"Sidetracked" By Iraq?
The very real terrorist threats outlined in the new National Intelligence Estimate have elicited, once again, one of the most vapid responses imaginable on the part of Democrats.
One says that the continued existence of terrorism indicates that the US has been "sidetracked" by Iraq. Who, exactly, does he think has been attacking us in Iraq? Who has been trying to foment civil war there? Who has characterized Iraq as the central front in the war against the United States? Who will interpret a US withdrawal as an enormous military and psychological victory?
That's right, Al Qaeda. As this piece on the NIE points out:
The report makes clear that al-Qaida in Iraq, which has not yet posed a direct threat to U.S. soil, could become a problem here.
"Of note," the analysts said, "we assess that al-Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland."
We all know that the Democrats are looking for any political advantage that the war in Iraq can offer, regardless of the consequences for national security. That's why they can't insist with straight faces that the US would be safer in the wake of a surrender in Iraq.
But to pretend that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the larger war against Al Qaeda is ludicrous, even for a lefty. As for the left's head-in-the-sand insistence that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, check out this and this and this.
One says that the continued existence of terrorism indicates that the US has been "sidetracked" by Iraq. Who, exactly, does he think has been attacking us in Iraq? Who has been trying to foment civil war there? Who has characterized Iraq as the central front in the war against the United States? Who will interpret a US withdrawal as an enormous military and psychological victory?
That's right, Al Qaeda. As this piece on the NIE points out:
The report makes clear that al-Qaida in Iraq, which has not yet posed a direct threat to U.S. soil, could become a problem here.
"Of note," the analysts said, "we assess that al-Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland."
We all know that the Democrats are looking for any political advantage that the war in Iraq can offer, regardless of the consequences for national security. That's why they can't insist with straight faces that the US would be safer in the wake of a surrender in Iraq.
But to pretend that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the larger war against Al Qaeda is ludicrous, even for a lefty. As for the left's head-in-the-sand insistence that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, check out this and this and this.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:59 AM
8 Comments:
...click click click convolute click click contort click click click conflate click click contrive click click click condemn click click...
Still hacking away? Lord, woman, get a life.
Oh, now duke-stir's post is a model of intellectual rigor and clarity. Not.
No real response to Carol's points, no attempt to dispute her facts, just snide snark.
How childish. Come back when you grow up, and are prepared to participate in an adult conversation.
Leave it to Carol to spin her own reality. The NIE doesn't say what she wrote, rather that Bush has made the US less safe with his failed policies of the past five years.
The LA Times a couple of days ago quote US General in Iraq who stated that the largest percentage of foreign extremists in Iraq come from Saudi. And we are reminded once again that those who conducted the 911 attack were from Saudi.
Another inconvenient truth for Bandar Bush family and their petro cronies.
Spinning one's "own reality" has been ETC's forte lo these many months. Carol doesn't quote the NIE report; she quotes Breitbart. The NIE report says in its very first sentence of analysis that the US"...will face a persistent and evolving threat over the next three years." Exactly what Carol suggested.
ETC also is adept at citing partial quotes. Or perhaps the Los Angeles Times cherry picked that portion of Gen. Caldwell's statement which fit its template. (Gen. Caldwell actually said, "...about 50 to 70 foreign fighters enter Iraq every month. We know that most of them come from Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt and Syria."(emphasis added)
So - like the MSM, take what ETC posts with a healthy dose of skepticism. (S)he doesn't bother even to read the links Carol provides before drifting off to the usual ad hominem attack.
Thanks, Larry, but I've been there and done that. It didn't work, much like trying to ask a non-prescreened question at a canned Bush campaign rally.
Carol knows what I mean. She's blocked my posts for months even though they were rather innocuous -- inconvenient, but innocuous.
I just find it laughable that she continues to dutifully read from the same script lo these many years in spite of the fact that the play has changed innumerable times.
That's the thing, Duke-Stir. What you call "reading from the same script" is simply sticking to principles that are known to be good and true.
What is really laughable is your contention that the "play" has changed. It has not. It's always the same.
Some one or some group always wants to dominate others. The principles of freedom and responsibility are always being attacked. And they always need to be defended. Freedom is not free, my friend. Snark is not a genic or cosmic right.
People like Carol and Hugh and, God bless him, George Bush have been intrumental throughout the ages in securing freedom for millions of people.
The play never changes, Duke-Stir. The enemy just changes costumes from one performance to another.
Setting aside the idea that people like Carol have ever been "instrumental in securing the freedom of millions" (DOLLARS maybe, for themselves and their neighbors in wealthy enclaves like San Marino, but definitely not PEOPLE), the play has most definitely changed.
This deadly boondoggle was ill-conceived and railroaded from the start using fear and heartstrings, and has since seen a number of shifting rationales. WMD; al Qaeda (before there was any such organization there); the need to get rid of a bad man (no similar sense of urgency regarding Bashir, Kim Jong Il and others, however); spreading the wildfire of democracy -- all have come and gone as proven lies, self-fulfilling prophecies, straw men, and/or grand hubris.
But the parroting of the same lines continues in spite of it all, even after the audience has left the theater.
At risk of repeating myself, the play HAS NOT changed. It NEVER has. Islamic Fascism is simply the latest costume of age-old tyranny.
Perhaps you've been taken in by another common character in this play. Some kind of "Worm Tongue" character has always been an apologist for evil in the ear of freedom attempting to paralyze good people into inaction. Maybe you've been mesmerized by the soothing hiss. Or, maybe you're actively hissing.
Either way, the plot and characters are the same. The names and costumes are all that's changed.
I would encourage you to consider the outcome of the policy(ies) you seem to be advocating. What would the "real" end result be? You are "reality-based", aren't you?
Do you seriously advocate NOT fighting fascism? Are you truly convinced that the U.S., et. al. are a greater threat to the world than Islamic Fascists? What is your prescription for the people who are or would be forced to live under an Islamic Caliphate?
Post a Comment
<< Home