May 28 2008
Liberals Are Always The Last To Know
I predicted many times that liberals and their liberal SurrenderMedia would be the last to realize America won in Iraq and dealt a heavy blow to al-Qaeda, destroying its credibility and support on the Muslim Street. Now there are clear signs in the dark side of the blogosphere, inhabited by Islamo Fascist creatures, were more and more reporting is showing up on how badly the terrorists lost Iraq:
Al Qaeda web sites are making a lot of noise about “why we lost in Iraq.” Western intelligence agencies are fascinated by the statistics being posted in several of these Arab language sites. Not the kind of stuff you read about in the Western media. According to al Qaeda, their collapse in Iraq was steep and catastrophic. According to their stats, in late 2006, al Qaeda was responsible for 60 percent of the terrorist attacks, and nearly all the ones that involved killing a lot of civilians. The rest of the violence was carried out by Iraqi Sunni Arab groups, who were trying in vain to scare the Americans out of the country.
Today, al Qaeda has been shattered, with most of its leadership and foot soldiers dead, captured or moved from Iraq. As a result, al Qaeda attacks have declined more than 90 percent. Worse, most of their Iraqi Sunni Arab allies have turned on them, or simply quit. This “betrayal” is handled carefully on the terrorist web sites, for it is seen as both shameful, and perhaps recoverable.
So, while many pro-Bush, pro-war blogs in the West have been reporting on the pending victory in Iraq for ‘our’ side (yours truly proudly a member of that crowd) and some more fair and balanced news organizations have been reporting on the successes in Iraq, it seems the only information outlets still living in a fantasy world of denial are those of liberal SurrenderMedia – who predicted Iraq would be another Vietnam and The Surge was/is/will be a failure, yada, yada, yada. It seems the only failures regarding Iraq are with the SurrenderMedia and Surrendercrats in Congress who tried to stop victory from coming all together. Pathetic, isn’t it?
The funny thing is that the left considered Scotty boy a real tool unitl they heard he cashed out and wrote a Bush bashing memoir. Now he is speaking truth to power. What a hoot. This is a memoir, that is all. McClellan says he still admires Bush. Sounds to me like the little bugger is trying to have it both ways.
BTW, Soothie you are pathetic.
Soothie,
Re Scott McClellan:
Never trust a discharged employee’s views of his employer.
Re “being safer: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020600.php
And over 40 terrorist attempts have been foiled by the Bush Administration!
You might be advised to give thanks for your safety and the historic leadership that ensured it .
Speaking of coke addled I ran across this speech given by Sandy Berger back in 1998, when Saddam was still considered a bad guy:
As long as Saddam remains in power and in confrontation with the
world, the positive evolution we and so many would like to see in the
Middle East is less likely to occur. His Iraq remains a source of
potential conflict in the region, a source of inspiration for those
who equate violence with power and compromise with surrender, a source
of uncertainty for those who would like to see a stable region in
which to invest.
Change inside Iraq is necessary not least because it would help free
the Middle East from its preoccupation with security and struggle and
survival, and make it easier for its people to focus their energies on
commerce and cooperation.
For the last eight years, American policy toward Iraq has been based
on the tangible threat Saddam poses to our security. That threat is
clear. Saddam’s history of aggression, and his recent record of
deception and defiance, leave no doubt that he would resume his drive
for regional domination if he had the chance. Year after year, in
conflict after conflict, Saddam has proven that he seeks weapons,
including weapons of mass destruction, in order to use them.
Our strategy for meeting this threat has been one of containment…â€
“Through constant confrontation, our policy of containing Iraq has been
successful. But that does not mean that by itself it is sustainable
over the long run.
It is, first of all, a costly policy, in economic and strategic terms.
The pattern we have seen over the last few years, of Iraqi defiance,
followed by force mobilization on our part, followed by Iraqi
capitulation, leaves the international community vulnerable to
manipulation by Saddam. Because we continue to block his advances,
“cheat and retreat†leaves him no better off in the end. But we cannot
tolerate it endlessly, either.
The longer this standoff continues, the harder it will be to maintain
the international support we have built for our policy. Even this
toughest of all sanctions regimes in history becomes harder to sustain
over time. In the meantime, the Iraqi people will live in a murderous
and corrupt police state, with no prospect for a normal life, as long as
their country is Saddam’s preserve.
Perhaps most fundamentally, Saddam’s continued misrule of Iraq is
harmful to the Middle East as a whole. It is partly responsible for
the pervasive sense of insecurity that prevents the region from
evolving in a positive way.â€
“In his farewell speech to the State Department, Secretary Christopher
said something that applies well to the challenge we face in Iraq, and
in the Middle East as a whole: “When we are confronted by the
conflicts and tragedies of a still dangerous world,†he observed, “we
can respond in one of three ways. We can choose the easy way, taking
satisfaction … in lashing out…. Or we can choose to walk away and
wash our hands. Or, we can make the choice to persevere until a
solution is found.†That is the choice, he said, that the people who
defend our country’s interests overseas make day in and day out.
It is the choice we should make in seeking a better future for Iraq,
with patience and resolve, with determination to use effective force
if necessary, and with confidence that our goals will be met.â€
I lost a post, but this is worth a look, Sandy Berger, December 1998, Stanford University:
As long as Saddam remains in power and in confrontation with the
world, the positive evolution we and so many would like to see in the
Middle East is less likely to occur. His Iraq remains a source of
potential conflict in the region, a source of inspiration for those
who equate violence with power and compromise with surrender, a source
of uncertainty for those who would like to see a stable region in
which to invest.
Change inside Iraq is necessary not least because it would help free
the Middle East from its preoccupation with security and struggle and
survival, and make it easier for its people to focus their energies on
commerce and cooperation.
For the last eight years, American policy toward Iraq has been based
on the tangible threat Saddam poses to our security. That threat is
clear. Saddam’s history of aggression, and his recent record of
deception and defiance, leave no doubt that he would resume his drive
for regional domination if he had the chance. Year after year, in
conflict after conflict, Saddam has proven that he seeks weapons,
including weapons of mass destruction, in order to use them.
Our strategy for meeting this threat has been one of containment…â€
“Through constant confrontation, our policy of containing Iraq has been
successful. But that does not mean that by itself it is sustainable
over the long run.
It is, first of all, a costly policy, in economic and strategic terms.
The pattern we have seen over the last few years, of Iraqi defiance,
followed by force mobilization on our part, followed by Iraqi
capitulation, leaves the international community vulnerable to
manipulation by Saddam. Because we continue to block his advances,
“cheat and retreat†leaves him no better off in the end. But we cannot
tolerate it endlessly, either.
The longer this standoff continues, the harder it will be to maintain
the international support we have built for our policy. Even this
toughest of all sanctions regimes in history becomes harder to sustain
over time. In the meantime, the Iraqi people will live in a murderous
and corrupt police state, with no prospect for a normal life, as long as
their country is Saddam’s preserve.
Perhaps most fundamentally, Saddam’s continued misrule of Iraq is
harmful to the Middle East as a whole. It is partly responsible for
the pervasive sense of insecurity that prevents the region from
evolving in a positive way.â€
“In his farewell speech to the State Department, Secretary Christopher
said something that applies well to the challenge we face in Iraq, and
in the Middle East as a whole: “When we are confronted by the
conflicts and tragedies of a still dangerous world,†he observed, “we
can respond in one of three ways. We can choose the easy way, taking
satisfaction … in lashing out…. Or we can choose to walk away and
wash our hands. Or, we can make the choice to persevere until a
solution is found.†That is the choice, he said, that the people who
defend our country’s interests overseas make day in and day out.
It is the choice we should make in seeking a better future for Iraq,
with patience and resolve, with determination to use effective force
if necessary, and with confidence that our goals will be met.â€
That would be Sandy Berger of the Clinton Administration. No one called him a liar or said he was trying to get a bunch of people killed or anything like that. In fact Sandy is the guy who was stuffing paper in his pants and then destroying it. But the Democrats love him anyway.
Now, wipe the spittle off your screen Soothie and settle down.
Hate, thy name is soothsayer.
WWS:
Yeah, I bet if you checked their IP addresses you would discover they are the same person. Or maybe it is a multiple personality thing.
[…] The Strata-Sphere – Liberals Are Always The Last To Know […]
Poor Soothie and norm.
…”What is it about “not necesary†don’t you understand? You seriously think 6 years later we are SAFER????…
It’s long been the chant of the leftards that there is no WOT and that Iraq was “never” a part of the larger WOT and didn’t figure into it in any way because they had nothing to do with 9/11. That it has done nothing but “increased” terrorism and support for terrorism, etc.,
(UNITED NATIONS, May 22 (UPI) — Global deaths from terrorism have declined significantly in recent months, due in part to dwindling popular support in the Muslim world for Islamist terrorist groups, according to the United Nations’ Human Security Brief 2007, published Wednesday……)
You can read the brief yourself here http://www.humansecuritybrief.info/
You can argue that the reasons for the decrease are simply not because of Bush’s “war on terror”, but the fact is..there has been a decrease. There are any number of books out there that draw their conclusions based on their own opinions. It doesn’t make them right and it certainly doesn’t make them “facts” and it never did—I would be careful about simply believing everything you read based on whether or not it substantiates your own view/beliefs. I understand your obvious anger/frustration. But, you have simply been wrong on these points all along.
The report also speaks directly about U.S. (even gov sources) and some EU research orgs distorting data and using erroneous math which distorts findings—using different formulas on the same data when they want to exaggerate a particular data set. I assume perhaps they were trying to make a “point” by doing so or to take a particular tact for policy reasons or (more commonly) to “influence” policy decision making. This study…doesn’t count “genocides” conducted by govs (like in Sudan), as “terrorism”—they call it genocide. They don’t call war casualties “terrorism”—they call them casualties of war. They don’t remove the context of things to lump everything that happens into predetermined categories, or use different math formulations to exaggerate what the numbers show for any particular category.
As far as Saddam/Iraq was concerned, there is the realization that the only reason for “not” acting against him and his regime for the laundry list of egregious violations against every treaty, international law, human rights, etc., was because it would be hard and costly to do so…for everybody…to undertake it. And Saddam was not going without a fight. What a fine moral and legal example that is. Complicating the matter was also all of the ethno-religious factors as well as the historical tensions in the region, not to mention other personal, political, financial and government interests.
And there is no argument that it would have been far “easier” and less costly these last 5 years for us to have just let Saddam stay in power, gone along with whatever all the varying interests could come up with as a compromise, and put the security interests of the US into the hands of the UN, IAEA and take Saddam at his word rather than going to war—not to mention the complications and additional cost due to the mishandling of security and mismanagement after the fall of the gov. It’s always been easier to do nothing; that’s not even an argument.
All along there has been a fundamental disconnect with leftards about what 9/11 meant and how it changed US policy (or even the fact that US policy “should” change after such an attack). Let me refresh your memory….there is no such thing as a WOT because “terror” is a tactic. And since Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, there was therefore no reason to confront him as part of that war.
Doing so, was a mistake because it was more difficult than the planners had intended/expected. Not having enough troops was a mistake/failure. Having too many troops was a mistake/failure. Since it was a mistake/failure, the fact that it is now succeeding in ways unintended (or that we personally did not understand) is immaterial to arguments that we should withdraw at once because it was a mistake 5 years ago to have done it. That’s some nifty logic for you.
I know it’s hard to take soothie and norm, but the fact is…the war in Iraq has been a great loss for AlQueda and other jihadist/salfi causes in the world. It has cost us a lot, but it has cost “them” dearly as well—wars are not one sided in terms of cost. There have been NUMEROUS words spoken by Bush and his admin on this very point: that Iraq was now the central front in the WOT and that the war against such groups would go, perhaps, for our lifetime and more before there was a fundamental change in the world…where people no longer bought their propaganda nor supported the efforts and causes of people like BinLaden and orgs like AlQueda but saw them for the killers they are. The fact that you cannot see the changes and gains made on this front is not surprising given your views—you never understood it in the first place.
You can be sure…this war (WOT) is not over. But, it is objectively true/clear, and more so every day passing, that we are winning the larger battle that EVERYTHING we did/do after 9/11 has been a part of. The fact that some people conveniently reject the parts that they want because it doesn’t fit with their opinion, argument, or book surprises no one.
terrye, as always you do not get it…change does not mean you have to lose rack up 35,000 american casualties and spend three trillion dollars and kill tens of thousands of innocent iraqis. no one says saddam wasn’t a bad guy. but it didn’t have to be done this way because the urgency for it to happen was completely made up by people with piss poor judgement. i know the idea of alternative points of view are foreign to you and those you follow with cultish loyalty. that’s why we need real leadership, leadership that is able to consider opposing views, process conflicting information, synthesize and marshall complex strategies, and plan for alternative scenarios. todays leadership is so inept it confuses tactics with strategy.
and mackers link about 40 plots foiled is nothing but pure bunk.
Wow now the liars are saying 35,000 americans are dead.
Leftists are all the same.
Norm,
40 foiled plots were from the mouth of military historian Victor D. Hansen. And your safety is evidenced by your posts today.
“Made up urgency” is a media myth exposed even here on AJ’s site.
Your dream scenario would have kept Saddam in power with his WMD program and intentions. His genocide would have continued. Our planes would still be fired upon. His collaboration with other terrorist groups would have given them more reach. Not a pretty alternative! Just like the pacifists of the 1930’s.
Oh..I see norm. Now it’s an “alternative point of view”?? That’s a good one.
Real leadership? Like refusing to meet with your own Generals and Military command….but is anxious to meet with the leadership of Iran? (Obama).
norm:
Oh please, Saddam was called the Butcher of Baghdad for a reason. And if the Democrats had a better way to resolve the situation, they had plenty of opportunity to do it.
norm, that war is just about over and yet all the left can do is hope for disaster and complain.
I am tired of the constant whining.
Like norm says, I don’t get it. When Saddam violated the cease fire, we should have kissed his ass and looked the other way. When Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors we should have kissed his ass and looked the other way. When Saddam massacred his own people we should have kissed his ass and looked the other way. When Saddam refused to dismantle his weapons programs we should have kissed his ass and looked the other way.
If we had, he would have seen the light. He would have cleaned up his act. He would never have rebuilt the programs. He would not have invaded a neighbor. He would not have used that $120 oil to wreak havoc. In fact oil would be cheap and the world would be a peaceful place. Our soldiers would never have gotten called to Iraq again to fight, if only we had kissed Saddams ass and looked the other way.
That is what Obama would do. That is why he will not go to Afghanistan or Iraq. But he will go to Iran and kiss the mullah’s asses and look the other way.
The alternative point of view? If you can’t beat em, join em.
I think Norm and Sooth are sisters.
They will be “shamed” back into reality Terrye. Just like Obama—who previously would not wear any semblance of american flag in order to show his objectioin to US policy…now wears one…so he can get elected.