What Do You Say, Dems?

Another al-Qaeda torture house has been raided in Iraq and this time the evil, terrible American soldiers rescued 41 Iraqi victims.  There are more of these animals in Iraq than there are vodka bottles in Ted Kennedy’s trash can, yet the Jackass Party still clamors daily for retreat and surrender in Iraq (when they’re not busy advocating for the “rights” of non-constituent, lawless, parasitic border jumpers, that is).   

An interesting tidbit from the article: “The raid was one of several recent operations targeting a network that U.S. officials say has smuggled weapons and munitions from Iran into Iraq and taken Iraqis to Iran for terrorist training.”

You don’t say.   


~ by lewdandlascivious on May 27, 2007.

19 Responses to “What Do You Say, Dems?”

  1. I’m not a Dem, but I say the threat has been overstated. Number of suicide bombs that have gone off in Iraq = 0 and yet our borders are wide open. It would be so easy to do this yet it has not happened. Bush said we will catch OBL “dead of alive” when he wanted to go into Afghanistan. He was our prime suspect.

    Then when Bush wanted to into Iraq and was asked about getting OBL, Bush said “I truly am not that concerned about him.”

    How can people continue to follow these ADHD policies and not view them with suspicion? Bush has admitted that Saddam Hussein had nothing to with 9/11 and our own FBI has no hard evidence linking OBL to 9/11, so who are we fighting and why?

    We are fighting the elusive al-Qaeda, who happens to be anyone that attacks us.

    I totally admit that there are a bunch of crazy Muslims out there, no question, there always have been. Don’t we just open ourselves up to more attacks by having our troops over there? We don’t have to worry about car bombs over here, but by sending more troops over, we just give them more targets. We are over there picking fights and creating more reasons for average Muslims to hate us.

    Look, I’m no Dem. I’m a Christian first and a freedom loving libertarian second. I voted for Bush the first go around and totally loved him. When he started his amnesty push in the first term, that’s when I became suspicious. When he continued to push it year after year I could not bring myself to vote for him in 04. I just couldn’t. Certainly didn’t vote for Kerry either. I looked at all the other candidates and voted the Constitutionalist Party. Voting the lesser of two evils is wrong. People (especially Christians) should vote their conscience and not try to vote to be a part of the winning team or to make sure the other guy doesn’t get in.

  2. Thanks for the info., I hadn’t seen that one.

    Sadly, the Dems will say nothing, because no one will force them to answer.

  3. Clearly lies disseminated by that fascist propaganda rag the Washington Post…oh wait.

    Re: our recent conversation, check out this post, which I only wish were mine.


  4. Pink, it says URL not found! Bummer.

  5. Jim, I couldn’t agree with you more about the amnesty/immigration issue. As much as I back Dubya on the fight against the jihadists, I have lost a great deal of faith in him because he refuses to guard our borders and therefore our sovereignty—and controlling the number of foreigners coming into this country is absolutely a matter of national security, especially these days, when vials and suitcases can carry weapons of mass destruction.

    I’m not sure where you’ve gotten the idea that no suicide bombings have occurred in Iraq: they’re the biggest threat at checkpoints, and have killed a number of soldiers and Iraqi civilians in public areas since the beginning of the war. I’m also unclear how you don’t know that Osama bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda, was connected to 9/11. Frankly, that boggles my mind. And Iraq was never invaded on the premise that Saddam Hussein helped plot the 9/11 attacks: the rationale of the global war on terror is that we are fighting far-flung networks of radical Muslims who are supported in various ways by a number of countries (money, weapons, hiding places, training camps), and these terrorists have sworn our destruction. Where folks like you and I disagree, it seems, is on when it’s appropriate to fight back against people who are clearly trying to destroy us and our allies–now, or later? History is useful: if the good guys had acted against Hitler and the Imperial Japanese sooner, perhaps 50 million people wouldn’t have had to have died. Right now, we’ve lost less soldiers in Iraq than in any major, sustained military engagement in our history. Would it be better to wait until there’s a mushroom cloud over Manhattan or, God forbid, Washington D.C.? Would it be better to act when our only option for survival is to nuke Iran or some other country? Because it really will come to that eventually: the maniacs we are up against will never, never stop–and they’ll stop at nothing.

