The (a-hem) Surge is Working!

conyat · August 26, 2007, 8:32pm

What on earth are you on about? I almost always edit my posts, it’s kind of my trademark. I’m not “trying to deny” I typed ANYTHING. For you to pretend that my editing a post is somehow sinister or dishonest is a personal attack, IMO.

“Some Republicans” are indeed calling for another 9-11, including the head of a state Republican party. How would you describe them? All Republicans? They aren’t “all”; they’re only “some”, as I said. Am I supposed to lie so you feel better?

These are not lunatics; these are mainstream. The head of a state Republican party, one of the most widely read columnists in a major urban city, and a regular host on a widely watched national news program. Your attempts to portray these people as something other than what they are fool no one. Any more than the attempt to shoot the messenger.

And no reaching was required. These statements are very well known to anyone who’s keeping up with Iraq. How could they be otherwise, with such prominent individuals making them?

Except I don’t. I only use it to describe neoconservatives.

I am glad you finally looked up the definition of neoconservative and now realise that it’s an objective description of a political philosophy and not an inappropriate swear word.

Now perhaps you could spend a little time on learning to disambiguate the conservative from the neocon?

Foreign policy is really key. Neocons call for an interventionist foreign policy rife with nation-building adventures and spreading democracy to other countries whether they want it or not. Conservatives want to put America’s security first.

Neocons call for massive deficit spending and an expansion of the central government to bring their pipe dreams to fruition. Conservatives are for balanced budgets and smaller government. In general, a conservative’s loyalty is to his country. In general, a neoconservative’s loyalty is to other neoconservatives. (See for example Monica Goodling’s attempts to create political apartheid at the DOJ, even though she had to break federal civil service law and betray America’s trust to do it.)

Ronald Reagan had some neocons in his administration when he first took office. However, his greatest success in foreign policy–winning the Cold War–came when he stopped listening to the neoconservatives with their calls for military action and began listening to the conservatives’ calls for political and economic solutions.

At the end of the day, conservatives and liberals are more alike than they are different. The neoconservative is a completely different political animal.

Attitude toward the occupation of Iraq is practically a shibboleth for telling the conservative from the neocon. You seem unclear on the difference, but let me assure you that I am not.

LaxAttack09 · August 26, 2007, 9:13pm

conyat, saddam didn’t need to be involved in 9/11. It is widely known that he supported terrorism. Maybe sympathetic libs like you only want to go after people after they attack us, some of us however like to take steps to prevent the loss of lives by terrorist attacks, and that means getting to them before they get to us.

<a href=“http://www.husseinandterror.com/[/url]”>http://www.husseinandterror.com/</a>
The title of the website might warrant a “well, anyone can say what they want online” but this is written by Deroy Murdock who is a Media Fellow @ the Hoover Institution @ Stanford. Also, everything is linked at the end of the presentation…however I assume you and the other daily kos crowd will refuse to read it…ignorance is bliss to some.

In case you haven’t noticed, there hasn’t been an attack against a major US interest since bush started 9/11…in fact, many have been thwarted (thank you patriot act). You can say all you want, but the results speak for themselves…I wish Clinton would have taken terrorism seriously (See: Losing Bin Laden) but instead he allowed terrorist attack after terrorist attack happen and did nothing to stop it. At least Bush has the sense to stand up and fight for our safety here at home…and so far, it’s worked.

simba · August 26, 2007, 9:16pm

well well well. Now the spin is on support for terrorism. What happened to involvement with al-queda, ‘nuclur’ (nuclear) bombs and other WMDs?

rewriting history?

conyat · August 26, 2007, 9:19pm

Actually, by your metrics, Clinton was very successful at preventing terrorism here at home. No attacks within the US from the 1993 WTC attack till 9-11.

Please tell me how these things prevent the loss of lives by terrorist attacks:

Announcing to the world that we aren’t at all concerned with bringing bin Ladin to justice

Pursuing policies that have been shown to increase the number of terrorists and increase hostility toward the US

Making it easier for Al Queda to recruit and train and to raise funds

Increasing instability in an already volatile area of the world

Weakening the readiness of our armed forces

<hr>

And out of curiousity, since you’re claiming that the lack of another 9-11 is proof that diverting resources away from fighting terrorists and toward creating them is a good thing–if there is another 9-11, you’ll admit that what Bush is doing isn’t working, right? You won’t talk out of both sides of your mouth and claim that both the presence and the absence of terrorist attacks are “proof” that Bush is right?

LaxAttack09 · August 26, 2007, 9:21pm

double post :

LaxAttack09 · August 26, 2007, 9:24pm

Like I said, the libs won’t read the link :)

The best intelligence said that Iraq had or was trying to develop WMD’s. Bush bought it, Clinton bought it, Kerry bought it. You’d know this if you read the article…but that would require some critical thinking, something that escapes many who refuse to look @ the facts and just spit what they read at moveon dot org

It’s working…0 attacks. And yes, if there is another 9/11 you can bump this up and give me a big “I told you so.” If, in fact there is another 9/11 and we are still fighting this war on terror then I will fully admit that our policy is defunct.

conyat · August 26, 2007, 9:26pm

Don’t you have any other arrows in your quiver besides personal attacks?

Actually, the best intelligence came from the UN weapons inspectors who as late as March 2003 were cautioning that Iraq had no WMDs and wasn’t pursuing them.

The Hoover Institute, of which Rice was a part, has long been beating the drums for war. I don’t know if you noticed that there was remarkable little proof in your article of the claims that Iraq was funding terrorism. Lots of pictures, assertions, and rhetoric, but few facts.

About the only “proof” he offered is that after Hussein didn’t respond to a lawsuit, a judge ruled against him. This is hardly conclusive evidence of anything.

So you agree that what Clinton did during his adminstration was working then, too?

LaxAttack09 · August 26, 2007, 9:37pm

I didn’t start the personal attacks…read the first few pages of this thread. Late March, 2003…so…after the war had begun…makes sense??

What’s your point about the hoover institution? It’s a respected institution that has, over the years, published numerous reports and is staffed by some of the best researches/writers in the world. Just because someone is a part of something doesn’t make the whole thing their view. James Carvill contributes to nbc and cnn…does that make everyone there liberal? Cmon, use a real argument.

93: WTC 1
95: Riyadh military headquarters
96: Khobar towers
98: US Embassies
00: USS Cole

Clintons failure to do anything ensured subsequent terrorist attacks took place.

conyat · August 26, 2007, 9:42pm

Wait a second. None of the things after '93 happened within the US. Isn’t the meme that it’s acceptable for our soldiers to die overseas so long as people aren’t dying here? Why are you holding Clinton to a different standard than Bush? Plenty of soldiers have died from terrorists attacks under Bush, and our embassies have been attacked. The embassy in Syria was just recently. You have to use the same standard for each.

Actually, I did. The fact that the person who put together the picture collection and the small amount of accompanying text offers almost no evidence to back up his assertions. And the “evidence” he does offer–like a judge ruling against Hussein in a lawsuit where he didn’t even defend himself–is paper-thin. You just don’t seem to want to debate it on the merits.

And by the way, there’s a lot more to Deroy Murdoch than just his connection to the Iraq-hawking Hoover Institute–he’s a seasoned Republican political operative (veteran of campaigns going all the way back to the early 80s) and the head of a PR firm, something you didn’t disclose.

(Media Fellow by the way, just means he spent some time in residence. I am not even sure he’s got any publications in peer-reviewed journals. I can’t seem to find any.).

sjmom2329 · August 26, 2007, 9:52pm

Really? Are you saying that you never use the word “neocon” as a pejorative term? How about the use of the term from this thread? <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=376113&highlight=neocon[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=376113&highlight=neocon</a>

Is this meant to be a neutral use of the word? I must admit that it sounds a little insulting to me.

How about here? Are you suggesting that your use of the word “neocon” here is an example of how you “only use it to describe neoconservatives?”

Other posters certainly seem to use the word “neocon” as an insult. If you don’t agree with this usage, why don’t you say so?

Is cabal meanst as a complementary term?

LaxAttack09 · August 26, 2007, 9:53pm

The diff is Bush is doing something to stop the next attack, something Clinton never did. Also, those soldiers who are killed in Iraq are fighting so things like 9/11 and other terrorist attacks don’t happen again. Double standard? Are you kidding me…please link me to the last attack on a major us target (iraq isn’t a us target, it’s a war zone, I suggest you learn the difference). And I know you’re thinking “oh, but they dont have to come here when they can kill us in iraq.” That’s stupid reasoning, because everyone in their cousin knows that they want to come here and attack us. 3k died in one day, 4k died in 4 years…I’ll take my chances over there as opposed to over here.

Way to use the syrian embassy attack. Are we talking about the same attack where 4 gunment shot at the embassy and were subsequently killed? <a href=“http://worldnews.about.com/b/a/257456.htm[/url]”>http://worldnews.about.com/b/a/257456.htm</a>
“Four gunmen were apparently killed and a fifth is in custody. No damage to the embassy, no embassy personnel killed. In short, an isolated attempt by a small group of people who did not succeed in hitting their target.”

You’re comparing that to the US embassy bombings? I can only imagine what else you consider a “terrorist attack.” How about the teen who was recently killed in LA by a labanese kid…was that a terrorist attack? Haha…you really screwed yourself over with that one, it was fun to read though.

Once again…I’ll make it easy for you. Under Clinton nothing was done, terrorist attacks against major US targets (embassies, god damn navy ships) happened every few years. Under Bush, when a war was launched against terrorism, there have been zero (0, none, zip) attacks on major US targets. That is of course, unless you think the 4 gunment (not related to AL-Q) constitute a “terrorist attack”

LaxAttack09 · August 26, 2007, 9:59pm

So did the people in South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Somalia

conyat · August 26, 2007, 10:02pm

Sjmom, I didn’t say that I never criticize neocons. That would be ridiculous, when they’ve done so much harm to the US.

I said that I only use the word neocon when talking about neoconservatives, not about conservatives or liberals.

Again, I was talking about neoconservatives. I don’t know of any liberals or conservatives who feel this way–just neocons.

This was a post I wrote to demonstrate to a right-winger how offensive it was to suggest that those in favor of benchmarks and accountability are wishing for failure in Iraq; it was meant to be the equivalent of what that person wrote.

But again, I don’t know of anyone other than neocons calling for Bush to be president for life. Do you?

Again, you’re conflating the issues. Not liking neocons and what they’ve done to our country is not the same thing as using the word neocon as a general pejorative rather than a reference to neoconservatives. If I don’t like Pepsi, does it make Pepsi a bad word every time I say it? And does it mean that when I say Pepsi it has nothing to do with the soft drink, but it’s just a general bad word?

I think the problem here is that you want to support everything the neocons are doing on the political stage, but keep the title of conservative for yourself, so you’ve decided that “neocon” is just a word people use for people they don’t like.

Neocons are very different from conservatives, and it is NOT inappropriate to criticize them by name for what they stand for or what they’ve done.

conyat · August 26, 2007, 10:11pm

Funny thing is, it’s the right wingers who keep insisting that we’re fighting terrorism and not a war in Iraq. And actually, if you read up on the issue, you’ll find that Iraq is not much like a conventional war zone, with well-defined front and rear. That’s the reason so many servicewomen have died, despite being in “non-combat” roles.

Actually, no, they were taken AWAY from that fight in order to destabilize Iraq.

And there is simply no question that taking them away from the fight against terrorism to start a fight somewhere else has actually created more terrorists. The administration’s own reports confirm it.

Clinton’s “nothing” was pretty darn effective, then. Fewer members of the military were killed overseas, and we were just as protected at home.

Actually, it’s the Republican reasoning. How many times have you heard them say that the reason there aren’t attacks here is because they can kill GIs over there?

If you told the people who spout this to put a bunch of stale donuts all over the outside of their house so that the mice and roaches will be satisfied with what’s outside and not come inside and bother anyone–at least half of them would see the fallacy. But make it about Iraq and suddenly breeding terrorists who want to kill us becomes sensible.

You seriously think that a group of armed gunman attacking an embassy for political reasons isn’t a terrorist attack if it happens on Bush’s watch? Luckily, the state department takes it more seriously.

This is what you’re dismissing as not a terrorist attack:

You honestly think this wasn’t a terrorist attack? If these people had lived and been apprehended, you wouldn’t have wanted to see them charged with terrorism and treated as terrorists?

<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5337458.stm[/url]”>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5337458.stm</a>

LaxAttack09 · August 26, 2007, 10:19pm

5 attacks in 7 years…you have an odd metric for effectiveness. But hey, maybe if you keep saying his policy was effective you can convince yourself (like you already have) that it works. Only a lib would think 5 major terrorist attacks against major us targets is “effective.”

No kidding, that’s what I was saying. I was calling your expected reasoning of “they dont have to come here, they can kill us over there” stupid.

I said no major terrorist attacks have taken place since 9/11. 4 gunment causing no damage to an embassy isn’t a major terrorist attack. It’s a foiled attack.

conyat · August 26, 2007, 10:32pm

I think it was stupid to expect me to reason like a Republican.

If we’re counting attacks on foreign soil, as you are with Clinton, then yes, 5 attacks in 7 years is an improvement over thousands of attacks in 4 years is a good thing.

If only a lib would think that fewer attacks is better than more, by the same logic, only a chickenhawk would think more soldiers dying rather than fewer is a mark of C-in-C effectiveness.

Luckily, yes, it was foiled. By the Syrian security personnel.

The failure of the attack to do more damage than it did (14 people injured) had nothing to do with C-in-C effectiveness at preventing terrorism. So you pretending that this attack doesn’t count because it didn’t hurt more people than it did is very illogical.

A bomb even went off, despite the best efforts of the Syrian personnel. Are you seriously suggesting that if someone had been in the blast range of the bomb and been killed it would have been Bush’s fault, but since no one was, it’s to his credit? That’s just bizarre.

LaxAttack09 · August 26, 2007, 10:40pm

Haha. Keep trying to rationalize yourself. Iraq is a war zone, by your logic there were MILLIONS of terrorist attacks committed by Japan in WWII, same with Germany and Italy. Iraq is a war, the attacks against US troops are not terrorist attacks, rather the predictible outcomes of a war. Just because the terrorists are the ones attacking US soldiers doesn’t mean these are major terrorist attacks. Saudi Arabia, Nairobi, Tanzania, and Yemen were all peaceful nations where terrorists attacked MAJOR (read this point, you don’t seem to understand it) US targets in a MAJOR (once again, note this point) attack.

Clinton allowed 5 MAJOR (make another note) attacks in 7 years. Bush, after he decided to do something about terrorism (unlike clinton), has had 0. And as much as you try to rationalize it the syrian shootings weren’t an attack…read the article. Was Daniel Pearl a terrorist attack??? haha…

conyat · August 26, 2007, 10:46pm

So let me get this straight–it’s ok to have terrorists attack us, as long as it’s not in a MAJOR way? Better for them to kill more Americans, as long as it’s fewer a time, then to kill fewer of us, but in larger incidents?

They drove car bombs at the embassy, shot automatic weapons, exploded a bomb, threw grenades, and injured 14 people, but it wasn’t an attack? Oh, please.

How much one has to torture logic and even math to find C-in-C effectiveness in this administration.

Actually, Iraq isn’t a war. I realize you haven’t been keeping up, but the war ended a long time ago. It’s an occupation. And yes, it’s entirely predictable that when you occupy people who don’t want to be occupied, people are going to die. It’s also entirely avoidable.

LaxAttack09 · August 26, 2007, 10:52pm

It took 4 years in Iraq to equal 6 hours in nyc…makes sense.

It was a failed attack. Hell, terrorists can try to attack us everyday if they want…as long as they always fail it’s fine with me.

Argue over words? War/occupation…whatever you wanna call it the outcomes are expected. I also think it’s funny that you procalim to know what every Iraqi is thinking. My brother did 2 tours in Iraq and said that while many didn’t want US troops there many people also were very thankful for US troops being there. You don’t hear that story though, at least not from the leftist media.

I’d love to stay and debate but I have more pressing matters. We’ll pick this up another time…

conyat · August 26, 2007, 11:09pm

Please show me where I said I know what “every Iraqi” is thinking. Sweetie, once you start making up stuff to support your position, it’s pretty much an admission that you know you’re wrong.

(Incidentially, polls show that most Iraqis want us out, and most Iraqis believe that the security situation will improve in the immediate weeks after our departure).

And 7 years of Clinton still doesn’t equal the casualties of 4 years of Bush.

What leftist media? The leftist media that uncritically reported the administration’s claims of WMD and ties to 9-11? The leftist media that repeats even wild claims of the administration without fact-checking it or asking hard questions? The leftist media that has twice as many Republicans as Democrats on the Sunday politics shows, even though Democrats are the majority in Congress and the US? That leftist media?

So 14 injured is acceptable to you? And a bomb going off? If you’re using the fact that the terrorists died as the reason not to consider this an attack–terrorists die all the time in suicide attacks; it’s how they got their name. If you’re using the lack of significant property damage–I don’t remember property damage on the Achille Lauro either.

If you’re using the fact that “only” 14 people were injured and no one killed, let me ask you again: if someone had been in the blast range of that bomb, would you suddenly revise your opinion of Bush as C-in-C, over what’s basically happenstance?

The (a-hem) Surge is Working!

CONNECT WITH US