Lieberman To Introduce Resolution Praising Success Of Surge ‘Against Enemies Who Attacked America On 9/11′
Lieberman To Introduce Resolution Praising Success Of Surge ‘Against Enemies Who Attacked America On 9/11′
This morning, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) held a press conference to express their “pleasure” about President Bush’s statement this morning regarding what he described as “encouraging news from Iraq” and “the success of the surge.”
Lieberman then announced that he and Graham would do their part in celebrating the surge by introducing a resolution in the Senate “recognizing” its “strategic success” in “the central front in the war on terror.” Then, Lieberman went slightly off course, not seeming to recognize just who attacked the United States on 9/11 and from where:
LIEBERMAN: That’s why Senator Graham and I are introducing a resolution recognizing the strategic success that the surge has achieved in a central front — the central front of the war on terror against the enemies who attacked America on 9/11/01, and expressing our thanks to our troops who’ve made that success possible.
It might insult someone’s intelligence to point out the obvious fact that the terrorists who carried out the September 11, 2001 terror attacks operated out of Afghanistan, not Iraq. And despite the right wing’s insistence, even the Pentagon has confirmed that “no direct link” ever existed “between late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda network.”
But Lieberman’s claim indicates that he does not understand the wider problem — namely that the surge prevented the U.S. from sending more troops where they are needed, in Afghanistan. In January 2007, just one week after Bush announced his surge policy, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that “U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have recommended an increase in U.S. force levels, in part to deal with an expected upsurge in Taliban violence.”
But the troops went to Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan and since then, the security situation there has become worse than its ever been since 2001. U.S. commanders and even Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen have recently acknowledged that they do not have the troops or resources necessary to combat the Taliban and Al-Qaida threat in Afghanistan because of Iraq. Moreover, a new report directly links the troop shortages there to the Taliban’s comeback.
Instead of crafting resolutions declaring victory in “the central front in the ‘war on terror,’” perhaps Lieberman and Graham should spend more time figuring out where that “central front” is.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
156 Responses to “Lieberman To Introduce Resolution Praising Success Of Surge ‘Against Enemies Who Attacked America On 9/11′”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
sickening political!
July 31st, 2008 at 2:57 pmGraham, McCain and Lieberman: our creepy Mideast menage et trois.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:59 pmSo the PKK, the Badr Brigade, al Sadr's militia, and Iran's Revolutionary Guard attacked America on 9-11? Please, John, put a sock in it.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:00 pmThe saddest part of it is, Holy Joe really thinks the Neocons like him.
He doesn't realize that they laugh at him behind his back.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:00 pmWe are getting hit hard in Afghanistan and soldiers are dying because of Bush and his lackeys, Lie-man included, who dropped the ball to invade a country over lies.
Now Lie-man wants to have a resolution about the success in the "war on terror" which was actually supposed to be in Afghanistan, because Iraq was never about terrorists until after we invaded for WMDs that never existed.
This has been the biggest bait and switch con game ever and sadly there are still Americans stupid enough to fall for it.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:02 pmralph:
July 31st, 2008 at 3:05 pmJust don't tell him. It would hurt his feelings. It is sort of similar to how evangelicals are always being duped and played as fools.
I hope all the Senators decide it's time to start their Summer recess just when Lieberman introduces this resolution. What a waste tax dollars. Americans are lacking health care reform and losing their homes and the best that Lieberman can do is offer a f u cking resolution.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:05 pmI didn't know Bin-Laden was Iraqi. Guess I learned something new today. Unfortunately, this tidbit would only be useful while talking with the faux snooze set and I don't spend a whole lot of time in convalesent homes.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:05 pmJust because the boy Bush said it doesn't mean it's true. Remember "Mission Accomplished"?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:06 pmAl-Qaida believed that the surge was such a lofty idea that they moved their newly trained insurgents from Iraq to Pakistan and Afghanistan, to start their own surge in the upcoming winter campaign.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:06 pmUmm. Joseph! Pssst! Look at these numbers...
July 31st, 2008 at 3:07 pmPoller-----------dates----approve/disapprove/difference
Research 2000 LV 7/25-27/08 22 / 78 / -56
Huh? Did we attack Saudi Arabia and capture bin Laden over night while we slept?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:07 pmIn fact, the Bush administration has very diligently avoided lifting so much as a finger against those "the enemies who attacked America on 9/11/01".
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
July 31st, 2008 at 3:08 pmWow! The surge netted us Osama bin Laden? Why was this ignored by all the media?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:08 pmI'm certainly glad we're bombing Saudi Arabia back to the stone ag...what? Oh. Crap.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:08 pmand not a flag pin to be seen...
July 31st, 2008 at 3:09 pmBut Joe, these were your good bosom buddies, the Saudi's. Are you going to introduce a resolution that Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9hundred11? Many that is going to dry up your incoming money stream, if not your insider information on the oil market, the arms market, the uranium market, boy, that really affects your wallet! Did you talk to Bandar about it? Did you tell all your friends in Israel (employer) so they could make a fat profit on it as well?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:11 pmWhy don't you talk to your lawyer? Someone's probably talking to him about you?
Guess it's not a good idea to bomb the Saudis while one has his hand up the Saudi princes dress.....Blessings
July 31st, 2008 at 3:12 pmGet a clue, guys. This is just a political move to cement support for the loyal Bush Dead Enders who believed that they were going to conquer and subdue the Middle East. Their belief is that almost all will vote for the measure. Those who do not will be condemned as dissing the troops. The Republicans will then turn around and use the resolution as proof that everyone agreed with the Republican view of Iraq, the necessity of the war and the validity of the surge.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:12 pmHey Lieberman why don't you and the other Republicants quit sucking yourselves off and slapping each other on the backs, drop the self-serving waste-of-the-people's-money-and-time resolutions and just STFU?!?! Just sit back and be quiet until November and let the grown-ups handle things. You will be even more irrelevant after November when you are dropped from every commitee that you serve on and shunned by the Democratic Party. The Repubs will have no use for you either after McCant loses. What has the surge gained us Joe? More dead Americans, more dead Iraqi civilians and practically NO political progress in Iraq. Big success indeed.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:13 pmStupid is as stupid does. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and everyone knows it. Joe has lost his mind.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:13 pmonly total assclowns would think we need a resolution from congress proving the surge was/is successful. Most Americans would think it's a successif the soldiers started coming home to stay.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:14 pmLiebernam is to Jews as Daryll is to Christians.
