Dems In Disarray Over Iraq

[Diuretic]

Is he from Michigan?

 

[Superlative]

Is he from Michigan?

I think he is from the basement of FOX NEWS headquarters.

 

[Diuretic]

I think he is from the basement of FOX NEWS headquarters.

Why do I have this mental image of Charles Laughton hobbling around yelling "Sanctuary! Sanctuary!"

 

[red states rule]

Terrorists love the Dems and their surrender plan


Report: Al Qaeda Plans 'Large Scale' Attack on U.K.
Monday, April 23, 2007

Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq are planning the first “large-scale” terrorist attacks on Britain and other western targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a leaked intelligence report.

Spy chiefs warn that one operative had said he was planning an attack on “a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki” in an attempt to “shake the Roman throne”, a reference to the West.

Another plot could be timed to coincide with Tony Blair stepping down as prime minister, an event described by Al Qaeda planners as a “change in the head of the company”.

The report, produced earlier this month and seen by The Sunday Times, appears to provide evidence that Al Qaeda is active in Iran and has ambitions far beyond the improvised attacks it has been waging against British and American soldiers in Iraq.

There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shiite regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but experts suggest that Iran’s leaders may be turning a blind eye to the terrorist organisation’s activities.

The intelligence report also makes it clear that senior Al Qaeda figures in the region have been in recent contact with operatives in Britain.

The report was compiled by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Center (JTAC) — based at MI5’s London headquarters. It draws a distinction between Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda’s core leadership, who are thought to be hiding on the Afghan-Pakistan border, and affiliated organisations elsewhere.

The document states: “While networks linked to AQ [Al Qaeda] Core pose the greatest threat to the UK, the intelligence during this quarter has highlighted the potential threat from other areas, particularly AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq].”

The report continues: “Recent reporting has described AQI’s Kurdish network in Iran planning what we believe may be a large-scale attack against a western target.

The report says there is “no indication” this attack would specifically target Britain, “although we are aware that AQI . . . networks are active in the UK”.

The Home Office declined to comment.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267826,00.html

 

[red states rule]

given the infantile nature of RSR's mind, that would almost be a form of pedophilia

I see your party is working real hard

Democrats Skipping Military Briefings -- Where's the MSM Outrage?
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on April 23, 2007 - 14:34.
A few sources, not the least of which is Michael Barone, are reporting that the Democrats are ignoring important Iraq briefings conducted by General David Petraeus in an apparent effort to stymie efforts in Iraq. It is well known that they are not supportive of the troops in Iraq and the president's "surge" plan they are currently conducting, but whether they like the plan or not, to skip these briefings is an act of blatant negligence that borders on the criminal. So where is the MSM's outrage? Why are we not being told of this Democrat negligence?

Barone, one of the best political pundits out there today, closed his recent Real Clear Politics Report with the following:

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8.

It has also been reported that one recent meeting with Gen. Petraeus on the Hill only saw one Democrat in attendance, that being Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.

It might be too early to say directly that it is some concerted effort or plan of the Democrat leadership to steer clear of Iraq briefings, but at the very least it certainly reveals their collective feeling that the war is already lost and that it's time to move on past it all.

But here is the thing; they simply cannot claim to "support the troops" if they won't even attend briefings held by the General in command of those troops. If the Democrats don't attend these briefings they simply cannot claim to have the knowledge they need to make decisions necessary for policy direction. Unless, that is, they have fully decided, regardless of what is actually going on on the ground where our troops are facing the enemy, that all is lost.

If they have, indeed, completely quit wanting to have the discussion of what is actually going on in theater, then it is downright abusive of our troops for Democrats to ignore them in this way. This unconcern over what is happening to our forces simply makes it impossible for the Democrats to claim they support the troops.

It should be remembered that General Petraeus was given a unanimous vote in Congress and he never made any bones about the fact that he intended to implement the president's surge plan, so Democrats simply cannot claim they didn't know he was going to do so. But, it appears that the support they gave him for the surge was a cynical attempt to allow the plan to crash and burn if their ignoring his efforts to inform them of the actual accomplishments of the plan is any indication.

I have seen a few pundits and commentators claiming that the Democrats are somehow putting themselves in a bad position by ignoring these briefings and to that I say pish tosh. They have surely weakened their moral position and made their claims of supporting the troops untenable, but this will probably not harm them at all -- not that it shouldn't. The problem with the feeling that this will harm the Democrat Party is that no one, by and large, will ever hear of this betrayal of our troops. It is doubtful whether the story will ever break through the din of the cycles controlled by a news media supportive of the Democrat agenda.

In any case, the Democrat Party is acting irresponsibly to say the least, criminally at the worst. The biggest question, however, is will the News Media allow the American people to become aware that the Democrats are so badly falling down on the job? Will they be held accountable for the harm they are causing our country, cause and our troops not to mention the harm they cause the Iraqi people by this turning away from their needs and concerns?

Sadly, my guess is no.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12244

 

[maineman]

I see that you continue to be incapable of speaking for yourself.

 

[red states rule]

I see that you continue to be incapable of speaking for yourself.

Is it my fault libs continue to provide such great material?

 

[Diuretic]

Is it my fault libs continue to provide such great material?

Sad - cutting and pasting in nearly every post you make is no substitute for thinking an issue through. Not that seems to worry you. Have you no shame?

 

[red states rule]

Sad - cutting and pasting in nearly every post you make is no substitute for thinking an issue through. Not that seems to worry you. Have you no shame?

I know it bugs libs to see their words and actions seen in the light of day

 

[red states rule]

Surge Results are VisibleBy Charles Krauthammer

By the day, the debate at home about Iraq becomes increasingly disconnected from the realities of the actual war on the ground. The Democrats in Congress are so consumed with negotiating among their factions the most clever linguistic device to legislatively ensure the failure of the administration's current military strategy -- while not appearing to do so -- that they speak almost not at all about the first visible results of that strategy.

And preliminary results are visible. The landscape is shifting in the two fronts of the current troop surge: Anbar province and Baghdad.

The news from Anbar is the most promising. Only last fall, the Marines' leading intelligence officer there concluded that the U.S. had essentially lost the fight to al-Qaeda. Yet, just this week, the marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, returned from a four-day visit to the province and reported that we "have turned the corner.''


Why? Because, as Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, the Australian counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, has written, 14 of the 18 tribal leaders in Anbar have turned against al-Qaeda. As a result, thousands of Sunni recruits are turning up at police stations where none could be seen before. For the first time, former insurgent strongholds such as Ramadi have a Sunni police force fighting essentially on our side.

Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a major critic of the Bush war policy, now reports that in Anbar, al-Qaeda is facing "a real and growing groundswell of Sunni tribal opposition.'' And that "this is a crucial struggle and it is going our way -- for now.''

The situation in Baghdad is more mixed. Thursday's bridge and Green Zone attacks show the insurgents' ability to bomb sensitive sites. On the other hand, pacification is proceeding. "Nowhere is safe for Westerners to linger,'' reported ABC's Terry McCarthy on April 3, "but over the past week we visited five different neighborhoods where the locals told us life is slowly coming back to normal.'' He reported from Jadriyah, Karrada, Zayouna, Zawra Park and the notorious Haifa Street, previously known as "sniper alley.'' He found that "children have come out to play again. Shoppers are back in markets,'' and concluded that "nobody knows if this small safe zone will expand or get swallowed up again by violence. For the time being though, people here are happy to enjoy a life that looks almost normal.''

Fouad Ajami, just returned from his seventh trip to Iraq, is similarly guardedly optimistic and explains the change this way: Fundamentally, the Sunnis have lost the battle of Baghdad. They initiated it with their indiscriminate terror campaign that they assumed would cow the Shiites, whom they view with contempt as congenitally quiescent, lower-class former subjects. They learned otherwise after the Samarra bombing (February 2006) kindled Shiite fury -- a savage militia campaign of kidnapping, indiscriminate murder and ethnic cleansing that has made Baghdad a largely Shiite city.

Petraeus is trying now to complete the defeat of the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad -- without the barbarism of the Shiite militias, whom his forces are simultaneously pursuing and suppressing.

How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the U.S. to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide.

Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?

And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.

Which the president has done. He changed the civilian leadership at the Department of Defense, replaced the head of Central Command and, most critically, replaced the Iraq commander with Petraeus -- unanimously approved by the Democratic Senate -- to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy.

John McCain has had no illusions about the difficulty of this war. Nor does he now. In his bold and courageous speech at the Virginia Military Institute defending the war effort, he described the improvements on the ground while acknowledging the enormous difficulties ahead. Insisting that success in Iraq is both possible and necessary, McCain made clear that he is willing to stake his presidential ambitions, indeed his entire political career, on a war policy that is unpopular but that he believes must be pursued for the sake of the country. How many other presidential candidates -- beginning with, say, Hillary Clinton -- do you think are acting in the same spirit?

 

[maineman]

I know it bugs libs to see their words and actions seen in the light of day

no...we find it pathetic that little boys like you are really incapable of carrying on a debate yourself. In the months I have known you, you have never once taken any response from any liberal, broken it down, and replied to the various points in it. not once. your slavish devotion to cutting and pasting in lieu of actually thinking and composing and writing your own arguments is a source of amusement and pathos from both sides of this board. really. I get plenty of PMs from conservatives who bemoan your exclusive use of cutting and pasting...they know how much you damage their collective reputations....

I used to think that you refrained from actually writing stuff because you were just lazy.... but now I have come to realize that you do it simply because you are dumb.

 

[red states rule]

no...we find it pathetic that little boys like you are really incapable of carrying on a debate yourself. In the months I have known you, you have never once taken any response from any liberal, broken it down, and replied to the various points in it. not once. your slavish devotion to cutting and pasting in lieu of actually thinking and composing and writing your own arguments is a source of amusement and pathos from both sides of this board. really. I get plenty of PMs from conservatives who bemoan your exclusive use of cutting and pasting...they know how much you damage their collective reputations....

I used to think that you refrained from actually writing stuff because you were just lazy.... but now I have come to realize that you do it simply because you are dumb.

Post # 44 sums up how the terrorists feel about the Dems surrender plan

Congrats MM - your party has their full support

 

[Edward]

no...we find it pathetic that little boys like you are really incapable of carrying on a debate yourself. In the months I have known you, you have never once taken any response from any liberal, broken it down, and replied to the various points in it. not once. your slavish devotion to cutting and pasting in lieu of actually thinking and composing and writing your own arguments is a source of amusement and pathos from both sides of this board. really. I get plenty of PMs from conservatives who bemoan your exclusive use of cutting and pasting...they know how much you damage their collective reputations....

I used to think that you refrained from actually writing stuff because you were just lazy.... but now I have come to realize that you do it simply because you are dumb.

Here is a link for him: http://www.murphy06.net/planforiraq.html Let him waste his time calling this man a traitor and suggesting that he wants us to lose in Iraq since RSR has demonstrated his hatred for our troops and have proven that his desire is to see them die for his opinions and the opinions of George Bush. So it isn't much of a leap for this bastard to attack liberals who have actually fought in Iraq and who oppose Bush's plan. It is time for us to beging taking this war seriously and it is time for us to bring our men and women home and to provide the Iraqi's with a stable government and society and this ultimately requires benchmarks. The military has always worked on deadlines and benchmarks and it only makes sense that they do so in Iraq and those who have fought in Iraq who now serve in Congress are beginning to speak out against the Bush plan . It is time for Bush and the assholes who voted for him to show their true colors and to prove to everyone that they hate our troops and want them to die in Iraq for their opinions.

 

[red states rule]

Here is a link for him: http://www.murphy06.net/planforiraq.html Let him waste his time calling this man a traitor and suggesting that he wants us to lose in Iraq since RSR has demonstrated his hatred for our troops and have proven that his desire is to see them die for his opinions and the opinions of George Bush. So it isn't much of a leap for this bastard to attack liberals who have actually fought in Iraq and who oppose Bush's plan. It is time for us to beging taking this war seriously and it is time for us to bring our men and women home and to provide the Iraqi's with a stable government and society and this ultimately requires benchmarks. The military has always worked on deadlines and benchmarks and it only makes sense that they do so in Iraq and those who have fought in Iraq who now serve in Congress are beginning to speak out against the Bush plan . It is time for Bush and the assholes who voted for him to show their true colors and to prove to everyone that they hate our troops and want them to die in Iraq for their opinions.

Libs are taking this war seriously - they want to seriously surrender

 

[Diuretic]

Libs are taking this war seriously - they want to seriously surrender

Every war in history ended with an armistice.

 

[maineman]

Post # 44 sums up how the terrorists feel about the Dems surrender plan

Congrats MM - your party has their full support

this post would make sense except for the fact that democrats do not advocate surrender in any way and except for the fact that post #44 has absolutely nothing to do with American democrats whatsoever....so basically, it doesn't make ANY sense.

congratulations RSR, you are a buffoon.

 

[red states rule]

Every war in history ended with an armistice.

Only after one side has won

 

[red states rule]

this post would make sense except for the fact that democrats do not advocate surrender in any way and except for the fact that post #44 has absolutely nothing to do with American democrats whatsoever....so basically, it doesn't make ANY sense.

congratulations RSR, you are a buffoon.

Only in your view

To the terrorists it is victory - for them - and they are right

 

[maineman]

Only in your view

To the terrorists it is victory - for them - and they are right

no. post #44 has nothing to do with democrats. IT does not even mention democrats or american political discussions about policy. you are a buffoon. that is a fact.

 

[red states rule]

Which party is running Congress

Which party wants to get out of Iraq?

Dems are helping terrorists and showing them Dems have no desire to fight back

Appeasers is what Dems have become