Gen. Petraeus: Insurgency Has Been Quashed In Anbar
Straight from the top dog’s mouth, General Petraeus gave a wide-ranging interview to Hugh Hewitt yesterday (read the whole thing!).
I found the following exchange very interesting:
Hugh Hewitt: You and Marine Lt. General Amos coauthored the new field manual on counterinsurgency, and it talked about counterinsurgency has to adapt to local conditions. How long does it really take, in your estimation? I see you saw the BBC yesterday, telling them that it could take nine, ten years to put a counterinsurgency down in Iraq. Is that an accurate assessment, a decade to get this thing contained?
Gen. Petraeus: Well, it depends where you are in Iraq, what you’re talking about, and so forth. What I was doing there was merely saying that historically, it’s taken about a decade or so for the average counterinsurgency to be sorted out. Sometimes, it’s taken longer. I mean, in fact, the British Broadcaster interviewer and I were talking about how long it took the UK to reach the position that they’ve now achieved in Northern Ireland, and that was actually several decades, as you know, In some cases in Iraq, the situation is somewhat resolved. Surprisingly, Anbar Province, all of a sudden, has become just a remarkable development, and a place where you can actually see how it could possibly evolve into a situation sustainable by the Iraqis. Other places remain very problematic, and there’s certainly neighborhoods in Baghdad where we are still trying to refine the vision of what would be sustainable, and then determine how in fact to get to that point.
In a recent post, one of our newer Lefty commenters said the following:
But there is evidence that suggests that the presence of our troops in Iraq makes the U.S. less safe, and it has certainly made it harder for us to respond to legitimate threats to U.S. interests. So the clear balance is in favor of withdrawal.
I’m sorry…. what “evidence” is that? Is this Dan Rather/made-up “evidence”? Aside from leftist sugar plum visions of Vietnam-redux, I must have missed that “evidence”.
What about the very clear (and not made up) real evidence that al-Qaeda wants the USA to withdraw from Iraq? And, the real facts that the Democrats in Congress are legislatively enabling the stated aims of our enemy!
I come back to the FACT, that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and most of the semi borderline nearly sane Democrats left in Congress have been saying for a longggg time that President Bush should “listen to the Generals”.
Well, now that one of the biggest Generals (Petraeus) is giving his insights — the question now is: Are the liberals and Democrats even interested in listening? Or will they just continue to mouth empty slogans like “we support the troops”?
I’m pretty sure the 83% of Americans who disapprove of the 110th Congress WILL be listening to General Petraeus.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
37 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
[...] Original post by GayPatriot [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Gen. Petraeus: Insurgency Has Been Quashed In Anbar — July 19, 2007 @ 6:18 pm - July 19, 2007
I’ve been waiting a long time for the liberals to explain to me how surrender in Iraq makes us safer. Further, I’d like to know how surrender will make our “allies” love us unconditinally again.
There’s not a single damn liberal out there who stows the gear required to answer those questions. Therefore, one must concluded that it’s only political.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 19, 2007 @ 6:39 pm - July 19, 2007
I’ll play Devil’s Advocate
One leftie told me once that:
- the Iraq war pins down forces that should be better spent, e.g., invading North Korea
- our presence in Iraq greatly helps al Qaeda recruit and turns the Arab / Muslim world even more against us
I think I know why the above claims are not right - but again, I’m playing DA - so, your thoughts?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 19, 2007 @ 7:24 pm - July 19, 2007
Again, just so you can’t claim ignorance of the facts: Petraeus is reporting on his (excellent) military success. He himself has said that there is no military solution to the Iraq problem. The political solution has to happen for us to win. Has there been any political progress?
(and yes, the Democrats have been saying that Bush should listen to the generals, especially during all those years when the military was using precisely the wrong strategy in Iraq. Petraeus is finally using the proper counter-insurgency tactics we should have been using all along, but when the Dems and some Reps were saying this, we were called traitors and Bush-haters. Apparently Petraeus agreed with all of us, tho, since he is doing exactly what people said he should be doing. A shame Bush didn’t listen to those people when he was busy not putting together a post-invasion plan.)
Lastly, I appreciate Petraeus’ getting what you seem not to: opposition to the war doesn’t mean not supporting the troops.