Why do you promote anti-Semitism Joe?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:14 pmIs the fellow in the back peeing? Did they call each other to agree to dress the same or does Joe just have some identity issues?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:15 pmLieberman got it right. Just like he got it right when the lefties in CT lost the election when they disregared Lieberman's experience and claimed that he doesn't speak for most Americans. In fact, he does; any claim he doesn't only underscores how far to the left his denigraters have moved.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:15 pmLittle Lindsey Graham, bless her heart.
How come Lindsey and holy Joe are ALWAYS together? Sort of joined at the crotch. Dumb and dumber still.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:16 pmThe surge has been/is successful. Get your heads out of your holes.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:16 pmJT:
July 31st, 2008 at 3:19 pmAre they still "freedom fries"? Wrapping oneself in a flag still just makes for a naked man in a piece of cloth
How many Lieberman supporters can you fit on the head of a pin? - All of them!
July 31st, 2008 at 3:19 pmNo, he didn't. Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. Fact.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:20 pmJT Says:
Lieberman got it right.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
****Takes verrry deeeep breath****
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
Thanks for the laughs, I really needed that. Oh, you weren't joking? Of course your were. Who, after all this time, could be so brainwashed and braindead? Oh, you? That's about right.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:20 pmBoth Lieberman and Graham are trying to leverage some kind of appointment in a McCain administration. And if the American people either don't care (or are truly misinformed) they might happily repeat the horrible history of the past almost 8 years. With an Obama presidency, it's going to be an uphill fight to try to correct all the wrongs of the past administration. But if McCain actually wins, this country is lost. The American experiment as something shining and bright to inspire and to lead will finally die. We've been losing that fight for many years, but the Bush administration has stuck all the nails in the coffin of democracy and the U.S. Constitution. McCain and their bunch will drive those nails in and put that coffin into the ground. And I'll tell you, the MSM is helping them do it.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:21 pmJT, are you a Connecticut resident? If not, STFU, you have no idea how hated whiny joe LIEberman is in this state.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:22 pmThis is a new tactic for trolls: utter stupidity.
Oh, wait, no it's not. It's their SOP.
LIEberman "got it right" when he implied Iraq attacked us on 9/11?
No wonder you're a troll.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:22 pmOT,
July 31st, 2008 at 3:22 pmIs anyone getting a hymnal when going to the base page or is it just me?
JT Says:
The surge has been/is successful. Get your heads out of your holes.
This ill-informed troll is trying to derail the thread. Even dodo birds know the surge/escalation didn't bring about the political reconciliation needed for our military gains to take root. What a brain dead loser.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:23 pmJoe Liebermann is an azzhole and I can't stand him. He makes me sick with his put Israel first and America second bullshlt. They talk about Obama being pro European, but that all bull. Liebermann is a disgrace to the people of this State and they need to put someone else in office to represent them. Anyone who says that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 is not only a liar, but they are stupid. That proves he thinks the voter are stupid as well. He is such a sell out, they shouldn't let him go to the Democratic Convention, because he'll be spying for the Republican party. Joe Liebermann you are a traitor!
July 31st, 2008 at 3:24 pmThis is the same guy coaching John McCain on the subtle tribal and religious alliances in Iraq?
Well, it looks like Iraq is wrapped up in a bow. What a wonderful gift to the world! Who can the U.S. rehab next (on behalf of big oil)?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:24 pmOh, freaking GAG me.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:25 pmWaltTheMan:
July 31st, 2008 at 3:26 pmAs soon as you know, let me know as I have been b&*ching about that Light Saber shit for awhile now
Nice of Joe to pat Bush on the back for having the military attack 800 miles too far west.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:26 pmNot to mention, the success of the "surge" (love the labeling BS- it is an escalation of an ilegal occupation)will take time to determine whether any measurable success has been achieved. After all, no one has seen political reconciliation yet. You know, the reason for the "surge" in the first place.
dbadass @#24 ~ man you've got sharp eyes. I think Lindsay was covering up his large man crush for Joe...
July 31st, 2008 at 3:29 pmtrollsb ~ Now, you can't argue that because the surge made no difference in the reconciliation that hasn't taken place that is't not a huge sucess, can you?
Hey! where'd those goddamn goal posts go? Again!
July 31st, 2008 at 3:30 pmRUCerious:
July 31st, 2008 at 3:30 pmI ment the fellow behind McCain but I definately see your point
Same old pattern over and over again...
They pick some strategy, tout it as the miracle cure for all of Iraq's problems. It always seems to start in late winter or early spring.
The temperatures become unbearable in Iraq during the summer, less people out and about, hence less violence.
They claim the strategy was a success.
Fall comes.
Temperatures drop.
Violence escalates.
Time for a new strategy, we can't leave!
The surge was supposed to provide cover for political reconciliation, which was suppose to be close to fully completed BEFORE now.
Hasn't happened.
The surge is a failure.
The surge didn't reduce violence.
The weather did.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:34 pmBrilliant! Let's make a resolution which upholds a lie that Iraq had anything to do with 911!
Somebody shoot these morons. And then shoot the media for not stopping this bullsh!t.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:35 pmJT Says:
the lefties in CT lost the election when they disregared Lieberman’s experience and claimed that he doesn’t speak for most Americans.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:15 pm
______
You make a good point. We on the left need to constantly remind ourselves that the majority of the American public is as stupid as Lieberman is, which is how we got into this mess in the first place.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:35 pmLieberman demonstrates how truly ignorant or stupid he is. Why do Republicans insist on trying to rewrite history to suit their lies? Their tactic is dishonest, arrogant, and disgusting - plus an insult to troops & those who died on 9/11. Truth is how to honor these people, not lies & distortions.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:36 pmdasm:
Why?
How else are they going to survive?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:36 pmNot remembering my high school civics very well, doesn't Reid set the agenda/schedule votes for the Senate? If so, can they schedule such important affairs for say, oh I don't know, November 5?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:36 pmOr how about this tbone, how about the Democrats grow a fu(king spine and punt this bill onto the horizon, over and over again, just like Coburn does to anything the Dems try to get done (hello, Tomnibus).
How about using some of the "procedural tactics" the Republicans always use, and tell them to suck it when they predictably and hypocritically whine about the Democrats giving them a taste of their own medicine?
Oh yeah, I know why this won't happen...too obvious to repeat it since we all know what it is.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:39 pmLIEBERMAN (R): That’s why Senator Graham and I are introducing a resolution recognizing the strategic success that the surge has achieved in a central front — the central front of the war on terror against the enemies who attacked America on 9/11/01,
We've attacked Saudia Arabia with the surge?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:42 pmI was not aware of this.
