Dems Give Terrorists Reason To Fight On

[red states rule]

THANKS, NANCY,,, THANKS, HARRY, you just gave them a reason to fight harder.

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri said a U.S. congressional bill calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq was proof of Washington's defeat, according to a Web video posted on Saturday.



http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...RTRUKOC_0_US-QAEDA-ZAWAHRI.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

 

[Bullypulpit]

THANKS, NANCY,,, THANKS, HARRY, you just gave them a reason to fight harder.

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri said a U.S. congressional bill calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq was proof of Washington's defeat, according to a Web video posted on Saturday.



http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...RTRUKOC_0_US-QAEDA-ZAWAHRI.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

You weren't paying a whole lot of attention when you cut-and-pasted you link, were you?

From your link:

<blockquote>"But this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in an historic trap."</blockquote>

Had Bush signed the bill, Zawahri would've been hugely disappointed, as fewer US soldiers would have been killed in the quagmire that is Iraq. But as it stands now, they will remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future, caught between warring factions, they may as well have targets painted on their backs. Yeah...you support the troops alright...you support GETTING THEM KILLED NEEDLESSLY!

 

[red states rule]

You weren't paying a whole lot of attention when you cut-and-pasted you link, were you?

From you link:

<blockquote>"But this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in an historic trap."</blockquote>

Had Bush signed the bill, Zawahri would've been hugely disappointed, as fewer US soldiers would have been killed in the quagmire that is Iraq. Yeah...you support the troops alright...you support GETTING THEM KILLED NEEDLESSLY!

Nazi's said the same thing about the invasion of Europe

It is good to see how Dems are giving aid and comfort to the enemy

 

[Bullypulpit]

Nazi's said the same thing about the invasion of Europe

It is good to see how Dems are giving aid and comfort to the enemy

That's a <i>non sequitur</i>, and it's bullshit too. Since you don't have two original thoughts to rub together, just fuck off and die you little puke. I'm tired of every right wing pundit, talking head and air-head (such as yourself), accusing ANYONE who opposes the policies of the Bush administration as being somehow, less than patriotic or un-American. That bullshit is straight from Joseph Goebbels' playbook. Read yer fuckin' history and you'll see that the nazi analogies you and your fellow travelers so blithely toss out aren't just wrong, they're aimed at the wrong fucking target. Point those accusations at you own heads and pull the fucking trigger. Fuck you. Dismissed.

 

[maineman]

"But this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in an historic trap."

RSR and Bush agree with Zawahiri and want to KEEP Americans in the middle of the sunni-shiite civil war where both sides can kill us. A CLASSIC example of treasonous republicans putting the reputation of their party and their president over the best interests of their country.

 

[Gunny]

"But this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in an historic trap."

RSR and Bush agree with Zawahiri and want to KEEP Americans in the middle of the sunni-shiite civil war where both sides can kill us. A CLASSIC example of treasonous republicans putting the reputation of their party and their president over the best interests of their country.

I'd like to point out that military -- strategic/tactical -- incompetence and political blindness don't meet the bar for "treason" anymore than disagreeing with President Bush and/or his policies.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I'd like to point out that military -- strategic/tactical -- incompetence and political blindness don't meet the bar for "treason" anymore than disagreeing with President Bush and/or his policies.

But to place our troops in that position on the basis of a lie, does.

 

[Gunny]

But to place our troops in that position on the basis of a lie, does.

And that "lie" has never been proven. Even IF you could prove the lie, it still does not equate to treason. Treason requires a proveable, willful act against the nation.

Our troops have been placed in their current position not by a purposeful intent to cause them harm; rather, by poor strategy and tactics. When the military was initially deployed in its primary role, little harm was coming to it, and the invasion of Iraq was pretty-much a textbook, flawless exercise.

 

[maineman]

Zawahiri says:

"We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson."

Democrats want to get us out of that hellhole. Bush wants us to stay... RSR wants us to stay.... AND ZAWAHIRI WANTS US TO STAY. It is apparent who is siding with Al Qaeda

 

[red states rule]

"But this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in an historic trap."

RSR and Bush agree with Zawahiri and want to KEEP Americans in the middle of the sunni-shiite civil war where both sides can kill us. A CLASSIC example of treasonous republicans putting the reputation of their party and their president over the best interests of their country.

The big differnce is Pres Bush and the US military want to win this war

Dems and the terrorists want the US to lose

Dems have put the future of the party in the US's loss in Iraq

 

[maineman]

The big differnce is Pres Bush and the US military want to win this war

Dems and the terrorists want the US to lose

Dems have put the future of the party in the US's loss in Iraq

No...we want to WIN the war against islamic extremism...and see the actions in Iraq as counterproductive to that cause..... you and bush and zawahiri are all in agreement that Americans should stay and die in Iraq rather than fight the real enemy.

 

[Mace]

Not a smart thing to say on his part if he wants us to leave. that just gives Bush and those who agree with staying more reslove to do it. Personally don't really care what he thinks, I'm betting it wont be a victory for his group even if we do leave because their are a lot of Iraqi groups that would be just as much opposed to them ruling as the US.

 

[Rosotar]

I'd like to point out that military -- strategic/tactical -- incompetence and political blindness don't meet the bar for "treason" anymore than disagreeing with President Bush and/or his policies.

If it wasn't so pathetic it would actually be funny the way you Conservatives pretend to have such high standards when you're slandering Democrats but no standards whatsoever when it comes to your president!

There have been enough insiders who have said that Bush & Co. were intent on invading Iraq from the very first day they stole the 2000 election. 9-11 had nothing to do with these plans other than knocking the nation into a stupor which allowed this administration to literally get away with murder.

Leaving aside the conspiracy theories about 9-11 and why this president capitalized on our nation's biggest tradjedy and used it as a pretext for violating international law, the fact remains that many lies have been told over the years to justify this quagmire. First there was "faulty" intelligence which Bush (conveniently) blamed on the C.I.A while refusing to hold anyone accountable. Then there was the bogus link to Al Qaeda which the C.I.A. debunked and the White House finally had to admit never existed before the invasion. And the list goes on and on but the bottom line is that the president is only authorized by the Constitution to send troops into harm's way in cases of self defense, or national security.

With our own C.I.A. telling us that Bush is killing our troops in a "war" that is only harming our national security I would say that yes...this is a case of treason cut and dried.

If a Democratic president had committed an error of the same magnitude I doubt that you'd be splitting hairs the way you are over the definition of words Gunny!

 

[Gunny]

Zawahiri says:

"We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson."

Democrats want to get us out of that hellhole. Bush wants us to stay... RSR wants us to stay.... AND ZAWAHIRI WANTS US TO STAY. It is apparent who is siding with Al Qaeda

Wonder whatever happened to the War on Terrorism? If we hit Iraq like we did Afghanistan, he might change his tune a bit.

 

[boedicca]

But to place our troops in that position on the basis of a lie, does.

You haven't proven he lied and are neglecting the fact that Congress authorized the War in Iraq.

 

[Rosotar]

Wonder whatever happened to the War on Terrorism? If we hit Iraq like we did Afghanistan, he might change his tune a bit.

Are you dyslexic Gunny?

Our presence in Iraq if FUELING terrorism and increasing the threat to our national security!

What part of this is slipping by you?

 

[Annie]

Are you dyslexic Gunny?

Our presence in Iraq if FUELING terrorism and increasing the threat to our national security!

What part of this is slipping by you?

I disagree with your premise. The 'opt out dates' are fueling the confidence of our enemies.

 

[Rosotar]

You haven't proven he lied and are neglecting the fact that Congress authorized the War in Iraq.

Congress "authorized" the war based upon faulty information.

Knowing that now they have a duty to correct their mistake.

George Bush could take a lesson from them.

As far as proving that Bush has lied....he has said many things that were untrue.

I don't know what your definition of a "lie" is but intentionally saying things that you know aren't true fits mine.

 

[Gunny]

If it wasn't so pathetic it would actually be funny the way you Conservatives pretend to have such high standards when you're slandering Democrats but no standards whatsoever when it comes to your president!

I'm an equal opportunity slanderer, so that don't play here.

There have been enough insiders who have said that Bush & Co. were intent on invading Iraq from the very first day they stole the 2000 election. 9-11 had nothing to do with these plans other than knocking the nation into a stupor which allowed this administration to literally get away with murder.

Speculation. Even if it WAS true, it STILL does not meet the standard for treason.

Leaving aside the conspiracy theories about 9-11 and why this president capitalized on our nation's biggest tradjedy and used it as a pretext for violating international law, the fact remains that many lies have been told over the years to justify this quagmire. First there was "faulty" intelligence which Bush (conveniently) blamed on the C.I.A while refusing to hold anyone accountable. Then there was the bogus link to Al Qaeda which the C.I.A. debunked and the White House finally had to admit never existed before the invasion. And the list goes on and on but the bottom line is that the president is only authorized by the Constitution to send troops into harm's way in cases of self defense, or national security.

We invaded Afghanistan when the government of that nation refused to turn over a terrorist who claimed to have been behind 9/11. There was no "violation of international law," and in case it has slipped your memory, the invasion of Afghanistan was NOT a unilateral strike.

The "faulty intelligence" almost every intelligence agency in the world posessed? Damn, we ARE good.

Going after an enemy that struck our country, and the government that harbored him is justifiable to just about anyone capable of rational thought.


With our own C.I.A. telling us that Bush is killing our troops in a "war" that is only harming our national security I would say that yes...this is a case of treason cut and dried.

If a Democratic president had committed an error of the same magnitude I doubt that you'd be splitting hairs the way you are over the definition of words Gunny!

In two words ... you're wrong, and you'd be laughed out of court. There is no REAL evidence to support a charge of treason. Just your partisan-based speculation.

Your assumption that I would not use the EXACT same definition of "treason" was the President a Democrat is absolutely incorrect. Not everyone is as extreme as you present yourself. The definition doesn't change because the people do.

 

[Annie]

Congress "authorized" the war based upon faulty information.

Knowing that now they have a duty to correct their mistake.

George Bush could take a lesson from them.

As far as proving that Bush has lied....he has said many things that were untrue.

I don't know what your definition of a "lie" is but intentionally saying things that you know aren't true fits mine.

Seems George Tenet spent nearly the hour of Meet the Press this morning saying that Bush and Cheney suck, but were only following the information provided by the CIA and other departments.