Robert Kagan asks, “How do you count the number of terrorists?”
According to the Times, the report is agnostic on whether another terrorist attack is more or less likely. Rather, its authors claim that the war has increased the number of potential terrorists. Unfortunately, neither The Post nor the Times provides any figures to support this. Does the NIE? Or are its authors simply assuming that because Muslims have been angered by the war, some percentage of them must be joining the ranks of terrorists?As a poor substitute for actual figures, The Post notes that, according to the NIE, members of terrorist cells post messages on their Web sites depicting the Iraq war as “a Western attempt to conquer Islam.” No doubt they do. But to move from that observation to the conclusion that the Iraq war has increased the terrorist threat requires answering a few additional questions: How many new terrorists are there? How many of the new terrorists became terrorists because they read the messages on the Web sites? And of those, how many were motivated by the Iraq war as opposed to, say, the war in Afghanistan, or the Danish cartoons, or the Israel-Palestine conflict, or their dislike for the Saudi royal family or Hosni Mubarak, or, more recently, the comments of the pope?
Interesting, isn’t it? This is what the National Intelligence Estimate has to say about increased numbers of jihadists:
- Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.
- If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
In other words, we don’t know how many jihadists there are, but we know that their number is increasing. Okay, I’ll accept that. We can’t possibly know the sources and methods used to calculate those facts so we just have to believe that our analysts know what they are talking about.
How do we know that the reason there are more jihadists is because of our blundering around in Iraq? Let’s go to the NIE:
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
- The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight. We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
- Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims – all of which jihadists exploit.
In other words, there are several reasons why jihadists become radicalized and the Iraq War – while being a “cause celebre” for international jihadism – is only one of them. Better yet, is there any way to measure the effect of the Iraq War on the recruitment of jihadis specifically?
All very good questions that the press and the Democrats are ignoring this morning in their haste to use the NIE for their own political purposes. And as I said yesterday, the narrative on what this report contains is just about set and no amount of research or analysis will be able to counter the political effects of its release.
This is not to say we shouldn’t accept some of the report’s basic conclusions; that the number of terrorists is growing, that they are less centralized and therefore harder to kill, and that our confronting the jihadis in Iraq has thrown up new leaders in the movement and they are being shaped by the conflict there.
These are the headlines we’re reading this morning. But also contained in the NIE are some interesting tidbits that have been deliberately buried – especially by Democrats – because highlighting them would undercut their critique of the war.
For instance, the NIE points out that staying in Iraq and somehow achieving the goal of a forming a Democratic Iraq would mean fewer terrorists would be created:
Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
The flip side of that argument is that leaving Iraq will create more terrorists than staying. The report points out that “perceived jihadist success there (Iraq) would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.”
In fact, the report would seem to validate the Administration’s main anti-terrorism aim of democratization:
If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.
The wild spin on this report coming from Democrats completely ignores the consequences of an Iraq pullout as far as creating even more terrorists and the potential war-winning strategy of democratization – something they have been telling us for years is doomed to failure.
In other words, it is not the President’s policy of invasion, occupation, and democratization in Iraq that has been wrong, it is the Democrat’s counter strategy of leaving Iraq too soon and abandoning or downgrading democratization efforts that runs counter to the report’s analysis, conclusions, and recommendations.
In explaining that only selective parts of the NIE were leaked, director of national intelligence John Negroponte noted: “The estimate highlights the importance of the outcome in Iraq on the future of global jihadism, judging that should the Iraqi people prevail in establishing a stable political and security environment, the jihadists will be perceived to have failed, and fewer jihadists will leave Iraq determined to carry on the fight elsewhere.â€Winning, however, is something Democrats rarely talk about. The NIE leak was an occasion for even more defeatism from the party that, insofar as it offers any distinct policy prescriptions for Iraq, advocates a premature withdrawal that would only ensure defeat. That would be the ultimate jihadi recruiting tool. Terrorists would be emboldened by their victory — since they are always more aggressive when we appear to be the “weak horse,†in bin Laden’s phrase — and would perhaps control some or most of Iraq as a base of operations.
Properly understood, the NIE leak confirms President Bush’s argument that Iraq is an important front in the War on Terror, and that achieving victory there is essential.
The President’s policy is correct; it is the implementation of that policy that has been badly botched.
This would seem to leave a political opening of gargantuan proportions for the Democrats. All they have to do is tell us how they would win the war in Iraq, right?
Instead, we hear nothing about attempting to win the war but rather how to lose it in as painless a way as possible. Withdrawing our forces based on an arbitrary timetable that bears no relationship whatsoever to how the Iraqi government is doing in bringing stability and democracy to that country is a strategy that runs 180 degrees counter to what the NIE report recommends. And yet, according to the Washington Post, Democratic members of Congress have had this report since April and still insist on promoting a policy of withdrawal:
Copies of the NIE were sent to the House and Senate intelligence, armed services and foreign affairs committees at the time, through normal electronic information channels available to all members, intelligence and congressional sources said. It arrived at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on April 26.In the House, “there was a bit of a snafu with this particular document,” said a spokesman for Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the intelligence committee chairman. “We had a massive computer failure on our classified side.” The first that the committee knew of its existence was late last week, when “it was requested specifically by a member. That was when it was found and scanned into our system.”
Whether the document was ignored or disappeared into cyberspace, however, it seemed to have made little impact on Capitol Hill at the time. No one in either chamber, on either side of the aisle, requested a briefing or any further information on its conclusions until now, the sources said.
The fact that the report has been available to Democrats on the Hill since April begs the question; who leaked it and why now? After all, there apparently is nothing much new in the document:
The intelligence community has had its own problems with the attention the document is now receiving. Several active and retired intelligence officials stressed that the judgments were nothing new and followed a series of similar assessments made since early 2003 about the impact of the Iraq war on global terrorism.“This is very much mainstream stuff,” said Paul R. Pillar, the CIA’s national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005. “There are no surprises.”
The only possible conclusion one can draw is the one that President Bush mentioned yesterday; that the leaking of this document was a political hit job designed to give Democrats ammunition for the November elections.
The leak comes at a time when Republicans have built some momentum and are trying to scratch and claw their way back into the race for control of the House of Representatives. Through this leak and the creation of the “instant narrative” that Iraq was a “mistake” (the report doesn’t say that anywhere) and that because of Iraq the United States is “less safe” (again, the report is silent on that issue), the Democrats are attempting to blunt the “terrorism card” that the GOP has used to trump the Democrats in the last two elections.
Will it work? The narrative has had a head start of 4 days. It will be very difficult to overcome the spin being put out by Democrats and argue about the report on the merits of what it actually says.
UPDATE
Ed Morrissey and I are on the same wavelength this morning:
This is why we have to endure the Iraqi “jihad” until we succeed. The insurgency will collapse when Iraqis grow strong enough to defend themselves and rebuild their infrastructure in peace. In fact, no other strategy could possibly address factors one and three. Even if we packed up and walked out of Iraq, those factors would still exist—as they have for decades—and the fourth factor would remain from our economic engagement with the oppressive regimes that control the region. We have an opportunity to address all four factors by prevailing in Iraq.
What do the Democrats offer? Withdrawal from the one theater in which we face our terrorist enemy and the one place that has to replace a missing tyrant. If we continue our resolve, we can firm up a democracy as Saddam’s replacement and begin to address the factors that drive jihadism. As the NIE concludes, a victory in Iraq would seriously damage the radical Islamist movement, perhaps even mortally. We have no chance to strike a blow against them by retreating. Democrats have badly misrepresented this report and offer the one solution guaranteed to result in making the problem worse—as the NIE also concludes.
7:28 am
From CNNs 360 last night Anderson Cooper speaking with Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois:
COOPER: The White House is also saying, look, terrorists have hated us for years. If it wasn’t in Iraq, it would be somewhere else.
DURBIN: Well, I guess you can make that argument, but the intelligence estimates told us that, as of 9/11, there were 20,000 members of al Qaeda worldwide. Now there are 50,000. The trend line is going in the wrong direction. We have to be tough. I agree. This is a dangerous world, and there are people who want to kill us. But we have to be smart in our policies, and we have to have a strategy that really starts winning this worldwide struggle. So that America is a leader and accepted around the world.
7:46 am
Excellent analysis, Mr. Moran. In this age of selective reporting and manipulative news, it’s all about controlling information to control the masses. Welcome to 1984. Say hello to Big Brother Goebell, and learn newspeak.
Fortunately for us, this is also the age of instant access and unfiltered analysis, in which the truth will out.
I find it incredible that these people, these journalists and politicians who seek to control and manipulate, are still operating from a playbook that was outdated over two decades ago.
8:11 am
Substitute “multicutural education inititiatives” for “democratic reform efforts” and “Western” for “Muslim majority” and this could very well be aquote from Al Quaeda’s intelligence estimate.
Regards,
-the Canine Pundit
http://caninepundit.blogspot.com/
8:14 am
A new Gallup Poll shows that the American public blames Bush (53%) over Clinton (36%) for the failure to capture Osama bin Laden.
Looks like the recent fib offensive from Kenny Bunkport and his enablers hasn’t worked as well as they’d hoped.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24733
8:27 am
Hey Salty Party Snax: way to compare apples and oranges in your fantasy world!
Of course the majority of Americans blame Bush for failing to track down Bin Laden and capture him!
Because ONLY Bush has tried to track him down and capture him, SINCE 9/11!
Clinton was out of office when 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan, and Bin Laden went on the run!
Everything, good, and bad since 9/11 is Bush’s fault!
And everything PRIOR too 21st Jan 2001, including the failure to kill/capture Bin Laden some 10times, to adequately respond to WTC ‘93, Khobar, the USS Cole, Bojinka, AmEmb bombings in East Africa, that’s ALL Clinton’s fault; but the Gallup Poll DID NOT ASK THAT!
8:53 am
Sure, Dale. Whatever you say, dog.
Bush has blown half a billion dollars (much of it borrowed from such bastions of freedom as Red China), lost 2,700 GIs in combat with another 19,000 wounded, started 2 Asian land wars that he has no plan for winning, and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are still at large and still killing Americans.
Please explain to me how that isn’t failure on an historic scale.
8:54 am
Excuse me, that would be half a trillion dollars spent to not catch Osama bin Laden.
9:07 am
Salty: Hmmmmmmmm, Hmmmmmmmmm, sure, whatever you day DOG!
Hmmmmmmmmm, World War II; 405,000 GI’s Killed; another 1.5MILLION wounded; the equivalent of TRILLIONS in Dollars spent; Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito NEVER CAPTURED!
Please explain to ME, why that isn’t regarded as a failure on a HISTORICAL scale?
Oh, I know, because we WON!
We WON, because we stuck it out! We WON, because we didn’t have Leftist, anti-American, Hate-America-first “patriots”, spending every waking moment of their pathetic lives, underming our President, our Military, and our troops in battle, and providing Aid-and-comfort to the enemy, on the front pages of the NYT or WashPost every day!
THAT’S WHY!
Back then, the American people “Got it”
Back then, we didn’t have to content with the arrogant, self-aggrandizing, indolent, bored, selfish, lackadasical spawn of of the Baby Boomer generation like yourself, and your pals like Clinton, and Michael Moore, etc., who are so twisted with hatred for your own country, and so condescendingly arrogant in your moral relativism, moral equivalency, and self-hated, that you not only can’t identify and define the real threat to us all (the Islamists, you know the people who BEHEAD people for fun, and NOT your President), but that you actually suffer from a variety of psychoses, such as Stockholm Syndrome, Cognitive Dissonence, Psychological Displacment, and Category Error, in sympathizing and actually rooting on the Islamists to actually defeat us, and more importantly in your own twisted fantasy world, BUSH!
What a bunch of complete, freaking loosers….you deserve everything you all get, the day a Jihadi is standing over your neck with a butcher knife!
Don’t come crying to people like me, who wore the uniform, to protect your sorry ass then; it’s too late….
9:36 am
The President was right: the NIE document was leaked for political purposes
Yesterday in his (rightly) angry answer to questions liberally biased reporter Jennifer Loven made regarding the leaked NIE report that supposedly said that the Iraq war made terrorism worse, the President Bush claimed that select contents of this docu…
9:40 am
All your hysteria aside Dale, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt conducted the Second World War, he did so with a plan to win it. He mobilized the country, put everyone eligible in uniform, turned our industries into a mighty war machine, and kicked some Nazi ass.
The Bushies, on the other hand, ran this on the cheap operation in Iraq and Afghanistan that has only led to quarmire and the very real possibility of eventual defeat if we don’t change the foucs. Think of it, George W. Bush, through his extraordinary incompetence, has put the United States military into a position where it can’t win against a bunch of ragtag insurgents.
But I wouldn’t worry about Jihadis actually winning this thing, Dale. The American people will soon replace the baffled Bushies with people who actually know what they’re doing. And once Georgie, Rummie, Dick and the rest of these bumblers are thrown out on their fat pampered asses, things will improve markedly.
Democracy works, Dale. Go find another ‘cowboy’ to love.
9:55 am
Rick
Great analysis. I have always suspected our policies themselves are sound. It is the execution of them that has been flawed. The main problem is what it has always been from the beginning. There simply are not enough troops in Iraq ore even Afghanistan for that matter to establish and keep order.
Meanwhile both parties have continued to reject calls to do the one thing that would make a difference. Commit more troops. At this time, nore troops probably cannot be added over night. It will probably take some time, about a year or so. The Army should be able to hold the current position for about two years. This gives us a window of opportunity to get the troops we need.
The troops we need can come from Japan, South Korea, and Western Europe. Any thing else we need can probably be augmented by a draft. We should encourage our Western European allies to build up their own militaries. This would relieve some of the pressure on the US. Also, Japan, South Korea, and Tawain should be encouraged to go nuclear. This would allow them to serve as a check on China and Russia. Also, this allows us to remove troops from these areas. The citizens of those countries don’t really want them there any way. This would be a win-win for us all the way around.
The time for us to be able to commit more troops grows short. The politicians should stop making excuses and get it done. The stark reality is we can commit the resources necessary to get this done or we withdraw. To commit the appropiate resources would require sacrificies from the American people and the Government. It won’t happen.
Regardless of who wins the House and Senate the US and it allies will be withdrawing from Iraq. The Government and the citizens are fundamentally unwilling to make the necessary commitment at this time. By June 2007 there will be no American or Coaliton troops stationed in Sunni or Shia areas. The number troops in Iraq will be 10,000 or less. These will be stationed in Kurdish areas and will probably be backed up by air support. They will be prepared to intervene to prevent the formation of terrorist bases. The mission will change to one primarily involving special ops backed up by air support. In other words, the mission will be one of counter terrorism. The attempt to establish liberal democracy is over. It was never given the resources to give it a realistic shot at succeeding.
Liberal democracy in Iraq was probably doable with the right commitment and the proper execution. Unfortunately we will never know. The Iraqis may very well create for themselves a western type Democratic system but America will have had nothing to do with it. If my predictions are wrong, I will come here and admit I was wrong.
9:57 am
Salty: PUHleese…are your referring to the Democrats, or Kerry, or Clinton Light, or Gore, as people who know what they’re doing, and will “win” this thing?
Are you smoking crack; John Kerry’s never known someone/something he WOULDN’T surrender too! He surrendered to the French when he was 16, and he spent years surrendering to the Vietnamese/VC, tried to surrender to the Contras, and hopes he get elected so he can surrender to the Jihadis!
Hey “Salty”, “redeployment”, is that your “winning” strategy?
What fantasy world do you live in?
Democratic Leftist motto: We promise you, the American Voter, that we WILL snatch Defeat from the Jaws of victory, and roll over, and surrender to the first person that asks us too!
HAH!
Salty, time to go back to your Bong! You’re close to a moment of lucidity!
PS: Democracy does work, President Bush was elected TWICE!
HAH! Bet that sticks in your craw, doesn’t it…..
My got, I gotta go hurl, I just reread your post, and you tried to imply the Democrats actually had a plan, actually cared about the country, actually wanted to Win, and actually wouldn’t SURRENDER!
Sorry, gotta run off to the bathroom real quick…...BAAAAAARRRRRFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!
10:27 am
Salty
These are not “ragtag insurgents.” I think it is best to think of them as the highly leathal fighting force that they are. When we stop under estimating our enemies, we will be able to come up with better strategies to defeat them.
12:17 pm
But come on, it’s not the New York Times that screwed this thing up. It’s not CNN who made Iraq into a mess that could well be beyond hope.
If one actually believes that Iraq is the frontline in the war on terror, can one really say with a straight face that the current administration is the one to fight that war?
Can anyone say outloud that the U.S. attack on Iraq was anything but a mistake? I mean, come on: Hussein had a (at best) degraded weapons program; Hussein was in charge of a rump nation without the resources to commit mischief beyond giving some families in the P.A. money to rebuild their houses; even if he had contact with Islamic terrorists, there’s no evidence that the two were ever able to bridge the enormous ideological gap that separated them.
Saddam was a lousy guy, absolutely, but a threat for which the lives of 2500+ (and counting) young Americans should have been sacrificed? Come on…
Can anyone say that the insurgency in Iraq was anything but an expected outcome for anyone who’s taken a gander at a page or two of a history of the Middle East?
Can anyone argue that a huge military machine is the most effective weapon against small terror cells?
Absolutely al Qaeda is a degraded force, and that’s a good thing, but it’s also a larger more dispersed operation, and for that, we need to concentrate our resources here in the homeland, not in another country where we’re just keeping a civil war on simmer instead of on boil.
The U.S.had become famous for underestimating the threat posed by ethnic rivalries, and
nowoverestimating the effect of its military.What evidence is there that Iraq is anything but a failed state? What evidence is there that the U.S. should be working on anything but a withdrawal of our forces and a split of the nation into three?
This mess is Bush’s legacy – not the NYT or the Democratic party’s legacy – and he should be judged on it. Period.
12:37 pm
Bush to declassify leaked intelligence report
An angry President Bush Tuesday said he would declassify an intelligence document that reportedly fi
12:53 pm
B. Poster – So they’re not ‘deadenders,’ yes?
1:30 pm
Salty
No they are not dead enders. As I stated, from the beginning, we under estimated the capability of the enemy and we over estimated our own capabilities. Making mis calculations, at the start, the is understandable. Failing to make the appropiate corrections is not understandable. We should have realized we did not have enough troops sometime around June 2003. We should have commited more troops at that time.
Unfortunately we are still under estimating this enemy. This is hard to believe but this is the case. The optimal solution for Iraq would be to commit more troops. I discuss, in the previous post, how we can do this. For better or worse, we will not be commiting more troops. The American people will not support it. The Iraq mission will be scaled back to one that consists primarily of special ops who will be supported by air support. They will intervene in Iraq, as necessary, to try and prevent the formation of terrorist bases. Maybe this will work to prevent the spread of Islamic terrorism or maybe it won’t.
In any event, barring a major change in the domestic political scene which seems very unlikely the attempt to bring liberal democracy to Iraq is over. It probably would have worked had it gotten the proper commitment from the American people and both political parties. Unfortunately the commitment was not and is not forthcoming. The Iraqis may ultimately achieve a liberal democracy but America will have had nothing to do with it. We are withdrawing regardless of who controls the House or the Senate.
rabid
The Administration has made its share of blunders to be sure. No one is excusing any thing the administration did wrong. The biggest blunder was a failure to commit the appropiate number of troops to either Iraq or Afghanistan. The Democrats should have stepped up to the plate and called for these additional troops. They didn’t. The NYT and others bear some responsibilty also. The enemy learned from the Vietnam war that a psy ops campaign against the American public can be very effective. The NYT and others have played right into the hands of the enemy. This is either because they are 1.) willing accomplices or 2.) they rely on stringers to do much of their reporting and don’t have first hand knowledge. I think it is 2.
3:25 pm
Is it just me, or does the Rightwing Roadmap To Blame always end up at Bill Clinton and The New York Times?
While I am sure that such a thing might make those who continue to support this loser president feel better about themselves (maybe we should call it The Roadmap To Rightwing Self-Esteem?), the Gallup Poll cited above shows that the American people just aren’t buying it.
Besides, who’s bright idea was it to make this election a referendum on Bush anyway? Was it Rove? Talk about falling for a Democratic trap! Not only is Bush an albatross, he’s an albatross that screams.
3:27 pm
salty, hey DOG, whats that, are you a judge for American Idol cuz it seems thats all you’ve been watching since 2001.
This WAR must be won and the dems CAN’T be allowed to screw it up like they did Nam, fighting a war from Washington with peacenics and cindy sheehan screeching MUST not prevail, but I have come to the conclusion that you people hate Bush so much you just don’t care and prefer that the terrorislamist facists win this thing ….. everyday yall just amaze me more… the debate going on right now in the Senate live is pathetic, the dems want to give the terrorists the right to appeal their verdicts right up the line.
Moonbats, all of em.
4:10 pm
Salty
I’m not aware of any right wing attempt to unjustly blame Bill Clinton for anything. Clinton and some of his officials rightly challenged some of the inaccuracies in “The Path to 911”, however, the general premise that neither party took terrorisim seriously enough with a few exceptions is a valid one.
I’m not aware the Republicans are making the election a refernedum on President Bush. The Democrats seem to be trying to do this. Instead of being so obsessed with President Bush I would suggest the Democrats forcefully explain to the Aemrican people that more troops are needed for Iraq and Afghanistan and then set out to work on getting them. Also, the Democrats should get to work on securing the borders. They should make it plain that there will be no amnesty for illegal aliens. They should expose the shameful Senate Republican effort to grant illegals amnesty. In addition to this, working on getting a reliable missle defense system would be a good use of Democratic party resources.
Instead of misrepresenting the contents of an NIE report the NYT and other main stream news media outlets should explain to the American people that the Marxist/Islamic extremist enemy we face is an existential threat to the US and they should be calling for an increase in troops for the GWOT.
Finally the Democrats should be calling for prosecutions for the people who leaked the NIE program to the media. Unfortunately neither party is serious about the GWOT. Both are more interested in trying to affix blame than they are in trying to come up with actual solutions.
4:14 pm
It is clear that Donald Rumsfeld should be replaced as Sec of Defense. The Democrats are right to point this out. They should follow this up by suggesting a replacement. I suggest retired General Eric Shinseki.
4:42 pm
Drewsmom: Yeah, as Gerald Ford showed us, nobody loses wars like a … Republican?
What was the Viet Nam analogy you were using again?
5:18 pm
I was referring to yall spittin on the Viet Nam vets and kerry accusing em of war atrosities like he had done recentley,
yall lost that friggin war for us like you’re trying to do this one, I was referring to fighting the war by cutting the money and from the hallowed halls of washington, d.c. ...
you frustrate me to exasperation …. when the nukes come, don’t ask me for any anti-nausea meds, I’ll be using it all to try and keep my family alive ….. thanks again.
5:26 pm
I never spit on anyone, Drewsmom. I guess I just grew up in a better neighborhood than yours, or something. Not even sure I know what you’re yapping about.
What’s that they say in your neighborhood again? The beer bottle doesn’t fall far from the trailer?
6:57 pm
Well, how DO you count them?
Maybe you send out questionnaires. Right. I do so love to come across an instance of the misuse of numbers…
10:33 pm
Mom: hi, thanks for the kind words.
You’re right of course, about the Jacobite Left in this country, including Buffoons like Salty Party Snax, John Kerry, et. al.; I feel your pain, and empathize.
The best thing to do, that I’ve found on other Blogs, is to actually ignore them, completely!
It’s not like you’re dealing with Rational people, you know?
You can’t reason with them, you can’t talk to them, they’re kinda embarrassing, and you feel pity, contempt, and awe, all at the same time, when watching or listening to them.
Their self-hate, hate for America, patriotism, Bush Derangement Syndrome; they fantasy world they live in, where “good” is “evil”, and “evil” is “good”, just because Bush is President, borders on Pyschosis!
I have a couple of friends who are Psychologists, and they say the browse Blogs, both Left and Right, for fun, to see what type of mental illnesses people display by their writings.
They say “Right” leaning Blogs have some real “nuts” on them; but “Left” leaning Blogs, for the most part, show people who are seriously disconnected from Reality; and I couldn’t have said it better myself!
That’s why I’ve had the discussion here, and on other Blogs, about the completely unhinged Lunar Chiroptera who inhabit Blogs like this, looking to start “discussions”, so they can rant about their paranoid Delusions about how evil Bush is, how evil America is, etc. etc.
Mom, trust me, these are the sme people who Believe in the “lone gunman on the grassy knoll…”
These are the same people, who accused Regean of starting the AIDS epidemic!
These are the same Oliver Stone-nutso’s who think that Bush instigated 9/11!
You can’t be rational with them, you have to treat them like the spoiled small children they really are! That is, ignore them, or spank them; it’s the only the only way!
That, and when talking to them, address them s…l….o….w…..l….y, because they suffer from a host of psychological illnesses, that make them all victims:
(Please go to the “Wikipedia” to get definitions; when you do, you’ll just start laughing, and go “Oh my god, that’s EXACTLY them…”)
Pyschological Displacement: that’s where the Left blames Bush for everything, including 9/11, because they can’t face the reality of the fact that there are people, Islamist, who are actually to fault, and who might not like us!
Cognitive Dissonance: this is where Leftists try to rectify the completely hypocritical thoughts, that flitter thru their paranoid delusions, such as Bush is “evil”, so the Jihadis, because they are Bush’s enemies, must be “good”; but Jihadis BEHEAD people; ergo, Beheading is GOOD! Trust me, that’s how they think! It’s sad, isn’t it, and pathetic too, unfortunately!
Stockholm Syndrome: this is where the Leftists, like Salty Dog, have fallen in love with the Jihadis, and commiserate with them, because they’re all “victims” of the evil Bush; that’s why they try to confer Constitution Right on them, and hope to surrender to them, as soon as possible!
Category Error: this is basically, when Leftist are so delusional, they can’t even correctly define the problem they face. Because of their Communist/Socialist/Weed-smoking Babyboomer parents from the “Love generation” of the 60’s, or in some cases, the actual Baby Boomers themselves, people like Clintons, Kerry, etc., everything is a “Government/Capitalist” PLOT, to take over the world, and control the little people, Man! Plants and animals are Human Beings too, Man! Let’s all smoke some weed, and get naked, because, becuse it’s “cool”, and whatever feels good, Man, it’s okay! This is still the philosphy, at it’s core, of all Leftists; Clinton embodies it! That’s why he had such high approval ratings throught the Impeachment/Monica Lewinsky scandal; basically, it was all the Baby Boomers, throwing caution to the wind, and forgiving THEMSELVES, by commiserating with Clinton! C’mon, here’s a 50’s President of the United States, knocking he bottom out of a 21 year old Intern who works for him; that’s EVERY Leftists Fantasy; what’s wrong with that?
C’mon, shame on your rigid, uptight, sexual dysfunctional, religious Nazi Rightwing Nuts, for begrudging a man a little on the side? You’d all so obsessed with Clinton’s “privates”, you all must be sexually dysfunctional!
Yadda, yadda, yadda; I know the whole sorry, pathetic meme….mememememememe
Anyway, because they’re embarked on the “Ship of Fools”, sailing for Narragonia, they cannot adequately Define, the actualy Threat that we face: Category Error!
Hence, instead of recognizing that it’s Jihadi Islam, they throw out stuff like: “Bush is evil” and “it’s out fault” and “poverty, caused by US evil Corporations, cause Terrorism” and “Halliburton” and “no Blood for Oil” and “if we all just sat in a circle and held hands and drank organic fruit juice and ate granola and sang Kumbaya or “Fly away Lesbian Seagull” (that’s a Bevis and Butthead reference, so don’t FREAK on me, Leftists!), and SYMPATHIZED with the Jihadies, why, they’d love and respect us, and they will quit trying to cut our Heads Off!
Oh yeah, that, and we have to live in Dhimmitude for the rest of our lives, let them slaughter all the Jews, and Let them all have Nuclear weapons, and all convert to Islam and wear Burkhas, but that’s okay, that’s an acceptable price to pay, to just all get along!
That Mom, is what we’re faced with, and that’s why, it’s not really worth getting upset, and trying to hold rational, intellectual discourse with them!
1:00 am
Dale: “This is where leftists, like Salty Dog, have fallen in love with jihadis…”
Stop lying, Dale. Otherwise your nose will grow so long you won’t even be able to reach your computer keyboard.
If you can’t do it on your own, seek professional help. They have medication for your condition, you know.
7:00 am
there are three ways to go @ this point
a. stay the course (in where “the implementation of that policy that has been badly botched” will continue to be botched)
b. replace the entire civilian military leadership and substantially increase both u.s. and coalition troops (including arab league and neutral countries participation)
c. definite, specific withdrawal (what time frame ?? 6 days, 6 weeks, not more than 6 months)
7:55 am
Salty Party Snax:
Ah, that sting in any Rebuke, is the Truth!
Benjamin Franklin..
For YOU, that means, the truth hurts, doesn’t it??
8:55 am
Dale: Nah, it means I called you a liar and a jackass.
Which you are.
9:31 am
“Salty Party Snax Said:
8:55 am
Dale: Nah, it means I called you a liar and a jackass.
Which you are.”
SIGH…......
9:58 am
tofubo
Great post. I completely agree. You are managed to express my sentiments much more articulately than I seem to be able to in far fewer words.
Option A is clearly unsustainable over the long haul. I think every one is aware of this. If not, the the report from the Iraq Study Group will point this out for all to see.
Option B is the one I would choose, as long as it is consistent with American national security interests. Unfortunately I would not expect our coalition partners to contribute more troops. I’m not even sure they can. The US could make up the short fall of troops, if it wanted to, however, the will is lacking. In order to make option B work, the Aemrican people and the news media would need to be on board and the American government would need to be unified. Barring a major change in the domestic political situation the will to make this commitment is lacking. This makes option B unworkable.
Ultimately option C will be chosen. This option will be the one that is chosen because the will to implement option B is lacking. By the middle of 2007 there will be no American or Coalition troops stationed in Shia or Sunni areas. There will be fewer than 10,000 troops remaining in the Iraqi region. These will be primarily special ops forces who will be backed up by air support and will be prepared to intervene in the Iraq civil war, as necessary, to prevent the formation of terrorist bases. Hopefully this strategy for fighting Jihadists will work becuase barring major changes in the American political landscape this is the strategy that will be employed.
10:09 am
“In other words, it is not the President’s policy of invasion, occupation, and democratization in Iraq that has been wrong, it is the Democrat’s counter strategy of leaving Iraq too soon and abandoning or downgrading democratization efforts that runs counter to the report’s analysis, conclusions, and recommendations.
The President’s policy is correct; it is the implementation of that policy that has been badly botched.”
Absolutely correct.
6:37 pm
Thursday night links: Swim at your own risk.
Maggie’s Farm endorses Joe Lieberman for CT! Lieberman is leading Lamont in the polls. Good. We may not care for left-wing Lieberman too much, but at least he understands the critical challenge of the time. But quit whining, Joe. Speak out!Counting…
2:24 pm
psychobable is not a proper use of “scientific terms”
in as much as one reveals oneself to be prejudiced and overgeneralizing and grouping people with opposing view points into categories and presuming to know what and how others think , is deepy sick and self rightous,also seems to be indicative of one who has certian insecturities and posses the need to attack what one dosn’t understand and to defame and smear rather than looking at objective facts.
To allow oneself to be used as such a tool , is the ways and means of the propeganda machine. being such a cog you can be used in such a way to spread the hate and derision against those who would protect you and speak of reason. to maintain integrity when enimies aclimate against us is paramount in defeating them. to take a few odd people and to overgeneralize every one who has an opposing view to yours is a means to simplifying your own view point and degrading them makes you feel superior.
this is a bit sick.
again, to propose that you know how others think is just kind of sick
and self rightous, this is not to be mistaken as “truth”.
In other words, you conviently lump americans who disagree with you . into catagories of crazies and so forth, but to truely understand , one must disregaurd the crazies and look for reason. you do yourself a disservice to regaurd all that have an opposing view as catagorized by a narrow band of obvious “lamers” shall we say. not every one who opposes your view, agrees with “farenheit 911” and takes it as gospel.They dont want to “lose ” the war, they dont side with the jihadists. they are americans. I, for one, dont sympathize with terrorists just because they dont like bush, it dosnt meke me feel like i want them to win. nothing could be further from the truth and i wont spread the lie that americans want the enemy to win. I am above that.
with predjudice , you can never understand, your stereotypes are a hinderance to your understanding and only contribute to hate and misunderstanding.
9:20 pm
This whole damned war on terror is nothing but a fraud and a tool for the unscrupulous to rob the treasury.
8:52 am
Many knowledges I have found here I would come back http://gaymedical.ifrance.com/