Leaving it to the Byrds.... Bush creates a problem by invading Iraq, turning it into a training ground for terrorists, and then the Bushbots come along and pretend we can't leave because -- hey! it's now a training ground for terrorists!!!

How many "gradating classes" of AQ terrorists have to go through cap and gown before you'll admit it was a bad idea to be there in the first place?

Leeward, do I have to get out my favorite State Department News Release again?

Let me quote once again from this official news release from the United States Department of State:

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.

Let me also note once again that the date on this news release was 04 Nov 1998.

So, before Dubya ever set foot in the Oval Office; before Dubya ever won the election; before Dubya ever got the GOP nomination; before Dubya ever entered a primary race for President; before a single vote was cast for Dubya: al-Qaeda and Iraq were working together.

You cannot deny that.

I anticipate a lot of spin, tho.

If there had been a President in the 90's who had tackled the hard problems instead of picking the low hanging fruit, taking the politically expedient and less risky path, the problem may not have emerged as large as it did.

However, that might have exposed the folly of his military slashing campaign and the woeful funding it had sunk to. That might have exposed the budget balancing on the back of the military and national defense and security.

I love the liberal statement that "BUSH INVADED IRAQ AND THEN AL QAEDA WAS THERE!!!! IF HE HADN'T INVADED THEN AL QAEDA WOULD HAVE SIMPLY BOUGHT IPODS AND BURGER KING AND WE'D ALL FLY KITES AND PLAY IN THE SUNSHINE!!" Yeah, I remember when Bush invaded Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda showed up there too...

C-C-G,

Look, these were the best talking points Media Matters could fax to me on such short notice. I know it's crappy spin, but it's the best they got right now.

Editor's Note: Jo, knock it off.

Look, these were the best talking points Media Matters could fax to me on such short notice. I know it's crappy spin, but it's the best they got right now.

Well, you'll just have to go search Kos or DU for your talking points now, won't ya?

Comment 5 is a sockpuppet --

What you knuckleheads are saying here is... we drove gasoline tankers into the forest and threw gasoline all around, the forest caught fire as a result, and now we need to keep driving gasoline tankers into the raging inferno because, hey! the forest is on fire -- we can't leave now!

You guys amaze me...

Bush creates a problem by invading Iraq,

Wrong....step up and own it!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

What you knuckleheads are saying here is... we drove gasoline tankers into the forest and threw gasoline all around, the forest caught fire as a result, and now we need to keep driving gasoline tankers into the raging inferno because, hey! the forest is on fire -- we can't leave now!

BRILLIANT! BRILLIANT !

More anolgies!

No, Leeward, what we are saying is that the forest was on fire, we are trying to extinguish it, but like most fires, it is behaving unpredictably and sometimes slips containment.

And it would be a lot easier to put out if we didn't have a bunch of people standing around asking, "Is it out yet," declaring our attempt to put it out a "failure" while we're still bringing in more firemen, and shutting off the water pumps!

Oh, just an FYI, Leeward, I have that State Department News Release bookmarked, and every time I see you or one of your fellow lefties bring up the "AQ wasn't in Iraq before 2003" meme, I will trot it out and make you look like the absolute idiots you apparently are. Fair warning.

Lee
What you will not dare say is that Bush wants to finish a difficult war and that his strategy, which has evolved, is beginning to work. So now Democrats are in full panic with the results released today (and who would doubt they knew this earlier in the weeks before) because goals are being met. We are, what, four full weeks into the surge with total projected troop strength, and look at the results. No wonder PelosiCo/ReidCo are panicing for a retreat. This surge might actually work!
And what might that say about the Dems? Total sellouts of the very troops and General they voted for.

And the reason that al-Queda have grown so much larger in Iraq and elsewhere is because we are there..seems pretty obvious to me.. so lets see how many remain if we leave, and let the locals confront them, those of Al Queda that don't melt away.
One of my difficulties 'with the fighting them there meme' is as this 'The Nation' article attests that's where so many of the Iraqis are too.. and our troops abetted by al Queda tactics, even experienced vets fail to make the distinctions "I guess while I was there, the general attitude was, A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi" which is exactly the type of scenario al-Queda wants the US military to view Iraqis in order to further its militant objectives.

Steve, the Iraqis can't fight them alone. That's been shown time and time again. Even the Bible of the Democratic Party, the NY Times, says that our withdrawal will lead to genocide.

Is that what you want?

I support us leaving when the Iraqis can fight al-Qaeda on their own. That is not today, nor will it be tomorrow.

Lorie: there's a big difference between going after terrorists (which I, and most America approve of) and having American soldiers die to prevent intramural squabbling among the various Iraqi factions jockeying for power (which seemingly, only you, CCG and some other koolaid drinkers seem to approve of).

If Bush were to come up with a plan of going after Al Qaeda, wherever they are, whether they be in Iraq, Pakistan or here in America, we'd support him. But as long as he has American troops playing peacemaker, he ain't going to have a whole lot of support.

And no, going after Al Qaeda doesn't mean one has to play peacemaker.

"..but do we really want to take Osama bin Laden's word for anything?" Lorie

Gee Lorie, do you want to comment on all those times Bush said we know OBL wants to make Iraq the central front in the war against the US because that is what he has said? Isn't Bush taking OBL's word for that?

Does anyone here deny that there will be retribution in Iraq by and among Iraqis that have melded into AQ or Iraqis that have actively joined AQ?
What is undeniable about the "fight them over there" argument is that they attacked us over here first...beginning in the early 1990's. What is different now than before is that we have attacked AQ where they are instead of waiting to defend ourselves here.
We can argue all day about whether AQ was in Iraq pre 9/11....does anyone dispute that that they are now? And so what if our invasion brought them there? They are there and we are killing them. What do you want? For us to wait until they show up in Atlanta like they did in NYC?
Here's a blunt point that will infuriate the lefties: remember Braveheart? Wallace made a point of "picking a fight" with his adversary. Why? To communicate very clearly that he was ready to kill him. That is the only way to defeat AQ. Kill them. Wherever they are.
A liberal icon understood this point well: FDR.

Barney

Gee Lorie, do you want to comment on all those times Bush said we know OBL wants to make Iraq the central front in the war against the US because that is what he has said? Isn't Bush taking OBL's word for that?

Are you taking UBL's word for that?

Lorie has a GUT feeling.......................

stevesturm

If Bush were to come up with a plan of going after Al Qaeda, wherever they are, whether they are in Iraq, Pakistan or here in America, we'd support him. But as long as he has American troops playing peacemaker, he ain't going to have a whole lot of support.

That's what the surge is about. Ramadi, Anbar, Fallujah...don't see a lot of peace makin goin on there. I do see a lot of AQ dead and provinces and towns once in the grip of Iraqi thugs who once quartered AQ but have now, amazingly, changed their minds.

Read Michael Yon or B5 for on the ground details.

As for adopting a phrase I like "bring the war home now", which is really what the liberals are asking for.

I also like "Democrats are vested in defeat", which came in part form other wizbang commenters.

Semanticleo

Lorie has a GUT feeling.......................

That's clever...did you bring an argument with you or just TIVO?

Hugh: the surge is only partly about going after Al Qaeda. Troops are also being committed to stopping the intramural fighting. Consider this: every US soldier committed to stopping Iraqi-v-Iraqi fighting is one less soldier available to go after Al Qaeda. Is that a smart use of our military?

"..remember Braveheart?" Hughs

Yea, that worked out real well for the Scots.

You guys amaze me...

So that's why you keep jumping the fence; to be with amazing guys.

Consider this: every US soldier committed to stopping Iraqi-v-Iraqi fighting is one less soldier available to go after Al Qaeda. Is that a smart use of our military?

That's the best argument I have heard so far for "bring the war home now." Once we get the Iraqis out of the way we can fight al Qaeda more efficiently. It's also cheaper to fight them here. Make al Qaeda spend all that money supporting their fighters on foreign soil.

every US soldier committed to stopping Iraqi-v-Iraqi fighting is one less soldier available to go after Al Qaeda. Is that a smart use of our military?

I don't agree with the metric: AQ is a parasite that consumes what it can. It actively and successfully recruits what it can exploit. Destroy its ability to exploit and recruit and it is dead.

Nice article by Victor Davis Hanson in the City Journal destroying the 7/8/07 NYTimes editorial that is the catechism of the defeatists.
===============================

"..remember Braveheart?" Hughs

Yea, that worked out real well for the Scots.

Ahhh, that's why I so look forward to your comments here BarneyG2000. You, with the exception of Lee, so completely throw yourself on your own petard that rebuttal seems almost redundant.

Go to the well Barney, and drink deeply from your new disciple Jim Webb ( D-VA), who championed the Scots as the very backbone of our liberty. Might want to frisk him first...he may be carrying.

IF we hadn't gone in
IF Saddam hadn't violated UN resolutions
IF AQ hadn't decided to attack us
ETC.

If is for children

The adults realize that Bush is in a no-win position with the appeasers on the left. If we were not in Iraq today then they would be demanding that we go in and root them out of Saddam's Iraq. They would be asking why Bush hadn't connected the dots between Saddam and the training camps that AQ had spread around the Iraqi countryside.

Shine the cold, hard light on this war and you see that this is like every other war. It is hell. This war has obviously not been executed with video game perfection, but sans the American left giving aid and comfort to the enemy everyday, this probably would have gone down as one of the best fought asymmetrical wars in our history. Minimal casualties relative to the size of the enemy's force and considering an ROE that values mosques and villagers more than our own soldiers, it is amazing we have had as few casualties as we have had.

True, Bush has failed to fight the enemy here at home very effectively but I chalk that up to him thinking that the Left in this country had honor. We now know it doesn't and the sooner Bush deals with that reality, the better it will go for our troops.

We have managed to suck the enemy into a region that would allow us to kill them all if we wanted to. I personally believe that this is what Bush and his commanders have wanted all along. Bring them to us since going after them in the mountains of Afghanistan is brutal work.

This surge is going to work even with the Left in this country working full time to make sure that we lose. When we achieve victory in Iraq, the conservative wing of the party will prevail.

Beeblebrox

Right you are, and welcome. Here's the left's take on this very early in the battle.
No link because of date, but if words mean things find this speech by Gore to witness the highest form of hypocrisy:

September 29th, 1992, Al Gore at the Center for National Policy.

Being in Iraq created a problem in Iraq like a bug zapper is responsible for the mosquito problem in the backyard.

Thing is, the zapper concentrates the bugs around it. But smart people stick it in the corner and enjoy the reduced bug count everywhere else.

Is this fair to the Iraqis, probably not. But no one really planned for it. And the sooner the Iraqis step up, the sooner they will be gone.

CLAP LOUDER, WINGNUTS! Maybe you'll get a pony for Xmas too.

You guys have been reduced to lobotomized cheerleaders. It's kind of sad. It's 4th quarter, your team is down by 35 point, but you must cheer loudly! Go team! Because that's all you know how to do, is to root for a lost cause.

WOW! The nutroots are out in force today! Sorry, but I just got to the party.

HUGE hattip to Lorie Byrd for referencing someone who referenced Willie Sutton! He robbed banks because (when asked why he robbed banks): "Your Honor, that's where they keep the money!!"

Why did we attack Iwo Jima? (a tiny island that never did ANYTHING to us): "Because that's where the Japs were!"

Why are we fighting (and devastating) alQueda in the country of Iraq? BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY ARE!

EVERY death of a U.S. Serviceman or Servicewoman is a tragedy! Every one!

That said...we are nation of 300,000,000.

If we are to declare "DEFEAT" because we have lost 3,000 of those 300,000,000 then we are doomed to be relegated to the dustbin of history!

And if our enemies know that inflicting a .001% loss on us is sufficient to force our surrender then we will be relentlessly attacked! Plain truth.

Once the Democrats cut the supply lines of their enemy Bush will have no choice but to bring the war home to America. Then the chickenhawks and the chickens will all get to fight and die side by side. "Bring the war home now, it's what you voted for."

I love it. The democrats surrendered Vietnam long after the war was won. Winning in Iraq doesn't matter, they'll surrender Iraq anyway so we may as well pull every troop out of the Middle East (not just Iraq) and prepare for warfare in the streets of America. I can round up enough Vet's tomorrow to kill every muslem in this area. Are you prepared to do the same in your neighborhood? Don't like the idea, you had better get used to it. There is no such thing as a peaceful muslem, only a terrorists in waiting, groomed from birth to kill, kill and kill. That puts them on the same mentally ill level with the democrats. Maybe we'll hold off on killing them until they weed out the cowardly democrat traitors for us. Surrender and retreat from the Middle East tomorrow, bring the war to the United States, the people need a hard lesson.