It’s great to see our military appreciating and respecting diversity of opinion about matters as great as war, something which is so lost on conservatives these days.
Comment by torrentprime — July 19, 2007 @ 8:26 pm - July 19, 2007
I sense panic in the Democrats. The all “nighter” where the fairest Senators were allowed to go home and sleep, ended up being a farce apparently. When you pee off moderate Sen Spector you got a prioblem. The approval ratings of the Democrat Congress has fallen to an all time low of 17%. The Commander and Chiefs is twice that. We need to keep asking the cut and run Dems the question: if we leave tomorrow as they prefer…and moderates are slaughtered in Iraq, 10,000 100, 000 a million, where will we find Pelosi Reid Murtha Clinton for an accounting. If the mid east blows up and oil goes to $150 a barrel and gasoline to $7 a gallon, will the Democrats then have their plan for Iraq ready for our approval? Have you ever seen a more incompetent 6 month display as this Democrat controlled Congress?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 19, 2007 @ 9:32 pm - July 19, 2007
It is great to hear positive news from Gen Petraeus. More good news. The Bush stock market closed at over 14,000 today! The record run continues. And before the libs complain about the rich benefiting…over 70% of Americans are in the market now. huzza. Only the liberals on welfare aren’t along for the ride. I was reminded that when W took over the Dow has climbed from 7,000 to 14,000. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. Added to 4.5% unemployment and historically low interest rates, it is an outstanding time to be alive. Cheers to the Americans who drive the economy and this administration who get out of the way of the American people who desire prosperity.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 19, 2007 @ 9:41 pm - July 19, 2007
“But there is evidence that suggests that the presence of our troops in Iraq makes the U.S. less safe, and it has certainly made it harder for us to respond to legitimate threats to U.S. interests. So the clear balance is in favor of withdrawal.”
Anything a liberal says, such as DDT thins bird egg shells, that human produced carbon dioxide causes global warming, or that being in Iraq makes the homeland less safe, is not true because it can be proven true by relation to reality, but because the liberal says it is so.
Comment by Crow — July 19, 2007 @ 11:46 pm - July 19, 2007
If I had the time I would like to data mine the amount of times we have seen “good news” and “real progress” being made in Iraq. What was it Bush said? “fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.””
Why is this “good news” different?
Further, how is the Iraqi government ever going to keep control of that place? What’s going to happen when a Army of Iraqi Shiites try to take control?
Further still the end game of the surge is the same end game as our initial invasion. We seem to believe that after bringing less war to various places in Iraq, the people will suddenly be so grateful that peace spontaneously beaks out. Perhaps you believe the Iraqis will be bringing us flowers.
After the surge, we will be in the same place we were pre surge. A crummy Iraqi gov. horrible Iraqi infrastructure, Sunni who don’t want to be ruled, Shiites who want to rule, and the Kurds who want to be left alone.
Those are the true stumbling block to peace in Iraq. And they can not be solved through the military.
Comment by gil — July 20, 2007 @ 12:00 am - July 20, 2007
Nice blog. Thanks for adding another patriotic voice to the web! I am trying to get a conservative digg alternative going called GOP Hub (GOPhub.com). Anything you can do to help spread the word would be awesome. Plus you can post on it any articles you write here on your blog. Take care and have a great weekend!
Comment by Jon — July 20, 2007 @ 5:56 am - July 20, 2007
Gil-
By your definition of “peace”… we should withdraw from New Orleans, Philadelphia and Detriot.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — July 20, 2007 @ 7:07 am - July 20, 2007
Gene, I hadn’t thought about the full extent of the Bush rally until you put it that way. You’re right. The Dow was maybe pushing 11,000 when Clinton left office, and did even worse after 9-11. It shows how far we’ve come since 9-11. Who woulda thought? (On the morning of 9-12, I sure didn’t.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 20, 2007 @ 9:10 am - July 20, 2007
Osama bin Laden said after Somalia that America was a paper tiger, that we lacked resolve, and could be easily defeated. The fact that so many Democrats are eager to prove him right is just another example (together with the recent Democrat defeat of the John Doe provision to protect people those who report suspicious activity from lawsuits) of how Democrats are, objectively, siding with the terrorists.
Comment by V the K — July 20, 2007 @ 9:12 am - July 20, 2007
Anyone else noticed that the libs seem more upset about dog fighting (Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd called it “Barbaric”) than they are about the insurgents killing and cooking children to terrorize Iraqis into submitting to them? Granted, dog fighting is a horrific practice, but it seems the left is more concerned about protecting dogs than protecting humans.
Comment by V the K — July 20, 2007 @ 10:18 am - July 20, 2007
#11 - “Osama bin Laden said after Somalia that America was a paper tiger, that we lacked resolve, and could be easily defeated.”
Who cares!?!?! Are going to let enemy taunts and enemy propaganda decide policy? OBL taunts us because he wants a frontal attack. He wants the instability caused by war. Without US troops there, attacks in Iraq are clearly Muslim on Muslim and that is propaganda he does not want. With US troops there, everything can be blamed on America. Without us, it becomes their problem, their humiliation and Al Qaeda’s platform of hate and discord will be fully exposed and discredited.
Comment by gil — July 20, 2007 @ 10:25 am - July 20, 2007
We care because handing a victory to Al Qaeda will encourage them to carry out more and bloodier attacks.
And since the Democrats are hell-bent on undermining domestic security… killing the John Doe amendment being only the latest example… we can not rely on government to protect us against terror attacks in the USA.
To give an example of just exactly how clueless the Democrat majority is, The Corner notes that Democrats want to close Club Gitmo, but have no idea where to send the terrorists when they do:
So, where are the terrorists (euphemistically referred to as ‘detainees’ supposed to go once the Club Gitmo Spa and Resort is shut down? Pluto? A portal to another dimension? Andy Sullivan’s rectum?
Comment by V the K — July 20, 2007 @ 10:50 am - July 20, 2007
Gil.
Who cares? I care. Without us it is still our problem. there will be a safe haven for Al Quaeda. The Viet Nam syndrome has created insular mentality. It is as if the Democrats are really complicit in the vast left wing conspiracy. Nothing is happening in a vacuum There is a a thread that is linking the worldwide left against democracy and capitalism. It is a fact that Iran is aiding Hamas and there are three Al Quaeda camps near Tehran. The erosion of democratic freedoms in Russia by Putin.
Can we really trust a Peoples Republic of China, who like Iran and Russia, has played host to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Hugo is now in Nicaragua to celebrate the 28th anniversary of the FSLN (Sandinista)
victory. Twenty eight years when Daniel Ortega was inaugurated, Yassar Arafat was in attendance. The goal is to isolate and annihilate us. Al Quaeda camps will be in Caracas, Managua, and Tegulcigapa. This is what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are aiding and abetting, but none dare call it treason.
Comment by Roberto — July 20, 2007 @ 11:14 am - July 20, 2007
Granted, dog fighting is a horrific practice, but it seems the left is more concerned about protecting dogs than protecting humans.
Yup.
The Endangered Species Act, for one, puts exactly the same penalty on destroying eggs or causing an animal to abort as it does on killing an adult animal. The House is on one of its screaming witch hunts demanding that Cheney be called up before it because a water plan with which he was nominally associated supposedly killed salmon eggs.
But abort all the babies you want, at any time you want, because they’re not really human.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 20, 2007 @ 12:09 pm - July 20, 2007
Without US troops there, attacks in Iraq are clearly Muslim on Muslim and that is propaganda he does not want.
LOL….obviously you’ve never heard him rant about the need for attacking “corrupt” Islamic governments and “corrupt” Muslims who are too moderate for his tastes.
What is happening in Iraq is the realization among Muslims that bin Laden’s argument is a crock of sh*t; he and his fellow radicals are just as willing to kill Muslims who don’t fit their views of right and wrong as they are to kill “infidels”.
The reason that has taken so long is because of leftists like yourself who have blamed bin Laden’s bombings and attacks on targets as being all the United States’s fault. You yourself have facilitated his propaganda because you want to be anti-American; you are blaming the United States for everything, which plays right into his hands.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 20, 2007 @ 12:14 pm - July 20, 2007
You’ll pardon me if I doubt he was referring to those who are screaming for our surrender. Further, I dare you to find our military appreciating the liberal media coverage.
Are you taking spinning lessons from Wonder Woman?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 20, 2007 @ 12:48 pm - July 20, 2007
NDT and TGC should enjoy this: Hugh Hewitt: How Mitch McConnell
Made Senate Democrats Look Like IdiotsExposed Senate Democrats As IdiotsComment by V the K — July 20, 2007 @ 1:07 pm - July 20, 2007
making progress, last throes, turning the corner, making progress, blah, blah, blah.
failed war and a failed presidency.
Comment by rightiswrong — July 20, 2007 @ 4:48 pm - July 20, 2007
Rightiswrong needs to listen to the troops who are or have been there. I mean listen and not mouth leftist mantras. He might end up with a knuckle sandwich.
Comment by Roberto — July 20, 2007 @ 5:24 pm - July 20, 2007
Only those of you so blinded by partisan hatred actually believe that a drawdown in troops is a surrender. You’re using the terms “surrender” because the GOP desperately needs to label a change in strategy or presence a “surrender” in order to get you to control how you think about it. And unless you have talked to the man personally, I doubt you know what he thinks. But then again, mind-reading (”democrats *really* want this, they *really* mean that”) is a hallmark of the Bush-supporter these days. You don’t actually debate facts or strategies; you simply attack your archetypal foes. Not one of my questions on strategy, planning, or political changes in Iraq has been answered. Not one. You, ND30, GPWest: none of you have had a single thing to say about any of those issues. All you offer is insults and personal attacks, because that’s all you have left now.
[Don't put words into my mouth, torrentpirme, and don't take them out of there either. Perhaps, I haven't answered your questions to meet your high standards, after all, you're the one insisting that only the benchmarks not met were set too low. I had much to say about those issues. And I've offered neither insult nor personal attack in my responses instead noting the improving security situation in Iraq. Here, in a screed-laden post, you accuse use of ducking the issues. You claim we attack our "archetypal foes" while you define us as you want to see us while ignoring actual points (and facts) we bring up to address questions you ask and issues you raise. Sounds like you're the one attacking "archetypal foes." You claim "no progress on the actual things that effect the Iraqi civilians' lives," I reply by noting the virtual cessation of bombing in Anbar province," something which very much efets the lives of Iraqi civilians in that once-troubled province. You refuse to address that. --GPW]
Also, in regards to the military appreciating the “liberal” media coverage: there have plenty of conservative commentators weighing in for years on the mismanagement of the Iraq war, from its (lack of) planning for post-invasion to the bad tactics used to fight the budding insurgency. How will you avoid answering those critics? What insults or childish tantrums will you throw their way to avoid facing the realities in Iraq?
[Yep, there have been plenty of conservatives who have faulted the Administration for mismanaging the war. Many of whom (e.g., Bill Kristol) strongly support the surge, a shift in strategy, and are optimistic about its success. Have we ever attacked them, insulted them? No, because we recognize that their criticism has been well-intended. They fault the past strategy because it failed to produce victory. They criticized because they wanted a better strategy and understood the stakes in Iraq. --GPW]
Last: I wouldn’t speak for the military, as you do, although I note in passing the rise in the number of stories of military vets joining anti-war organizations (traitors, too, I assume, GPW?) and the rather extraordinary high military contributions to Ron Paul.
[The only reason I'm interjecting in this comment to a post Bruce did is because this writer addresses me in claiming I've called war opponents traitors, an accusation I have not leveled. So, please if you're going to take issue with my points, take issue with my points, don't fault me for saying things I never said--or claim I never said things I did. --GPW]
Comment by torrentprime — July 20, 2007 @ 6:26 pm - July 20, 2007
Only those of you so blinded by partisan hatred actually believe that a drawdown in troops is a surrender.
Which part of “all troops out of Iraq by x date, 2008″ is so difficult for you to understand, torrentprime?
This is not a “drawdown”, “redeployment”, or whatever other cutesy name you want to use for it. This is simply the Democrat Party yanking all troops out of Iraq and running like hell.
And what this makes obvious to Osama bin Laden and his ilk is that, once again, all he has to do is outlast us. He doesn’t need to fight; he has Democrats like yourself to do it for him.
Osama bin Laden wants nothing more than to return to the days when Democrats were in charge of the military, torrentprime. After all, during that time, he was able to nearly sink a US destroyer, kill seventeen US military personnel, and wound tens more, at the cost of two men and a few boxes of explosives. He was able to blow up two embassies in East Africa, killing hundreds of people, then casually evacuate his camps as the Democrats in charge waited to shoot missiles at him until it could be used to distract the news coverage from the Lewinsky scandal. He was safe from military intervention, sheltered and openly supported by a government, and able to move money and personnel at will without having to worry about his financial transactions being tracked or his communications with his cells being eavesdropped upon.
Which is exactly what you and your fellow Democrats are going to give him if you get your way.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 20, 2007 @ 7:49 pm - July 20, 2007
GPW: Your only response to my post about the politics and issues facing the Iraqis was to use ONE question on my part and to reply to it over and over and over. Yes, the military situation and public safety in certain provinces has improved, something I’ve acknowledged many times. What you have never addressed, ever, is how the political situation is improving, the thing that Petraeus has said has to happen for us to win. You simply say that you have while never doing it. And now, with your multi-line summary on my post, you still haven’t. So, for those keeping score at home, it’s: Questions asked of GPW/ND30 about the Iraqi political situation and its progress: myriad. Answered: None.
[Funny that you would say I repeat my point over and over again. I guess in dealing with you I have to. I have made clear that difficulties remain. Your acknowledging now the military situation has improved is a bit of a shift for you. So you can claim over and over (and over and over (and over and over)) again that we're not addressing your point, but the only thing happening is that we're not agreeing with your narrow view of the situation. --GPW]
GPW, it’s also interesting to see you say that the criteria for attacking a critic of the war is not whether the criticism is right; it’s simply whether (your mind-reading assumption of) their inner purpose is noble enough for you:
See, here, again, I totally forget the Bush-supporter logic I should be following: We don’t analyze criticism based on its accuracy, its impact, its validity; no no! We judge it based on our assumption and judgement of the desire of the holder of that criticism to help our cause.
[Sorry, torrent, I didn't say what you claimed I said. I was only showing that I respect some of the critics of the Administration's policy--and explaining why I respect certain critics. Not offering criteria for why I would recognize the validity of criticism (in general). So, don't do what you accuse others of doing--and engage in mind-reading. I respect those critics who offer honest assessments of the situation in Iraq. And you just keep making assumption (after assumption) about all Bush-supporters (and assume all those who support the war are Bush-supporters). And you assume that I believe only supporters of the war have good intentions. The more you comment, the bigger hole you dig. Thanks, GPW]
ND30: So leaving is a surrender, always, even if you never surrender to anyone and you’re not actually running (a 12 month plan is hardly running with one boot on) or even having all the troops leave (withdraw to bases and force the Iraqis to do more with the 3 brigades Bush claims the Iraqis have)? Gotcha. And: “This is simply the Democrat Party yanking all troops out of Iraq and running like hell.” And some Republicans, lately, in case you hadn’t noticed.
As for the summary of OBL’s freedoms in the Clinton years:
And this is different from his freedom at this point in time how, exactly? Read the NIE this week? Anyone? You know, the one that says after years of Bush’s “takin’ it to them”, let’s see how AlQ is doing: (again, credit Slate)
Hmmm. So we’re less safe than before. That can’t be right, ND30, right? Cause Republicans are in charge now?
But, as Bush keeps telling us, Iraq is the central front of the war on terror: Well, the central recruiting front, anyway:
AQI is helped in its recruiting by the American invasion and presence in Iraq. AQI wants to attack the US. AQI enables AQ to recruit more, with the added transmission of the goal of attacking the US at home, so now AQ is both more likely and more able to attack us.
And ND30, lastly: really, man. Yes, Clinton sucked (and was sucked). Yes, he was a tool who toured the world attending peace accords after the heavy lifting was done and cluck-clucking over the world’s wounds. But, so what? Is your only metric of a good leader someone who does not equal Clinton? When the result of multiple years of war, billions of dollars spent and thousands upon thousands of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed and wounded, AlQ is as strong as before, more enabled and more excited about killing us than ever; we are more isolated now than in decades, with allies turned off and untrusting of us, world opinion against us more (than ever?), our country more bitterly polarized and discourse more poisonous, all of these lead you to believe that the GOP in charge has been a success?
Comment by torrentprime — July 20, 2007 @ 8:58 pm - July 20, 2007
Oh, and ND30, I *totally* missed the “fellow Democrats” line. My favorite part of the Bush-supporters current last intellectual stand is the insistence that everyone opposing them is a Democrat. Still registered Republican, my dogged friend, and I state my political beliefs as libertarian. Never been a Democrat, and probably never will. But I’m guessing it’s important for you to think I am.
Comment by torrentprime — July 20, 2007 @ 9:01 pm - July 20, 2007
#14 gil expresses the leftists line pretty well. If we leave then it is muslim on muslim violence and why should we care. If 10,000 or a million are slaughtered why is it our business. This from the people who are suppose to be the all caring all compassionate ones amongst us. How pathetic. We helped in Bosnia to save thousands. We want to help in Darfur to help hundreds of thousands. Why wouldn’t we save hundreds of thousands of muslims in Iraq? Is it racism. I think I have it figured out. A lot of leftists would “sacrifice” a few hundred thousand muslims to humiliate Bush, our military, and the USA. It would knock all of em down quite a few notches. If the mideast blows up and a western depression results, again the socialists would be in their glory.That would be the ultimate leftist pacifist ideal. They can’t stand our economic success. They prefer recessions and depressions. After all then, 10-20-30% will be getting govt assistance. Everyone more equal. Everyone more miserable. The leftist, Cuban utopia.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 20, 2007 @ 9:36 pm - July 20, 2007
When you quit fighting and let the enemy achieve their objectives… that’s surrender, despite any silly word games or denials people want to play.
Comment by V the K — July 20, 2007 @ 10:37 pm - July 20, 2007
ND30: So leaving is a surrender, always, even if you never surrender to anyone and you’re not actually running (a 12 month plan is hardly running with one boot on) or even having all the troops leave (withdraw to bases and force the Iraqis to do more with the 3 brigades Bush claims the Iraqis have)? Gotcha.
Technically, by your standard, Napoleon never surrendered to the Russians.
He just “redeployed” over an extended period.
Next, to your evaluation of what the NIE is saying.
Hmmm. So we’re less safe than before.
AlQ is as strong as before, more enabled and more excited about killing us than ever
I suggest you might want to read the document in question.
Especially this paragraph:
We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa’ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.
So yes, we are safer.
Furthermore, what makes your statement particularly amusing is your citing al-Qa’ida in Iraq as being the most dangerous one being coupled with your support of the Democrat Party demand that we deploy troops AWAY from it.
In short, you whine that our worst enemy with the most capability to attack us is in Iraq, so you want to put troops in Okinawa. Just as before with Afghanistan, Democrats and their supporters like you don’t want to send troops to where our enemy IS; you want them deployed as far away from people who are threatening to attack us as possible.
AQI is helped in its recruiting by the American invasion and presence in Iraq.
The theory here being, of course, that al-Qa’ida would not hate us and not be able to recruit people to fight us if we weren’t in Iraq.
Funny, they had no problem whatsoever finding people to recruit and to fight against us BEFORE we were in Iraq, or before we were in Afghanistan, or during the Clinton administration, when we stayed in the corner and basically gave the world and our “allies” everything they wanted.
Problem is here, torrentprime, that Bush-hatred has not only put you in the hands of people who want to emasculate you; it’s gotten you so worked up that you’re wielding the knife on yourself.
You want us to pull our troops away from the location of what you yourself claim is the biggest threat to us.
You want us to pull out to avoid giving lunatics any more reason to hate us, despite the fact that, every other time we’ve met their demands, they simply come up with a new one and a new reason to hate us.
And you want us to care about the opinions of countries like France, who, aside from being one of the biggest beneficiaries of Saddam’s bribes and kickbacks to ignore him, is also a country in which Islamic teenagers with clubs can bring the entire country to its knees in just a matter of hours — and get away with it as the government twists itself into an orgy of self-flagellation to explain why it’s their fault.
Not interested. SO not interested.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 20, 2007 @ 11:50 pm - July 20, 2007
Given that we got 9/11 after we surrendered to AQ the first time, I would think it’s a pretty safe bet that we ought not do it again. Furthermore, if you listen to AQ, they’ll tell you exactly what they want to do and they’ll also tell you when we’re kicking their ass. That is, if you bother to listen.
