world

Obama rebukes McCain; says bin Laden free due to GOP tactics

78 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

78 Comments
Login to comment

“These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11,” the presumed nominee told reporters aboard his campaign plane. “This is the same kind of fear-mongering that got us into Iraq ... and it’s exactly that failed foreign policy I want to reverse.”

Truer words have never been spoken from a wiser candidate. The choice is clear, Obama 08'.

By the way, McCain is no war hero, which many here of all political affiliations like to gush about him:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_mysticalmccain.htm

Great warrior and patriot, a TRUE WAR HERO (rest in peace) David Hackworth on McCain:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_hacker_2.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

george bush never wanted to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. As soon as bin Laden dies the war on terror takes a notch down. By leaving him out there, the terrorist is still waiting to pounce.

McCain isn't going to get bin Laden any faster then george bush.

NOW we have to get troops in to Afghanistan and quell the violence that the republicams stradegy allowed to grow and flourish. That was the war of right. Iraq was the war of choice and McCain wants to continue it for, gawd another 100 years. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To anyone who actually believes Republicans are better at defense issues, I have this question: Prior to 9/11, and during the time that Islamic militants were bombing the Khobar Towers, US Embassies in Africa and the USS Cole, can you name one Republican who called out for more aggressive action to be taken against Al Qaeda or its splinter groups?

It certainly wasn't John McCain who, like 99% of the Republicans of that time, wanted to focus the world's attention on Bill Clinton's crotch area.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You bring up an interesting point adaydream. I believe privately Bush actually thought Bin Laden to be dead at one point. What Bush should have done in 2002, early 2003 at latest is to publicly proclaim Laden dead. Then that would have flushed him out for sure and real evidence of his existence would have been brought forth. But now after all these years of no concrete proof that Laden is alive, Bush is in a pickle. He can't publicly proclaim Laden is dead now because all that will do is make people wonder why he didn't do so earlier. And by not doing so, Bush furthers the notion that he is still out there, and that the war in Afghanistan and the war on terror must continue as long as he is alive. This is a supreme example of FUBAR.

Laden has long been dead, I would guess end of 2001 in Tora Bora he was bombed to kingdom come.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Former CIA director James Woolsey, who is advising the McCain campaign, concurred, saying Obama has “an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism ... and toward dealing with prisoners captured overseas who have been engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States.”

This really is a put-up-or-shut-up moment for the McCain-Bush tag team, and for all the anti-American war supporters out there.

McCain's representative quite clearly here states these prisoners HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN TERRORIST ATTACKS.

If he's so sure, why have the vast majority of them NOT been charged with anything for 5 long years?

Where is the evidence against these guys and why has it not been prooduced?

If the U.S. government has no evidence, then why are these people still in detention?

This situation is ridiculous and is a prime driver behind why America has become a laughing stock - thanks in no small part to individuals like Sarge, super delegate, etc. who support this indefinite detention scam, and yet - and this is a challenge - have NO evidence whatsoever to back up their claims that Gitmo inmates are guilty.

No evidence.

That's telling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism official in Republican and Democratic administrations - “I’m a little disgusted by the attempts of some of my friends on the McCain campaign to use the same old, tired tactics ... to drive a wedge between Americans for partisan advantage and to frankly frighten Americans.”

Is hassling the Official Republican Playbook allowed?

Frankly, Americans are better than this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation a September 10th mind-set ... He does not understand the nature of the enemies we face,” McCain national security director Randy Scheunemann told reporters on a conference call.

With all due respect, Sen. McCain is talking out of his a*se.

McCain backs the invasion of countries where there was - and still is not - any clear and present danger.

McCain strongly backs the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects, when there is no clear proof regarding their "crimes."

By default, Sen. McCain seems interested in turning the U.S. treatment of suspected terrorists into a Russian-style gulag system.

In doing so, McCain tacitly backs the trampling of the U.S. Constitution and its statutes that have been used to govern America - until Bush began subverting them.

A vote for John McCain is a vote against America and American values.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"bin laden free due to GOP tactics"

Oh, for cryin' out loud, has Obama never heard of the phrase "needle in a haystack"? That's what finding one terrorist out of thousands is like. Good grief, we've done killed or captured thousands of them, many of them in Iraq, without his support.

"A vote for McCain is a vote against America and American values."

I'll admit McCain is like a Democrat in some ways, for example, his views on global warming...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "his views on global warming..."

Views on global warming are 'Democrat.'

Please explain?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - McCain supports cutting CO2 emissions at the expense of the economy in the mistaken belief that this will stop or slow down whatever Mother Nature has in store for us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - the current Administration seems to believe that the economy is of greater importance than preserving the environment - that scientists from more than 100 countries have determined is under the greatest threat since the last ice age.

"mistaken belief that this will stop or slow down whatever Mother Nature has in store for us."

Even scientists from your own country know that is garbage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

Rumor has it that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. When you can find one needle there is at least some encouragement that you can find another.

Bin Laden was the demon du jour. Obama is right. We really should have made a better attempt to find the demon instead of traipsing off into the quicksand of Iraq. When we did that, our mission lost all semblance of focused justice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pre-9/11 view. Post-9/11 view. Nonsense.

Everyone has a view that has been shaped by 9/11 and by their prejudices. Everyone brings pre-9/11 prejudices to their post-9/11 views. The pacifists brought their demonstrations and the torturers brought the tools of their trade.

The "soft on terrorism" argument was always a bogus one. Effective, but bogus. There was never any question as to whether we were going to be soft on terrorists. The question was always whether we were going to react like a blinded bear or whether we were going to lick our wounds and consider what was best to do. It seems to me that the President and company argued rather more for the blinded bear strategy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez, the mission was never focused from the start.

As you know, 16 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudi.

Which begs the question - why was Iraq invaded, and why was Iraq even implicated as being connected to 9-11?

There is a real danger that in the blizzard of claims and counterclaims we are hearing in this election campaign, fundamental facts like the above-stated one will be pushed into the background.

It's good that Obama is keeping things real by bringing them up if for no other reason than to point out to McCain supporters just how wrong their man has been.

McCain has to bear a large part of the responsibility for the Iraq disaster - an event that has massively destabilized the ME, bred thousands of new enemies of America, and led to one of the biggest financial pillages in recent history.

However, despite the mountain of evidence, there will always be the reality-ignorant war supporters who will try to defend the indefendable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "That's what finding one terrorist out of thousands is like."

Why don't you just say what you're REALLY thinking; 'That's what finding one terrorist in an entire REGION of them is like."

We all know that you think all muslims are terrorists (you and skip have said it plenty of times, and made your thoughts on Muslims and what should be done with them, quite clear).

Obama's point is that the bush government had a real chance -- and a FAR better one than now -- of catching Bin Laden, but chose instead to launch an illegal invasion to steal the attention from the failed capture of Binny, and create MORE terrorists to mask him. Mission accomplished.

"Sushi - McCain supports cutting CO2 emissions at the expense of the economy in the mistaken belief that this will stop or slow down whatever Mother Nature has in store for us."

Mistaken believe according to whom, sarge? Some pro-Republican blogs you skim through on the internet? That global warming has been and continues to be the result of human activity and CO2 emissions is supported by nearly EVERY scientist in the world, and backed up by plenty of facts. The thought that it's a 'natural phenomenon' and subsequent belief that NOTHING should be done to curb emissions, are moronic notions held by very, very few (and it's pretty easy to see that THEY, more than anyone else, would suffer at the hands of emission caps, since so many have their hands in big oil, etc.).

Obama has hit the nail on the head with every single comment he made, and no doubt McCain threw another spastic fit when confronted with the truth. I just wish I could have seen his immediate response; the cherry red face with veins and moles popping out, him telling everyone to F-off, etc. Must have been pretty entertaining.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3,

After bin Laden seemed to acknowledge that he was the driving force behind 9/11 (although maybe not "the mastermind" of it), I think that it was right to go after him. I think the focus was clear there.

I'm not sure we had to ravage Afghanistan and rile the Muslim world in order to accomplish that, but we did. I think we got a little out of focus there.

Unfortunately we did not bring him in and we got even more out of focus in Iraq. The 9/11 crew were Saudi (all but one?) and none, I think, were Iraqi. But that in itself does not mean we should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, for example.

And I'm sure you know the reasons why in any event we should not have attacked Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Would the capture of Osama bin Laden even matter anymore? Great Britian is letting OBL's "right hand man in Europe" walk away from jail.

Telegraph headline: Abu Qatada: Radical cleric to be released 'in next 24 hours' By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent Last Updated: 7:12PM BST 17/06/2008

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RedMeatKoolAid- Great Britain is a country that respects the rule of law and simply don't make them up as they go along. Their legal system does not permit any further detention of this individual and as such must set him free. Britain just don't see the merits or the legality of creating Gitmo style internment camps for the sake of addressing some inate paranoia about national security.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RedMeatKoolAid,

That's a good question, but the real question is whether or not the capture of bin Laden would have mattered when we decided to divert our efforts to Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11,”

Obama should not assert speculation as fact. What's more America's best chance to secure or kill OBL would seem to have been when he was holed up in Tora Bora or shortly thereafter. That was well before the "distraction" of the war in Iraq.

The Republican argument proved less effective in 2006 when then Bush adviser Karl Rove said the Democrats had a pre-Sept 11 view of the world and Republicans had a post-Sept 11 terror attacks perspective. In November of that year, Democrats captured enough congressional seats to seize control of the House and Senate.

To the extent that Republican policies have been successful in safeguarding the country from terrorist attacks, they have ironically reduced the electoral potency of the security issue that has helped Republicans politically. If the situation in Iraq continues to improve and ther are no terrorist attacks before election day, then US voters will turn their minds to domestic concerns such as the economy and health care - areas where Dem policies are favored.

Obama agreed with the Supreme Court ruling last week that detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to challenge their indefinite imprisonment in U.S. civilian courts. McCain derided the ruling as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

Obama and the SC are right to want to extend greater legal protection to the detainees. Even alleged illegal enemy combatants are due the presumption of innocence and due process.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan - Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't think, nor have I ever said all Muslims are terrorists.

"illegal invasion"

Is this the illegal invasion that has brought a ruthless dictator to justice and enabled free elections? Checking... yeah, it is!

"Obama has hit the nail on the head with every single comment he made"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is Obama the best that George Soros could buy?

“And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantanamo,” Obama said. “What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated."

The perp in the 93 WTC attack was caught after he tried to get back the deposit he paid on the rental van that they used to try and bring the tower down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with just about everything Obama says except for:

given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say,

I've never subscribed to this point of view. Creating a terrorist requires brainwashing. It's not like someone is presented with a list of facts and says to himself, "Yeah, they're right. I'll go blow up some children tomorrow." It's the whole "blow up some children tomorrow" as a response where the brain takes a right turn from logic. Foreign policy doesn't create that desire....brainwashing through an abuse of religion does.

9-11 was planned under Clinton....but I don't hear people saying that Clinton was great for recruiting terrorists. Bush's policies were actually similar to Clinton when he took office but only changed after 9-11. Obama is right that we put people behind bars through our legal system....but 9-11 happened anyway. I think it would be just as silly to say that putting terrorists through the US legal system increased recruiting and helped make 9-11 possible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib: creating a terrorist, as far as the US is concerned, is as easy as injuring or killing someone's extended family member (which, if you're a devout Muslim, includes a billion people) after you've invaded their country. But you knew that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This Iraqi vet on YouTube is talking about how he got to Iraq in January '03; how, at the time, if they were fired on, they'd hunker down and ask for orders over the radio. By April, when they'd lost 135 guys, the procedure became: when fired upon in a crowded area, kill everybody because they're letting the shooter(s) attack by being there--the strategy being, if we kill enough innocent people, the rest of the innocent people will stop the terrorists from attacking, the flaw being that the shooter was often someone who's own family member had been killed by the US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j87nLOdYXY4

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nobody should assert speculation as fact. I speculate that this is how we got into Iraq in the first place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I've never subscribed to this point of view."

Do you have any thoughts then on why there are now thousands upon thousands of the bastards now running amok in Iraq?

"9-11 was planned under Clinton....but I don't hear people saying that Clinton was great for recruiting terrorists."

True, but it wasn't because of Clinton's policies that 9-11 was planned I'm led to believe. It was another Republican, George H Bush, leaving a US military base in Saudia Arabia that allegely incured the fundie wrath.

If we can take that as read as the "justification" for 9-11, the colony the current US administration is planning in Iraq is sure to breed more terrorism by absolutely dementing the Islamic terrorists.

Global terrorism is on the rise. The Repulicans so-called War on Terror has actually done the exact opposite as we've seen. I don't know in fact how a Republican dare open his mouth on the subject, let alone accusing others of beinf "soft" on the issue.

Senator Obama is right to plan a withdrawl from Iraq to extract the US from their ill-fated attempts at whatever it is they were doing when they invaded.

The only thing I would critisize him for, is setting an exact date for the withdrawl - which will clearly mean he'll have to hold that promise when elected. If, and that's a big "if", things do get enormously better in Iraq, it may be better in the short term to keep some sort of presence...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Heh, democrat Lemming Day fast approaches."

You've got to be kidding, ramen. Bush Co's failed policies, the policies you have blindmy supported here the last 7 years, have done nothing but create global terror.

I'll see you here like I didn't see you, heh, the last time the repubs got a good "thumping", back on the real Lemming Day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, the panic from the global obama supporters is great entertainment.

It will be even more enjoyable on democrat Lemming Day.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madvert, Romeo's day in the sunshine as the first lemming off the cliff is a comin'.

It's going to be mad!

A Republican can only keep lying to himself for so long before something snaps. I won't say a conscience, because since when did a Republican have one of those??? :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

verts,

Keep clicking your heels and repeating over and over, "There's no democrat like this democrat." democrat Lemming Day will, heh, prove you to be on the wrong side of history ... again.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ramen - "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a 9/11 bomber"

But he only said that after being "tortured" by the CIA, so we have to assume he's really innocent. Heh, just kidding.

Madverts - "Bush Co's failed policies... have done nothing but create global terror"

But, but, the number of deaths from global terrorist attacks are DOWN, as was discussed in a recent thread. Guess Bush Co's policies haven't failed after all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Romeo, when was Madverts on the wrong side of history before?

He has been right on Saddam, right on the WMD, right on Bush, right on McCain.

That 4 things he's got right over you, and he's not even American.

How can you continually succeed at stuffing things up so badly?

Your misjudgements have been blinding in their wrongness, and then when you try to justify your case, you simply dig a deeper hole.

It's not pretty, but I have to admit you have actually achieved something exceedingly well - you've actually got more of a non-American viewpoint than non-Americans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A Republican can only keep lying to himself for so long before something snaps. I won't say a conscience...

Usually death comes before anything close to reality sets in for them. Of course, you've got the guys like Lee Atwater who, on their deathbeds, come to realize all the harm they've done with their lies and general scumminess.

Notice also, that some of these people can only attempt to lift their side up by fomenting scurrilous lies about their opponents. Mr. McCain certainly experienced this firsthand back in 2000. There is no reason for the Republicans to abandon their scummy behavior since they could count on it to fool enough voters...for awhile.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

shrieker2/3:

Which voice in your head told you that?

You're the one who gets "excited" whenever you hear obama talk. Hope you'll feel the same way when he give his concession speech on democrat Lemming Day.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Romeo, you've probably even think U.S. military torture of suspected militants is justified.

oops, pity that's also just gone up in smoke -

www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/index.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ramen - "There's no Democrat like this Democrat"

Har! Thar shore ain't!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "But, but, the number of deaths from global terrorist attacks are DOWN, as was discussed in a recent thread. Guess Bush Co's policies haven't failed after all."

Err.. Sarge, if you had been paying attention, heh, let alone conscious, these last 7 years, you'd know they are down from the record high they were at since bush's Iraq invasion that you supported.

Ditto for Iraq deaths - wow! Those are down too, from what - a few thousand a month thanks to the failed war you supported, to a lower number now.

Ain't that just great! Pity most of those people would still be alive if the botched war you blindly supported hadn't been launched in the first place.

Before I post this, I'll say what I know is on your mind - it's all Bill Clinton's fault!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Uh, sarge,

The facts, once again, would seem to be against you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Romeo - "Hope you'll feel the same way when he give his concession speech on democrat Lemming Day."

Heh, the level of desperation among McCain backers just upped it a notch with that one.

Here's a little poem I just composed that I think sums up the Republicans viewpoint pretty damn well if you ask me, which you didn't :-)

Tsunami. It's coming. Can't see it! If I can't see it, it's not there, ha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts,

The facts, once again, would seem to be against you:

"http://mediaglobal.org/index.php/2008/05/21/terrorist-attacks-decrease-worldwide-as-support-from-muslim-world-wanes/

"Uh, sarge"

I'm laughing at the superior intellect.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apologies - although my poem about Republicans' general attitude toward Reality was brilliant, the layout got a bit whacked - here it is again, hopefully with correct layout -

Tsunami.

It's coming.

Can't see it!

If I can't see

it, it's not there, ha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, uh, sarge,

You really do make it easy for me. Global terrorist attacks are on the up, as my link already showed you if you'd have bothered to read it.

Your own link suggests "fatalities in Iraq have driven terror statistics since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, effectively distorting global figures."

And then goes on to say that "data from Iraq was excluded", so that the report managed to find "no significant increase in deaths from terrorism since 2001."

So like I said and your own link has proved...

...Bush Co's doomed foreign policy has created terror, under the guise of fighting it. No wonder you lot will be casting a vote for McCain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts - "And then goes on to say that "data from Iraq was excluded","

Heh, no surprises there, bud - bush and co's death stats in Iraq COMPLETELY FAIL to include deaths outside Iraq.

bush and co's war cost estimates COMPLETELY FAIL to include:

a/ debt servicing costs (running into billions a month) b/ equipment repair and replacement costs bills (running into billions a month) c/ VA healthcare and longterm treatment costs (running into billions a month).

heh - want me to go on?

LOL!!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The puppet Barack Obama and his master George Soros want Osama bin Laden caught so they can personally bestow upon the criminal genius responsible for 9-11 the same rights that decent, hard-working citizens of the democratic United States of America are guaranteed.

That is their idea of justice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"So I don't know where he is. (bin-Laden) You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you." - George W Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

So at least Senator Obama and his Lord Soros or whatever you we ranting about actually are concerned with the alleged instigator of the attacks on American soil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RedMeatKoolAid - too little red meat, too much Kool Aid.

"The puppet Barack Obama and his master George Soros want Osama bin Laden caught so they can personally bestow upon the criminal genius responsible for 9-11 the same rights that decent, hard-working citizens of the democratic United States of America are guaranteed."

You're not talking to a bunch of 2 year olds....

The same rights? C'mon, if you know anything at all about U.S. law, you'll know people are charged as guilty when sufficient evidence has been provided to a recognized court of law.

That would very likely be the case should the "criminal genius responsible for 9-11" be found.

Can you say the same for the 600-odd terror "suspects" your country has incarcerated without:

1/ charging them with any crime

2/ given then accused access to the evidence against them?

Then, can you explain why, exactly, these people are still in U.S. custody?

Heh, I would go on if I thought you had a case, but's it's just not worth it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and KoolAid, before you claim the suspects in Gitmo are "terrorists", try proving it.

Your government can't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Poor Sushi actually believes the Gitmo detainees are all innocent waifs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, not all, however neither you nor your government has proved otherwise.

What is taking you so long? A lack of evidence, perhaps?

Noooo, surely that can't be the case.

Anyway, I'm sure the terrorists love people like you. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you have any thoughts then on why there are now thousands upon thousands of the bastards now running amok in Iraq?

Thousands upon thousands of the bastards aren't running amok in Iraq. You can say it all you want but it doesn't make it so. The attack that killed 60+ people was the worst attack in Iraq in months. I guess thousands upon thousands are running so amok in Iraq that they must have forgotten to actually kill anyone. Either that or you're vastly overstating their presence.

Your argument might have been able to slip by a year or two ago, but it's just not the case today. Al Queda has no support base in Iraq. They're having their asses handed to them by the same Iraqis that you claim are running to them by the thousands. Your argument does not hold water anymore, not with the massive reduction in violence and Al Quedas severly diminished position.

True, but it wasn't because of Clinton's policies that 9-11 was planned I'm led to believe. It was another Republican, George H Bush, leaving a US military base in Saudia Arabia that allegely incured the fundie wrath.

Do you blame Denmark for the increase in global terrorism? The terrorists justified their attacks because of the cartoons. Next you'll be telling us the Danes are Republican. Why do you reject one terrorist justification in one attack, then legitimize it in another? Could it be because Denmark is the target in one situation, and the US is a target in the other?

Senator Obama is right to plan a withdrawl from Iraq to extract the US from their ill-fated attempts at whatever it is they were doing when they invaded.

I'd like the US to be out of Iraq. But I don't want to do it in a way that makes the situation worse. The situation on the ground will dictate what the President can do. And I hope he doesn't ignore the situation on the ground just to fulfill an election promise. And for someone who makes Al Queda and terrorists his #1 gripe about Iraq, I don't see why you wouldn't want to see the current trend of success continue. It's counterproductive to your own goals.

I support McCain's position that the US has to stay until the situation improves, whenever that may be. I don't hold Obama's position against him, tho, since I think he'll have to do whatever needs to be done when the time comes. In the end I think their position will be the same by default, so in reality I consider it to be a wash.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuprLib - "The situation on the ground will dictate what the President can do"

But if Obama somehow makes it to the White House, he has already promised to withdraw all U.S. troops within 16 months no matter what the situation on the ground is. And he wouldn't be able to break that promise because he is Change We Can Believe In, though it might not be change for the better.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Thousands upon thousands of the bastards aren't running amok in Iraq. You can say it all you want but it doesn't make it so."

So the thousands and thousands of terrorist attacks that have happened uniquely since the US invasion of Iraq were carried out by a just a handful of bastards?

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

"The attack that killed 60+ people was the worst attack in Iraq in months."

There are still attacks happening most days. At least 532 deaths were recorded last month for pete's sake.

"Either that or you're vastly overstating their presence."

I'm not over-stating their presence. It's blatantly obvious. And not all of the attacks are by what we would generally term as terrorists, many of these attacks on the police are carried out by locals adding their 10 cents to the power struggle the invasion created.

"Al Queda has no support base in Iraq."

2 of the same problems here.

One, I think "al-Quaida's" presence in Iraq is highly over-stated by the Bush regime and the complacent media as an explanation for the simple-minded. I don't even believe there is this uber-powerfull, super-organized terror group - it's a simple ideology where any fundie with a grudge and an internet connection can be a vilifie member.

Two, I live in a small community but I've also done city life, and whilst neither were obviously Iraq, you couldn't fart in any of the communities I've lived in without everyone knowing at what time you did it, and if you happened to follow-through. How all these people are supposed to be acting with impunity without everyone knowing who they are, to me, is impossible.

"They're having their asses handed to them by the same Iraqis that you claim are running to them by the thousands."

Yes, the same Iraqi's that will more than likely turn the guns you've supplied them with on their shiite brothers in time old tradition if the terrorists (that I'll remind you again that the invasion put there) ever get erradicated.

"Do you blame Denmark for the increase in global terrorism? The terrorists justified their attacks because of the cartoons. Next you'll be telling us the Danes are Republican."

I give Bush Co's doomed policy the blame for giving a rise to the sort of extremism that gave those idiots that soap-box to shriek from. Whilst Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" created shrieking I'll concur, it idn't have the perceived Western war (Bush Co's war) against Islam to back up their outrage.

"Why do you reject one terrorist justification in one attack, then legitimize it in another?"

Can you calm down a bit?

Now, which justification have I rejected?

"I don't see why you wouldn't want to see the current trend of success continue. It's counterproductive to your own goals"

Please, you're starting to offend me. I have consistently commented on the progress of the surge, positive or negative. Again, you're talking about posters that either "feel threatened by good news from Iraq" or worse, yet you can name not one of them when asked.

What gives?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts:

" So at least Senator Obama and his Lord Soros or whatever you we ranting about actually are concerned with the alleged instigator of the attacks on American soil. "

What "alleged"? He is bragging about it himself. However, the point that Obama should be careful what he asks for is well-taken. What exactly is Osama guilty of, other than preaching islam in its purest form? And that, in the blissfull ignorance of Western societies, is "free speech".

So, in a US court, Osama might well be set free, just like his comrade in London: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2147168/Abu-Qatada-Islamic-cleric-is-released-from-jail.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

willib,

Well, some of us crazies still believe in that lunatic notion of the presumption of innocence. Just like you Americans and your "goddamned piece of paper"!

Bin-Laden, I remind you denied having anything to do with the attacks originally. And either his death, or his desire to be THE fundie icon, made all that change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and willi;

I don't see what sort of a life that fundie is going to have:

The conditions of his bail :

Must wear electronic monitoring tag.

Must stay in his home except for one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon.

Only allowed out within a restricted boundary.

Must phone the monitoring company at the beginning and end of each one hour curfew.

Has to allow entry to police officers or the monitoring company at any time and they can search the home.

6 Banned from possessing travel ticket which would take him outside defined boundary

Banned from seeing anyone except his wife, children and lawyer, or any person aged 10 or under.

Visitors have to be approved in advance and then only one at a time.

Banned from communicating with a long list of people including Osama bin laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, the terrorist Rachid Ramda, abu Doha, known as "The Doctor," and the preacher Abu Hamza.

Banned from communicating with anyone under a control order under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 or SIAC imposed bail.

Not allowed a mobile phone, computer or to connect to the internet.

Only allowed one bank account

Banned from holding a credit card.

Not allowed to send money or documents outside Britain without permission.

Not allowed to buy, sell or procure any form of communications equipment or computer equipment.

Must surrender his passport and cannot apply for a new one.

Not allowed to start a training course or academic study course without approval.

Cannot start a new job until he has received approval.

Banned from leading prayers, giving lectures, preaching or providing religious instruction or advice other than to his wife and children.

May not publish or permit to be published any document or statement without the prior approval and shall not make any statement that he has reason to believe is likely to be published.

Banned from attending any mosque.

It would have been a lot cheaper to ship the bastard back to Ammam where he would have been charged, but the shrieky PC crowd wouldn't have had that!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts:

" I don't see what sort of a life that fundie is going to have: "

He is not in jail, and he and his wife and 5 children collect 12,000 pounds from the British taxpayers. Indefinitely. Until he dies of old age, before which he will father another couple of little successors. And guess what kind of indoctrination his 5 (so far) kids are getting.

Way to defend against radical islam!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Indefinitely. Until he dies of old age, before which he will father another couple of little successors."

Heh, do you think this is a one-off in Europe or something?

I'm not defending radical Islam - as I already said, I'd have shipped him back to Ammam so they could put him on trial and he'd get a fundie snuffing for his roles in other terrorist attacks.

If you'd bothered to read my post, you'd have seen that!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Until he dies of old age, before which he will father another couple of little successors"

I'm intrigued as to how you and the others of the Bush docrtrine would actually deal with these individuals, however - like bin-Laden if he were to be caught. We have a proud tradition of innocence before guilt - and we don't make exceptions. People get off with heinous crimes regularly, whilst others go to jail innocent. The system is rotten but it's better than anything I can see, unless you have a suggestion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the thousands and thousands of terrorist attacks that have happened uniquely since the US invasion of Iraq were carried out by a just a handful of bastards?

Adverts, you specifically said "now thousands upon thousands." Above you're including all data over a 5-year period which is obviously disingenuous given the fact that Al Queda now is a shell of it's former self in Iraq. Bombs were going off daily in Iraq and Cheney was telling us about "last throes." Now bombs are going off every few months and you're telling us thousands upon thousands of terrorists are running amok. You're turning into the Dick Cheney of the anti-war crowd.

"There are still attacks happening most days. At least 532 deaths were recorded last month for pete's sake."

The vast majority of the deaths are caused by secretarian violence, not terrorists. Again this in no way supports your claim that now thousands upon thousands of terrorists are running amok. It only supports my claim that you refuse to look at the information in an honest way.

Yes, the same Iraqi's that will more than likely turn the guns you've supplied them with on their shiite brothers in time old tradition if the terrorists (that I'll remind you again that the invasion put there) ever get erradicated.

Sorry, what are you saying "yes" to? The Iraqis that I claim aren't being recruited by Al Queda but are in fact destroying Al Queda?

I give Bush Co's doomed policy the blame for giving a rise to the sort of extremism that gave those idiots that soap-box to shriek from.

It pains me to hear you talk like this. I'm wondering if JeanColmar has hacked your account.

Now, which justification have I rejected?

Terrorists attack Denmark. They blame it on the cartoons. You tell the terrorists to take a hike. Terrorists attack the US. They blame it on the US for being in Saudi Arabia. You tell the world that the attacks happened because the US was in Saudi Arabia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib, I don't think there's a lot else I can say to someone who wishes to deny thousands of terrorists have and are (though admittedly LESS) continuing to run amok in "liberated" Iraq.

Whether it's secretarian or it's al-Qaida affiliated, it's terrorism.

"It pains me to hear you talk like this. I'm wondering if JeanColmar has hacked your account."

Why? It's not as if my position is un-tenable, Eric. The Bush Co foreign policy that everyone bar a few of you sees as an utter disaster has got the Islamic world jumping up and down since the invasion of Iraq, moreso than Afghanistan which was justifiable military action.

This is a fact.

And this perceived war on Islam (despite us moderates knowing it is no such thing) has enabled fundie preachers to get the rank and filers into such a state over a cartoon that I actually found pretty funny.

What is it about me suggesting that Bush's foreign policy (and the policy John McCain wishes to continue if elected) and their so-called war on terror has created a whole host of worrying problems, whilst achieving little of not nothing in positive gains that gets you so riled?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts - "The Bush Co foreign policy that... has got the Islamic world jumping up and down"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! You mean, has got the Islamic world in a tizzy.

Hey, congratulations on digging up that old, old post to Taka. I'm afraid that you're going to have to apologize, however, for claiming that I was 14 years old in 2006.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: in his post-9/11 speech, OBL listed the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia (by GHW Bush) as one of the reasons for Muslim outrage. (Sadly, W let him get away at Tora Bora, and now he's achieved prophet status)

Btw, do you acknowledge that W/neocons were duped by Iranian intelligence into invading Iraq, to Iran's gain and US losses?

Madverts, thanks for the comments. There's no arguing with Wingers. You know Eric Superlib's other handles? And thanks for the Sgt.Davy memo, which was f'n classic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jahdog - "Iran's gain"

You mean Iranian people no longer being killed by Saddam? Is that a bad thing? You happy about that?

"Wingers"

What are Wingers?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I mean Iran's greatly increased influence in the region, amounting to a Shiite Crescent: the possibility of Iranian domination of a weak and divided Shi'a-dominated Iraq. In a recent visit to the region, in fact, I found a dominant concern in the Gulf countries to be the possibility that the United States, by intervening as we did in Iraq, may inadvertently be creating a Shi'a crescent in the northern tier of the Arab world, which could offer Iran unique opportunities that it has not had for many years, to exercise a dominant role, and to exercise that role in ways that may be destabilizing to others. http://www.mepc.org/forums_chcs/41.asp

You know, the stuff the CIA and State Dept warned W about before the invasion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge said...

"Jahdog - "Iran's gain"

You mean Iranian people no longer being killed by Saddam? Is that a bad thing? You happy about that?"

It's not such a great idea to use the Iran-Iraq conflict to support the "America rid the world of a dangerous tyrant and spread democracy" argument. Not when President Reagan issued a National Security Decision Directive in June 1982 making it formal policy to, in his own words, "do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."

<strong>Moderator: Back on topic please.</strong>

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jahdog:

" Btw, do you acknowledge that W/neocons were duped by Iranian intelligence into invading Iraq, to Iran's gain and US losses? "

I think there is no doubt any more that Chalabi is an Iranian stooge. I do not know to what degree this is an elaborate Iranian conspiracy, or just a lot of luck (for Iran) factors coming together, I don´t know, but it has worked out swimmingly for the mullah regime. They got the stupid Americans to depose Saddam for them, install a Shiite government in Bagdad, and let it write "islamic principles" into the constitution. Since Shiites are the majority in Iraq, Iranian influence is guaranteed in Iraq now. And by keeping a moderate level of terrorist pressure on, they can keep and squeeze the Americans in Iraq forever. For Teheran, this situation is win, win, win, win, win, and win again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

george bush had a war where the soldiers and Marines actually were fighting the real war on terror. But he pulled them out for a war of choice versus a war against terrorism. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adadream:

" george bush had a war where the soldiers and Marines actually were fighting the real war on terror. "

And what is "the real war on terror"? The last time I looked, "terror" was a strategy, not an entity or ideology. Not something you can meaningfully declare war on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Taliban/Afghanistan attacked us. Iraq never attacked us, unless you live on some strange planet.

But enlighten me. Who attacked the United States on 9/11/2001?

Unless your answer is Afghanistan, go away.

Since Afghanistan attack us and not Iraq, Afghanistan was the aggressor and the terrorist that attacked us.

george bush decided to attack Iraq based on lies his henchmen created and allowed Afghanistan to rebloom into the new Taliban territory. They are retaking Afghanistan and right now we can't stop them. Only stall it from increasing, maybe. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who attacked us: a bunch of Muslims w/blessings of OBL, in response to US bases in Saudi Arabia, perceived US support for Israel belying the stated policy of neutrality, and all the Iraqi civilians who died from Gulf War I sanctions (what OBL said after 9.11)

Righties like to talk about terrorists being wackos, but I think most of us would get a bit whacked if we all had relatives and friends who died as a direct or indirect result of an occupying force which was also supporting our regional enemy.

Back on topic: Bush/Cheney have proven to be virtual Manchurian candidates in terms of hurting the US and thus strengthening its rivals--and ignoring the intel on impending 9/11 attack, AND letting OBL get away at Tora Bora! (yes, Clinton should have had him taken out earlier, but 9/11 happened 9 months into W's watch. How can the righties...? whatever).

McCain might really be a Manchurian candidate! but whatever the case, will likely continue playing into OBL's strategy:

Why would OBL go out of his way to challenge that superpower with its awesome array of resources and weapons, deliberately provoking it into declaring war to the death upon him and his organization? The enormous risks are obvious. What were the potential gains?

Any serious and unemotional consideration of this question makes it apparent that the answer “He hates America and wants to destroy it” will not do. If that were his concrete strategy and end, that would make him a fool, which he is not. Any fairly intelligent person would know that an attack like that of 9/11, or even ten such attacks, would not suffice to defeat the United States or make it give up the struggle against terrorism and accept the unhindered spread of radical revolutionary Islam in the world. Any intelligent person would instead expect the attack on the American homeland to have precisely the political, psychological, and military effects it actually had—to mobilize the government, the American public, and many of its allies around the globe for an all-out struggle against al-Qaeda and international terrorism. Anyone with intelligence would also have anticipated the huge risks to himself and his organization from the inevitable counterattack—a military campaign by an overwhelmingly superior foe against his political base and secret camps in Afghanistan, blows to his cells wherever they could be found, international police, intelligence, and financial measures against his organization on a vastly increased scale, heavy pressure on regimes that had secretly supported or tolerated his activities to crack down on them, the imprisonment or death of anyone in al-Qaeda’s ranks from bottom to top—in short, all the measures that the Bush administration carried out and has trumpeted as successes in the War on Terror. Why would bin Laden knowingly risk all this for the sake of an attack, however spectacular, that he knew would not seriously damage the United States as a nation? ... The only sensible answer, once the foolish and inadequate ones are discarded, is that OBL anticipated the American reaction and wanted it. His purpose in attacking the US directly in its homeland was to get the American government to do what it had not done in response to his previous attacks: to declare an all-out war against him and al-Qaeda and a worldwide War on Terror led and organized by the United States, with every other country in the world summoned to follow and support or be considered an enemy...

Deliberately provoking the United States into open, declared war against him, his forces, radical Islamism, and worldwide terrorism was bin Laden’s way of expanding a struggle he was already waging but losing, one he could not win on account of its insoluble contradictions, into a larger war free from internal contradictions that he could hope ultimately to win. To put it in a nutshell, OBL needed the US as a declared enemy to enable him to win his war against his primary enemies (secular Muslim governments) and thus achieve his goals. http://www.amconmag.com/2004_10_25/feature.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Telegraph headline: Barack Obama aide: Why Winnie the Pooh should shape US foreign policy By Tim Shipman in Washington Last Updated: 2:04AM BST 17/06/2008 "Winnie the Pooh, Luke Skywalker and British football hooligans could shape the foreign policy of Barack Obama if he becomes US President, according to a key adviser."

Obama is a fraud, but at least he is an amusing one. No problem. So long as he is out of the running by September or so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

meat,

Bleat about whatever you want. The fact your all queuing up to Deny here is that bin Laden is still potentially free, and the so-called war on terror is a failure, due to GOP policies.

If Luke Skywalker and Winnie the poor were shaping US foreign policy, I'd wager a bet that they'd have more success than the current Miserable Failure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adverts...

The US has more troops and resources committed to Afghanistan than all of Europe combined. Yet who do you criticize for not focusing enough?

Numerous terrorist attacks have happened in Europe since 9/11 while there have been zero in the US. Yet who do you criticize for having failures against terrorism?

The Global War on Terror is just that....global. It's a partnership initiated by the US but includes governments from all over the world. Yet who do you criticize when a bomb goes off in Spain?

OBL listed one of his reasons to start Jihad as seeing foreign troops in Saudi Arabia. That would be all foreign troops, including your own. Yet what do you attribute OBL to?

Al Queda has attacked nearly 30 countries and have had attacks foiled in even more. They've attacked countries aligned with the US and hostile to the US. They've attacked countries involved in Iraq and not involved in Iraq. Yet who do you say is Al Queda's enemy?

Europeans refuse to give any criticism of their own governments. They refuse to look at terrorist attacks in their own country and ask who failed. The refuse to believe the GWOT goes beyond the White House.

Yet you do you claim the lemmings are?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib, there's creadence in most of what you said, but I disagree with one portion.

Afghanistan attacked us. We attacked them. This is our war.

But george bush allowed this war to wane when he made the conscience choice to attack Iraq while we were at war already and Iraq had not attacked us.

We should have kept our troops in Iraq.

NATO has vollenteered through whatever avenues to help us. But we should have gone in, done the job right and ensure that the Taliban didn't raise their ugly heads up. But we didn't complete the job. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream:

" Afghanistan attacked us. We attacked them. This is our war. "

Total nonsense. None of the 11 jihadists who flew the planes on 9/11 were Afghans. They were radical muslims following the call of one particular cleric who happened to be in Afghanistan under the protection of the salafist government. But similar calls for radical jihad you can hear from muslim clerics all over the world, including Europe itself. Like most naive Westerners, you look at the jihad through the lense of your own cultural background. That is meaningless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess the honorable senator from Illinois is forgettign that a Democrat President of the United States had Osama offered to him on a silver platter, and turned down the offer. That President was William J. Clinton.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's Obama's plan? Is it to apologize for our very existence? Is that why he redesigned the presidential seal a couple weeks back? Not even elected and he already has his flightsuit moment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites