Deus, President Bush told Americans that the war on terror is a GLOBAL war on terror.
Along with Iraq, We ARE still in Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for Bin Laden, which is another factor liberals love to ignore. I know the war in Iraq is not going well but the liberals who tirelessly scream about the deaths in Iraq scream more about that than Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the deaths on September 11.
And I absolutely NEVER hear liberals assign any blame whatsoever for Clinton’s disasterous role in not stopping Al Qaeda when he had such an easier chance, and plenty of them.
The war in Iraq may have never even happened if Al-Qaeda had been stopped before Bush even took office. Why do I say this? Well, go above to the first line of my post.
Mikey, don’t be afraid, you can read that first line as well. I know it’s asking alot for Mikey to not be afraid of something because he’s absolutely petrified of stopping terror with the use of force. He probably sleeps with the light on. Don’t worry Mikey, I know you wish you could be President of the Al-Qaeda-Bin Laden Fan Club. Well, by being as scared sh**less of him as you are, I’m sure you’re Bin Laden’s no.1 choice. You’ll be his Fan Club president in no time. Bill Maher can be the Editor-In-Chief of the Al-Qaeda Fan Club newsletter.
Hey Mikey, don’t forget to include all the “letters from the troops” that you have on your site on the Al-Qaeda-Bin Laden newsletter every month.-Like the soldier you used in Fahrenheit 9-11 who lost his arms and was, according to you, so anti-war and so against being in Iraq. If any of you want to hear what the soldier REALLY felt about MIkey and being in Iraq, there’s a nice Documentary which I’m sure most of you have seen titled, “Fahrenhype 9-11.”
Because after all, we should be speaking for the troops, not letting them speak.
Along with Iraq, We ARE still in Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for Bin Laden, which is another factor liberals love to ignore. I know the war in Iraq is not going well but the liberals who tirelessly scream about the deaths in Iraq scream more about that than Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the deaths on September 11.
Again, what does Iraq have to do with Bin Laden and al-Qaida?
Well, it is very well known that Bill Maher, shortly after the 9-11 attacks DID in fact say, “The terrorists are not the cowards, we are.”
Very nice, Bill. I’m sure his ass licking studio audience who’s very similar to Letterman’s ass licking audience laughed at that too.
Deus, why do the folks such as you who are so against the war in Iraq totally ignore the troops who are there fighting for us who are proud to be there and the troops who do believe that what they are doing there is right?
And why do anti-Iraq war folks like you feel that you need to speak for the troops when they are capable of speaking for themselves?
A radio jock here in Chicago just a few days ago named T.J. Shanoff was talking to a soldier who is in Iraq who told the jock that most of the troops who are in Iraq are proud to be there and believe that what they are doing is the right thing. The jock just ignored what he said and told the soldier, AFTER the soldier had also told him that the U.S. Armed forces is a totally volunteer force, that “Yeah, but I don’t think the troops enlisting didn’t expect anything like this.”
Wow-what a shocker-another anti-Iraq war libby who feels he knows better than the soldier.
So, what were the soldiers who enlisted in the armed forces supposed to expect if they ever got called upon to serve?
Let me repeat-U.S. A-R-M-E-D F-O-R-C-E-S.
I wasn’t able to tell that soldier who was talking to the radio jock thank you for serving our country-although it would have been nice if the radio jock did. Instead, he was more interested in lecturing the soldier about why he should NOT be proud to be serving in Iraq. Jesus Christ, Mikey would have pulled his pants down he would have been so excited by what the jock was telling the soldier.
Well, it is very well known that Bill Maher, shortly after the 9-11 attacks DID in fact say, “The terrorists are not the cowards, we are.”
Was he not specifically talking about the difference between killing someone in front of you (and potentially or deliberately yourself), and killing people from miles away?
If that is what you are referring to, you could just well be the next Michael ‘taken out of context’ Moore.......
Deus, why do the folks such as you who are so against the war in Iraq totally ignore the troops who are there fighting for us who are proud to be there and the troops who do believe that what they are doing there is right?
And why do anti-Iraq war folks like you feel that you need to speak for the troops when they are capable of speaking for themselves?
I haven’t spoken for the troops at all. I’ve just repeatedly asked you to explain how Iraq is linked to the 9/11 attacks. I’m also not against the war in Iraq - I just query the reasons why we went. I’m quite happy that an evil dictator is now ousted and although things are a tad messy out there, I’m determined to make it work.
Once again, I ask you - what on earth does the war in Iraq have to do with 9/11, Bin Laden or al-Qaida?
Deus, Al Qaeda is in Iraq, have you not heard me already bring that up previously? It’s been repeatedly in the news. Now that you know Al Qaeda is there, should we still just pick up and leave and have Bin Laden laugh at us some more?
And you are not against the war in Iraq-Um, ok-You just keep bringing the war in Iraq up because you’re bored, not because you’re against it. BTW, I have repeatedly said that I am not totally for the war in Iraq either but I’m also not totally against it. If we eliminted Saddam Hussein(I know that was horrible too-how could we do such a thing) and some more terrorists while we are over there, I’m not going to cry about it.
Now when we first went into Iraq, the reason Bush gave us was because he was receiving intelligence of weapons of mass destruction. I know it’s horrifying that we would want to do something like that. Weapons of mass destruction were not found, but before we even found out that the weapons were not there, the liberals who know everything were screaming that the war was wrong before they even knew anything.
Well don’t worry liberals. Bush will be out in 2009 and maybe we’ll get fuzzy-wuzzy Obama, the media’s golden boy in the white house and all your problems will be solved. Jesus Christ the media really pulls their pants down for that guy.
CM-Gee, I guess that makes it fine what Maher said! Thanks for clearing that up, CM.
I’m sorry! I had Maher all wrong- I guess I’ll watch the 9-11 video again and picture a relative of mine on one of the planes that crashed into the towers. And I’ll feel much, much better about it because I’ll just tell myself, “Well, at least the terrorists who hijacked that plane and slit the throat of my mother or father on that plane and then killed everyone by crashing the plane did it in front of other people, not from far away. At least they’re not cowards....”
Deus, Al Qaeda is in Iraq, have you not heard me already bring that up previously? It’s been repeatedly in the news. Now that you know Al Qaeda is there, should we still just pick up and leave and have Bin Laden laugh at us some more?
This would be a wonderful argument if it weren’t for the somewhat unfortunate fact that al-Qaida has only had a significant presence in Iraq AFTER we invaded. There’s also the other unfortunate fact that the invasion of Iraq has actually driven more people to join al-Qaida. So once again I ask you, how the hell did invading Iraq have anything to do with solving the problem of al-Qaida and Bin Laden. Bin Laden isn’t even in Iraq; he’s probably somewhere in either Pakistan or Afghanistan.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue that Bush was right to invade Iraq in order to prevent Saddam Hussein developing WMD whilst simultaneously arguing:
we may not even be in this situation with Iraq if Clinton hadn’t ignored Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda for eight years like he did.
How would Clinton’s pursual or otherwise of Bin Laden have any bearing whatsoever on Iraq’s WMD capabilities?
My answer Deus is this-No, there was not an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection initially before we went in. But as I’ve said before, our initial plan to go into Iraq was to look for WMDs, which I was totally for because one large scale attack on us was enough for me. The WMDs were apparently not there. But I guess the reason I bring up Al Qaeda and Bin Laden alot when I’m talking about the war in Iraq is that I refuse to believe that there was absolutely NO Al Qaeda presence there whatsoever-I hope you don’t think that. And again, this is a global war on terror and if we take out some terrorists in Iraq you’re not going to see me cry about it.
That’s why even after we didn’t find WMDs there, I was still about 50% for keeping a presence there. And remember, the U.S. military is a volunteer force-these men and women over there were not dragged off the street, thrown into U.S. military planes and just thrown into Iraq the way the media wants us all to think..
But I guess the reason I bring up Al Qaeda and Bin Laden alot when I’m talking about the war in Iraq is that I refuse to believe that there was absolutely NO Al Qaeda presence there whatsoever-I hope you don’t think that.
No, I don’t think that either. I’m sure there were al-Qaida people in Iraq too. But there’s al-Qaida people in probably every single country in the world - there are probably a hell of a lot more in Saudi Arabia, for instance.
The problem I have with you constantly referring to the invasion of Iraq as something to do with the war on terror is because you seem to woefully confusing yourself. One the one hand you’re berating Clinton for not going after Bin Laden but then you’re trying to argue that Bush is a better president because after an al-Qaida attack, he attacked Iraq. Attacking Iraq made al-Qaida stronger, rather than weaker. It allowed al-Zaqarwi to come to prominence. It spurred on the 7/7 bombings. Because there wasn’t the same moral authority in attacking Iraq as there was when we invaded Afghanistan, it also inflamed worldwide Muslim opinion and drove more Muslims towards the al-Qaida cause.
You cannot argue that invading Iraq was in the West’s best interests at stopping al-Qaida because the exact opposite is true. Iraq simply wasn’t a terrorist playground in the way it is now pre the invasion. Dissident groups couldn’t flourish in Iraq because of the iron grip Saddam had on the country - militant Islam posed a threat to his secular dictatorship and had he stayed in power it would be terrible for the Iraqi people but actually better for us. Given that Iraq also did not possess WMD, it posed no threat to the West in terms of a threat from the Iraqi government, and it posed no threat to the West as being a haven for terrorists. The current anarchy in Iraq, however, is a haven for terrorists although it remains to be seen whether they will stay interested in just blowing each other up or decide we’re more appealing. Violence in Iraq at present isn’t coming from al-Qaida or jihadis - it’s coming from sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shias. It has nothing to do with the idea of militant Islam any more than Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland during the 70s were waging a holy war on non-Christians.
This is my point - you cannot sit there and praise the invasion of Iraq as a good thing in stopping terrorism, because it hasn’t. But now we have to make it work because if we don’t, we’ll have turned a place that didn’t pose a threat into a place that does. You’re applying backwards logic and assuming that because victory in Iraq will reduce terrorism, the invasion in the first place also did. At the very best, all we’re going to do is just end up right back where we started, although thankfully without a dictator in charge.