    If I’m hearing you correctly, you seem to believe that if we just stayed over here and left them all alone, we’d be better off. But that strategy brought us 9/11.

    I respect the opinions of people who disagree with our strategy in Iraq, or with the decision to go into Iraq first. There are good arguments for that. But I cannot understand what it will take to convince people that we are at war, if 9/11 did not do so. I throw up my hands in the face of such willful blindness.

  6. My bad, I meant number of suicide bombs that have gone off in America, duh. Thanks for the clarification. Obviously not in Iraq. Point being, what are you afaid of over here besides what the politicians tell you to be afraid of?

    So does it boggle your mind that our own FBI does not have hard evidence connecting OBL to 9/11? Look at the FBI web site then.

    Yes, you are hearing me correctly, if we stay away from the Middle East, we wouldn’t have them as angry at us. Troops on Saudi Arabian (holy land) soil, the sanctions and bombings that left hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dead and support for Israel just to name a few. These are reasons given for 9/11, not jealousy of our freedom as politicians like to state.

    I know you fear the mushroom cloud as do any of us. That is why GWB amnisty policy is outrageous. It tells me that he is more concerned about protecting oil than any of us. He would rather install ridiculous policies about not having liquids on airplanes and taking off shoes than having anyone at the border. Hello out there? Does anyone want to quesiton this absurdity? The best answer I got was that he was corting the Latino vote before 04. What about since then?

    I want to know your thoughts on why he wants amnesty? Any theory you have. I know my theory.

    Also, how do you explain the Pres not being that concerned about OBL?

  7. I snorted laughing at the vodka bottles line… but that’s because I was raised in New England. 😉

    It’s good to remember who the enemy is.

  8. I want to reply to something you said on 4Simpsons.
    You said “Oh, and Jim, those statistics are, in a word, bullshit. Also, the “Information Clearing House” website does nothing but take a bunch of photos completely out of their original context and put them in an ominous, suggestive one. Perhaps you believe such blatant propaganda, but it’s doubtful the regular visitors (much less the author) of this site are so credulous.”

    Let me point out something about propaganda. The major media is complicit with the military request to not show certain things on TV. For instance flag covered caskets. You also almost never see or hear about the numbers of Iraqi dead. Tommy Franks has said “we don’t count bodies”. So what was once called collateral damage is now a non-entity. The term collateral damage was called dehumanizing, so I guess that was taken care of. Just act like they don’t exist. Many neoconservatives have said that the lesson learned from Vietnam was that they lost the media war. It was all those stupid TV images of troops killing innocents (My lai) that turned the American public away from supporting the war. Well I guess they have learned from history and now those images are more controlled. Good for them. Because if we don’t see it, it never happened.

    What I said was true, that it was reported up 650k Iraqis are dead. I know you dispute that number and I certainly can’t verify it, so let’s go with the (neo)conservative number Bush gave of 30,000 dead. Do you believe that number? Do you believe the government number of 11 million illegals in America? Alternative media such as WorldNetDaily have reported double that number. Do you believe them?

    My point here is do you believe the gov’t numbers on everything? The answer for more and more people is that they don’t and are running to alternative media to find answers. Conservatives go to townhall and libs go to huffingtonpost. Quite frankly, I’ll check out both and distill through spin on both sides to find the truth.

    So where is a site that has photos of dead Iraqis’ that can be trusted? Surely there must be one. I mean we have killed some Iraqis’ haven’t we? There are photographers over there aren’t there? So which site isn’t out of context?

    The whole point of my post on 4Simpsons was to show the horrible pictures of war. You have to take the good with the bad and not shelter yourself. The major media will never show you, it’s not good for sales. Pro-lifers want to show pictures of aborted fetuses to show the reality of it, great, then go for it, but let’s go all the way with it and show the realities of war too.

  9. Jim,

    If crazy theocratic Iraqis would murder 100,000 of their own every year, even before we declared war in March of 2002, why should those be counted among casualties? How do we count “dead Iraqis:” as those who die (by any cause), those who die as some direct result of the US-lead war (such as accidental death by gun or bomb from US troops), or by those who are also killed by Iraqis, regardless of whether they would be murdered with our without us?

    Incidentally, IraqBodyCount.org, probably not the bastion of conservatism, puts the number at ONE-TENTH of yours. Did you miss a comma or a decimal?

    Slate, not exactly the bastion of the Right, either, pointed out that the confidence interval is between 8,000 and 194,000.

    I’m calling b.s. on your numbers.

  10. Jim, We are just going to have to agree to disagree about whether the appropriate response to radical Islam is to hide over here and hope they leave us alone, or aggressively (and in some cases, preemptively) fight it. So that’s the end of that discussion.

    As for the FBI poster, it says nothing about 9/11, perhaps because under FBI policy, there has been no indictment handed down–which makes sense when you consider that 9/11 was not treated as a law enforcement matter, whereas other terrorist attacks listed on the poster were. The “no hard evidence” claim has led to a raft of conspiracy theories and creative extrapolations, but all it really means in the context of the FBI is that whatever evidence they have is not courtroom evidence. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the intelligence gathered connecting Bin Laden (as head of al Qaeda) to 9/11 (carried out by al Qaeda operatives) could possibly run into authentication, hearsay, availability of witnesses, or other procedural obstacles. Those rules are designed to protect the Constitutional rights of citizens in American courtrooms, in criminal and civil legal proceedings—NOT to handle matters of national security and sensitive, highly classified military intelligence.

    As for casualty numbers, I would definitely believe the estimates of our military, which is fighting the war on the ground, than the unnamed/unknown source for your number. The main point is, I really don’t care what the numbers are. If I disagreed with us being there, I would care very much. But since I strongly agree with the Iraq war, I really don’t care how many Iraqis have died in the fighting (and I care even less what we call it–“collateral damage” or something else, whatever). Again, we can just agree to disagree on that. I would like to point out that the main reason we have the (remarkably low) casualties we have is because our military takes such pains to avoid civilian casualties, which gets more of our guys killed. As the sister and cousin of veterans of this war, if that isn’t good enough for people, they can all take a flying f*** at a rolling doughnut.

    Please don’t think I’m sheltered or don’t want to look at “the truth.” But it’s useful to know exactly what’s going on in a photo when you see it: for instance, perhaps the crying children were being rescued or protected by the U.S. soldiers. Perhaps the blood on them was from a terrorist (oops, I mean “insurgent”) bombing.

    And like I said, you can show me all the dead Iraqi bodies and crying Iraqi children you want. I’m not squeamish, and it wouldn’t change my mind one iota about the Big Picture, which is fighting the jihadists. And you know why? Because I think with my mind, not with my emotions. Another point: if the media has been so complicit in “covering up” the realities of war, how on earth has it been so effective in helping turn public opinion overwhelmingly against it? You’ve got it backwards, I’m afraid: our nation’s newspapers and TV networks have relentlessly hammered away at the Iraq war from the beginning. I don’t know how you’ve arrived at the conclusion that they’re in league with the hawks. Actually, you seem to have a skeptical attitude about the media in general, which I very much share. I think we just come to different conclusions about what it all means.

    As for the amnesty/immigration issue, it pisses me off REAL bad. I don’t see conspiracies behind it (oil, etc.): to me, it’s just an example of how politicians are inconsistent on big issues and generally have their heads up their butts. You’re right, though: it’s incredibly stupid to leave our borders wide open and allow millions of people to flood in the way we have, when we know crazy people are trying to get in here to kill us. I’m just not a conspiracy theorist person: if you’re seeing ominous shadows behind all this, once again we’ll have to agree to disagree.

  11. Since when has the Bush administration been concerned about court room evidence? Think about the shoe bomber. Remember, you are a neocon, you aren’t concerned about civil liberties. Did you forget where you came from? Obviously not because I can feel the hate through the rest of your posts. Read your Machiavelli and Trotsky, worship the Leader. He knows best, and if he tells lies, it’s for your own good. Preemptively go to war, preemptively arrest people, preemptively decapitate the Democrat Party because they are all communists. Libertarians are liberals because, well, they sound like each other. Republican first, Likud second. Stop wasting all our time and just go glass parking lot in the Middle East. Many of the neocons think this way. Don’t believe me then read Mr. wants to redraw the ME, “genocide works” Ralph Peters and, “strategic deception” Michael Ledeen and my favorite “advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool” PNAC. The leader is always right and war is always the answer.

    If you are a Christian prepare to get spit out by the neocons when they are done using you. For now, you are their politically useful tool. They view you as a means to an end, it’s the Machiavellian way. Read David Kuo’s experience in the White House, he left because he didn’t want to be used.

    You won’t look any of this up because it’s a conspiracy theory, right? That seems to be the label that stops further investigation, so stick with it, it works well for you. Live in your brave new world at your own risk.

    There once was a day not long ago when the concept of “holding their feet to the fire” was practiced within the same party. Now it’s knee jerk defensiveness.

    At least we can agree on immigration, well, almost. I think it’s laying the ground work for North American Union, but you don’t believe in those things.

  12. Jim,

    Stick to the facts, buddy. If you don’t know the facts, perhaps you ought not to engage in ad hominem attacks. Rest assured, your assessment of Miss L&L is about as wrong as could be.

  13. Yeah, Jim I think you lost control of yourself in that last comment. But hey, you know what? It happens–I myself have done it, was wrong and unfair to the person I criticized, and have deeply regretted my loss of temper ever since. Since I am guilty of that myself, I won’t judge you personally on it. Everyone is entitled to one free flameout on this blog. And unlike a lot of people, I’m not easily offended. I will, however, argue with you. 🙂

    Theo is right–if you knew me personally at all (or heck, even went back into my archives to get a clearer picture of my political/social/religious views), you’d find your own characterization of me as hilarious as I do. But I’m not “on trial” here, so I won’t go through my list of bona fides as a human being, Christian, conservative, woman, or any other category I might fall under. I have to say, however, that your approach to fact- and logic-based arguments is disappointing: I attempted to address each point you made (at least, I tried–you seem to skate over the surface of about 500 different issues with no particular rhyme or reason), and you see all kinds of sinister machinations lurking everyone’s thoughts and actions, including my own. That is unfortunate for you. If you’d prefer to think that I am a pawn, a dupe, a fool, or hateful/evil, go right ahead–but what it means is that your ability to make meaningful moral distinctions when it counts might be diminished. Again, that’s your prerogative as a free person.

    One example of what I’m talking about is your complete misunderstanding of my argument concerning rules of evidence. I was making an informed guess as to why the 9/11 attacks were not included on that stupid poster, and pointing out that rules of evidence in the law enforcement context (i.e., FBI investigations) are utterly inadequate when applied to acts of war and ongoing military engagements–which is why wars are not fought in front of juries, but on the field of battle. This is a point obvious to anyone with passing knowledge of Constitutional separation of powers, the basic nature of courtroom proceedings, and what we like to call Reality. You glossed right over my point and (1) threw out a gratuitous slur against Bush, and (2) insulted my intelligence and concern for independent thought. You seem like a very smart and decent person, so I’m sure you didn’t intend to do such a thing.

    As for my concern for civil liberties, I am very concerned about them, which is why one of my life goals is to continue my work with the Innocence Project (a chapter of which I helped found at my law school). But thank you for reminding me and other lawyers that we should work to protect those liberties.

  14. I went off a little. Just little bit. I’m blushing. My bad. I’m eating shoe leather now. = ) These posts just get a little testy and I jump right in. Trust me, you get your digs in. I thought I was going with the spirit of the tone in you posts. I should know better though.

    I skate over so many issues because I see them all as interrelated. I go for the 50,000 foot view. There is method to the madness. The overall neoconservative philosophy of the State needing a strong leader with strong powers and able to tell ‘noble lies’ cuts across all topics; war, civil liberties, abortion, torture, big government, etc. I just hate to see Christians getting used by these guys. The evangelical-neoconservative alignment I’m afraid won’t bode well for Christianity as whole over the next decade. While Bush may be a Christian, the majority of the rest of the administration is not. What drives these guys? I seriously think they are on power trips and if you want to label that sinister, so be it, but what is their motivation for anything other? If believing in Rom. 3 is sinister, oh well.

    How would you interpret the PNAC quote I left above as not sinister? Seriously, I’d really like to know because I want to be wrong about that one. Or Ralph Peters praising genocide?

    Bottom line, it comes down to trust. You trust them and I don’t. I think you tend to grade them on a sliding scale that includes evil mouth-foaming extremist Muslims. For whatever reason, I don’t include terrorists on that scale of judging our leaders. I don’t want to let leaders off the hook for politics, terror or any other reason. I would rather stick to principle than party or State. Look, I’m doing it too. I’m calling them leaders. We use to call them public servants. Even the language has flipped.

    Theo, please, I admit I engaged in an ad hominem deluge, but I did have some quotes in there along with many concepts consistent with neoconservatives. Which ones were not true?

    Overall I enjoy the engagement and sharpening. I really do.
    Till next time.

  15. Haha, no worries. Believe me, if anyone can understand getting excited, it’s me. And I do give as good as I get (hence my blog name). That’s one reason I am trying these days not to assume the worst with people–because my tone or intent is so often misunderstood due to my fiery delivery.

    I think I lost the PNAC quote you’re talking about…post it again and I’ll take a look.

    There’s a lot to be said for questioning authority–please know that I totally respect your intelligence and the fact that you are a “fighter” like me. Theobromophile is a personal friend of mine, and she can tell you that I have a thick skin and live to argue. And interestingly (as she can also attest) the people I respect most are the ones who get right up in my grille and tussle with me. It’s like mother’s milk to old L&L. 🙂

    I think you’re right that we have a different overall orientation to some of this stuff, or at least just in regards to some issues. Good point about the public servant vs. leader terminology: our politicians act more like brainless Hollywood celebrities than sober-minded, disciplined servants of their constituents (one reason I refuse to call myself a Republican or otherwise just toe party lines). At any rate, thanks for your post and feel free to jump in anytime–don’t let my arguing make you think I don’t love to get alternative viewpoints, because I love it!

  16. PNAC –

    On page 60 is says this:
    And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.

  17. Hey Jim, thanks for sending the link again.
    That quote is pulled from paragraphs describing foreseeable changes in “the art of warfare” generally, and those changes are clearly presented as threats America needs to consider and be ready for. If one takes the sentence completely out of context, of course it looks very scary. But that’s not the way to responsibly interpret the meaning of any text.
    The first sentence of the paragraph it comes from reads (actually, it’s on p. 72 of the report):
    “Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today,
    and “combat” likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and perhaps the world of microbes.” The authors are merely describing innovations in warfare that America’s military needs to be ready to deal with.
    That one sentence is the only time in the entire report that biological warfare is mentioned, and having read it, I don’t understand how anyone could reasonably construe that one sentence as suggesting that AMERICA use biological warfare as a politically useful tool. The report merely surmises that biological warfare likely could be used in such a way, and the U.S. needs to be ready for that.

  18. Theobromophile is a personal friend of mine, and she can tell you that I have a thick skin and live to argue. And interestingly (as she can also attest) the people I respect most are the ones who get right up in my grille and tussle with me. It’s like mother’s milk to old L&L. 🙂

    Yes. Like mother’s milk, L&L was weaned on alpha-male toughness.

  19. Great analysis. I can see that. I saw a report in the Jerusalem Post about how the Israelis were developing a race specific weapon that would target Arabs. Note that it’s not from al-jazeera which is why I took it more seriously. Can’t find it though, so I have nothing to back up my theory.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: