Uh….the 2004 election?

According to Orrin Hatch, terrorists are looking forward to a victory by Democrats in November. I wonder what makes some politicians think that they can use the terrorism issue to scare Americans into voting for them or for their party.

Bush “staying the course” is an oxymoron. If anything, Bush completely changed ME policy from one of “stability, and not PO’ing the oil carte,l above freedom” to one of “bring freedom and stability will follow”. The old policy was that a short term peace was better than a long term war that created lasting peace. The number of “ceasefires” in the ME over the past decades is astounding. They’ve been “at peace” so many times you wonder whether “peace” just means “time appropriated to re-load the weapons”.

As far as your point 2) Eural, thats great that we would rethink and restructure and all that, but I’d kind of like a sketch of that plan written out before we make it look like a genuine “flee, defeated with our tails between our legs”.

As to the commies: Killing fields anyone? Pol Pot? Sure, America didn’t fall, but the rest of SE Asia did, just as was predicted with the domino effect. That largely collapsed after the Soviet Union imploded, but the “domino effect” idea was historically accurate. Communists rule by force, which is why all the “Peoples Republics” in the world are run by dictators who starve their people and kill off all dissent. Of course they “speak for the people”, the one’s they don’t speak for were all mass-murdered.

These Islamo-fascists are in league with the Communists. What is the difference between fascism and communism? Those identified as Communists killed more than those identified as Fascists.

1) Clinton’s policies were – for the most part – part and parcel of US foreign policy in the ME since WWII and so were just as responsible as anyone else’s. Again, compared to the great lions of the right he did seem to be getting the “terrorist” thing unlike good ole’ “cut and run” (Lebenon) or “wheel and deal” (Iran) Reagan. We’ve been pretty ignorant of our actions in the region for decades and those actions have consequences. There’s no one president you can blame or exonerate here. Again, I think Clinton seemed to be groping toward an awareness of the situation but we were only in the preliminary stages before it got cut off by Bush. Until 911 when we implemented a policy that’s been trundling around the neocon outfits since the early 70′s and has had less than sterling success. (The Iraq thing might have payed off if we had gone in with overwhelming force and kept it there until things were smoothed over. Maybe next time…)

2) The pullout from Iraq (if it were to come to that) would be greeted as a victory much like the other attacks you listed. The difference would be that we could revamp our strategy, rebuild and restructure our forces, nationally reunite our committment and continue the actual GWOT in a more effective time and manner. All of those previous “victories” (stretching back into the 80′s) were not seen as part of a greater pattern and hence there was no US retooling or re-engagement. This time it could be different – given the right leadership. On a final note, don’t forget what happened after the glorious victory of the commies in Vietnam. The world revolution spread like wildfire across Asia, the dominoes fell across the continents and the US was besieged by rampaging hordes of commies….Not.

Thanks for the discussion – I’ll check out the Koran references for more background.

I’m arguing for a successful war that will produce a peace we all desire. This administration is not going to get that.

Good. I essentially agree with you; however, this is not what Democrats like Murtha, Lamont or Kerry are advocating. They are not advocating a new strategy to win the war in Iraq, rather, to withdraw from it completely. I believe that whatever the Administration is doing currently is not as bad as what would happen if we withdrew. There is nothing wrong with politicians like Hatch giving that opinion. In fact, there is nothing wrong with Democrats cliaming that continuing the fighting in Iraq is a victory for terrorists; I just disagree with them.

Claiming that a withdrawal will make America safer is a big historical “what if,” just as much as continuing the fight. As a voter, the option of withdrawing troops in 6 months with no one telling me what Plan B is if the withdrawal strategy fails, simply does not appeal to me. I cannot, in my evaluation, forsee such a vague policy being successful in the long term (or in the short term for that matter).

The Soviets gave up their desire to annex and colonize Afghanistan, which was a completely different motive than our operation; we don’t want to stay, but we need to leave a state that persecutes terror rather than support it, or else the terrorists will “follow us home” in one way or another. Unlike the Soviet plan, democracy is not oppression, and is a morally just system.

2) I think one of the problems we face in the West is the temptation to always look at the rich and powerful as the source of all problems in society. Perhaps it is post-colonial guilt, or a residue of marxism; however, I don’t buy that poor uneducated people are hapless creatures who do not have the burden of morality because they are “oppressed.” There are plenty of poor people who distinguish between right and wrong, and do not act like petulant children, lashing out at authority.
Remember, all fascist movements throughout history justified their actions under the guise of “fighting oppression.” Hitler blamed the weimar and the League of Nations for the poverty of the german people and ascended on a platform of “social justice.” We cannot let ourselves fall into the trap of believing America is the “root cause” of Islamic terror. Read chapter 5 and 9 of the Koran and imagine you had to follow all commandments therein exactly as written, and you will find out the root of the problem.
Besides, Bush’s critics claim Saddam was hated by Islamic terrorist groups and had no relations with them (which is pattently false), so why would Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, Jordinians, and even European Muslims flock into a Iraq to fight the army that just deposed their arch enemy and had prepared to leave a few months later?

Just curious, before this thread get killed…You still haven’t answered these questions =P
a)Was Clinton’s policies responsible for recruiting the terrorists that attacked America throughout the 1990’s, including Mohammad Atta and the 9/11 hijackers
b)Since Al-Queda claimed victory over us in Somalia, or Spain because of madrid, what makes you think a pullout from Iraq would be any different?

1) Again you attack the strawman of an immediate and complete “cut and run” from Iraq. There are lots of options besides “staying the course” and getting out completely. How about lets get some ideas on the table nationally from American leaders who want to produce real solutions instead of repeating two extremes neither of which is going to solve our problem? By the way there is no question to avoid. Our current policy will result in a failed state which will – like Afghanistan – soon become our worst nightmare.

2) Actually, yes. Many of the newly recruited terrorists were something else before this war. Many were poor, uneducated and maybe unemployed. Dealing with those issues without igniting a meaningless conflict would have done wonders to neutralize the radical message of Bin Laden’s fundamentalist sect. What were the mujahadin before the Soviet intervention in the 1980′s? Farmers, peasants, etc. Decades of super-power occupation and violence radicalized them to the point that they could produce the Taliban in the 1990′s. Al-Zawahari has said one of the goals of 911 was to draw the US into creating another situation like Afghanistan in the 80′s. Iraq is working out just fine for them. Staying the course means enabling them further. Why doesn’t that factor into an assessment of our strategy?

3) Clinton was not a superman on terror (unless you compare him to Bush). In the 1990s it was slowly dawning on our government that this was becoming an issue and like all beauracratic systems it was responding slowly. But compare the actions and its apparent that Clinton was moving in the right direction (funding, intelligence, executive orders, etc.). Bush came in and immediately reversed direction even when given warnings from numerous agencies and countries. Could Clinton have done more? Sure, in hindsight we now know. But to defend Bush who did even less – and whose actions did impact our prepardness on 911 – that’s utter nonesense.

4) To win in Iraq we should have gone in to win in the beginning. Bush (thanks to Rumsfeld’s catastrophic failure as SoD) fumbled our initial success and now has fumbled any political capital to finish the job properly. He has failed as a leader to unite the country and to successfully persecute what he calls the most important battle in the GWOT. The American public has left his administration and he has only himself to blame. Again, you argue a historical “what if” like the Republicans – if we had only put in a few thousand more troops into Vietnam we could have saved the situation. Really? Maybe we would have only lost a few thousand more to the quagmire and gotten the same end result. Just saying it doesn’t make it so. I’m not arguing for “no war, only peace”. I’m arguing for a successful war that will produce a peace we all desire. This administration is not going to get that. They are in fact getting the oppposite. And the Republican response is not to demand accountability but to try to blame 50% of American citizens for partisan gains so they can continue with the same failed, destructive policies. Why would you support that?

1) If the problem is one of vernacular, fine. Call it “strategic redeployment” or whatever, if it suits you. It is still a withdrawal of forces. This is the only plan put forth by Democrats. What is startling to me is how everyone agrees (including many republicans) that President bush didn’t have a plan B to combat the insurgency after toppling Saddam. Great. Well, what is the Democrat’s plan B if a withdrawal leads to political collapse of Iraq, and a Taliban-like terror state fills the vacuum? Every single democrat avoids that question.

2)This is a war, you are going to see the enemy fight back when you take the fight to their territory. Was FDR responsible for recruiting Japanese fighters when we invaded Okinawa. Was the world safe in the midst of 1944? Any just war is an investment in peace that requires bloodshed.
Besides, who were these ‘newly-recruited’ terrorists before Iraq…shoe salesmen? Was there ever a time when they didnt hate us, or the world was free of Islamic terror? What if WMD was found in 2003 and all the critics were satisfied, would the insurgents say, “Oh, I guess the war was justified, therefore I wont become a suicide bomber”? Is Bush responsible for the recruitment of the Pashtoon, Pakistani, and Arab terrorists who flooded into Afghanistan after 2001, even though that is considered to be the ‘good war’?

3) Its great how you paint Clinton as a superman against terror, and how Bush intentionally divested in fighting terror after 911. I don’t buy it, but like you I don’t want to write a report on Clinton’s responses to terrorism. However, you didn’t answer my question: Was Clinton’s policies responsible for recruiting the terrorists that attacked America throughout the 1990′s, including Mohammad Atta and the 9/11 hijackers who hatched the plan during Clinton’s administration?

4)We may have prevented the holocaust if we confronted Hitler before he annexed Austria and the Sudetenland. We may have had to sacrifice thousands more troops in Vietnam, but had we won I’m sure we could have prevented the 2 million or so casualties of the killing fields. The alternative of war is not peace, unless you are satisfied with living as a slave to the Darwinian brutes of the world.
Again, you dind’t answer my question: Since Al-Queda claimed victory over us in Somalia, or Spain because of madrid, what makes you think a pullout from Iraq would be any different? Because of some partisan disgruntled CIA hack who wanted to sell a book, as Mikkel has pointed out ?

Face it, we are in a global conflict where the enemy is determined to find a way to fight us whether we like it or not. Just because Bush’s policies in Iraq have not lived up to expectations doesn’t mean the Democrats plan is better. Like all the Democrats, Joe Lieberman has strongly criticized Bush’s stategy and execution of the war, but his response is “lets find a way to do it better and win,” rather than “call the helicopters, its time for ‘redeployment.’”

OK while the rhetoric wasn’t up to the task of explaining why this was, the CIA (according to the One Percent Doctrine) came to the conclusion that bin Laden’s pre-election tape was meant to get Bush reelected…and now there is more strife (as measured by the number of groups fighting not the amount of violence) in the Middle East than there has been in a long time.

1)Hatch and other Republicans are not arguing against any plan put forth by the Dems. They are attacking the strawman “cut and run” rhetoric they’ve created to help win elections. If they actually discussed a Democratic plan (and its specific strengths and weaknesses) that would be of value but would also destroy they’re contention that the “Dem’s have no plan”. So do they do what is of benefit to our country or what is politically expediant? You know the answer.

2) The facts are easily available on-line (google it) but here’s one example. Our own State Department published an annual report on terrorism initiated during the Reagan administration. This administration cancelled its publication beginning last year because the numbers were sky-rocketing world-wide (they tripled between 2003-2004) giving lie to the “we’re making the world safer” meme they keep regurgitating.

3) I don’t have time to do a Clinton report but let’s summarize – in every case you mentioned (especially the WTC) all the terrorists were arrested and sit in prison today. None of those associated with 911 are. Clinton upped the federal budget on terrorism and created a cabinet level position to begin addressing it. Bush cut the budget and the position and (until 911) ignored all reports and concerns regarding terrorist activity. Only an idiot would try to make black/white and white/black. You get the point.

4) Historically, it doesn’t matter if you stay or pull-out. Long term its a losing proposition and there will be bloodbath to follow any involvement like we’ve gotten ourselves wrapped up in here. This is an issue and involves much bigger things than Dems vs. Reps and until we start addressing it as such we are screwed. Right now the Reps have the burden of responsibility and they are not carrying it.

“Bush/Republicans have actually enacted policies which have demonstrably increased the recruitment and dangers from terrorists world-wide…..Democrats might do the same but at the moment any criticism of their policies and/or impact is purely theoritical since they haven’t been running the show since 2000.”

I see, so you musn’t consider fire to be hot until it burns your hand.

1)I have a plan to air-drop a pig in clown makeup onto the Ka’ba in Mecca. I believe my plan will make muslims laugh at the stupidity of it all and therefore all terror wil stop. You have no right to predict the outcome, nor protest my plan before I do it. How dare you question my patriotism!!

2)How is it a “demonstrative fact” that more terrorists have been recruited than killed since 2000? Did you do a survey? Exactly how many terrorists are there in the world today, how many were a direct result of Bush, and how many have been killed? How does john kerry know that? What about the “demonstative fact” that no terrorsist attacks have occured on our soil since 911?

3)What about Clinton’s policies before 2000? One could argue he was responsible for recruitng the terrorists that caused 9/11 since the plan was hatched under his administration. Not to mention the 1st WTC bombing in 93, Mogadishu in the same year, Bojinka in 95, Khobar towers in 96, African embassies 98, USS cole in 98 ect…

4) What about the historical evidence of disaster that follows pulling out early, regardless of motives for the initial conflict. Look at the indo-chinese holocaulst that followed retreat from vietnam. Osama bin Laden himself (Tony Snow merely cited him) said that Moghadisu and the Madrid bombings were successes for Al-Queda because it forced pre-mature pullouts. What makes you think Iraq would be interpreted any different by Al-Queda?

Every democrat who says that Bush’s policies have made america less safe is just as bad as Hatch, according to your logic. I’ve seen a democratic strategist claim that Bush in ‘04 was “Osama bin Laden’s dream candidate.�

Jimmy, hate to burst your bubble, but the Kerry quote is demonstratably true. However, I agree that the one from the strategist is hackery. But my point is more in line with Kevin’s point. This is a sitting President vs. imagined Democratic control. Orrin should damn well know better, and I’m sure he does.

That’s what makes this all the more disappointing/frightening. Because if he’s willing to say something like this which he knows to be a simple political setup, what other “predictions” are being whispered about Democrats in our churches and Republican base communities? And to what lengths will the Republicans go to maintain power? That’s what this is about, not whether or not you could find a quote from Kerry that sounds similar enough so you can say the Dems are just as bad.

Any better? The WOT is a lose/lose situation for the Dems — the smart thing to do for the Dems (which many have done to the chagrin of their base, as you point out Justin) is to switch sides on foreign policy.

Bush/Republicans have actually enacted policies which have demonstrably increased the recruitment and dangers from terrorists world-wide. Intelligence agencies world-wide (including our own) back this up.

Democrats might do the same but at the moment any criticism of their policies and/or impact is purely theoritical since they haven’t been running the show since 2000.

So when Dem’s bash Republicans its based on actual, measureable policy impacts. When Republicans (such as Hatch) do the same to Dem’s its based entirely on “politicizing” fear and pandering to the ignorant. Notice the difference?

grrrr…. what a hack.

Every democrat who says that Bush’s policies have made america less safe is just as bad as Hatch, according to your logic. I’ve seen a democratic strategist claim that Bush in ’04 was “Osama bin Laden’s dream candidate.”