Accountability Moment.

The leading cause of wingnut diaper rash.

Kim, you're kinda preaching to the choir here, it seems. The problem, to me, is that mainstream Americans get their news from MainStream Media sources.

That's not their fault by any reasoning! Americans are hard working and productive, and in their hective lives of juggling jobs, raising families, and trying to survive and get ahead and plan for retirement (decades away for our youngest workers), they have precious little time to glean newsbits relating to current issues. This means turning on network news or plopping open the newspaper in the morning over a quickie cup of java before screeching off to work while delivering kids to various and sundry locations on the way.

Those of us who turn to the blogosphere for our news have been lucky enough to both find the time to do so and to have gotten a clue on where to turn for hard news. But middle class working Americans, for the most part, just don't have the time nor inclination to devote X hrs. daily to politics, national and international issues, etc., except in selective soundbites.

The issue isn't that voters need to realistically consider what they've done to the country by voting as they did this past Tuesday. Rather, the question is: How the heck do we get the word out to other Americans that they're being fed filtered news via a proven Liberal MSM?

If the majority of Americans knew just how outrageously scandalous the MSM has become in their slanted reporting, we'd see a much different tone taking hold when dealing with current issues.

That's right JT, terrorism is a creation of the Republicans. Now we reap what we sow, right?

Since this served my puposes so well earlier...here it is again.

Kim,

What you fail to grasp is that any large shift in the American political landscape, especially one that embarasses the administration, is going to be seized upon by the terrorists PR machine as a sign of American weakness. You make it seem as though Americans signed their own death warrant by voting blue on Tuesday. This is dangerous and inaccurate.

Rob,

I agree, somewhat.

It has specifically to do with the platform the Democrats have run on, which was immediate drawdown or outright withdrawal from Iraq. That plan, in my owm opinion is a strategic and political boon to Al-Qaeda and the insurgency.

while it may be dangerous, I doubt your claim to its inaccuracy.

Oh, wait. That's right, I forget the dems have this plan for iraq and the war on terror.

Oh, ... wait.

Well alright then, it looks like the pants shitters are off to a good start with their newly found majority.

Iraq will be just like Vietnam, the Democrats will do everything in their power to ensure it. Even going so far as to use the same persons responsible for that disgrace to perpetrate this one.

Rob, "You make it seem as though Americans signed their own death warrant by voting blue on Tuesday. This is dangerous and inaccurate."

That death warrant is all too possible, the enemies of United States are emboldened by actions of the Dems, their morale is high. They will pursue their plans of attack, world wide, with renewed vigor, confident in their success and confident that they will suffer no retribution by a nation now neutered by it's Majority Party.

Militant Islam is not going to go away because the Democrats want it too. As I've said over and over again "Bush" is not the cause of Islamic terrorism and the Democrats assuming power will not change that fact. The attacks will continue until one side or the other submits, which side do you think that will be?

Cayutekitt,

Liberal Bias in the MSM? NEVER! Read this BBC coverage on the very same audio tape from Al-Qaeda. The story is about three paragraphs long and mentions nothing abotu blowing up the white house.

The editing is brilliant. It actually makes it look as though Al-Qaeda is trying to be reasonable.

Wizbang: where terrorists get a megaphone.

Kim, why are you giving them a forum?

jp2:

Giving them a forum? It's a little late for that. This has broken on every major news agency.

And the true winners on Nov 7, 2006 are, the worldwide terrorists movements. Any questions will be answered just like 9-11 answered the question about what apeasement (failure to respond to dozens of terror attacks on the U.S.)in the ninities did.

Still smiling and laughing about the country putting its head on the chopping block and handint AQ the ax.

I remember the dummie McGovern well. I was a dim at the time but also a member of the military so there's was no way on gods green earth he was getting my vote, then along came Dimmy and I knew it was time for a change.

jp2,

back to the brand of douchiness only you can provide.

I thought we'd gone over the difference between framing and publishing terrorist rhetoric and the broadcasting of their propaganda video.

Ugh! Doesn't your ass ever hurt enough from the paddling you get around here?

Seriously, either lower the dose, or raise it, or .. come back when you have something reasoned to discuss.

Your lame-assed attempts to point out some form of hypocrisy is .. well, lame assed.

But we're used to that from you.

Get it through your heads -

We DON'T CARE WHAT jihadists think of the U.S. electoral process. They HAVE NO INFLUENCE, and HAVE NO EFFECT on the good policies necessary to CONTAIN, SURROUND, DEFEAT, and render the jihadists obsolete.

I'm sorry you are left to defend a place like Wizbang.

Nevertheless, continue your trolling of me unabated!

Let's not forget that Iraq was "lost" in 2003 when the looters started running wild in the streets of Baghdad because we didn't have enough troops to do the job. Our defeat was cemented when Rummy disbanded the Iraqi military and sent 2 million men into the streets of a country with 60% unemployment.

This occupation has been one major f---up after another. Finally, Bush has held Rumsfeld accountable but only after incalculable damage to our national security because of this fiasco.

But withdraw we must. Israel withdrew from South Lebanon and Gaza and it's still standing. The lesson we should all learn from that is to avoid occupying and nationbuilding in the urban areas of Arab countries. The terrorists want to draw us into urban-style guerrilla warfare because they know they can inflict casualties that way. On an open battlefield, they don't stand a chance in hell.

Bush blundered into this debacle and has put us in the position of having to eventually withdraw under fire one day. The Arabs will never stop shooting as us until we're gone. And then they will claim victory no matter how many of them we have killed.

This is not the way to fight a war on terror.

jp2, do you really think that if we ignore them, they'll just go away? Do you think they'll stop even if we give them Bush's head on a platter?

Over the last two days, all we heard from the right (NRO, Rush, Redstate..) was how the GOP deserved to loose. The Republicans were doing a terrible job of running the country and the war in Iraq.

Now, the right is claiming that actually all the ails of the world were the fault of the Dems? Stop flip floppy, I'm getting dizzy.

JC,

Some of us care very deeply if they are happy with our electoral choices, because we do not want to make them happy.

Kaz:

The Arabs will never stop shooting as us until we're gone

o...now why didn't we think of that?

"I swear by God we shall not rest from jihad until we ... blow up the filthiest house known as the White House," he said.

Oh yeah, the article at the top of the page. That and 9/11 of course.

Let's not forget that Iraq was "lost" in 2003 when the looters started running wild in the streets of Baghdad because we didn't have enough troops to do the job.

I guess we lost the U.S. too when the L.A. race riots occured, and after almost every major natural domestic disaster when we didn't have enough police to stop the looting.

Our defeat was cemented when Rummy disbanded the Iraqi military and sent 2 million men into the streets of a country with 60% unemployment.

2 million? Iraq did not have an army numbering 2 million. Try 300,000 at highest estimate. That's not including those who would have died during the invasion.

Regardless, yes, that was a bad move by Bremer (that's right, not Rumsfeld).

This is not the way to fight a war on terror.

Agreed, we should run away. The we should go back in a few years and lose more lives after Al-Qaeda, Sadr or someone else stages a bloody coup on our exit and becomes a huge threat to everyone in the region.

Think violence is bad now? Give Al-Qaeda a country and an army.

Like this is a news flash? Our enemies told us BEFORE the elections who they were pulling for.

Here's a hint to those of you who really do understand we are fighting a war (obviously this excludes liberals among us):

DON'T VOTE FOR THE PARTY YOUR ENEMY IS PULLING FOR.

Heralder - we're both wrong from a quick search on the web:

But in 2003, the Iraqi army still had an estimated 430,000 soldiers and another 400,000 personnel in paramilitary units and security services.

Either way, it was a lot of men to throw onto the streets of Iraq. The former Iraqi military formed the vanguard of the insurgency we are fighting today. There's no denying that.

Our military estimates Al Qaeda's strength in Iraq at between 1,000 and 2,000. It is completely impossible for such a small force to take over a country of 26 million. We have 150,000 troops in Iraq and WE can't even control the place. How do you think 2,000 are going to? Do you think the Shiites and Kurds will just roll over and let Al Qaeda take them over? Do you understand that Al Qaeda grew out of Saudi Wahabbism which has almost no following at all in Iraq?

The Al Qaeda threat in Iraq is MASSIVELY overblown. If we stop trying to play policeman over there the Shiites and the Kurds will mop up the floor with those guys. It won't be pretty on CNN but it'll get the job done.

Heralder,

Since WHEN what a jihadist think, change YOUR opinion of what needs to be done?

I am not interested a temporary change in jihadists attitude "happy", b/c of a change in the U.S. electoral changes. I care about the good policies necessary to CONTAIN, SURROUND, DEFEAT, and render the jihadists obsolete.

Believe me, they will be unhappy soon enough.

Get some resolve - don't let what a jihadist thinks psyche you out.

Good Lord. Terrorists and various thugocracies (Syria, Iran, Hugo) have just endorsed a Democrat majority and some people act like it doesn't mean anything.

JC - you keep saying you only care about the "good" policies that will contain, surround, etc.

So tell me, what ARE those policies with the Dems in power? Do you know something the rest of the country doesn't know?

Using Kaz 's logic, we would have withdrawn from WWII after D-day!

Kurds will not mop up if the liberal left continue to tie up their hands against these brutal terrorists.

It is sad that the terrorists are claiming victory through a Dem win. See what they really think.

JApan and Germany were alone in their defeat. Now the insurgency has a cheering section in the Syria, Iraq, and shamefully the liberal left in the west. These people are cheering for the terrorists and former Baathists to kill more innocent Iraqui women/children. I truly fear for the Iraqui people now when the Dems aksed McGovern to talk to them. I am afraid of a repeat of the Cambodian genocide. Except this time, they consequence will reach American mainland. Why can't we beat them? Because the left wants failure and advocates defeat. Why don't I hear the left calling for more decisive "tough" measures? Because they want the US to lose. What a shame! I am saddened by the election results. But that 's the choice of the American people. We can only hope for the best now.

Oyster,
The terrorists knew the history and legacy of the liberals. The Dems cut off the funding to the South Vietnamese gov. That 's the way to fight the communists then and now that 's the Dems ' way to "fight" the terrorists. I shudder to think about the consequences for the Iraqui and the ME. The left was silent when an Australian mufti tried to justify rape even in the safety of America. Do you expect them to fight?

kaz,

Man, I looked that up too. My numbers were way different.

Either way, it was a lot of men to throw onto the streets of Iraq. The former Iraqi military formed the vanguard of the insurgency we are fighting today. There's no denying that.

I agree with that. I don't think it was a good idea.

As far as Al-Qaeda running a coup, not likely, no...and I don't think we can give much legitimacy to the 12,000 they say they just recruited. I can say without a doubt, however that they will step up their attacks on our departure...and without an outside regulatory force, they will wrangle their way into a more powerful position. Look at Hezbollah. They don't run Lebanon, but they've invested it, dug in like a tick.

I also noted the Sadr Army, which has a sizable force and much more political and religious backing.

If we stop trying to play policeman over there the Shiites and the Kurds will mop up the floor with those guys. It won't be pretty on CNN but it'll get the job done.

I have seen no evidence that this would happen.

JC,

Since WHEN what a jihadist think, change YOUR opinion of what needs to be done?

JC, if your enemy does not change how you think you're doing something wrong.

I am not interested a temporary change in jihadists attitude "happy", b/c of a change in the U.S. electoral changes. I care about the good policies necessary to CONTAIN, SURROUND, DEFEAT, and render the jihadists obsolete.

Could you inform me of those good policies? Seriously.

Get some resolve - don't let what a jihadist thinks psyche you out.

I must be giving off the totally wrong impression: some bedraggled, nail-biting worry ridden guy hunched at his computer typing out paranoid diatribes at his computer. Not so. I'm trying to be logical, that's all.

We all know that the vast majority of liberals are a bunch of wussies.

Al Qaeda knows it too!

We are now officially less safe than maybe at any time in history.

Blah blah blah.

Your opinions were tolerated before, now they're no longer wanted. The party's over and you guys just don't know when to leave.

Vast majority of liberals are wussies? Most liberals don't take a hot steamy dump in their pants every time someone barks "Al Qaeda!" Go hide under your desk, Gianni. Let adults - more fearless adults - handle the government now - and let the soldiers who are truly fearless, do their job. The government is no longer going to be run by neocon chicken hawk wussies who think they're tough. Go hide under your desk like the scared little child you are.

You spend the better part of the day complaining about other country's trying to influence our elections. Suddenly, tho, the opinion of leaders of other countries and terrorist organizations are valid.

Make up your mind. Stick to it. Do you care what other countries think about our voting? If we let the terrorists influence our election, we've really lost all hope.

Do you understand that Al Qaeda grew out of Saudi Wahabbism which has almost no following at all in Iraq?

Not entirely true. The Sunni are a faction of (albeit a two or three-time removed cousin) Saudi Wahabbism mixed with a solid dose of B'aath Party politics and fascism. (Source: Stephen Vincent's "In The Red Zone". Vincent was a NYT reporter who has kidnapped and murdered as an act of retribution for exposing a plot and scheme by Sunni operatives who had infiltrated Iraqi police forces and were assisinating them at will.) Moreover, AQ in Iraq operates largely in the Sunni Triangle and western Baghdad.

Seems Al Qaeda in Iraq views the Democrats taking both Houses of Congress the same way they viewed the Socialists winning in Spain after the 3/11 Madrid bombings: as a victory for AQ.

Way to go, America.