Could al-Qaeda possibly have found a better publicist than President Bush?

[actsnoblemartin]

That is so brilliant. Remind me to give you pos rep for this later bro.

isn't that the clinton doctrine....ignor radical islam and everything will be ok....

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I think you have an excellent point here, the whole world said, we dont give a **** in another holocaust happens.

At peace? Nobody is ever at peace. That is not my claim. My claim is that the "darfur conflict" as we know it today begin in 2003. There was still mild violence as there is in any country, but I can assure you that there was not a reported 400,000 deaths before the conflict began.

 

[Vintij]

you may want to go do some reading.....

Expected response. Inadequicies should not be so obvious in your postings.

 

[maineman]

read the article...why are writers, failed cia handlers and professors to be believed...

that is a pretty ridiculolus question.

for that matter, why is Bush to be believed? Why is ANYONE who doesn't report the world exactly as you want them to, to be believed?

 

[Superlative]

isn't that the clinton doctrine....ignor radical islam and everything will be ok....

What was the Reagan, Bush Sr. Doctrine?

Fund it, Train it, and hope it goes away?

All the Cons stop at Clinton, like the 80's never happened.

"Just drop the Clinton' Bomb and the Lib will shut up"

I do recall Carter, Reagan, and Bush Sr., matching the Saudi's funding dollar for dallor of the Mujahideen, as well as CIA training of them.

And oops, didnt those "Freedom Fighters" later turn into the Taliban and al Qaeda?

You wanna call Clinton on his ignoring of islamic radicalism, Im calling bullshit on the 3 presidents before him, and the ignorance of breeding "Vipers" and walking away.

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=595623#post595623

 

[maineman]

and for those on the right who continually harp on Somalia and the African embassies and the Cole, I would suggest that Clinton did not "ignore" any of them... his administration was actively seeking to determine the whereabouts of the perpetrators and bring them to justice. there were NO cries from the right demanding that we go off and invade Iraq - or anywhere else - because of relatively small scale attacks on us interests in foreign lands conducted by nation-less terrorists. Applying post-9/11 hindsight to pre-9/11 events is pretty disingenuous.

And if the right wants to suggest that Clinton's failure to take bold action in the wake of those relatively small attacks emboldened our enemies, they probably should refrain from throwing those "stones" until the consider the "glass house" that THEY are living in ever since Ronald Reagan turned tail and ran like a frightened girlie-man from the attack on our Marines in Beirut that killed nearly 250 of our brave leathernecks in an instant. I would suggest that that act of national cowardice alone emboldened our enemies more than ten Mogadishu's could have.

If those of you on the right are going to try to blame the arrogance on our enemy on mistakes by pre-9/11 presidents, you'll need to take the lion's share all for yourself.

And you really can blame no one OTHER than Bush for the fact that Al Qaeda is just as strong today as it was on 9/11, especially after Bush has wasted five years, a trillion dollars, and 30K+ dead and wounded Americans on our misadventure in Iraq.

Making a big deal out of Clinton's mistakes does not stand up to the light of TRUTH.

 

[ReillyT]

Darfur has been overlooked for years, its not going away.

Maybe we should have taken care of smaller things like that before we invaded?

any idea how far back darfur goes?

While difficult to pin down an exact time, probably sometime in 1985-1986, although violence peaked in 2003-2004. There have been periodic tensions between the nomadic herding/trading tribes (mostly Islamic) and the farming tribes (mostly Animistic) in the region for years, although these were rarely violent in nature until the 1980s.

It is a very different relationship than that among Shi'ites and Sunnis in the Middle East.

 

[Bern80]

If you're not even going to read the post, you really shouldn't respond"




the only person who's been ignoring al qaeda, is your president. He let bin laden escape from tora bora, he called off a Navy Seal team from going into pakistan to kill Zawahiri, and he let al qaeda establish a safe haven on the pakistani border. And he diverted our military to go baby sit a shia-sunni civil war in Iraq.

You have many incorrect statements here as indicated by a couple later posts. One Bush is not ignoring bin Laden. Much as any of would like to we can't pick up and leave Iraq and change focus that quickly. Secondly, even if true that Bush is ignoring bin laden, he is most certainly not the 'only' president that has.

Now the articl snipet itself. The first sentence of the second paragraph is an amazingly silly assumption and leap of logic. It essentially says that because Bush's predictions were wrong before they will be wrong again. The first problem with that the writer is claiming a track record that doesn' exist. What predictions has Bush ever made. He has never claimed Iraq would turn into a peaceful Utopia. He has never set a timeline as to when things will be accomplished. The writer said Bush has made predictions that were incorrect. Okay, what were they? This is the typical case of a writter who has a great theory but needs something tangible to rest it on. So he writes the opening sentence hoping no one will actully question it and just skip on to the main point and beleive it. But hey let's go onto that anyway.

The Iraqi forces will be free to combat bin laden? Yeah right. As our very own MM has observantly pointed out. There really is no such thing as an Iraqi as far as national identity is concerned. The author think that if we leave the sectarian squabbling will stop and they'll decide as a country to hunt bin laden ? Not likely.

Al queda will lose it's greatest recruiting tool. seems they had a robust enough recruiting program before Iraq to get two planes to crash into the WTC.

 

[maineman]

are you really suggesting that Team Bush did not predict that we would be out of Iraq in a matter of months, not years? that Iraqi citizens would welcome us as liberators? that oil revenues would nearly pay for the cost of the war? that the insurgency was a handful of liberators in their final throes?

and the AQ recruiting effort to get ready for 9/11 must have been really quite extensive. Imagine getting an enormous group of nineteen arabs who wanted to martyr themselves.

Then count how many suicide bombers have done the same thing in Iraq AFTER our invasion each and every month.

talk about assinine!

 

[Bern80]

are you really suggesting that Team Bush did not predict that we would be out of Iraq in a matter of months, not years? that Iraqi citizens would welcome us as liberators? that oil revenues would nearly pay for the cost of the war? that the insurgency was a handful of liberators in their final throes?

it is our problem as the instant gratifcation society, if it doesn't work now, it's a failure mentality. We are only now approaching the amount of time it took to get Germany back on it's feet after WWII and they didn't have nearly the cultural issues Iraq has. Again I have yet to see where Bush publicly predicted any of the following. Barring that it's just your biased opinion what he must have thought.

 

[maineman]

it is our problem as the instant gratifcation society, if it doesn't work now, it's a failure mentality. We are only now approaching the amount of time it took to get Germany back on it's feet after WWII and they didn't have nearly the cultural issues Iraq has. Again I have yet to see where Bush publicly predicted any of the following. Barring that it's just your biased opinion what he must have thought.

notice I said "Team Bush". One would think that if a member of his team were making wild ass predictions that he did not agree with, that he would either publicly correct those predictions or fire the predictor. barring that, it would seem as if his silence was tacit agreement, wouldn't you agree?

As it turned out, neither Perle, nor Wolfie, nor Rummy, nor "Shooter" were fired for making those predictions.

 

[ReillyT]

it is our problem as the instant gratifcation society, if it doesn't work now, it's a failure mentality. We are only now approaching the amount of time it took to get Germany back on it's feet after WWII and they didn't have nearly the cultural issues Iraq has. Again I have yet to see where Bush publicly predicted any of the following. Barring that it's just your biased opinion what he must have thought.

I don't think that this is right.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think that when we got into World War II, there was a sense that it was going to be easy, or that the war would be finished within a few months. I would guess that from the beginning, the country realized that the war would be no small matter, and that sacrifice would be required. There was a draft, we brought a whole segment into the workforce that wasn't there before, there was rationing.

I think the difference here is that in all the slow build up to the war in Iraq, pretty much all we heard was about the reasons for going to war, which turned out to be weapons of mass destruction that we never found. After the first Gulf War, everyone believed that we would quickly rout the Iraqi army, so there wasn't great concern or anticipation of the long haul. We never received (or at least not nearly vocally enough) the warning that after the war, there could be several years, or perhaps decades of a long, drawn-out insurgency that would sap the strength of the military and result in month after month of US casualties. Either the government didn't see it coming either (which is bad), or they didn't clearly and loudly articulate it to us (which is just as bad).

It is one thing to say that the WOT will last a generation. It is another to warn that the individual military action in which you are about to embark will require years of occupation and conflict. I think if we had had that warning, we wouldn't have been so quick to rush to war.

Just my opinion.

 

[onedomino]

if you are american he is your president...

read the article...why are writers, failed cia handlers and professors to be believed...

He is always referring to "your" war in Iraq and "your" President, as though he is from the dark side of the Moon and America is some alien place. When he advocates surrender in Iraq, just refer to it as "your" surrender.

 

[manu1959]

Expected response. Inadequicies should not be so obvious in your postings.

go look up when the "civil war" started in the western province...it was long before 2003 ....

 

[manu1959]

He is always referring to "your" war in Iraq and "your" President, as though he is from the dark side of the Moon and America is some alien place. When he advocates surrender in Iraq, just refer to it as "your" surrender.

but in the same breath he says:

the only person who's been ignoring al qaeda, is your president. He let bin laden escape from tora bora, he called off a Navy Seal team from going into pakistan to kill Zawahiri, and he let al qaeda establish a safe haven on the pakistani border. And he diverted our military to go baby sit a shia-sunni civil war in Iraq.

like he owns the military....

 

[DeadCanDance]

You have many incorrect statements here as indicated by a couple later posts. One Bush is not ignoring bin Laden. Much as any of would like to we can't pick up and leave Iraq and change focus that quickly. Secondly, even if true that Bush is ignoring bin laden, he is most certainly not the 'only' president that has.

Now the articl snipet itself. The first sentence of the second paragraph is an amazingly silly assumption and leap of logic. It essentially says that because Bush's predictions were wrong before they will be wrong again. The first problem with that the writer is claiming a track record that doesn' exist. What predictions has Bush ever made. He has never claimed Iraq would turn into a peaceful Utopia. He has never set a timeline as to when things will be accomplished. The writer said Bush has made predictions that were incorrect. Okay, what were they? This is the typical case of a writter who has a great theory but needs something tangible to rest it on. So he writes the opening sentence hoping no one will actully question it and just skip on to the main point and beleive it. But hey let's go onto that anyway.

The Iraqi forces will be free to combat bin laden? Yeah right. As our very own MM has observantly pointed out. There really is no such thing as an Iraqi as far as national identity is concerned. The author think that if we leave the sectarian squabbling will stop and they'll decide as a country to hunt bin laden ? Not likely.

Al queda will lose it's greatest recruiting tool. seems they had a robust enough recruiting program before Iraq to get two planes to crash into the WTC.

The Bush adminstration made many rosy predictions. Bush isn't some potted plant, or some hapless moron who sits in the oval office and collects a paycheck. The Vice President, the Secretary of State, Wolfowitz, Condi - they all speak for Bush. Their words and predictions represent his views. Otherwise, they would be fired for just making shit up, and saying shit that doesn't represent the president's views.

 

[DeadCanDance]

He is always referring to "your" war in Iraq and "your" President, as though he is from the dark side of the Moon and America is some alien place. When he advocates surrender in Iraq, just refer to it as "your" surrender.

It is your war.

Most americans think your war was a mistake, and they want to end it.

 

[Alpha1]

It is your war.

Most americans think your war was a mistake, and they want to end it.

Ahhhh Cypress....A clown by any other name is still a clown.....

 

[maineman]

Ahhhh Cypress....A clown by any other name is still a clown.....

another flatulent and empty insult from write.... who makes his living tossing them about.

crawl back in your cave.