However, if you just ignore it and dismiss it as a “bumper sticker”, taunts and propaganda, you won’t get it. What’s more, you’re ilk pose a clear and present danger to the security of this country.
Uh huh. And forgiving law breakers of their crimes ain’t amnesty, neo Socialist “democrats” aren’t liberals and the Congress has the power to command the movements of our soldiers in country. Got it.
I’ve been on vacation, so maybe I missed something. I’ve not seen “facts” or “strategies” to debate. Further, I can’t help but notice that nobody seems to have the balls to answer my question of how surrendering to AQ makes us more safe. I’ve asked lots of people, including some of the heavy screamers on the Hill, and nobody seems capable of replying.
All paragons of honesty, I’m sure, TP. Like John F.You Kerry, Murtha, that one clown who was running around claiming that he witnessed slaughters in Iraq when he wasn’t even there? Oh, and how about that one guy out in CA, Thomas Young, who starred in campaign 06 ads whining about cuts to VA funding when it had actually INCREASED by $3.5 Billion.
That they served their country, I thank them. That they sustained injuries while doing so, I likewise thank them. BUT, when they come home and show off being lying, opportunistic sacks of crap, I dismiss them to the Eighth Circle, Bolgia 10.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 21, 2007 @ 2:35 am - July 21, 2007
If Al Q is stronger than ever, I fail to see how handing them a victory in Iraq makes us safer. Please explain.
Comment by V the K — July 21, 2007 @ 7:56 am - July 21, 2007
Isn’t it obvious? Giving them
Czechoslovakiaoops, Iraq will turn these poor, misunderstood boys into peace lovers and bring about “peace in our time”.That’s what the lefties want, right? - peace? - that us all righty nazi troglodytes who sound the alarm so clearly do not want?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 21, 2007 @ 11:36 am - July 21, 2007
Let’s suppose torrent prime, Ian S, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid get their fondest wish and the US surrenders Iraq to Al Qaeda? What happens next?
First of all, Al Qaeda declares victory. Now, will Al Qaeda just disband after declaring victory (as some apparently think) or will they use their victory as a rallying cry to recruit millions more to Global Jihad?
If anyone doubts that latter is the more likely course of events, kindly explain why.
Second, any of the Iraqis who stood with us are dead meat, probably with a few million more because of the bloodbath everyone admits will follow. Of course, no one gives a crap about this genocide except the troglodyte neocon right-wingers. So, genocide is a fair price to pay for American humiliation. We get that.
Third, in the long term, what credibility does the US have when it says we’ll fight Al Qaeda as long as it takes… after we give up four years into the fight? Why should any government ally itself with us when they know we’ll cut and run after our nose gets bloodied? Why should any government in the region cooperate with us on security matters? How does capitulation make us safer in the long term, when we will have just proven Osama bin Laden right that the US is a paper tiger with no stomach for a fight?
Comment by V the K — July 21, 2007 @ 12:19 pm - July 21, 2007
#13 - V, I think the reason why “Sheets” Byrd was so vehemently aghast at Michael Vick’s dog-fighting shenanigans was because it involved a black man, whom he probably believes is subservient to a white man.
Libtrolls, prove me wrong.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 23, 2007 @ 4:46 pm - July 23, 2007
Well gee, now that the “insurgency” has been squashed, then what’s going to happen witht he 3 factions that make up the country and are involved in civil war?
Comment by Kevin — July 23, 2007 @ 7:22 pm - July 23, 2007
Oh. Didn’t you hear? The “civil war” was nothing more than AQ propaganda promoted by the DNC, the liberal media and, well, you.
Congratulations. You’re a useful idiot.
Besides, since when did you give a damn about the “3 factions that make up the country”? Aren’t you part of the crowd that gives them the middle finger and wants to tell them to go fcuk themselves sideways?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 24, 2007 @ 2:02 am - July 24, 2007
Also TGC, as you seem to know already… “3 factions that make up the country” is itself a canard… one of those Western liberal media oversimplifications for the consumption of… well.. of Western liberals. Who need such oversimplifications.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 24, 2007 @ 8:53 am - July 24, 2007