again.
or
Bush admitting he’s wrong about sending soldiers to their death in a country that didn’t attack us.
or………….feel free to add on.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:01 pmI know well, so I don’t have to prove anything to you. Why don’t you prove the merits of your loony talk for once.
If you don’t provide PROOF, your comments about DISSENT on a right-wing site are BULLZHIT!!
And you DON’T have to provide proof, that is TRUE.
But then everyone knows you are just another LIAR.
Just like your hero, TRAITOR Bush the MURDERER coxucker PUNK little AWOL coward little silver-spoon dickhead…
Whose azzhole YOU lick. YUMMMMMMY, right???
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
BURN in HELL with your MURDERER coxucker PUNK, sonny….
See YOU in hell troller (cause I’LL be THERE and so will Jerry Falwell),
May 24th, 2007 at 2:02 pmMr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM–BushCrimeCo, Inc.)
John Edwards is likely going to be our next president. He is leading in IOWA, ahead of Hilary and Obama. In the interview with Lauer (the ass-clown) on the Today Show, you can see why most Americans like this guy, he’s confident, comfortable and has conviction in his beliefs, but not stubborn. This man will win the nomination or at minimum be asked to be a running mate again. I hope for president.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:02 pmComment by KRank
You keep using that word “strawman.” I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
“Strawman.” Another codeword you people use to defense islamic extremist. And another note: of course you people are not going to flat out admit that you carry sympathy for evildoers, that’s why you use the codewords.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:02 pmCompTROLLER V-1 sez:
Actually, KRank is using the term properly, as it pertains to your fallacious argument.
Educate yourself.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:07 pmI’m glad to see Edwards speaking out. He’s at a perfect postion and can lash out when he see’s inaction by this government.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:12 pmcodeword. that’s funny. “You people” That sounds rather angry.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:13 pm“Strawman.†Another codeword you people use to defense islamic extremist. And another note: of course you people are not going to flat out admit that you carry sympathy for evildoers, that’s why you use the codewords.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
Good Lord.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:14 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey
Here’s an advisory: I won’t be hearing any of your opinions anymore. You are talking to the wall from here on out. There’s no factual evidence of a “shocking inability to express myself.” Again, you are entitled to your own opinions. Severe lefties don’t seem to allow that to settle in. Not entitled to your own facts, sorry.
You can respond to my commentary when you have something constructive to say. You can overrate your responses, but I clearly see nothing to be intimidated about.
Bloggers, by the way, aren’t known for perfect spelling. You’re acting retarded in repeating yourself. I already told you, dude: I don’t tend to proofread unless it is formal writing. This is a casual blog. See that, please.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:14 pmKrank,
Actually my posting at #104 answers completely the questions asked by TripMaster.
I am baffled as to how you and nanlichi have misunderstood the topic of this thread. It is not about Iraq. It is about John Edwards’ belief that we are not fighting a war against Al Qaeda.
You and nanlichi need to re-read the article at the top of this thread. You are trying to turn this into a discussion of Iraq, but that is not the topic.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:15 pmanyone sitting on my oil is a terra wrist
May 24th, 2007 at 2:19 pmof course you people are not going to flat out admit that you carry sympathy for evildoers,
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
Whats an evildoer? I know it sounds funny, but seriously, whats an evildoer? Go ahead.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:24 pmglobal war people obstructing the unlawful extraction of resources or just plain in the way
May 24th, 2007 at 2:25 pmWhats an evildoer? I know it sounds funny, but seriously, whats an evildoer? Go ahead.
Comment by Juan C — May 24, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Anyone who doesn’t unquestioningly support U.S. and Israeli economic and security policy, of course!
May 24th, 2007 at 2:27 pmHow come the White House Press Corps weren’t smart enough to follow-up and ask Bush to confirm or deny the report that he was not aware of the difference between Sunnis & Shiites before going into Iraq?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/8/215257/257
Bush did NOT know there was difference between Sunni & Shiite Muslims until Jan ‘03
In case you missed it like me, here’s more proof our president is in over his head, a national security risk. According to Peter Galbraith former U.S. diplomat on a Channel 4 special aired Nov 21, Bush didn’t know there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims as late as January 2003. The report (link to video at the Dossier below) has a lot more …here’s the part where Bush shows again how in over his head he really is.
Oborne: I traveled to Boston to meet a former U.S. diplomat who had been a leading authority on Iraq for over a decade. A chance remark made just two months before the war, hinted at how the complexities of Iraq had bewildered Americans at the highest levels.
Peter Galbraith – former U.S. diplomat: January 2003 the President invited three members of the Iraqi opposition to join him to watch the Super Bowl. In the course of the conversation the Iraqis realized that the President was not aware that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. He looked at them and said, “You mean…they’re not, you know, there, there’s this difference. What is it about?”
May 24th, 2007 at 2:31 pm[reply]
CompTROLLER V-1 sez:
You gotta be sh!tt!ng me. Compie just put me on The Ignore List â„¢! ROTFL!!!
You know, there was another troll who used to “ignore” posters he couldn’t stand up to in an argument…you rather remind me of him.
Gee! May I? Aww, shucks, Compie…you’re just swell!
I’ll respond to your commentary whenever I please, dolt. Feel free to “ignore” me, but we all know what’s motivating that behavior.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:31 pmevildoers,let’s see;
May 24th, 2007 at 2:31 pmIf I smash down the door of my neighbor, terrorize their family, lie about them, occupy their house, and steal their resources, they are the evildoers.
Exley, you just picked up on what some other numbnut on the right was ranting. Edwards said no such thing about not being in a conflict with Al Qiada.
From the link: In his New York address, Edwards said once the United States has withdrawn from Iraq, it must keep sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war and stop Iraq from becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda.
He said the United States would most likely need to retain a military presence in Kuwait, in the Gulf and in Baghdad to protect the U.S. Embassy.
“Finally, we need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world in Iraq’s future — including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe,” Edwards told a meeting of the New York-based think tank. The council has invited all the presidential candidates to speak, and Edwards was the first in the series.
So Exley, go read the entire link and then interject. It is about Iraq and
Al Qiada.
You used to be big enough to apologize. Are you still?
May 24th, 2007 at 2:34 pmExley sez:
Thanks for the answers, Exley. I initially missed your response.
Here’s some follow-up questions:
Given the fact that we are at war with Al-Qaeda, and also given the fact that the leader of the Al-Qaeda organization is Osama bin Laden, why is it that he is still at large? Why is Chimpy “truly not all that concerned about him”? Why was Able Danger dismantled?
Given the fact that we are at war with Al-Qaeda, why exactly did we invade Iran?
TIA
May 24th, 2007 at 2:36 pmI am baffled as to how you and nanlichi have misunderstood the topic of this thread. It is not about Iraq. It is about John Edwards’ belief that we are not fighting a war against Al Qaeda.
You and nanlichi need to re-read the article at the top of this thread. You are trying to turn this into a discussion of Iraq, but that is not the topic.
Comment by Exley — May 24, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
And I am baffled as to how you think that the War in Iraq is not justified EVERY DAY as the “War on Terror”. The President and his administration exclaim ad nauseum that Iraq is the CENTRAL FRONT in the “War on Terror”. In the linked video clip, the President says explicitly “we’re fighting them in Iraq, we’re fighting them in Afghanistan”.
Edwards’ point was that this president uses the term to his political advantage, but hasn’t treated it as a serious military campaign. Also, as it turns out, John Kerry’s idea of approaching terrorism as a law enforcement problem rather than a military one appears to be the correct one. Thus Edwards has some solid ground on which to stand when he claims that the War on Terror is “not a strategy to keep America safe.”
May 24th, 2007 at 2:38 pmWell said KRank
May 24th, 2007 at 2:44 pmI am baffled as to how you and nanlichi have misunderstood the topic of this thread. It is not about Iraq. It is about John Edwards’ belief that we are not fighting a war against Al Qaeda.
Comment by Exley — May 24, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
“War on al-Qa’ida” is not the same as “War on Terror.” We’re marginally fighting the former and not even remotely fighting the latter.
Let me give you some perspective. There were 498 terrorist attacks in Europe last year. Of those, a grand total of ONE was carried out by Muslim extremists. The rest were carried out by separatist groups such as Eta and anarchist groups. Why are we not bombing the Basque region of Spain if we’re fighting terror?
Terrorism is a technique used to achieve political aims. It’s not an ideology or a political system – it’s a technique. When we lump groups like Hamas, Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, the Jaysh al-Mahdi, and al-Qa’ida together as “terrorists,” we show our ignorance to the complexity of Middle Eastern politics and conflict. Edwards is right – it looks like we’re just fighting Islam, and that doesn’t help us.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:44 pmCommentary TripMaster Monkey
You want a continued war of words? Then CompTROLLER V-1’s architecture can and will be further upgraded through cartridge add-ons to counter your nutty academic speak. It will further guarantee that you can’t beat the system.
CompTROLLER V-1 is ready for action. I’ll insert the spell-check feature so you can go back to whining about Bin Laden not having enough clean underwear.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:44 pmCompTROLLER V-1 is ready for action. I’ll insert the spell-check feature so you can go back to whining about Bin Laden not having enough clean underwear.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — May 24, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
How about you insert your logic board instead?
May 24th, 2007 at 2:47 pmAside from “democracy,†no word has been more maligned and tortured in its meaning by Bush and his zealots than “ideology.†In short, there is a vast gulf between the ideology (as is interpreted by the likes of W and Cheney) and the truth. So as a service to the Bush Syndicate (and any other like-minded individuals):
The truth: al Qaeda wants America out of the Middle East (as does most of the Middle east)
Ideology: fervent, myopic, and misguided conviction that the Middle East wants you there.
Any questions?
May 24th, 2007 at 2:47 pmComment by KRank
How about you receive a spanking from your motherboard?
May 24th, 2007 at 2:53 pmComment by KRank
How about you receive a spanking from your motherboard?
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — May 24, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
Wow. Is that the best you can do? Are you sure you’re not running on MS-DOS?
May 24th, 2007 at 3:01 pmComment by KRank
Well, you’re not one of high standards, so I didn’t need to strain myself. CompTROLLER V-1 at its height is revolutionary stuff. You should try it out.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:11 pmQuestion that no troll will answer HONESTLY:
WHY did Bush and Cheney REFUSE TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH to the 9/11 Commission?
i.e. SWEAR TO GOD TO TELL THE TRUTH about their involvement with 9/11, the Bin Ladens and the Saudi TERRORIST FINANCIERS of Al Queda?
TRAITOR Reagan testified (Iran/Contra), as did Clinton (Monica L.), so “executive privilege” is bullzhit as PRECEDENT has ben set…
Come on, TROLLS….
BRING IT ON!!!
May 24th, 2007 at 3:21 pmCompTROLLER V-1 at its height is revolutionary stuff. You should try it out.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — May 24, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Thanks for the offer, but I have no need for sex toys, battery-operated or otherwise.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:21 pmThe answer is, of course, that Bush and Cheney are Saudi OIL WHOREBAGS and TRAITORS to the USA and what it USED to be.
Halliburton just “completed work” in Iran about 2 months ago.
The Saudis are FINANCING Al Queda, and TRAITOR Bush is THEIR azzlicker.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:26 pmMr. Bush Goes To Hell,
May 24th, 2007 at 3:35 pmYou’re beating a straw dog. Clinton and Gore also refused to testify to the 911 Commission.
Mr. Bush Goes To Hell,
May 24th, 2007 at 3:39 pmGeorge Soros buys 2 million shares of HALLIBURTON for $62 million in 2006. Look whos “financing” terrorism now…
HiB,
Again, I am not discussing Edwards’ views on Iraq. The post is not about Edwards’ views on Iraq. It is about the following statement made by Edwards:
‘By framing this as a “war,†we have walked straight into the trap that the terrorists have set — that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam.’
That statement is not about Iraq. It is about how Edwards views the fight against the radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorism that attacked us on 9/11. From that statement, it is clear he does not see it as a war. And that viewpoint is naive and dangerously delusional.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:40 pmmemphis minnie sez:
That’s probably because Clinton and Gore were not President and Vice President on September 11, 2001.
Funny how you reichwingnuts keep forgetting that…
May 24th, 2007 at 3:40 pmClinton and Gore also refused to testify UNDER OATH to the 911 Commission
May 24th, 2007 at 3:41 pmMr. Bush Goes To Hell,
You’re beating a straw dog. Clinton and Gore also refused to testify to the 911 Commission.
Comment by memphis minnie — May 24, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
We understand why a winmgnut apologist might cling to an irrelevancy like this, but what, pray tell, does it have to do with the question MBGTH posed? Specifically, if I may quote him: “WHY did Bush and Cheney REFUSE TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH to the 9/11 Commission?“
May 24th, 2007 at 3:41 pmComment by RoboTroll 3000
Mr. RoboTroll, your product no longer fits the needs of the market. CompTROLLER V-1 is the new sheriff in town. You are facing strong competition now, so will you accept a buyout to help ease the pressure? I mean, your worth couldn’t be more than pocket change…
May 24th, 2007 at 3:42 pmAnyone in the 28% that still stands behind this ignorant sob, Dubya, at this point in time, after all the lies, and failed policies is much worse than naive…they are ingorant morons. Go enlist, trolls…Dubya needs more fodder to pay for the profits of the military industrial complex. The crime family of thugs will burn in hell.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:44 pmhttp://www.911mysteries.com
It was an inside job. The Crime Family rules supreme.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:47 pmTerror is a tactic. Terror is not an enemy. Terror has been around since the beginning of time… smaller, less equipped always use terror to fight the big guy with more firepower…go figure.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:49 pmFrom the RIGHT-WING wacko Newsmax:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/12/135820.shtml
Clinton said he WOULD be willing to testify.
Bush and Cheney said they “weren’t sure”.
ANOTHER LIE by a RIGHT-WING wacko named “memphis minnie”.
Who’d a ever THUNK it???
The BLUES Memphis Minnie would have KNIFED a LIAR like YOU.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:01 pmdoes anyone really listen to the chimp anymore? let’s face it. he has no credibility. dumb fox, do you think the chimp appreciated the irony of that last statement about bringing those “…people to justice.”? How out of touch he must be with the pulse of the american people to have said that. I assume the statement was impromptu and not a speech so he must really believe what he said.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:01 pmExley, the statement is also true. “War on (fill in the blank)” is a lazy term. Bush has taken his eye off the prize. It’s not niave or delusional. War would suggest that all of our national resources were to be used to defeat this common enemy. But that wasn’t required of us. I believe shopping was what our president asked us to do.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:05 pmThat statement is not about Iraq. It is about how Edwards views the fight against the radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorism that attacked us on 9/11. From that statement, it is clear he does not see it as a war. And that viewpoint is naive and dangerously delusional.
Comment by Exley — May 24, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Terrorism did not attack the United States on 9/11. A group of 19 men affiliated with an Islamic fundamentalist group attacked the United States on 9/11. Terrorism is the technique these men used, and used very effectively. You cannot, however, fight a war against a technique.
So who are we fighting in this “war,” then? If we’re fighting al-Qa’ida, then we’re fighting a brand name. Al-Qa’ida (the base) is a loosely connected network of groups with similar political aims in their respective countries. While the various groups calling themselves al-Qa’ida do not all agree on many issues, they are all united by the belief that the West, particularly the United States, is at war against Islam. In the eyes of al-Qa’ida and their supporters, they are the defenders and we are the attackers.
What we have demonstrated in Iraq, in our support for Israel’s war against Lebanon and the Palestinians, and in 50 years of self-serving and hypocritical Middle East foreign policy, is that they’re right. We are, it appears, at war with Islam. This gives them even more motivation to fight, and to recruit others to join their cause.
You cannot fight the technique of terrorism solely through military means. It is naive and dangerously delusional to think so. It is also naive and dangerously delusional to think that this war started in 2001. It started a long time before that.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:06 pmwhat a douche!!!
May 24th, 2007 at 4:06 pmtoasterhead (great name by the way) said it so much better than I could. Terror is a tactic and the only “war” is a war of words.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:16 pmToasterhead hit on some of the history involved. The friction between muslim east, and Christian west dates back to before the crusades.
Very well put btw. One of the things so often missing involving the situation in Iraq, is there is no actual discussion not only of what we are doing there, but what we can or cannot accomplish militarily.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:20 pmComment by KRank
I have often asked that question, and why they had to testify together. They had to keep the story straight and George is not too good at that. I am one of those people who suspects 9/11 was an inside job. All one has to do is go back to election 2000 and connect the dots to today. This was all cleverly designed and implemented. And here we are in a never ending war that the war profiteers have coined “the war on terror.”
The investigations on ALL the criminal activities of this administration will take decades – and we don’t have time. With all this recent talk about an increase in violence in August, and the references to another attack in the republican debate, and these criminals being backed into a corner, and…………. Anyway they’re planning something and it doesn’t look good for We the People.
I hope I’m wrong.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:34 pmtoasterhead just owned this thread. Thanks for all the info.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:39 pmHow about this phrase: The War Against Terror
Acronym: TWAT
May 25th, 2007 at 11:33 amThanks Toasterhead for your post. Everytime I ask a supporter of the so called war on terror exactly who we are fighting, they seem to get all confused. Many aren’t able to distinguish between Sunni and Shia. Then, the Bush administration says when the Iraqi military is able to stand up, we will stand down. I would like to ask people to think of themselves as a soldier in Iraq asked to train Iraqi’s. How many of you would be willing to give any of them a loaded gun when it is not even clear who the enemy is. The one thing you know for sure is that you are the most appealing target to all the factions for the simple reason that you don’t look like any of them because you don’t live there! Bush got his “mission accomplished.” His mission was just to get the troops on the ground in Iraq to set up shop for much more conflict and steal oil. You would think the cost of gas would have dropped considering, but it is rising to record prices. I never understood why my mom would not allow me to buy fireworks. Ofcourse, I used my money and bought them anyway. Later on, there were puppies for sale down my street that I always wanted but missed out on that opportunity. I spent my money on fireworks and had absolutely nothing to show for it. What do we as a country have to show for the extremely expensive fireworks we spent our tax dollars on in Iraq?
May 25th, 2007 at 12:16 pm