At least SOMEBODY still supports Bush's plans...

SEE! SEE! the terrorists support republicans! voting for republicans is voting for the terrorists!

This will give the troops a chance to kill more of these murderers and slime...I'm all for it :)

He also wants the US to be in Iraq for at LEAST another 250 years.

(200,000 divided by 800 per year)

Well someone finally told them that backing the Democrats was hurting the Democrat's plans.

I have to give them points. Their savvy of US PR has improved.

This will give the troops a chance to kill more of these murderers and slime...I'm all for it :)

Well, maybe you should ask some soliders in Iraq if they like that idea too. I'm sure they are thrilled at this prospect.

Is this your version of 'Bring em on'?

Someday, you war supporters might admit this was the wrong war, but given that there are still idiots out there who think Vietnam was a good idea, I won't hold my breath too long.

The Dems will be using this as justification for the next surrender bill.

Average, I happen to be friends with a Marine Sergeant who is preparing to redeploy to Iraq in July. (Yes, I said redeploy. He's been there before.)

He would rather kill them over there than have them kill us over here.

Perhaps I'll point him to this thread and let him tell you himself, tho. But be warned, he doesn't like lefties or surrender monkeys... but I repeat myself.

He would rather kill them over there than have them kill us over here.

Oh please, are you really trotting out that worn out cliche still?

As if they are going to amass at the Canadian border and invade upstate NY if we leave Iraq?

You people are hysterical here, this really is the best comedy blog online.

Which Republican or Wizbang poster got us into Viet Nam?? Put down to Daisy before you injure yourself..

He is scared of American troops now. So he is trying to pull a PR stunt so that the terrorist-cheering liberals in the US can continue with their surrender plan. These liberals are anti-war against the communists, the terrorists, and other enemies of America. Yet they are fully pro-war against America. In fact they seem to cheer on the terrorists to wage war against America. We saw some of the posts here right on this thread.

Uh, average... how did they get in to perform the 9/11 attacks?

This is too easy. At least give me a friggin' challenge!

How?

Denial.

The headline for this should be al Qaeda breaks with allied Democratic party for first time over failure to pass surrender bill around Presidents veto. I think we should grant his wish and keep troops there indefinitely, or at least as long as we have had them in Germany.

average wizbang poster, please remove your cranium from your rectum long enough to comprehend this: NO ONE WANTS A WAR...ANY WAR!

Least of all the soldiers who have to fight it.

My father did NOT want to fight the Germans in Europe, and my father-in-law did NOT want to fight the Japanese in the Pacific.

Sadly, the Germans and the Japanese had OTHER ideas...so those splendid men (and millions more) obliged them!

alQueda and the rest of the Islamo-fascists are at war with US. We can run, but we CANNOT HIDE!

Iraq is their Waterloo, or ours. They get it. I get it. YOU do NOT get it.

I thought Zawahri's PR-ju-jitsu was too clumsy to fool anyone. I didn't count on you. Oops.

Zawahiri's statement is further proof that, contrary to accepted conservative opinion, the LAST thing Al Qaeda wants is for us to leave Iraq. Our presence there has radicalized tens of thousands of young men from across the Arab world who have traveled to Iraq to participate in the jihad against the Americans. Those who survive the experience will form the backbone of the Al Qaeda organization for decades to come.

Newsflash: "Al Qaeda's Zawahri Tries Reverse Psychology". LOL

Uh, average... how did they get in to perform the 9/11 attacks?
This is too easy. At least give me a friggin' challenge!
Posted by: C-C-G"

As you well know, Bush is an open-borders kind of guy. And in case we need hijackers to hijack planes that Americans won't hijack, we'll always have them on hand!

Better sit down, BryanD(imwit).

I disagree with Bush on open borders.

Is your heart still working?

macofromoc - "Which Republican or Wizbang poster got us into Viet Nam??"

That would be JFK and LBJ.

What I want to know is which one was the Republican and which one posted at Wizbang.

Does anyone know?

Muphy, JFK wanted to lower taxes, so that makes him the Republican.

I guess LBJ used a nom-de-plume to post here.

Justrand - "My father did NOT want to fight the Germans in Europe, and my father-in-law did NOT want to fight the Japanese in the Pacific."

Did your father and father-in-law let them keep their ideology when they defeated them?

Thanks C-C-G, I knew it had to be something like that.

Did your father and father-in-law let them keep their ideology when they defeated them?
------------------------------------------------
3 million death from the Dem surrender in VN didn't seem to change their liberal ideology of cut and run. This time, the terrorist-cheering liberals in Congress seem to be open about their cheering.

Let's give them every opportunity to see American fighters in action.

Zawahiri's statement is further proof that, contrary to accepted conservative opinion,
---------------------------------------------
This is perfect example of this PR stunt. Zawahiri 's PR stunt is simply to provide the fodder for the terrorist-cheering liberals in this country to advocate their surrender plan.
Liberals do not disappoint. They do exactly what the terrorists expect them to do.

Mitchell: "Let's give them every opportunity to see American fighters in action."

They ARE!

that's why this mutt is trying his reverse psych on the weak-minded (some of which are posting here!)

Kinda like Mom saying: "Do NOT eat those green beans...you hear me? I don't WANT you to!"

While I do love my Mom...that crap NEVER worked on me! It does work on Dems, apparently.

average wizbang poster, Thank JFK, your hero for Vietnam but the fact is you seem proud that you are responsible for the slaughter of 3 to 5 million people. You are one sick puppy, far beyond BDS. I don't want that much blood on my hands.

Everyone go to Drudge and click on the link to the NYSlimes article and you'll see what the democrat party is these days. They no longer represent their state, their people, at least not the people that elected them, or the United States. They are in collusion with every radical anti-American group in the country, even having scheduled meetings with them. No wonder there is nothing going on in congress to benefit the American people. I'm shocked the NYSlimes published the article. Gas will be $20 a gallon and congress won't even notice, or pretend they don't since they have sold out to the enemy. I wondered why they blocked all drilling and building new refineries. Someone has promised them the world and all they will end up with is an execution at the hands of their friends. Billions of dollars is changing hands but it isn't going from the oil industry to President Bush as the retards think. It's going to the democrats and their criminal friends..

Somebody ought to tell him he ordered his 'historic trap' from Acme.
===============================

When a US helicopter was reported shot down by Al Queda operatives, the next 'big' story was a report that the terrorists were now going to 'target helicopters'.

When the Virginia Tech shootings were reported, the terrorists said that the US would experience a 'University of pain'.

These were clumsy attempts to use the media to influence the American public.

The only thing clumsier, was the MSM's willingness to relay the terrorists' messages.

"Better sit down, BryanD(imwit).
I disagree with Bush on open borders_ccg"

No borders, no nation (except for the taxes and ordinance part!). Why do you support Bush again? Oh, yeah. THEM!"

"Which Republican... got us into Viet Nam??_ macofromoc"

A pre-emptive guerilla war was begun under the tutelage of the US in 1956 because it was felt that the communists would win the planned all-Vietnam elections of that year.
The North just out-Viet Conged us until 1965 when the US Regulars were sent in. So "Eisenhower (R)" is the correct answer. FYI.

No borders, no nation (except for the taxes and ordinance part!). Why do you support Bush again? Oh, yeah. THEM!"
------------------------------------------------
Simply because Bush is far less dangerous than the Dems. The liberals dems not only open the border, but they also try to give the civil rights to the terrorists and their cheerleaders.

So why do you support the Dems? If you don't, I assume that the dems should be run out of Wash, right?

"Which Republican... got us into Viet Nam??_ macofromoc"

A pre-emptive guerilla war was begun under the tutelage of the US in 1956 because it was felt that the communists would win the planned all-Vietnam elections of that year.
The North just out-Viet Conged us until 1965 when the US Regulars were sent in. So "Eisenhower (R)" is the correct answer. FYI.
------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the info that you are in Brian 's league.

LoveAmerica, don't forget voting rights.

BTW, may one ask where you immigrated from? Just curious, I have friends all over the globe. :)

"So why do you support the Dems? If you don't, I assume that the dems should be run out of Wash, right?_LAI"

I'm a registered Republican (Tom Coburn-Ron Paul type).

BOTH party leaderships should be run out of office. On a rail. Tarred and feathered would be nice. Can we get a term limits wave going?

Ahh, I see. Bryan is the "ostrich" type Republican. Stick your head in the sand and the world will go away.

People like Bryan are why I almost never refer to myself as a "Republican."

Average Wizbang troll, is ANY war a good idea for you? It would be nice if we could just pull all our troops out of every place they are in the world, and then see all the bad guys stop mu8rdering innocents. Unfortunately, in the real world, we know that isn't the case.

People say we should intervene in Darfur. Frankly, I think that should be on the table. But to say that we should be there and not Iraq is just intellectual dishonesty. Darfur holds no strategic interest for us whatsoever, but we know that terrorists that would be wreaking havoc elsewhere have said out loud that Iraq is there current central front in their war against us. This latest PR stunt from Zawahiri shows that. No military in the world can defeat us when we are fully engaged, and that is the real problem. Not only did we want to save the infrastructure, thereby speeding the rebuilding effort, but we were and are consistently hamstrung by one half of the country who thinks it is okay to meddle in foreign policy in the middle of a war. I'm sure you would have been okay with that during Clinton's tenure...not.

The sooner our aremd forces are unleashed to do what they need to do, the sooner they will come home.

Larkin:

Zawahiri's statement is further proof that, contrary to accepted conservative opinion, the LAST thing Al Qaeda wants is for us to leave Iraq. Our presence there has radicalized tens of thousands of young men Yadda.... yadda.... ad infinitum.

And if it wasn't Iraq Zawahiri and his jihadist-cut-throats would just move the goal posts back to Afghanistan or other outposts around the globe such as the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, Indonesia etc...

So your point is again?

I'm a registered Republican (Tom Coburn-Ron Paul type).
------------------------------------------------
Now it makes sense. Ron Paul seems to be one consistent cut-and-run Republican.

bryanD,
We should have the "ideal" gov if we can get it. If not, you should get rid of the worse guys first. And by any objective standard, the Dems are a danger to America. So if you really care, you should take care of them first (at least to slow down on the border issue you care about).

"Now it makes sense. Ron Paul seems to be one consistent cut-and-run Republican"

"Cut and Run" is a slogan. Against invading Iraq? Who, with a crystal ball would invade Iraq again?
Common sense was Ron Paul's crystal ball (and mine).
Consistency in a politician is a good thing.
Also: the plan is to stay in Iraq indefinitly, one presidential term at a time, from Republican to Democrat. Didn't you pay attention to the AIPAC conference speakers? Most of the presidential candidates were there.
A self-sustaining base of operations for an Iranian campaign is the goal (oil revenues). Aircraft carriers and modern navies are too high maintenence and vulnerable to serve such a role.

LAI: Speaking of modern navies: It's more than a coincidence that the rise of imperialism was accompanied by the phasing-out of wind-powered ships. Insted of rehauling the keel on some beach for a week, the new steamships required permanent victualling stations (for fuel) at far-flung points on the map. Which required garrisons, etc, etc. Same as today.

Ah, I love the smell of reverse psychology in the morning.

Cut and Run" is a slogan. Against invading Iraq? Who, with a crystal ball would invade Iraq again?
-------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul is the one who voted with the Dems to cut and run NOW! That 's not a slogan. It is a good descriptive turn.

With a crytal ball now: clearly the Dem party is nothing but a terrorist-cheering party. And some Reps would join them in that effort for sure. The UN is a corrupt (oil-for-food) organization, which was covered up by the whole liberal apparatus in the West.

With 20/20 hindsight, then you don't need to work. You would have made you millions, if not billions by now. This is nothing compared to the difficulties we faced in WW2 militarily. But you are right, this time there is a whole party and movement in the US which is wholly devoted to the defeat of America. FDR didn't have to deal with that in WW2.

We stay in Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan for how long now? Without that, where are we now? Soviet Union may be knocking on our doors now. Some liberals may say that the Soviet Union would have disintegrated by itself. But we know better, right?

The rest of your post is typical slogan, using your own terminology.

BTW, in highsight, we shouldn't have elected Bill Clinton who should have captured Bin Laden. IN highsight, we shouldn't have majority Dem party during the cold war and now during the GWOT.

Oops, the liberals do have the hindsight of VN. Why do they want to repeat it?

After reading the quotes from a few different sources. He is basically declaring victory in having run us out, but lamenting they didn't kill more of us.

In other words us being run it good for them. Us being run out with a bigger body count would have made them happier (ie they wish they didn't suck so badly at killing us for all their effort and losses). Us staying is bad.

"LAI: Speaking of modern navies: It's more than a coincidence that the rise of imperialism was accompanied by the phasing-out of wind-powered ships. Insted of rehauling the keel on some beach for a week, the new steamships required permanent victualling stations (for fuel) at far-flung points on the map. Which required garrisons, etc, etc. Same as today."

Because hauling your boat out of the water, halfway around the world, in some bay who knows where, didn't require a defensive perimeter ??

"We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed...

So 200-300 years from now...

At that ratio, how many al Qaeda dead is that?

You do realize we are probably going to have to make Islam reject its violent fringe. The Muslims don't seem to be able to do it themselves.
=================================

bryanD - "So "Eisenhower (R)" is the correct answer. FYI."

Actually, if you want to go back to any involvement in Vietnam whatsoever, which is what you are doing by saying Eisenhower, Truman was involved there before Eisenhower was.

"The United States helped the French in Vietnam, President Truman doing so for the sake of the fight against communism in Europe and in Indochina. Much of France's efforts to overthrow Ho Chi Minh's government in Vietnam was being financed by the United States.

After North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson persuaded Truman to increase U.S. assistance to the French effort in Vietnam, and the United States recognized France's puppet king in Vietnam, Bao Dai."

FYI.

Murphy is CORRECT!

Truman's betrayal of Ho Chi Mihn, in order to appease De Gualle, led directly to the VietNam war. Ho Chi Mihn was our ally in fighting the Japanese in (what was then) French IndoChina. Had Truman "rewarded" Ho with control of his own country then the VietNam war might never have happened.

Truman is indeed the answer.

The warped political-religious psychology of the Islamic militant dictates that they stand up to a powerful opponent to prove their faith in Allah, and will only gain paradise when they lose their lives taking the lives of unbelievers. Moderate Muslims think this is plain wacky and have publicly denounced this in public debates with the extremists such as some held on the BBC in London. But of course Al Qaeda is made up of the extreme radicals and true believers who welcome any opportunity to stand up to the Western world and prove their faith by losing their life.

Murphy, true!
But all that was water under the bridge by 1955. The french were defeated in 1954, there was tacit agree by all sides that an election was in order and the result be abided by. Then the about face by the Eisenhower administration in 1956 when it was obvious that the communists would win it.

So the chain of events had a break. And yes, Truman was a disaster in every way as president.

In S Hersh's book, The Dark Side of Camelot, there's a convincing case made that a unification deal with the North by Diem in 1963, was the reason he was executed. The US wanted a war, basically. But during Truman's term, the last thing he needed was another war. There was already Berlin and Formosa likely to erupt, the Greek civil war and then Korea. And with only a skeleton US army.

bryanD[elusional]:

A self-sustaining base of operations for an Iranian campaign is the goal (oil revenues). Aircraft carriers and modern navies are too high maintenence and vulnerable to serve such a role.

And once again your military and Arabian Gulf ignorance shines thru.

ANY "Iranian campaign" would require the "high maintenence and vulnerable" (laughable that last one) U.S. Navy's presence just as it has for the last 2 1/2 + decades.

Irregardless of the Iraqi outcome the U.S. Navy will be patrolling the Gulf indefinitely because such a large portion of the Worlds oil supply flow thru the Straits of Hormuz.

There is no other navy capable of doing and and won't be for decades, if ever.

If Sy Hersh doesn't like the story the facts are telling him, he keeps working on them 'til it does.
====================

bryanD, you just won't give up will you?

Let me take a different approach - Eisenhower had about 500 Military/State Department advisors in Vietnam.

- insert visual -

Kennedy had about 16,000 troops in Vietnam.

- insert visual -

Johnson had about 550,000 troops in Vietnam.

- insert visual -

The Khmer have been evaporating from Southeast Asia for longer than there have been Democrats or Republicans, and their further diminution has been the most prominent outcome of the last century's struggles, there.

Oh, Bamiyan, oh Bamiyan.
=========================

Murphy,

Advisors aren't observers. Advisors are soldiers. Some died in combat. The American combat role began against the NLF in 1956. 1965 was the marine LZ in Danang and the real ESCALATION. Escalation from what? See? Logic.

The split was in'56. Eisenhower's policy.

BD, what year was it that S. Viet Nam became as signatory of the South East Asia Treaty Org.? What were the terms of that treaty? Who were the other signatories? Use real source of information, not your Bizzaro World Encyclopedia.

Let's see here. Conservatives want Americans (troops) to be in the Middle East; so too does Al Qaeda. It makes it easier for Americans to be killed if their killers don't have to travel as far to do the killing, and therefore, not surprisingly, more Americans have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan than were killed in the September 11th attacks. Besides, bringing American troops to Iraq does wonders for Al Qaeda's recruitment efforts, as the U.S. government itself has pointed out.

Herman, you actually made a statement that makes sense:

It makes it easier for Americans to be killed if their killers don't have to travel as far to do the killing,

Therefore, we need to fight them over there, or we will be fighting them over here. Given those two options, I prefer over there.

bringing American troops to Iraq does wonders for Al Qaeda's recruitment efforts, as the U.S. government itself has pointed out.
-------------------------------------------------
This is another example of the liberal surrender rhetoric. When attacked the German would throw more divisions to fight the allied troops. So we should surrender. That 's why liberals love France because France was afraid that if it fought back, the German gov would recruit "more troops" to throw at them.

In addition, the liberals are either ignorant or willfully so. In the same report by the US gov, if the terrorists are perceived as failed in Iraq, bad things would happen to them. That 's why Iraq is so important to them and they had to throw everything at it.

Long post for Herman, a member of Brian 's club.

ccg,
AlQ knew that the liberals want to surrender. And they simply did this PR stunt so that these liberals can start talking about surrender again. And they are right, members of Brian's club jump right in there.

"Besides, bringing American troops to Iraq does wonders for Al Qaeda's recruitment efforts"

Not nearly as much as having democrats on their side and spreading their propaganda.

AJ Strata is working on an interesting idea that the civil war in Iraq is not between radical Shia and radical Sunni, but a two-front affair with radical Sunni terrorizing moderate Shia and radical Shia terrorizing moderate Sunni. He see this as a war of radical against moderate Islam, and I wonder if he doesn't have a point. Any otherswith similar thoughts?
==============================