Author Blames 9/11 On 'Cultural Left

[Calabrio]

Face it, BuSh's only strategy here is to buy him enough time to complete his term in office, forfeit a GOP presidency in '08, hand this Iraq mess over to the Dems and pray they fall on their faces. Iraqis and Americans (soldiers and citizens alike) are nowhere near the top of his priority list.

No. Bush is not trying to buy time. That claims is unsupportable with what he's doing and inconsistent with who he is.

What you're doing is projecting Clinton/Carter/Johnson tactics on Bush that aren't applicable.

Bush is solely focused on winning this war because he's aware of what the consequences of failure may be.

And for the final time, Bush isn't just moving forward with a troop surge. They aren't supposed to be simply sending in more troops. There's more to it than that. They are going to be fighting more aggressively, changing their tactics, redeploying throughout the country, lifting the restrictive rules of engagement, targeting the sources of the foreign insurgence, and Al Sader is now keenly aware that he's on the short list of people about to meet the business end of a satellite missile. There is an implied ultimatum to the Iraq government.

These are important distinctions.

To everyone who thinks that the Israelis lost the recent battle within Lebanon, take note. An American withdrawal will be perceived in much the same way, if not worse.

 

[fossten]

And for the final time, Bush isn't just moving forward with a troop surge. They aren't supposed to be simply sending in more troops. There's more to it than that. They are going to be fighting more aggressively, changing their tactics, redeploying throughout the country, lifting the restrictive rules of engagement, targeting the sources of the foreign insurgence, and Al Sader is now keenly aware that he's on the short list of people about to meet the business end of a satellite missile. There is an implied ultimatum to the Iraq government.

These are important distinctions.

You know, C, I've seen you repeat these points over and over again, and these guys aren't hearing it. They are stubbornly, mule-headedly fixated on the terms "troop surge," and any other tactics or changes in strategy are blithely ignored, to their informational detriment. Seems like either they are drinking the MSM hate-Bush Kool-Aid, or they are deliberately ignoring the rest of the fact set in favor of scoring political talking points. And the proof I offer is Johnny's hit-piece, which doesn't address any of the points you just made. Fair and balanced? Not. Truthful? NOT.

Let me also add that we aren't just sending over a bunch of reinforcements. the 21,500 troops have specific missions, including locking down Anbar province. The trouble areas are where they will be sent.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

And for the final time, Bush isn't just moving forward with a troop surge. They aren't supposed to be simply sending in more troops. There's more to it than that. They are going to be fighting more aggressively, changing their tactics, redeploying throughout the country, lifting the restrictive rules of engagement, targeting the sources of the foreign insurgence, and Al Sader is now keenly aware that he's on the short list of people about to meet the business end of a satellite missile. There is an implied ultimatum to the Iraq government.

These are important distinctions.

Baloney. We've been hearing the same "we're changing tactics as we learn about our opponents" crap for the last 2 years, PRIMARILY coming from BuSh, Rumsfeld and Cheney. If doing that hasn't improved things in Iraq for the last 2 years, WTF makes you think the same rhetoric is going to work THIS time? You're continued faith in this looser of a "leader" only shows the kind of sheeple you've become. The ONLY, and I repeat , ONLY new thing is your so-called "implied ultimatum", which is something the dems have been calling for (aka, milestones and timetable for performance) for nearly a YEAR or more! WHY OH WHY has BuSh dragged his feet so long??

 

[fossten]

WHY OH WHY has BuSh dragged his feet so long??

First of all, Bush hasn't dragged his feet. It is a military fact that the biggest favor you can do for the enemy is announce that you're leaving, and tell them when. It's baloney to whine about how long this war is taking, considering we didn't start it.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, Iraq is another front in the War on Terror and as such, we need to see it through to the end. If we cut and run now or in 12 months, we will have lost the war, and we'll have another 9/11, only this one will be a hundredfold. I know you don't agree, Johnny, but spewing hate toward Bush over a disagreement like military strategy is a bit overreactive on your part. It shows that you have no patience, and that you care less about winning the war than I do. And the same goes for your Democratic friends: Face it, you guys want us to lose the war.

 

[Marcus]

First of all, Bush hasn't dragged his feet. It is a military fact that the biggest favor you can do for the enemy is announce that you're leaving, and tell them when. It's baloney to whine about how long this war is taking, considering we didn't start it.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, Iraq is another front in the War on Terror and as such, we need to see it through to the end. If we cut and run now or in 12 months, we will have lost the war, and we'll have another 9/11, only this one will be a hundredfold. I know you don't agree, Johnny, but spewing hate toward Bush over a disagreement like military strategy is a bit overreactive on your part. It shows that you have no patience, and that you care less about winning the war than I do. And the same goes for your Democratic friends: Face it, you guys want us to lose the war.

Since you right-wingers are so fond of posting past quotes from Democrats, here are a few for you:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." George W. Bush, April 9, 1999.

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long (U.S. troops) will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." George W. Bush, June 5, 1999.

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber." Tom Delay, March 11, 1999

“I rise today to state that no defense funds should be used for ground forces in Kosovo unless authorized by Congress.” Tom Delay, April 15, 1999

“When asked the question, ‘what if he does not come to the table,’ they said, ‘well, we will go to Phase 2, and Phase 2 is that we will bomb for a few more days. Then he will be going to the table, by crackie.’ And when we asked, ‘Then, what?’ then they said, ‘well, we will bomb for another week and that will force him to come to the table and this will be all over with.’ And then when we asked, ‘Then, what?’ there was silence. This administration started a war without a plan farther along than two weeks.” Tom Delay, April 28, 1999

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.” Tom Delay, April 28, 1999

“Instead of sending in ground troops, we should pull out the forces we now have in the region. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should send ground troops to Kosovo and I do not think we should be bombing in the Balkans, and I do not think that NATO should be destroyed by changing its mission into a humanitarian invasion force.” A cutting and running Tom Delay, April 28, 1999

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it." Sean Hannity, Fox News, April 5, 1999

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." Trent Lott

" President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be
away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." Rick Santorum

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." Tony Snow, Fox News, March 24, 1999

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" Cindy Sheehan wannabe Sean Hannity, April 6, 1999

"This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem." Dick Lugar

"You can support the troops but not the president" Tom Delay

So much for supporting a president in time of war.

 

[fossten]

Since you right-wingers are so fond of posting past quotes from Democrats, here are a few for you:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." George W. Bush, April 9, 1999.

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long (U.S. troops) will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." George W. Bush, June 5, 1999.

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber." Tom Delay, March 11, 1999

“I rise today to state that no defense funds should be used for ground forces in Kosovo unless authorized by Congress.” Tom Delay, April 15, 1999

“When asked the question, ‘what if he does not come to the table,’ they said, ‘well, we will go to Phase 2, and Phase 2 is that we will bomb for a few more days. Then he will be going to the table, by crackie.’ And when we asked, ‘Then, what?’ then they said, ‘well, we will bomb for another week and that will force him to come to the table and this will be all over with.’ And then when we asked, ‘Then, what?’ there was silence. This administration started a war without a plan farther along than two weeks.” Tom Delay, April 28, 1999

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.” Tom Delay, April 28, 1999

“Instead of sending in ground troops, we should pull out the forces we now have in the region. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should send ground troops to Kosovo and I do not think we should be bombing in the Balkans, and I do not think that NATO should be destroyed by changing its mission into a humanitarian invasion force.” A cutting and running Tom Delay, April 28, 1999

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it." Sean Hannity, Fox News, April 5, 1999

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." Trent Lott

" President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be
away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." Rick Santorum

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." Tony Snow, Fox News, March 24, 1999

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" Cindy Sheehan wannabe Sean Hannity, April 6, 1999

"This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem." Dick Lugar

"You can support the troops but not the president" Tom Delay

So much for supporting a president in time of war.

Flaws in your post:

1. No links to prove the quotes
2. Copious amounts of Tom Delay quotes - hypocrisy, considering you lefties can't stand Tom Delay

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

If we cut and run now or in 12 months, we will have lost the war, and we'll have another 9/11, only this one will be a hundredfold.

So that'll be 91 thousand one hundered?? :bowrofl:

 

[fossten]

So that'll be 91 thousand one hundered?? :bowrofl:

LOL I cannot believe I walked into that one. :Bang

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

It just dawned on me, another reason why this book's author is full of BS.....

Muslims are not enraged by our political freedom or democracy, but by the left's abuse of that freedom, specifically the excessive sexualization of our society.

If that is true, then why didn't the 9/11 terrorists target Las Vegas, or Hollywood, or San Fransisco, or New Orleans? No, they targeted the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the Capitol Building. Exactly how to those symbolize "the excessive sexualization of our society"??

 

[fossten]

It just dawned on me, another reason why this book's author is full of BS.....



If that is true, then why didn't the 9/11 terrorists target Las Vegas, or Hollywood, or San Fransisco, or New Orleans? No, they targeted the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the Capitol Building. Exactly how to those symbolize "the excessive sexualization of our society"??

Funny thing about books:

You have to read them before you can intelligently comment on their premises. Since the book indubitably has at least a hundred pages, I would assume that the author covers that part.

You are engaging in useless speculation.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Funny thing about books:

You have to read them before you can intelligently comment on their premises. Since the book indubitably has at least a hundred pages, I would assume that the author covers that part.

You are engaging in useless speculation.

Funny thing about books:

Their premise has to be founded in reality and be based on real (instead of false) logic before I waste my time on them.

 

[Calabrio]

Simple point-
Obviously the "terrorists" aren't interested in attacking simply for the perceived deviancy in our culture. But to say that it is not a factor used to motivated the killers, or dehumanize the victims, would be dishonest.

The perceived lack of values is used to dehumanize us. It's used as a propaganda device to help motivate the enemy into hating us. It's especially effective when you're dealing with a population that has been brainwashed and hopeless. One that lives in a culture where they don't strive for success, but far too many reach to attain the hero-like immortality and celebrity associated with being a martyr.

But even if the country reverted to the most strict, realistic, interpretation of Christianity or Judaism, the contempt of the Islmo-terrorists wouldn't cease. They'd then hate us for being Christian or Jewish.... More important, the hate for the West is usually based on what they are told about the West, which is rarely accurate.

But I would say that the policies and the philosophy of the left has enabled the terrorists and, particularly in Europe, helped create an environment that fosters that kind of hatred and resentment. Neighborhoods that are not assimilated into the dominant culture, welfare funded communities of unemployed, second generation 20-35 year old men.

And then, when we do fight them around the world, it's the political left that thinks that discussion is the answer. The media moves into the area and replays propaganda videos on American and European TV. They exploit and misrepresent the American soldier while giving the terrorist a pass, in the name of fairness. The list goes on and on.


And ultimately, the irony is that if we lose this War on Islamo-terror, here, in Europe, or Asia- it will be the secular left that is targeted first- and of course, only ones that hire bodyguards will have any weapons to fight back.

 

[Calabrio]

Dinesh D'Souza is currently on C-SPAN2 right now on the program "In Depth." This was first aired last weekend.

I am thoroughly impressed by this man. If you have access to the TV right now, you can probably catch the second half hour of this very informative and interesting interview. And you can also enjoy hearing the increasingly racist and irrational liberal callers who continue to call in.