(please not my not so subtle (R) next to Lieberman's name. Joe ain't no (I), unless I stands for Idiot)
Oh Tracy5, you are just too cute.
Did you forget that:
A) There was no AQI until AFTER WE INVADED
and
B) AQI is in no way affiliated with the AQ that actually attacked us on 9/11. They are a franchise. An unaffiliated splinter group that took the name Al Qaeda in Iraq to show solidarity with another group whose cause they support?
and
C) OUR OWN MILITARY SAYS THAT THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN SADDAM HUSSEIN AND AL QAEDA. WE BROUGHT AL QAEDA TO IRAQ BY INVADING YOU NITWIT. THEY LOVE THE FACT THAT WE ARE THERE BECAUSE NOW THEY GET TO KILL OUR SOLDIERS ON A DAILY BASIS, GET COMBAT TRAINING, GARNER MORE SYMPATHY IN THE MUSLIM WORLD FOR THEIR CAUSE AND OH YEAH SLOWLY BUT SURELY BANKRUPT US TO DEATH WHICH WAS ONE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN'S STATED GOALS.
Great job morons, Mission (Osama's) Accomplished!
July 31st, 2008 at 3:43 pmLike Obama saying it’s in Afghanistan/Pakistan. That an OPINION. There is no “central front”…there are multiple “fronts”, but apparently Obama thinks that if we concentrate all of our attention on the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan that this will lead to the victory over al Qaeda.
Prior to 9/11, al quaida numbered less than 40 men. Fact. The folks who hurt us on 9/11 were al quaida. Fact. Hussein would not have allowed al quaida to operate in his country. Fact. al quaida found a sympathetic ruler in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Fact. Since we have spent our valuable resources in the wrong place, chasing the wrong enemy, al quaida has reconstituted itself in Pakistan. Fact.
Obama - and the RAND coporation - both concluded properly that our effots shuold be in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Fact.
Now go away and eat your cheetos. You are starting to bore me.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:43 pmT5 does love him some straw men, don' he?
Whoever said there was no AQI prior to The Surge™?
The point is that there was no AQI prior to the US invasion in 2003.
In other words, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Understand now?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:44 pm*actual cash value of the Resolution: 1/100th of one US cent.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:44 pmTracy_5 Says:
"Of course TP apparently thinks there was no AQI prior to the surge.
Maybe those al Qaeda operatives in Iraq follow some secret al Qaeda charter that doesn’t call for the destruction of the West."
Maybe there wasn't Al Qaeda in Iraqi until your drunken cokehead AWOL tin idol in the White House decided to screw the pooch.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:44 pmKinda comes across as a blanket CYA move to be trotted out for use later. I dunno..maybe my brain is just scrambled from the 8 years of nonsense :(.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:45 pmby falsifying the true perpetrators of 9/11 is Joe not giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US; for base political purposes no less. Isn't that treason?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:45 pmHi Tracy5:
July 31st, 2008 at 3:46 pmMaybe I misread it. Isn't this about the stupidity of wasting government time on a falsehood? Got freedom Fries?
multilee:
Georgie Boy took an awkward swan dive down the rabbit hole 5 years ago with a chain tethered to the rest of us...
We're still falling...
July 31st, 2008 at 3:46 pmdbadass,
July 31st, 2008 at 3:46 pmThat makes two of us. It's annoying as heck. The start up squawk is like chalk on a blackboard!
leave it to some Righty dingleberry(ies) to equate Mr. Droopy's piece of paper with anything meaningful.
you'd think lieberman would be a better shill than that.
give him some more time with the R's though, and he'll be a virtual Billy Mays in the Senate.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:48 pmTracy_5 Says:
Maybe those al Qaeda operatives in Iraq follow some secret al Qaeda charter that doesn’t call for the destruction of the West.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
_______
They do, actually. The stated goals of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, as written in Abu Musab az-Zarqawi's founding letter to Ayman az-Zawahiri, are to expel U.S. forces from Iraq, form a regional khaliphate, attack the governments of Iraq's secular neighbors, and fight Israel.
Nothing about "the destruction of the west."
July 31st, 2008 at 3:50 pmThere were no terrorists in Iraq prior to 9/11. Fact. You seem to be missing that point.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:52 pmtacy, you may want to enroll in a troll refresher course at your local adult education center. Even when you try to sway off topic, you get your ass handed to you from five others. As a troll, you're not very effective.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:52 pmYes. We all remember them. Do you? They had nothing to do with Iraq in the first place. Remember? Apparently not....
July 31st, 2008 at 3:53 pmdary11:
July 31st, 2008 at 3:53 pmAre we still at war with poverty and drugs? I think a War on Stupidity might be warranted but I suppose it would have to be preemptive
dary11:
See all the posts above please.
You know, the one's about how AL QAEDA WAS NOT IN FU(KING IRAQ UNTIL AFTER WE INVADED YOU MORON.
AND The "Al Qaeda" that is there now isn't even the same one that attacked us...you MORON...they are a FRANCHISE. They took that name AFTER THE FACT to show solidarity with a group they are otherwise unaffiliated with.
The Al Qaeda that ATTACKED us is STILL in AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN.
You
MORON.
Go play in traffic and spare the human race your stupidity.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:53 pmhey dary11-
July 31st, 2008 at 3:54 pmHere's a final jeopardy question for you:
Bin-Laden and the majority of terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 were of what nationality?
Tracy is 5 says:
There is no “central front”…there are multiple “fronts”, but apparently Obama thinks that if we concentrate all of our attention on the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan that this will lead to the victory over al Qaeda.
That is where the leadership of Al Qaeda is, isn't it? That is where bush let Bin Laden escape, right? There was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to our occupation, right? What's wrong with going after the people who attacked us?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:54 pmdary11 Says:
You seem to be missing the point that we are not at war with Iraq. We are at war with terrorists in Iraq, including al Qaeda terrorists. You’ve heard of al Qaeda, you know the group that attacked us on 9-11. Remember?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
_______
Yup. I've heard of them. Bunch of guys in the FATA of Pakistan. What exactly do they have to do with the al-Qa'ida cover band operating in the Sunni triangle?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:55 pmBobwurst Says:
"What’s wrong with going after the people who attacked us?"
Because there's no oil in either Afghanistan or Pakistan.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:56 pmLess than < 5% of the insurgency are foreign fighters. The rest are Iraqi's fighting American occupiers.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:56 pmHT:
al-Qa’ida cover band operating in the Sunni triangle?
Brilliant.
Simply brilliant.
I may have to steal that description to use in future debates/arguments of this sort.
al-Qa'ida Cover Band. Pretty much the best way to describe AQI.
Well played sir.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:57 pmStratRat Says
July 31st, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Even dodo birds know the surge/escalation didn’t bring about the political reconciliation needed for our military gains to take root.
________________________________________________________
Well, SURE -- if you mean THAT goal. You know, the original one.
However, the trolls and the Bush apologists insist on moving the goal posts to whatever position is required to enable them to claim that "the surge is a success". Even if the "success" is that Maliki is still in office. Or that the Green Zone is still secure. Or that no officers got photographed with their finger up their nose.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:57 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
Yes. We all remember them. Do you? They had nothing to do with Iraq in the first place. Remember? Apparently not….
July 31st, 2008 at 3:53 pm
______
Well, they did in the sense that one of the major issues in UBL's fatwa against the U.S. was the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia to guard the kingdom against Iraq - a job that bin Laden and his band of merry salafists really wanted.
But other than that, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:58 pmHT:
And OBL got what he wanted on that front as well.
George W. Bush has been the best friend Osama Bin Laden ever had.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:59 pmDary11:
July 31st, 2008 at 3:59 pmI cordially invite you to explain all your ideas down at the thread about counterterrorism. See ya there...
liberal traitor:
ugh I feel it....I'm just praying when the bottom is hit, people don't hit too hard. Breathlessly waiting for this nasty, dirty, icky, smelly crap to end.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:00 pmdon't get hit..sorry
July 31st, 2008 at 4:01 pmliberal traitor Says:
And OBL got what he wanted on that front as well.
George W. Bush has been the best friend Osama Bin Laden ever had.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:59 pm
_____
And $140/bbl oil to boot! That'll pay for a shitload of dialysis machines, eh?
Oh, and I think I lifted the "AQ cover band" bit from Greg Palast. Please use it wherever necessary.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:02 pmSomeone should tell Holy Joe that Iraq never attacked us, we invaded Iraq, illegally and immorarly and now we have occupied their country for over five years. He is way off base.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:03 pmThe only surge Joe knows is when Lindsay cums from behind...
July 31st, 2008 at 4:04 pmTracy5:
July 31st, 2008 at 4:05 pmIs Al Qaeda in the UK? If so should we go kick try to kick their ass by invading and occupying?
The point is Moron#5 that no matter how you try to spin things the surge has not worked, AQI has NOTHING to do with who actually attacked us on 9/11 so Lieberman's resolution is disingenous at best and a FLAT OUT DISGUSTING DISTORTION AND DISGRACE at worst, and all of this would have been moot of GEORGE W BUSH HADN'T LIED US INTO IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE. There would have been NO need for a Surge, this stupid resolution, or for me to waste time out of my life I will never get back talking to brain-dead ignoramuses like YOU.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:05 pmTracy_5 Says:
The both subscribe to the same philosophies and GOALS spelled out in the al Qaeda charter. BTW who is financing the AQI operations in Iraq right not?
July 31st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
______
As I understand, they finance themselves primarily through kidnapping ransoms, carjackings, and racketeering operations. They're basically a mafia organization, and to my knowledge receive no direct funding from al-Qa'ida.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:06 pmTrace, could you please explain how you reached this conclusion:
"Of course TP apparently thinks there was no AQI prior to the surge."
This seems sloppy even for you.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:07 pmAccording to the reich-wingers, you're either Al-Qaeda-affiliated or you are an American soldier. There is nothing else.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:09 pmWell, damn. I seem to have left my decoder ring at home today. Anyone care to translate this for me.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:12 pmTracy - bin banned at least 4 times - 5 says:
Yes, but they are there now. What is your point?…it’s in the past. For TP to again point out,CORRECTLY, that Saddam had no link to 9/11 is irrelevant to the fact the al Qaeda is in Iraq today.
It's incredibly relevant since THIS THREAD IS ABOUT LIEBERMAN PUTTING THE CONNECTION INTO SOME RESOLUTION!!!
July 31st, 2008 at 4:15 pmYes lets celebrate the surge success in ethnically segregating Baghdad!
Lets celebrate the surge success in driving hundreds of thousands Sunnis from their homes!
Lets celebrate the surge success in giving Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites even more reasons to hate each other!
July 31st, 2008 at 4:20 pmJeebus... first thread is about that raging idiot Glenn Beck...
And now, it's all about that raging idiot Joe Lieberman...
I gotta go puke...
July 31st, 2008 at 4:21 pmTracy_5 Says:
How many al Qaeda terrorist training camps would you estimate there were in Afghanistan prior to 9/11? How many al Qaeda “troops” were in each of those camps?
I am assuming you left of a few zeros when you typed what you did.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
______
Depends how you define "al-Qa'ida troops." 40 seems a bit low, but the people who trained in al-Qa'ida's camps in Afghanistan did not all become al-Qa'ida fighters. Some were training for the Chechen resistance, or Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, or Jema'a Islamiya in Indonesia. Others were training to fight the Northern Alliance alongside the Taliban, and wanted nothing to do with al-Qa'ida.
Though we in the west tend to lump all these groups together under the label "terrorists," it's important to recognize that they're all different groups with different regional objectives. Just because they're connected with al-Qa'ida doesn't make them al-Qa'ida.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:21 pmSpacy_5 Says:
"How many al Qaeda terrorist training camps would you estimate there were in Afghanistan prior to 9/11? How many al Qaeda “troops” were in each of those camps?"
What the fu(k does that have to do with this bullsh!t resolution claiming that the surge in Iraq was directed against those responsible for 9/11???
Talk about irrelevant!
July 31st, 2008 at 4:22 pmTalk about the do nothing Senate... a Resolution whose only purpose is praise the GOP cabinet.
Meanwhile a good couple laws are rotting while Tommie gives his OK about a comma.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:23 pmI am assuming you left of a few zeros when you typed what you did.
Assume all you want. It just makes you appear foolish.
OBL had a band of 35-40 men, mostly wealthy Saudi kids who were dis-enchanted with the ME making room for 'infidels' on their land.
This path has been walked over and over and over and over. It makes little sense to imagine T5 accepting any statement as fact if it doesn't match up his daily fax from the RNC.
T5 is a symptom of the larger disease of Whaaaaaaaaa! I truly thought the right side was brave. I really did. When did they turn into crybabies and bedwetters? Are they that fu(ked up, that they would follow W to the gates of hell?
July 31st, 2008 at 4:25 pmTracy_5 Says:
The both subscribe to the same philosophies and GOALS spelled out in the al Qaeda charter. BTW who is financing the AQI operations in Iraq right now?
Dick Cheney and Halliburton?
July 31st, 2008 at 4:31 pmIgnoranceIsNotBliss Says:
JT Says:
Lieberman got it right. Just like he got it right when the lefties in CT lost the election when they disregared Lieberman’s experience and claimed that he doesn’t speak for most Americans. In fact, he does; any claim he doesn’t only underscores how far to the left his denigraters have moved..
Well, damn. I seem to have left my decoder ring at home today. Anyone care to translate this for me.
Translation: my head is so far up joe liebermann's a$$ i can see out his mouth. And the really cool thing about it that we both get hold mccain's flacid peni$ in our mouths at the same time!!!!!!
July 31st, 2008 at 4:32 pmWhen is a reporter going to ask the logical follow up question to some of these dumb pronouncements. In this case: Mr L, what is the connection between the Bath insurgents and AlQ ?
July 31st, 2008 at 4:32 pmTHE PURPOSE OF THE SURGE WAS TO PROVIDE TIME FOR POLITICAL BENCHMARKS TO BE MET....HOW MANY OF THOSE BENCHMARKS HAVE BEEN MET? THE IRAQ GOVERNMENT CAN'T EVEN AGREE TO HOLD THE ELECTIONS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO RECONCILE THEIR DISAGREEMENTS!
Our troops have done a wonderful job in Iraq, but violence is down because Shites have killed or caused Sunnis to flea their communities or the country in fear for their lives. In many areas, the Shites no longer have Sunnis to kill because "ethnic cleansing" was so successful. Also, Sunnis in Sunni dominated communities are being paid by our government to refrain from attacking Americans and or Shites. Also, Iran has exerted religious and economic influence over fellow Shites al-Maliki and al-Sadr to pressure them into a truce. Also, American troops have significantly reduced the convoys and patrols that made them targets and in turn reduced the number of people they killed in defending themselves. In a country of more than 27,000,000 people, our troops would be wiped out without the Shite Iraqi government's cooperation and the cooperation of the Sunnis who once held iron-fisted power over Shites. American troops have very little "real" control over Iraq. If Iran's Shite Muslim leaders called for a Jihad against the American infidels, all we could do to prevent our troops from being annihilated is bomb the shit out of Iraq. What would Iran do if American or Israeli forces bombed Iran's nuclear facilities? These are the harsh realities that the Bush administration doesn't want Americans to be aware of or understand. The only "victory" America will have in Iraq is keeping as many of our soldiers alive as possible......and not starting a bloodbath in the Middle East that would be impossible for our military to contain. Bush has handed control of Iraq to Iran's Shite Muslim leadership. That would not have if not for Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq. If America or Israel bombs Iran, the Jihad of all Jihads could be the result. The "surge" was and is a Bush administration dog and pony show that too many Americans have been sold on. Without lasting and stable political agreement, there will never be a lasting peace in Iraq. The current relative peace between competing Shite factions and between vengeful Shites and Sunnis is the result of a confluence of events that were more controlled by Iraqis and Iran's leadership than by an inconsequential increase in the number of American targets in Iraq.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:39 pmTracy is 5 will still not explain why he doesn't want to go after the leadership of Al Queda. Why is Tracy willing to let Bin Laden go free?
July 31st, 2008 at 4:40 pmNauseating political ploy, one which should be shouted down. This is disgusting, using the troops as political tools.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:47 pmLeftside Annie Says:
Tracy_5 Says:
The both subscribe to the same philosophies and GOALS spelled out in the al Qaeda charter. BTW who is financing the AQI operations in Iraq right now?
Dick Cheney and Halliburton?
Yup.
TREASON by the Bush WAR CRIMINALS from the beginning, starting with PLANNING TO ATTACK IRAQ before 9/11.
May they all BURN IN HELL along with TRAITOR Ronnie Reagan, now DEAD and BURNING for his GENOCIDE.
I will CELEBRATE the day TRAITORS Cheney and Bush DROP DEAD.
It will be a GREAT day for America and the WORLD!
July 31st, 2008 at 4:50 pmThis is typical election year b.s. A successful surge in Iraq is critical to McCain's campaign. What better way to show that success than with an official declaration? Never mind the fact that 9/11 and Iraq were never connected. Minor details...
July 31st, 2008 at 4:53 pmBobwurst Says:
Tracy is 5 will still not explain why he doesn’t want to go after the leadership of Al Queda. Why is Tracy willing to let Bin Laden go free?
Search "bush bin laden connection":
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+bin+laden+connection
Just more TREASON from the Bush WAR CRIMINALS.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:53 pmWhat a waste of time. Doesn't Holy Schmoe have anything better to do with his time. And republicans wonder why they're losing seats.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:57 pmJT Says:
Lieberman got it right. Just like he got it right when the lefties in CT lost the election when they disregared Lieberman’s experience and claimed that he doesn’t speak for most Americans. In fact, he does; any claim he doesn’t only underscores how far to the left his denigraters have moved.
Oh boy, a new troll to play with. This one thinks that LIEberman speaks for most Americans. I guess he missed the polls that showo that 65% of the people in this country think that Iraq was a mistake and want us the hell out of there. But to a low-information troll like this one, 35% must be "most Americans".
The only reason why Joe Lieberman won his last senate bid is because a majority of the Republicans voted for him. If it wasn't for that, he would have lost big.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:59 pmBush, Cheney and Rove are TRAITORS to the USA, and deserve the PENALTY for TREASON in "wartime" (of their making, yet..)
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nut(e)s
July 31st, 2008 at 5:00 pmTracy_5 Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Trace, could you please explain how you reached this conclusion:
“Of course TP apparently thinks there was no AQI prior to the surge.””
My point is that after Zarqawi’s organization pledged their allegence to bin Laden’s al Qaeda they became part of that organization…who did attack us on 9/11. TP seemed to be falsely inferring that those who attacked us on 9/11, i.e. al Qaeda are in no way linked or connected to AQI in Iraq today. Bin Laden’s al Qaeda and AQI both have the same goal…to establish an Islamic caliphate. The U.S. and it’s allies are the ones standing in their way.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Oh really ?
Then how come Saudi Arabia is not only allowed to exist as is (the most oppressive nation by far under Islam) , but also has the leader of the free world sword-dancing with those in power ?
July 31st, 2008 at 5:02 pmMCMetal Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy_5 Says:
——————————————————————————–
“Trace, could you please explain how you reached this conclusion:
“Of course TP apparently thinks there was no AQI prior to the surge.””
My point is that after Zarqawi’s organization pledged their allegence to bin Laden’s al Qaeda they became part of that organization…who did attack us on 9/11. TP seemed to be falsely inferring that those who attacked us on 9/11, i.e. al Qaeda are in no way linked or connected to AQI in Iraq today. Bin Laden’s al Qaeda and AQI both have the same goal…to establish an Islamic caliphate. The U.S. and it’s allies are the ones standing in their way.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Oh really ?
Then how come Saudi Arabia is not only allowed to exist as is (the most oppressive nation by far under Islam) , but also has the leader of the free world sword-dancing with those in power ?
TREASON. Game. Set. Match. Thanks, McMetal.
Go sukc TRAITOR Bush dikc some more and lick his azz, tracie...
July 31st, 2008 at 5:04 pmDoes this now mean that those who allowed 9/11 to occur , the entire GOP and Chimpy and Co , will have to answer for it , Lieberman ?
I highly doubt it......
July 31st, 2008 at 5:05 pmMcCain is fond of saying that "Bin Laden, himself, has called Iraq the Battleground in his war against the Crusaders".
Of course he did. He WANTS American troops bogged down ,and spending borrowed money, causing collateral damage, and losing precious lives , in an area 1000 miles West of where he is.
Afghanistan is set to Explode from lack of attention...and thanks to Bush, America will have to reract to it with a bankrupt economy and a Military stretched to the breaking point.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:09 pmTracy_5 Says:
My point is that after Zarqawi’s organization pledged their allegence to bin Laden’s al Qaeda they became part of that organization…who did attack us on 9/11. TP seemed to be falsely inferring that those who attacked us on 9/11, i.e. al Qaeda are in no way linked or connected to AQI in Iraq today.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
_______
No - they just got permission to use the brand name. They got az-Zawahiri's blessing and maybe some help finding startup capital, but that's it. al-Qa'ida in Iraq is not under the operational control of al-Qa'ida's leadership. They are not the group that attacked us on 9/11. Do they share some goals? Sure. Do they have some links? Sure. But they pose no threat to the U.S. mainland. The threat they pose is to drain us of blood and treasure by keeping us in Iraq.
But to call the bribing of Sunni tribesmen to stop shooting at us and shoot at some Saudi invaders "the central front of the war on terror against the enemies who attacked America on 9/11/01" is simple, factual dishonesty.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:09 pmDemocrats should know that this is nothing but a push to help McCain's campaign, by his two closest loyalists.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:18 pmMcCain built everything in his campaign on the Surge.
9/11 has nothing to do with the Surge as Liberman suggests,and has nothing to do with Iraq itself as country.
Even Bush himself said once :"I never said that Iraq is behind 9/11".
It is obvious that's nothing but a political maneuver to help McCain.
Tracy_5 Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Oh really ?”
Oh really what? That bin Laden’s al Qaeda and AQI don’t have the same goal to establish an Islamic calaphate?
“Then how come Saudi Arabia is not only allowed to exist…”
Where is the Kaaba located? Tell me how the ENTIRE Muslim world would react if we were to invade Mecca?
July 31st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Bin Laden and company , seeking to establish Muslim caliphates , had what chance of accomplishing that goal in Iraq ?
And my point about Saudi Arabia , is that IT ALREADY IS A CALIPHATE , you moron............
July 31st, 2008 at 5:24 pmStill not seeing where "prior to the Surge™" comes into it...
July 31st, 2008 at 5:26 pmTracy_5 Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Does this now mean that those who allowed 9/11 to occur…”
Allowed? Don’t tell me you are one of those insane 9/11 conspiracy theory supporters.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
What "conspiracy" is there when the worst president in US history ignores a PDB that glaringly states "al Qaeda will attack the US" ?
July 31st, 2008 at 5:26 pmAxis of Pure Evil : Graham, McCain and Lieberman
July 31st, 2008 at 5:27 pm...and by the way unless President Obama doesn't re-investigate and prove 9/11 was an inside job we;ll continue down this dark, dark road...
July 31st, 2008 at 5:28 pmDo you know the difference between "allow" and "cause"?
Doesn't look like it.
Answer this: what exactly did Bush/Cheney do to stop it?
Did they become alarmed when Bush got a PDB a month before the attack warning of just such a plot?
Did Cheney hold a single meeting of his Terrorism Task Force in the first eight months of the administration?
Was John Ashcroft joking when he said he didn't want to hear about terrorism any more?
July 31st, 2008 at 5:29 pm19 Muslims with box cutters is another conspiracy theory...
July 31st, 2008 at 5:32 pmoops
…and by the way unless President Obama re-investigates and prove 9/11 was an inside job we;ll continue down this dark, dark road…
July 31st, 2008 at 5:34 pmLieberman To Introduce Resolution Praising Success Of Surge ‘Against Enemies Who Attacked America On 9/11?
Now that is news to me.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:38 pmI didn't know that this whole time the 'surge' had been fighting the bush administration.
Tracy_5 Says:
“Bin Laden and company , seeking to establish Muslim caliphates , had what chance of accomplishing that goal in Iraq ?”
With a weak leader like Saddam in power? Wouldn’t have been that hard to do considering Zarqawi was already in northern Iraq.
"Weak"? Saddam is suddenly "weak"? If he was "weak", why did we bother to invade? If he was "weak" why did the Administration paint him as the worst villain in the universe? If we was "weak" why does the Right claim that he held Iraq in a grip of iron?
What could Zarqawi possibly have accomplished if he didn't have the chaos of the Occupation to work in? You've really stepped in it this time.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:03 pmTracy_5 Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Bin Laden and company , seeking to establish Muslim caliphates , had what chance of accomplishing that goal in Iraq ?”
With a weak leader like Saddam in power? Wouldn’t have been that hard to do considering Zarqawi was already in northern Iraq.
“And my point about Saudi Arabia , is that IT ALREADY IS A CALIPHATE , you moron…………”
So why did you say that dumbass? Also please answer my question about how the ENTIRE Muslim world would react to Mecca being invaded?
July 31st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
The US military has been in Iraq for 6 years , and the country is still a clusterfu(k ; you're claiming that Bin Laden would have strolled right in ?
And I just told you earlier ; Saudi Arabia is the most religiously oppressive nation on the planet.
What would be the purpose behind invading Mecca , btw ?
Should we also invade Jerusalem ?
July 31st, 2008 at 6:15 pmThese people don't know when to stop, shameless, utterly shameless.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:19 pmTracy_5 Says:
Are you ever going to defend that comment about how "weak" Saddam was? Or are you edging away from it?
July 31st, 2008 at 6:26 pmOl' Trace has drunk him some potent Repug NeoCon Kool-aid!
His racist brainwashing will probably be with him the rest of his miserable life.
Gonna really suck for him and his kind come January!
July 31st, 2008 at 6:27 pmBut here is the line I quoted from you:
"Of course TP apparently thinks there was no AQI prior to the surge."
I still haven't gotten even a halfway decent explanation for why you assumed TP or anyone here thought such a thing.
Are you admitting that it's a straw man? Or was it just a bad choice of words?
"Cause it sure don't make no sense.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:29 pmSo, Trace, how long do you think the effects of Bush's anti-terrorist policies will linger?
I mean, you obviously think Clinton shares the blame for 9/11. So presumably, eight months wasn't quite enough for Bush to be expected to get his anti-terror apparatus up and running, right?
So presuming we're attacked in the first eight months of Obama's presidency, you'll be the first to admit that Bush shares the blame, right? Even if Obama is handed a memo that warns him of the attack and he wipes his ass with it, it'll still be partly on Bush -- that is, if you're fair about assigning blame, and I assume you want to be.
My question is this: how long does Obama reasonably have before it's ALL on him? A year? Is a year enough time?
July 31st, 2008 at 6:34 pmUh, yeah... remember a little thing called the Presidential Daily Briefing? Dated August 6?
Of course, I should presume that the President actually bothered to read it, so okay, I'll give you the possibility that Bush didn't know. But someone in his administration knew.
And Clinton was... what? In on the planning?
You may recall a little incident that Republicans liked to claim was "Wagging the Dog" back in '98, when Clinton sent cruise missiles in the Sudan in an attempt to get bin Laden. Almost got him, too. Missed him by mere hours. What was the Republican response?
Clinton set up the very first Terrorism Task Force. Clinton told Bush that terrorism would be his biggest security challenge. Bush ignored him.
"Mistake"? How about "Dereliction of Duty"? How about "Presidential Malpractice"?
Since when does "allow" require foreknowledge? "Allow" also means "to permit by neglect, oversight, or the like: to allow a door to remain open."
Yes, Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. That's what I'm suggesting.
Is it a coincidence that the attack perfectly suited the foreign policy needs of PNAC, the Neocons and the entire Bush administration?
Maybe yes, maybe no.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:01 pmTracy_5 Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
““Weak”? Saddam is suddenly “weak”?”
Suddenly? Of course he was weak militarily and politically.
“If he was “weak”, why did we bother to invade?”
Because, according to the intelligence at the time he still had WMDs.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:54 pm
How do you claim in 1 sentence that Saddam was weak militarily and susceptible to being ousted by Bin Laden/al Qaeda , and in the following sentence state that the gathered intelligence indicated he possessed WMD's ?
July 31st, 2008 at 7:02 pmTracy_5 Says:
You just make this sh!t up as you go, don't you?
Suddenly? Of course he was weak militarily and politically.
You skipped this part: If he was “weak” why did the Administration paint him as the worst villain in the universe? If we was “weak” why does the Right claim that he held Iraq in a grip of iron?
No one ever suggested that Saddam was "weak" and, in fact, reported just the opposite: he was a continuing threat to everyone, including us and (the part you skipped) he had an iron grip on the populace.
Please provide some evidence to support your theory that Saddam was ripe for overthrow by anyone, much less by Zarqawi. Or provide any evidence that Zarqawi was interested in doing that.
Otherwise, it's obvious you're just pulling this stuff out of your ass.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:09 pmTracy_5 Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The US military has been in Iraq for 6 years , and the country is still a clusterfu(k ; you’re claiming that Bin Laden would have strolled right in ?”
No. What are you talking about? We are talking prior to the 2003 invasion were we not? If now then the answer is of course not.
“And I just told you earlier ; Saudi Arabia is the most religiously oppressive nation on the planet.
What would be the purpose behind invading Mecca , btw ?”
You just said that it was already a caliphate. I agree. You seemed to be suggesting that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq…in order to get at the heart of the terrorism problem.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Point out in which post I suggested invading Saudi Arabia ; it doesn't exist.
I was merely pointing out your ludicrous reasoning for Chimpy's illegal and idiotic invasion of Iraq ; the same dummy who cannot even form a coherent sentence had a premonition of al Qaeda's impending take-over of Iraq ?
Your Chimpy adoration is terribly galling.........
July 31st, 2008 at 7:18 pmOh, I see. It's because you're confused.
I should have guessed.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:22 pmTracy_5 Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“So, Trace, how long do you think the effects of Bush’s anti-terrorist policies will linger?”
Probably for a long time. They seemed to have prevented another 9/11 so far.
“I mean, you obviously think Clinton shares the blame for 9/11?
You don’t think he does? Tell me you are joking?
“So presuming we’re attacked in the first eight months of Obama’s presidency, you’ll be the first to admit that Bush shares the blame, right?”
Absolutely.
“My question is this: how long does Obama reasonably have before it’s ALL on him? A year? Is a year enough time?”
I don’t know. I guess it depends on how much he dismantle’s the operations that are in place today covert or otherwise that have obviously prevented another 9/11.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:18 pm
What a total bunch of bullshit.
How many perished on 9/11 ; how many have lost their lives in Iraq ?
Chimpy has prevented absolutely nothing ; stop trying to deify the incoherent imbecile.
He has always been and always will be a stupid , useless turd....
July 31st, 2008 at 7:22 pmThere's something you should read about this very issue.
Something from the Rand Corporation.
Turns out military action not the best way to curb terrorism.
Read it and get back to us.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:25 pmDoes paranoia run deep in Tracy's family history?
This person is one sick puppy!
July 31st, 2008 at 7:29 pmNo one said or even implied that "there was no AQI prior to the surge."
That was a stupid straw man that, in your own mind, may be a dancing scarecrow with a brain and a song in his heart. But to the rest of us, it's just a pathetic straw man.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:02 pmNo, Joe, the enemies who attacked us on 9/11 came from Israel. They were Mossad thugs who you helped escape on 9/12. They will be cruxified as payment for those Americans you murdered on 9/11.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:21 pmTracy_5 Says:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
…so exactly where does it say the al Qaeda will strike on 9/11/01?
You love reading shit into people's words, don't you?
When did I ever claim that the PDB gave a date? I didn't. Bush had forewarning of an attack, and he did nothing.
I don't see any way around that inconvenient truth.
They were warned. Multiple times. And they did nothing. An attack happened. What other conclusion can one draw?
You're going even further off the rails than usual. You made a point of saying that the 9/11 plot was "conceived in 1999" as if this indicts Clinton somehow. What does it mean? Are you implying that because Clinton was president in 1999, he should have known about this plot that would not be put into action until eight months after he left office?
Did 9/11 happen while Clinton was in office? No.
Um... try doing a little research, Trace.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4494777
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22231-2004Mar24.html
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/10/16/707/04491
You apparently have some trouble with the English language.
I'd like to think that a president can take necessary steps to protect the nation even if he's not told exactly when an attack will occur. Bush was told, and continued his vacation. He did NOTHING.
I'm just trying to figure out why you make such a point of noting that a plot was hatched in 1999 when Clinton was in office, as if that gives him some responsibility for the plot. It's just a weird implication.
Um... yeah, if he got information and acted on it. Do you understand the concept of "timing" in pursuing terrorists? Had he delayed a day, in order to make it look better, he would have missed bin Laden by a day and a few hours.
Are you suggesting that Clinton delayed the strike?
Well, you're fu(king wrong about that, aren't you?
Frankly, I don't really care what you think of me. You've demonstrated that you have a real struggle with logic, language and factual anlysis.
fact. Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. he was warned of an impending attack and did nothing. Perhaps if he'd been given the date as well, then he would have made a call or two. But as it was, an unspecific warning wasn't enough to spur him to action.
That cannot be argued.
Neither can it be argued that PNAC published a paper in 1997 stating that "a new Pearl Harbor" might be necessary to move the nation to support their plans to remake the Middle East.
There's no proof that anyone of those people had any active part in the attack. There's no proof that anyone of them had any foreknowledge of it. They probably were just exceptionally well prepared for such an event in case it should occur.
But the fact is that no one benefitted from the attack on 9/11 more than George W. Bush.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:24 pmI never made that claim. But since you're so enamored of the Bush War on Terror, I thought it might interest you to know that the right-wing Rand Corporation found that over the last four-plus decades, military action has been found to be singularly ineffective among the three primary means of dealing with the problem. Yet that was the one Bush chose to focus on. So it should be no surprise that terrorism is no less a threat today than it was seven years ago.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:48 pmBut Lieberman’s claim indicates that he does not understand the wider problem — namely that He supports a terrorist state, Israel, first and foremost, over that of the country he was supposedly born in & elected to represent, namely, the USA. How bizarre!
July 31st, 2008 at 10:14 pmYou're being unfair. You neglect the Iraq occupation's enabling us to shore up that troublesome Iraq-Pakistan border.
Cheers,
August 1st, 2008 at 12:11 amSee, Trace, it's statements like this that earn you your richly deserved reputation for density.
You make wildly inaccurate judgments based on your own biased misreadings of people's statements and then present them as another's argument. That, my friend, is known as a Straw Man. Although in your case I'm willing to accept that it may simply be thickness.
Either way, it's tiresome.
You claim at least four times in your post of 11:51 that I said Bush wanted 9/11 to happen (although you only bolded it twice), and you base your entire dismissal of my point on that misreading.
I'd ask you to read my posts again, carefully, except that I'm pretty sure it wouldn't do any good. You just don't seem to have the requisite level of reading comprehension. Maybe your mind gets short-circuited by right-wing buzzwords or prejudices of "liberals", but whatever it is, you really seem to have a hard time getting it.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:24 amUm... no. In Iraq the insurgencies were multiple, not well organized at all, and blended into the civilian population effortlessly.
(They were well-armed. We can thank the brilliant planners of the invasion for that -- well, them and whoever "lost" $12 billion in cash.)
Shinseki was right. In 2002. When he said "several hundred thousand troops" would be needed to secure the country after an invasion. Little Donny Rumsfeld didn't want to hear that. Or more precisely, he didn't want the American people to hear it. So he canned Gen. Shinseki.
Petreaus didn't back the Surge™ until Bush told him to.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:29 amdbadass Says:
Is the fellow in the back peeing?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Maybe he thinks that they're shooting an album cover?
----------------
Tracy, gummitch is right, you're just making sh1t up as you go. Why don't you just go, your brain/a$$ must hurt by now.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:18 amAugust 1st, 2008 at 9:29 am
Um, just an FYI, Tracy, 9/11 was a conspiracy. 19 people didn't show up on 4 seperate planes and hijack them without prior secret planning.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:23 amNow, when you claim to know what did and didn't happen as part of a secret plot, and how Iraq was involved in the planning, this makes YOU a conspiracy theorists.
Welcome to the club!
JT and Tracy_5,
You are both drug addled fools. Now go to end of the line and pick up some additional reasoning skills. And stop listening to Fox Noise, it will rot your tiny brains.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:06 amOk, just so we are clear. We both agree that it was a conspiracy, we just disagree on the paticulars of who, other than al Qaeda, was involved. Our government under Bush was at the very least incompatant and at most compliciant. There is evidence for this, namely in the presidental daily breafing. Hell, after Katrina, proving the Bush administration compatant is the new challange. You, however, seem to think that Iraq was behind the attacks. There is much less (and infact no) evidence for this. Despite this, you mock people who believe in one version of events and then support a much less believable series of events.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:52 pmLOL!
But here you are trying to defend Joe Liberman when he says they were! This is what the whole thread is about! This is a lie perpetuated so much that before the last election 2/3 of the people did think Sadam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
If you go back, I said they were not involved - and more's the pity.
So while Clinton at least tried to kill bin ladin, Bush did NOTHING before the 9/11 attacks. Hell, he said he didn't care about bin ladin 6 months after the attack.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
So, going on what I said (and not what you said I said) there is evidence that the president did not care about bin ladin after the 9/11 attacks, and certanly not before!
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm*ahem* look at the very top of your browser. The very top. What is this thread called?
August 5th, 2008 at 5:27 amHonestly, I don't care how much "butt kicking" goes on if Bin Ladin is still able to plan attacks in London and Madrid and possibly here. I like the old fasioned non butt kicking where someone set something up without a lot of political postering and made the bad guys go away. Actually, Bin Laden is pretty much exactly up to the same stuff as he was when he attacked us.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:43 amhttp://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166729&title=exit-strategy
Thank you very much.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:32 amSesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat