« Cindy Sheehan Hospitalized In Texas | Main | More TracFones Possibly For Terrorism »

Every Bad Thing In The World Is Not A Result Of Iraq

The Anchoress has a brilliant message, in pictures, for those who think the most recent attempted terror attack, or any of the successful past terror attacks were in response to anything George Bush has done, in Iraq or elsewhere.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Every Bad Thing In The World Is Not A Result Of Iraq:

» Webloggin linked with Why Do They Hate Us?

» Another Blogger linked with Hunger Strikes

Comments (28)

Nice link, I love seeing ra... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

Nice link, I love seeing rants like this:

"Did President Bush’s “moronic policies” do all of that stuff? Oh, wait…we’re not seeing attacks every 18 months, anymore - are we? "

This as evidence of good policy, apparently.

3/11/2004: Spain Terror Attacks, 192 dead - - over 2000 injured.

7/7/2005: Britian Terror Attacks, 52 dead - - over 750 injured.

Hard to keep reading a story that basically starts with an ill informed snotty rhetorical question.

Right, because clearly Pres... (Below threshold)

Right, because clearly President Bush is the one who is responsible for failing to prevent terrorist attacks in Spain and Britain.

In some peoples' minds anyway.

Well, a mind is a terrible ... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Well, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. How terrible to waste one's mind, or never to have had one at all.

Use it or lose it.

yes, Lorie, brilliant. Lori... (Below threshold)
frank:

yes, Lorie, brilliant. Lorie's whole characteristicaly moronic post is based on a baseless assumption that Lefties are blaming the attempted London bombing on Bush's policies. Where are these people, and are they of even the least credible ilk? I trove the left wing blogs daily and this is not anywhere close to the daily talking points. PLEASSSE find something meaningful to write about instead of this partisan stormtrooper bullshit.

Lorie's whole cha... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Lorie's whole characteristicaly moronic post is based on a baseless assumption that Lefties are blaming the attempted London bombing on Bush's policies.

Frank, many of us that have been paying attention over the years have got to ask, “Where have you’ve been not to have heard the left espouse over and over President Bush creates more terrorists?”

Where are these people, and are they of even the least credible ilk?

Funny you should ask, one was a Democrat running for President.

Kerry: Bush policies fuel terrorist recruitment

Link HERE

I believe this administration, in its policies, is actually encouraging the recruitment of terrorists," Kerry told CNN's "American Morning."

Geez, the moronic stuff tha... (Below threshold)
wave man:

Geez, the moronic stuff that I have been reading on the comments the last few days since I got back into town make me wonder if it's not time for Paul to turn off the comments. The deranged moonbats seem to have come out of the woodwork and have infested this blog... too bad. Used to be a reasonable discussion, even the lefties were civil most of the time. Now it seems to have degenerated into a "I hate Bush", "Lorie and the rest are idiots and morons" discussion. Guess I'll consider skipping the comments. And miss some good information ocassionally interjected therein.

Where are these pe... (Below threshold)
Marc:
Where are these people, and are they of even the least credible ilk? I trove the left wing blogs daily and this is not anywhere close to the daily talking points.
I have to ask Frank, are you blind, stupid or both?

Here start with Ace's post that detail the DUmmies thoughts on the matter. And don't claim they are not "creditable," Johm F'n Kerry has posted there and so has Dean.

How about these two threads at Newsvine. Both are stories by the AP when it first broke.

This has this as the first comment:
"It’s unbelievable how many “terror plots” are being thwarted just in time for midterm elections. People in power are systematically using fear to manipulate the minds and hearts of people.”

Or the first comment in this thread: “Tony Blair has painted a big bullseye on London with his irresponsible and active support of bush in Iraq. He will be in large part responsible for any major terror attack in London.”

How about Talk Left one of the biggest left weblogs out there. This post is just after the news broke, notice the theme is about how Bush is using it to political advantage.

How about Sen. Harry “We killed the Patriot Act” Reid, who could only whine and stomp his feet because that Eviiiil Bush has diverted funds to Iraq that has led to more terrorists.

Look around Frank instead of posting crapola

Nobody in these comments bl... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

Nobody in these comments blamed Bush for anything. The only complaint is that Lorie linked to some uber-partisan, non-sensical post as if it weren't some worthless diatribe.

My first comment wasn't saying Bush was to blame, it was merely pointing out that it is hard to read a post that blatantly ignores two huge terrorist attacks when trying to say, "Oh, wait…we’re not seeing attacks every 18 months, anymore - are we?"

My first comment ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
My first comment wasn't saying Bush was to blame, it was merely pointing out that it is hard to read a post that blatantly ignores two huge terrorist attacks when trying to say, "Oh, wait…we’re not seeing attacks every 18 months, anymore - are we?” .

The part you are missing is that lefties have been blaming President Bush for creating terrorism. The link is merely pointing out the terror attacks in sequence on “American” interests before Bush took office.

The latest message from the left is “see, they are still after us because Bush keeps pissing them off”, as if some sort of warm fuzzy kum-bye-ya vibe from Democrats is going to stop it.

Focus, Bill, focus………

JumpingJoe, keep up the par... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

JumpingJoe, keep up the paranoia, it suits you.

Democrats aren't saying terrorism exsists because of Bush, they are saying things could be done better.

Though, here, and many other places (including from the mouth of a former Democratic VP) people are openly calling Democrats un-American and the reason for terrorism because they oppose some of the actions taken by Bush.

Which seems more unreasonable? Discontent over the direction we have taken to prevent terrorism, or telling a group of Americans that they don't care about freedom and want the terrorists to win?

We can help this discussion... (Below threshold)
eman:

We can help this discussion by making a timeline.
Start in 1979 and end today. Mark the line with appropriate events and apply some logic and experience. Include Presidential terms and other factors and see if anything jumps out.

The problem I have with Dem... (Below threshold)
Delta OP:

The problem I have with Democrats on the issue of national security is they ALWAYS say that the President messed things up in Iraq and the GWOT and that "it could have been done better" but they never go on to provide any details on how they would have done things differently. They say the Bush Administration did not have a plan for post-war Iraq but then they don't give guidance as to how they would have done things differently other than to say it is time to leave or that the war was a mistake even though more Democrats voted for the war than voted against it. It seems only Democrats can disassociate themesleves from their vote while the President and his fellow Republicans in stark contrast are being held totally responsible for the fact that Iraq is not yet a peaceful democracy withinn four years. But it is that lack of new ideas that make the Democrats suspect when it comes to the whole issue of national security. Is it that hard for liberals to understand why they cannot be trusted on this issue? Viewing things merely with hindsight does not require great intelligence. Leadership and new ideas speak louder than "I told you so." I am waiting for the great plan from the Democrats but we all know it will never be forthcoming...

Just because you ignore and... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

Just because you ignore and dislike the idea presented by the democrats does not mean they haven't been offered.

And, since the course has b... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

And, since the course has been to "keep doing what we are doing", looking into the past to point out things wrong with the plan is totally acceptable. If you are still doing the same thing you were doing a year ago, pointing out why you were wrong then is still applicable to today.

JumpingJoe, keep ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
JumpingJoe, keep up the paranoia, it suits you.

Gee, the base of my political party affiliation hasn’t sunk nearly into the depths of paranoia as we seen from your side of the fence.

Government plots to take down the WTC so we can seize oil fields.

U.S. Cruise missiles hitting the Pentagon for special affects.

Fascists dictatorships taking over America.

Bush equals Hitler…blah blah blah

Democrats aren't saying terrorism exsists because of Bush, they are saying things could be done better.

Bill, someone left you out of the loop in the talking points department. However, given the floor to speak your mind, please, please, because no one else will, tell us how to do it better.

Or are you also waiting like the rest of us for the “big plan unveiling” from the Democrats.

The only things we know for sure now in the BIG BIG BETTER PLAN are:

No Patriot Act

No NSA

Treat Al qaeda as if they have American constitutional rights.

Which seems more unreasonable? Discontent over the direction we have taken to prevent terrorism, or telling a group of Americans that they don't care about freedom and want the terrorists to win.

I’ve been around the block enough to recognize the utter contempt the left has had with anything to do with the GWOT. Keep pretending that hasn’t been the case.

Don’t worry though, those driving the agenda in the Democratic Party base will speak on your behalf loud and clear and I got a dollar to your dime they are not going to come off as reasonable.

So, what is that plan on the GWOT? Be specific because I will ask the who, what, where, why and when questions.

There are far more reasons ... (Below threshold)
Bill k:

There are far more reasons than the GWOT as to why Democrats have an almost Pavlovian response to the name George Bush. So, please don't try to act as if Dems have contempt for stopping terrorism, when if fact they merely have contempt for the sitting President.

As for what I would do? That point is as moot as humanely possible. I am a 26 year old sitting in front of a computer in downtown Omaha, NE. That being said, when people like Wesley Clark, John Murtha, Hilary Clinton, and John Kerry do present ideas on how to move forward in the GWOT, which has happened, meeting their ideas with insults regarding their patroitism and desire for freedom is the absolute wrong way to go.

I am not a military strategist or a political operative, I am an American kid basically. What burns me about this debate isn't that people have differing opinions and that "my sides" opinions are currently not being the ones followed, but rather that the statement of these opinions are met with vile pronouncements about how the people stating them want the terrorists to win and hate America.

It isn't fringe members of the Republican party making these statements either, as it is the fringe members of the left making statements regarding governmental plots regarding 9/11.

Your last post even has the overtones I am talking about. Democrats have never said they don't want a Patriot Act or NSA. They have only flatly stated that when it comes to how monitoring domestic targets it must be done so in a legal way. As the Brits were able to do in this recent incident (all arrests, taps, etc came with warrants).

And, not for nothing, my original post wasn't meant to be about the war or Bush or anything. It was simply to point out that a fairly large and respected moderate to conservative website pointed us to a link where someone's main thesis was this:

"Did President Bush’s “moronic policies” do all of that stuff? Oh, wait…we’re not seeing attacks every 18 months, anymore - are we?"

To someone that apparently took the time to research the past 20 years of major terror attacks but left out the largest two of the past 4 years.

So, please don't ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
So, please don't try to act as if Dems have contempt for stopping terrorism, when if fact they merely have contempt for the sitting President.

This sums it up nicely. Because of the contempt for President Bush, the left will do everything in their power to ensure absolutely no credit will ever be given to Bush for anything. To include calling terrorists “Freedom Fighters” as long as it goes against the grain of what the President is doing.

We have recognized this because it has been so blatantly obvious.

As for what I would do? That point is as moot as humanely possible.

If this point is moot, than any of your arguments in this arena of ideas is moot also. When I pull a lever in a voting booth I do so knowing what my principles are, not a bunch of blanket promises of “doing it better” without details.

being said, when people like Wesley Clark, John Murtha, Hilary Clinton, and John Kerry do present ideas on how to move forward in the GWOT, which has happened, meeting their ideas with insults regarding their patroitism and desire for freedom is the absolute wrong way to go.

Wow, ya think there has been some partisanship out there lately. I won’t waste my time reposting all the vile nasty things said about this President or Republicans by Democrats.

I will say this in response, a majority of senior military personnel have countered each of those you mention. I would rather follow the expertise than someone saying something off the cuff just to be a political hack.

It isn't fringe members of the Republican party making these statements either, as it is the fringe members of the left making statements regarding governmental plots regarding 9/11.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but it is the fringe on left that has the momentum in the Democratic Party.

I will promise you mass quantities of “I told you so” when the far left really starts cracking the whip on those not towing the left wing political line.

You’ll see, really, I promise.

Democrats have never said they don't want a Patriot Act or NSA. They have only flatly stated that when it comes to how monitoring domestic targets it must be done so in a legal way. .

And it’s been pointed out over and over again that it was and is. Every Democrat has had a chance to go visit the NSA and get the grand tour and briefings.

Once they do that it sure seems to shut them up from the political posturing.

As the Brits were able to do in this recent incident (all arrests, taps, etc came with warrants .

The news has been reporting that WE were monitoring their communications also. Do you have a complaint about that?

It was simply to point out that a fairly large and respected moderate to conservative website pointed us to a link where someone's main thesis was this.

And it was pointed out to you that the list was “American” targets. Sheesh…..


(1) It wasn't pointed out t... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

(1) It wasn't pointed out that they were American Targets.

(1b) I don't think the Munich massacre had a whole hell of a lot to do with Americans, except a boost.

(2) Wesley Clark is a retired 4-Star General and the former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of Nato (and a Fox News contributor which probably lends itself to more credibility to you). I don't think he qualifies as a political hack.

(3) I didn't say I thought the existence of the NSA was illegally had. Democrats have brought up points in which illegal acts have been done. That is all. A tour won't be necessary.

(4) I don't have problems with the tracking operations of the US, as long as they are done legally.

(5) The fringe of the left does not have the momentum of the Democratic Party. That is an asinine statement.

I totally agree Jumpinjoe. ... (Below threshold)
Delta OP:

I totally agree Jumpinjoe. Bill says we have seen plans from Murtha, Kerry and Clinton but I have to say they were very short on details and quite often resemble what we are already doing. It is almost as if they have to voice their strong objections just to get it on the record but they really have no new ideas.

As you said, what we have seen is that the Democrats don't like the Patriot Act, they don't like what the NSA is doing and they want to close Guantanamo and give the detainees the same rights as any American. I ask you this: how do these things they are proposing help in the GWOT - especially when you consider how this latest plot in Britain was stopped? And I (and really most other conservatives) have never questioned the patriotism of any of the leaders you have mentioned Bill. We question their judgment and most of these characters and those who support them jump to that conclusion all by themselves.

Bill K.-Since when... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Bill K.-

Since when did George Bush become king of england and Spain?

Wish Bush would tell us how... (Below threshold)
ClearwaterConservative:

Wish Bush would tell us how babysitting the Iraqis while they have a civil war helps us fight the war on terrorism.

Go into a room full of Demo... (Below threshold)
Eman:

Go into a room full of Democrats and yell "nine eleven!" and you'll get a few murmurs. Go into that same room and yell "Florida!" and they'll totally freak out.

Everything they say and do and are is about domestic politics. The far-left Dems are nothing more than a bunch of frustrated Bolsheviks. Puke.

CC-Well all we nee... (Below threshold)
Rory:

CC-

Well all we need is terrorists to get to the infrastructure of a nation state.

Hezbollah has about 40% of Lebanon and look how well that's going.

Babysit it now[your term] or pay more later.

There is a wing of Conservatives that mirrors the bury your head in the sand , ignore -it -make- it -go- away isolationism of the Democrats.

That lack of response or wishing for *MOMMY* to make it all go away-like the Black Hawk Down incident, Khobar Towers, Kenya and Tanzania US embassy bombings AND the USS Cole is how the terrorists got the message that they would have to hit something the Liberal Leadership of America gave a damn about at the time-

New York, New York.

Democrats *could* be doing ... (Below threshold)

Democrats *could* be doing a lot to bring new energy and ideas into problem solving and rebuilding in Iraq and the larger GWOT. Why don't they?

Let's think about that a moment... it would require a cooperative attitude, publically taking the effort seriously, oh yeah... they'd get politically crucified for being a Bush lap puppy.

What good does Iraq do? And this question comes from people who, supposedly, belong to the party of social justice and root causes... but seeing the good that would come from a liberal democracy and rule of law in Iraq is just too hard to do. I wonder why? Equality and social justice... isn't that supposed to be a Democrat strength?

No, their leadership and their netroots are too busy opposing Bush in anything he does to recognize that tyranny and the social conditions that it engenders have a role to play. People who would normally be expected to advocate equal rights suddenly can't find a reason that actively working for a good solution in Iraq is worth their time or effort.

Specific suggestions on "how to do it better" run from "redeploy" to "pull out and let them figure it out themselves."

Bring the troops home now. Nothing is worth American lives.

F**k the rest of the world.

My heavens - I wrote that w... (Below threshold)
The Anchoress:

My heavens - I wrote that whole post, and one of the commenters here has focused on ONE line ("Did President Bush’s “moronic policies” do all of that stuff? Oh, wait…we’re not seeing attacks every 18 months, anymore - are we?") to the exclusion of all else, and totally missed the point.

The point was made in response to the email I received from a hater who said, as I quoted in the header, "THIS WOULDN'T BE HAPPENING IF BUSH HADN'T INVADED IRAQ," which, if that needs translating, basically posited that terrorism is the fault of the Iraq invasion. I had no choice but to challenge that statement and list just some of the terrorist attacks that occured way, way, way, way, way BEFORE Bush even sobered up and decided to run for president. And, umm...way before the Iraq conflict.

"Bush" (and congress and our allies) invaded Iraq in 2003. The WHOLE POINT of the post was to look at ALL THE TERRORIST ATTACKS WHICH HAD TAKEN PLACE PRIOR TO 2003 - prior to "Iraq." It was made to debunk the assertion of my emailer. The attacks on Britain and Spain AFTER 2003 were not included because they had nothing to do with the fact that terrorism existed BEFORE 2003, and the invasion of Iraq.

The other point is that - quite unlike the 1990's, where AlQ was busy and successful - since 9/11 there have been no successful attacks on American soil, interests or holdings, except as have occured in war...war is regretable, but at least containable...terrorism knows no boundaries.

I'm sorry to see my meaning misconstrued. I thought the post was clear enough, but it seems to have lacked lucidity for at least one person. :-) I hope this helps.

"I am a 26 year old sitting... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"I am a 26 year old sitting in front of a computer in downtown Omaha, NE."

"..I am an American kid basically. "


26 y.o. and you still consider yourself a kid?

I don't know if that's the typical Democrat, but I do remember feeling better when Republicans were elected in the last few elections; the adults were back in charge.

26? A 26 year old would be... (Below threshold)

26? A 26 year old would be what... a Captain? Enlisted side... Staff Sergeant? Definately in leadership positions by that age.

thanks for the link...... (Below threshold)

thanks for the link...

The Anchoress and You are outstanding...




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy