The leaders of the West - especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and Brown - still talk about freedom and human rights with a flagrant disregard for the intellects of human beings. So is there a form of terrorism stronger, clearer and more dangerous than this? This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings, and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system."
Osama Bin Laden - Video Tape released 9-7-07
If you remove the Bin Laden name and read just the second paragraph, you could attribute that statement to Lenin, Stalin, and millions of Americans who subscribe to European style socialism and/or communism. It seems Bin Laden has taken a page out of the communist handbook, a page from the Democrat's political playbook, mixed them together rapidly, and viola: a little class warfare along with his proselytizing for Islam.
Our fellow citizens who would prefer to just pull up stakes and get out of Iraq as quickly as they can are not performing up to Mr. Bin Laden's expectations either:
"The vast majority of you (Americans) want it (the Iraqi war) stopped. Thus you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted by disappointment."
He's mad because the Dems have been unable to pull the plug, even though they control both houses of Congress. It would seem that there are times when gridlock serves a very useful purpose.
My fellow liberal Americans, how does it feel to be doing the bidding of Osama? I know you're not doing it intentionally, but you're playing on his side nonetheless. It would appear that he feels Iraq is a center of the War on Terrorism, contrary to what the Boobsey Twins: Reid & Durbin think. Listening to the two of them bloviate yesterday was incredibly disheartening. Whining that since the President stopped in Iraq, General Petraeus's report will only be what Bush allows (Reid), or whining that the surge is an obvious failure (Durbin), these two have probably done more to benefit the Republican Party than anyone else. If you needed any further evidence that politics, not the welfare of the nation, is their primary focus, yesterdays remarks should have sealed the deal for you. Not to mention the fact that Dirty Harry's idiotic statement basically asserts that General Petraeus is not an honest man, capable of speaking his own mind - only a toadie for GWB. If I were the General, I think I'd demand an apology from Reid and then knock him on his ass if he failed to apologize immediately. I don't subscribe to violence as a remedy in many situations, but if you insult my integrity and honesty with absolutely no proof of same, a shot to offending aperture is not necessarily unwarranted.
"If ...General Pratraeus is allowed to give his report, I'll bet a dollar to a hole in a donut that they'll reject the report out of hand, regardless of the facts on the ground. If you don't believe that, you don't know a real politician."
That quote comes from the Nostradamus of Watson - yours truly, from my blog of Wednesday, July 11th. I never did receive any takers on the bet - go figure. The rejection of the report has already begun, politics reigns supreme as usual, and the American soldier continues to represent the heart of America, while some of it's politicians continue to represent the end of the alimentary canal.
14 comments:
Having been a starving musician yourself, thought i'd pass this video on. Has nothing to do with your post other than the "Religion of Peace" link w/ UBL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9oX5Q2ftmA
Stuckmojo is the band here is their link. Help them out pass it on http://www.stuckmojomedia.com/
I'm a democrat, Watson, and I'm listening. And not only listening but responding.
There is absolutely no question you are very sincere in the Iraq war premise you offer. And we share the common ground of being proud Americans. However, I hold the belief, contrary to yours, that we should militarily withdraw from Iraq for the following reasons.
1. Our military has accomplished the originally stated mission that we should make the world safe from Saddam's WMDs and depose the autocratic ruler. We did it with efficiency and effectiveness.
2. Iraq is now involved in a civil war and we are inappropriately taking sides in it.
There is no way we can win militarily.
3. To indicate that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 is an obvious incorrect statement.
4. The volunteer army which has done wonderfully effective service in both the Afghanistan and Iraq theaters is close to breaking.
5. The majority of the American people as surveyed by numerous polls. confirmed by last year's elections, agree with the withdrawal sentiment. So its not just the 'misguided' libs like me.
I want the best for the USA, just like you, but I'm not going to conspicuously wrap myself in the flag as a promotion device. That sort of behavior will win you lots of applause at the bar at the Legion but with your obvious intellect and writing ability think bigger and broader.
www.dangerdemocrat.blogspot.com
WTF? Osama has gotten exactly what he has wished for!
US military stretched to its limits.
Increased number of worldwide terrorist attacks.
Increased number of disaffected young muslim men joining terrorist groups.
Low international standing of the USA.
Loss of moral high ground due to USA torture policy.
Who exactly is doing the bidding of bin Laden?
BTW - Six years after 9/11 and Osama is still free?
The ususal brilliant insights offered by someone without a name.
Military stretched to limit - very much so, but still quite capable of reacting anywhere in the world.
Increased number of attacks worldwide: yeah, that's our fault, if only we hadn't gone into Iraq, Muslims everywhere would be converting to Christianity. Even if we weren't in Iraq, the attacks would be worldwide and continuous, just have they have been since the 1970's. Did you watch the video? They train their children to be suicide bombers and you're bitching about disaffected young men - just how is it that you learn anything about politics and history - watching Oprah?
Low international standing - first, who cares, and second - it's been that way for years - just ask the French.
Loss of high gound due to toruture - remind me who it is that decapitates people will you?
It is an honor to pursue intellectual arguments with people who offer true thought - anonymous - you simply regurgitate all the idiotic pablum you swallow on a daily basis with all of the insight and thoughtfulness of a 3rd grader - keep up the good work.
DD - I must strongly disagree with one of your premises - the fact that we are involved in a civil war. Is there sectarian violence - of course. Anytime warfare rears it's ugly head, the criminals will take advantage, and people with a grudge will try and find a way to exercise their desire for vengence. Our Revolutionary War and Civil War are replete with incidents that were not related to the war at all, but are simply one group getting even with another. However, they are not responsible for the majority of the violence. What will it take to convince you that AQ is the primary driving force behind the violence in Iraq? Are the Sunni sheiks in Anbar Province turning on the terrorists because they are their fellow Iraqi's? No, my friend, they are turning on the outside forces that are disrupting their country.
All of the other points that you list I am in agreement with, more or less. You can see from my reply to anonymous that although I am concerned about the limits to which our forces are stretched, I ave no doubt that we can still react anywhere in the world on a timely basis, if not a sustained basis.
As far as your last parting shot about "wrapping myself in a flag as a promotion device", I can assure you that is not an action that I would ever take. The reason I asked that people fly the flag on 9-11 is because it was in an email sent to me by my wife. It is apparently an effort by many on a countrywide basis to fly the flag in honor of those who lost their lives on 9-11. I will not wrap myself in patriotism to make my point, but neither will I hide my patriotism. If you feel that it was simply a device to make a point, then you just need to get to know me a little better.
My dear Watson, it was I who wrote the "anonymous" comment because I wanted to see your reaction to a "dreaded liberal". You know, we are all Americans and need to work together etc.? Isn't that what you believe? You and I could probably argue all day about "idiotic pablum" and who is swallowing it. However, I didn't notice any personal attacks in the comment by "anonymous" (me). But it's clear from your reply exactly who is relatively more thoughtful (and respectful). BTW, I have my own blog which does not use comment moderation. That's because when someone disagrees with me, I do not personally attack them in a response. Whether the response is anonymous or not.
The USA has not always been hated around the world. This just is not the case and I know it from personal experience in my travels and from living abroad. And who cares if it is hated? I do. I love my country and I want it to be a beacon of democracy and rule of law around the world. As for the Frencyh, remember, there would be no USA today without the French. I cannot believe anyone who professes to be a Christian can defend torture. But that's conservative "values" for you.
Many of our generals are saying our Army is broken and stretched to its limits. 40% of the equipment needs replacing. Our army cannot reach its recruitment goals. My young cousin has been to Iraq twice and will soon be returning. He has been to Afghanistan twice and Korea once. He is thinking of leaving the military. Being "patriotic" and saying you do not believe that our Army is in trouble does not change reality.
Yes, there have always been terrorists attacks worldwide. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, I get mine from the US Dept. of State, but terrorists attacks have increased sharply worldwide since the Iraq War.
No I don't watch Oprah, but I don't watch Fox News either.
Dear PCS:
Thank you for stepping forward. I stand corrected and I offer my apology to you because now you have taken the time to respond with some thought, not just bullets you could find on Move On.org. I'm sorry if it took a little jab to provoke you, but I offer my apology in hopes that our future discussions will contain the degree of civility and thought that we both seek to achieve.
Bearing that thought in mind, I must take issue with this statement:
"I cannot believe anyone who professes to be a Christian can defend torture. But that's conservative "values" for you."
Now who's being nasty?
First, I do not condone the use of torture. If you've read any of my previous writings on the death penalty or abortion, you would know that I support neither. I detest violence of any kind, and I'm very proud to say I haven't been in a fight since 8th grade - and that wasn't much of one at that. I don't know what you're referring to specifically, probably waterboarding, but as long as they stay within the guidelines established by Joint Chiefs of Staff, I'm okay. I'm just very glad that I've never been placed in a position where I know an evil person has information that I know will save the lives of thousands, and it's up to me to get it out of him. I don't imagine you'd want to be in that position either, and God only knows how either of us would react.
I don't believe I've ever denied that our army is stretched thin, I only made the point that we are still capable of reacting anywhere in the world if we have to.
Saying that terrorist attacks have increased since the Iraq War is quite accurate. Spain buckled, Great Britain and Australia stand strong, and there is simply no way to prove that the attacks would not have happened anyway. Those that survived the embassay attacks in Africa and the USS Cole were lucky - even though the attacks happened before we liberated Iraq.
PCS, we both want our troops out of harms way, but we both know that's not going to happen anytime soon. This war is not about Iraq, it never has been. Whether our politicians wish to admit it our not, we are fighting against the intolerance of Islam as practiced by those who kill anyone they consider to be an infidel. If you don't believe that this is the war we are in the midst of, it is much easier to understand your position on Iraq.
I said: "I cannot believe anyone who professes to be a Christian can defend torture. But that's conservative "values" for you."
You said: Loss of high gound due to toruture - remind me who it is that decapitates people will you?
I didn't mean my comment to be nasty. I was pointing out that a Christian cannot defend torture. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek and some Christian sects live by that teaching. We are supposed to be the good guys. That Islamic fundamentalists kidnap and behead innocent civilians should not be an excuse for the good guys to torture other human beings. Besides, it's against US law and International law.
As far as our military being capable of responding effectively anywhere in the world, if necessary, let's hope we don't have to find out who is right and who is wrong about that.
Do I believe there is a war on terror? No. You cannot have a war against a tactic. Is there an ongoing fight againsts those who hate the USA? There always has been and there always will be. The important question is how do you fight and defeat those individuals.
Dear PCS:
Now that we have our opening volleys out of the way and we've decided to treat each other with respect, I look forward to future debates. In one of my previous postings I noted the fact that I am pretty much a failure as a Christian when it comes to turning the other cheek, but I do not and never will condone torture, whether our enemy beheads people or not. That's one of the most basic concepts that we teach our children isn't it? Two wrongs don't make a right.
As a matter of semantics, I am forced to change my mind and agree with you that there is no "War on Terror", as your observation that you cannot have a war on a "tactic" makes perfect sense. Let me rephrase the question then, do you believe that we are in a war with Islam, or at the least, with the most radical elements of Islam? Are we not at war?
To my mind, we are at war, of that there can be no doubt. It is not a war of our choosing, though I'm sure you'll disagree as far as Iraq is concerned. To be at war means that we should be joined together to face a common enemy, but we are not because the Democrat party is invested in failure in Iraq to insure political success here at home. They have put the success of their party ahead of the welfare of the country. As I watch the replay of news coverage from the morning of 9-11-01, I can only hope that at some point the Democrat party decides to put politics aside and push the welfare of our country to the forefront. Unfortunately, it will probably take another horrific attack on this country before that happens, and that is shameful.
We need to show evidence of the same courage that the Americans on Flight 93 showed. We need to come together and eliminate the scourge of radical Islam from the face of the earth. As Americans, we are more than willing to let others live and practice the religion of their choice, but Islamic radicals are not. You think we must get out of Iraq, but I look at Iraq much as I would look at fly paper. If it's going to attract the bugs and make it easier to kill them, then keep the fly paper up and running. If we don't, if we just turn tail and run, then you'd better grab your fly-swatter, because the bugs will be coming to your house.
My dear Watson (not meant as an insult, I just like saying that because of Bell and all):
It confuses me that you persist in blaming the lack of success on curtailing terrorism on Democrats. Are you claiming that Republicans have not put their party ahead of our country in recent years? Have not Republicans been in complete control of the political process for six years? Do Republicans share any of the blame for the lack of success? What happend to capture bin Laden "dead or alive"? What happened with "Mission Accomplished". Why are Egypt, Saudi Arabi and Pakistan our allies? Weren't the 9/11 attackers from Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Isn't Pakistan harboring bin Laden? Are those three countries beacons of Democracy? Is not Saudi Arabia the home of Wahhabism, the school of islamic thought that teaches hatred of the West?
No we are not at war with Islam. At least we shouldn't be. The Qur'an is no more "war mongering" than the "old testament". We are in a battle with fundamentalist members of Islam who have been schooled in Wahhabism. Bin Laden wants nothing more than for his followers to believe the West is waging war on Islam.
The very last thing this world needs is yet another religious war. Those are the very hardest wars to end.
President Bush has been very quick to remind us that that we are not at war with Islam. Remember that G.W. Bush's best friends are Saudis.
Democrats want to win in Iraq as much as Republicans do. Democrats believe that Bush has not done such a great job in Iraq (do you think he has?). Democrats believe that the military has done what they can in Iraq and it is now time to try diplomacy.
My Dear PCS:
My dear Watson sounds so much better - Sherlock Holmes and all, so please feel free to continue in that vein.
There are always politicians that put their party ahead of their country, and I guess we should be thankful that there aren't more of them. Yes, both sides have their share, but my contention is that if Bill Clinton had taken this action, Democrats would be firmly behind this effort. The difference would be that the Republicans would be behind him as well. Not all of them to be sure, because we have our share of boneheads as well.
If you would grant me one favor, let's not go over the "Mission Accomplished" crap that always seems to be a prime talking point for liberals. The banner reflected the accomplishment of only the first phase of the mission, getting to Baghdad and removing Saddam from power - you know, I know, anybody with an ounce of brains knows it, so lets just put that tired old horse back in the barn.
What happened to Bin Laden dead or alive? How long did it take us to find Eric Rudolph in an area 10 times smaller than Pakistan? Come on PCS, everybody and their brother wants the SOB dead, and I have nothing but praise for the men and women who's boots are on the ground lookin for him.
If it bothers you that much, perhaps you're one of the few liberals who feels the FISA laws need to be updated to reflect 21st Century technology. Luckily, the Germans don't have the restrictions that we do - thus they were able to break up the plot there, based upon intelligence they gathered from listening in on the terrorists phone conversations.
As far as the Qur'an is concerned, I made a point to download the entire book shortly after 9-11, and I can assure you that it is a book that advocates violence, killing infidels, chopping off offending appendages, and a host of other positions that I find most offensive, especially as regards women.
To say that Islam is a religion of peace is to deny its history. The big difference between Christianity and Islam - one has changed and adapted over the centuries, the other is still stuck in the 5th Century.
When our less than erudite President early on made a statement about a "crusade", turbans were spinning everywhere in the Middle East. As far as I'm concerned, they are now involved in a crusade to eliminate us - and I don't intend to be eliminated.
You are absolutely right when you say that religious wars are the hardest to end, but that's why politicians around the world are dancing around the truth and not defining what's really happening.
To my knowledge, Islam is the only religion that advocates the killing of all nonbelievers, and it is there stated goal to make the entire world an Islamic world.
If you'll take a look at a couple of my latest blogs,you'll note that my confidence in George Bush as a leader is nihl. His job as President is to lead - an effort at which he has failed miserably.
Thus, the confusion over what to do in Iraq. After 30 years of running out of Vietnam, doing nothing to recover our hostages in Iran, running out of Beirut once the Marine barracks got bombed, running out of Mogadishu after an incredibly inept President wouldn't let the military bring the heavy fighting equipment they wanted, doing nothing other than firing a cruise missle into the desert after the USS Cole is attacked and sailors killed - I am quite simply sick and tired of this nation not having the persistance and dedication that it must have if we are to help others around the world enjoy the fruits of democracy.
I guess Ron Paul would disagree with me, but it is time fight against the scourge of Islam with every weapon we have available - the primary weapon being the truth. There are many that can be saved and helped, but the sad fact of the matter is that there are millions more that must either learn to accept that freedom of religion is essential to the growth of mankind, or they must be eliminated.
I know you want to win in Iraq, but you cannot rely strictly upon diplomacy to stabilize things. Without the stick, the carrot has very little appeal.
I'm too disgusted and upset with the situation in Iraq this morning to make a reasoned reply to you today. I only wish that Sgt. Mora and Sgt. Gray had an opportunity to read what you wrote today.
PCS-sorry you're having a bad day. I googled Sgt. Mora and Sgt. Gray and got a couple of different links to soldiers who have lost their lives overseas, but I'm not sure about the specific soldiers you are referring to. The loss of even one life is precious to us all PCS, and the most difficult task a leader faces is to try and balance the lives lost versus the potential lives saved. I don't know how Harry Truman did his calculations as far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are concerned, but I can say with a high degree of certainty that I wouldn't be here if he hadn't dropped the bomb. My Dad was a Marine Corp Sgt. on Guam when they dropped it, so he became part of the occupation force instead of an invasion force.
I wish I could find a way to assuage your anger and frustration, but since I can't seem to take care of my own most of the time, I'm at a loss.
I guess for me it boils down to this - if Muslims were content to live in peace and let Israel and the rest of the world practice the religion of their choice, we'd have no problem. You know as well as I that Iran and Syria are simply biding their time until Americans get tired and leave, and then at some point, future generations, your descendants and mine, will be back their shedding blood again because we failed in our duty. That's assuming that our Islamic friends have not detonated any number of suticase nukes around the world, and we still have a population left to fight with.
Somehow, I don't think I managed to cheer you up. I'll tell you what, I'm going to go to the Drudge Report right now and find something else besides this damn war to write about. I guess I need a break as much as you do.
Watson, try checking out my blog to find out who those soldiers were. They had a bit different take on Iraq than you do.
Post a Comment