22 Comments Add your own

• 1. neocon  |  July 13th, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  From everything I am reading and hearing, Afghanistan could prove to be the first and final battleground. It appears AQ has given up on Iraq and now are moving their operations north to try and resurrect their stronghold there.

  The Iraq Government and security forces, combined with the current optimism of the populace, appear to be nearly capable of their own defense and, in fact, have begun talking about timelines. If we moved quickly into Aghanistan with a “surge” force, we may be able to defend Afghanistan quickly and fatally hurt AQ.

  That would be my hope anyway
  danka shein
  neocon

• 2. Stretchrun  |  July 13th, 2008 at 8:29 pm

  So sad, for too long we have taken our eye off of Afghanistan at the expense of the neocon’s involvement in the Iraq civil war. Kerry warned us over and over again during the 2004 election not to ignore Afghanistan. With there true stubbornness and incompetence the neocons set out to prove Kerry wrong, and now Afghanistan has come back to bite the U.S.

  In eight years there was probably only one piece of Bush foreign policy I agreed with; terrorist can not hide behind borders. But today we find the Bush Administration so screwed up that have no clue what to do with Pakistan. Bin Laden and his Taliban move at well across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The best the U.S can do is secret missions and drones.

• 3. Mark Noonan  |  July 13th, 2008 at 8:41 pm

  Stretch,

  I’ll dispute that notion - that we slighted Afghanistan in favor of a wild goose chase in Iraq. To me, both have been vital and both have gone off far better than we had a right to expect. While the loss of US soldiers is always a sad event, the fact of the matter remains that they are battling it out in the enemy’s last strong holds as the enemy is forced more and more into the backwoods, or into Pakistan (where we do strike, hard and often, but keep it quiet out of deference to the Pakistani government).

  It is war against a cruel and wicked foe - who is also cowardly. But it is a war we’re winning.

• 4. neocon  |  July 13th, 2008 at 8:56 pm

  Stretch,

  This mission would not have been complete without the elminiation of Saddam.

  Had we ignored Iraq, Saddam would have done everything in his power to defeat us, which would have posed a much more serious problem. As it is, we took out Saddam and, with the success of the surge, have nearly decimated AQ. It’s time now to let the Iraqi’s take over their new country, put the finishing touches on AQ in Afghanistan and come home victorious.

  And you’ll still be complaining
  peace, neocon

• 5. gotbrains?  |  July 13th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

  neocon-

  “Had we ignored Iraq, Saddam would have done everything in his power to defeat us, which would have posed a much more serious problem.”

  Was Saddam doing “everything in his power to defeat us” before we invaded Iraq? Yes, Saddam was a ruthless, untrustworthy, and despised despot who committed heinous human rights abuses to retain power, yadda yadda. But did he have the intention, much less the capability, to “defeat” the US? Maybe you believe that nonsense - that Saddam was actually thinking about defeating the US (with what? his balsa wood planes? hahahaha). But if you believe that, you might as well believe Richard Simmons is straight.

  Al-qaeda was never in Iraq before we invaded. And the groups that called themselves “Al-qaeda in Iraq” after the invasion were home-grown wannabes that adopted the name to gain support and credibility. And on top of that, according to US intelligence, the relatively few foreign fighters that came into Iraq to cause havoc there were coming from Saudi Arabia - not from Al-qaeda’s strong hold in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

  Like in 2001, we once again find ourselves distracted and unprepared while the Taliban and bin Laden’s minions multiply in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

  The real tragedy here is that this was all so avoidable. After the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan 1989, the first Bush admin basically said to the Afghans “welp, thank you very much for fighting our proxy war against the Soviets - now we’re gonna bail. Lotsa luck, see ya”. Afghanistan has been devastated by the Russians, and with the entire country in rubble, lots of Afghans sent their kids to the only schools available: Madrassas in neighboring Pakistan. In the wake of a horrific decade-long war, it was not at all surprising to see religious fanatics take advantage of the chaos and seize control over a traumatized and destitute population. The tragedy is that even a tiny investment from the US in 1989 would have transformed a country like Afghanistan. Instead, we bailed on a nation that was in desperate need of help, and that was largely responsible for the demise of the Soviet Union.

  Think of what horrors - 9/11 and all the wars since - that might have been averted if we’d just made a tiny investment in rebuilding Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew in 1989. How much money and how many lives would have been saved if only there had been a little humanitarian forethought from Bush I.

  And we have now gone and repeated this mistake - like father, like son. As Afghanistan lay in ruins following the horrors of the Taliban regime, instead of stying there, finishing the job of rounding up bin-Laden and al-qaeda, and securing and rebuilding the country, we instead bailed to stupidly pursue an unrelated sideshow in Iraq, for reasons that were at best gross distortions of reality. Once again, we largely abandoned Afghanistan, leaving only a token force and largely renegging on promises to reconstruct the country, while the bulk of our military and precious resources were squandered in Iraq. The result, predictably, is that the Taliban and al-qaeda now control large parts of Afghanistan, and move completely unfettered in autonomous regions in Pakistan where they’ve been planning God knows what. Our national security has been irresponsibly imperiled by the Iraq adventure.

  When the next attack occurs in the US, you will now why: we took our eyes off the ball to invade Iraq.

  By the way, Neocon, Iraq and Afghanistan do not share a border, being separated by the rather large country called Iran that is quite hostile to both the Taliban and al-qaeda. So before you say something again like “al-qaeda is moving operations north” from Iraq to Afghanistan, you might want to familiarize yourself with some basic geography. Unless they have helicopters, there is no al-qaeda moving “operations” from Iraq to Afghanistan (and that’s assuming there were any real al-qaeda in Iraq in the first place - which there weren’t).

  Of course, I can’t really blame you for your ignorance since a recent study showed that - even after 5 years of war there - only 1 in 7 Americans can even find Iraq on a map. Considering that level of ignorance, it is no wonder they were so easily duped into thinking invading Iraq constituted the war on terror, or some kind of payback for 9/11.

• 6. Ricorun  |  July 13th, 2008 at 11:08 pm

  gotbrains, are you absolutely, positively sure Richard Simmons isn’t straight? I mean heck, he does exercise videos and he isn’t fit either.

• 7. gotbrains?  |  July 13th, 2008 at 11:20 pm

  Rico -

  well, you got a point there. I guess what I meant to say was: “If you believe Saddam had the plans and means to defeat the US, then you might as well believe Larry Craig is straight.”

  There, is that better?

• 8. Goldwater  |  July 13th, 2008 at 11:46 pm

  Whether Saddam was doing everything in his power or only using some of his power, he was a future threat that had to be dealt with. Iraq was more about the next 9/11 as opposed to the failed policies of pre-9/11 where it took a massive attack to wake the country up to the threat from Islam-fascists. And he had more than balsa wood planes, read either book from his chief nuclear scientists to find out how doggedly he pursued nuclear weaponry and how on 3 separate occasions (the Iran-Iraq War, 1991 and 2003) he ordered the construction of a dirty bomb to be used against his enemies.

  And AQ had strong connections to Iraq, the liberal media are the only ones who claim otherwise. To name a few – collaboration on the U.S.S. Cole bombing, Bin Laden meeting at least 8 times with Iraqi security officials, Abbas al-Janabi’s confession that there was a strong connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, Abu Abdullah being sent to Iraq to seek training in poisons and mustard gas as well as their collaboration on chemical weapons plants in Sudan (and these are just a few examples.) The case can be made larger numbers relocated there after Afghanistan, but that’s because of two things 1) Iraq is far more urbanized where their warfare would be more effective and 2) They got their ass kicked and ran away. But the notion they were not in Iraq and had no connection to Iraq is an outright lie. And it is disingenuous to make the case AQ came from Saudi Arabia to simply fight us – they hate the liberation and elevation of Shia far more than the U.S.

  And in terms of heaping the blame on Bush I, had we of made the tiny investment and little development that you spoke of we would once again have been labeled as imperialists and occupiers and would have further angered the radical Islamists who would have used said investment and presence to make claims of imperialism. Do you think Chomsky etc would have looked favorably on such action? Of course not. Economics are irrelevant to the fundamentalists who are waging a holy war – they still would have existed. You only have to look at Bin Laden’s bank account to see that money and comfortable living didn’t deter him from jihad. This is a textbook load of Marxist crap that it’s always the fault of capitalism. And think about the horrors that might have been averted had Clinton a pair and taken Bin Laden out or at least in custody when he was offered him. You’re very selective in your finger pointing.

  After 2001 we did stay to rebuild Afghanistan, I know a number of troops there as we speak and the progress there has been ongoing. What you are doing is a liberal media trick that now that AQ have reentered from Pakistan (a country we can’t enter unless we’re to be labeled warmongers and imperialists again) now suddenly Afghanistan is out of control. It is not out of control, it will be dealt with swiftly and continue to develop as it has since they were liberated from the Taliban.

  Your national security hasn’t been irresponsibly imperiled by the Iraq war – it’s been made stronger. AQ in Iraq is in tatters, Iraq is no longer a threat, two democracies have been planted which now have the chance to influence other dictatorships in the region and show their neighbors that freedom is possible. The only thing that has happened is that rich white countries in Europe hate you even more than they did before Bush got in office (which no one mentions was still a lot.) I say this to both Republicans and Democrats, your country really has to grow up out of this high school mentality that popularity is everything. President Bush liberated 50 million people from 2 dictatorships and all the media can report on is, “No one likes us anymore.”

• 9. Mortimer  |  July 14th, 2008 at 12:50 am

  The usual right wing morons are still making the usual fantasy connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. I guess since they are all Arabs they are all one big family and know each other. What is so cowardly about the attack the Taliban made? In case news is a little slow, soldiers have been using buildings for cover for quite a while. Soldiers don’t form squares in a middle of a field and shoot it out regiment to regiment anymore in ranks. I can bet they are a heck of a lot braver than you and your vintage kneejerk unintentionally ironic, propaganda.
  Please, tell me, all you warmongering cretins, about Saddams plans to attack us. I wonder if you pathetic cowards would be rooting for more war if you and your families and town were possible targets of enemy strikes, War is so much fun when you risk and sacrifice nothing but act like some big hero cause you support the troops and wear a flag pin. But your stupidity is only exceeded by your hypocrisy, cause you also love to preen about your pro life creds. Well, what about all the dead people your unnecessary wars caused? How do you mental midgets live with yourselves?

• 10. rightlane  |  July 14th, 2008 at 1:20 am

  Mortimer, where did all the terror related attacks on US interest overseas go and why if not for the war? When was the last time a terrorist attacked a target in the US?

  Yes, there have been a lot of unnecessary deaths in this war on terror, but, by far, the enemy has suffered a much greater casualty rate than the US military and they, not we, are the ones who fired the first volleys.

  My family and my towns have been under attacked and are still “possible targets of enemy strikes!” However, did you ever stop to think that killing unborn babies, the elderly and infirm might be a little different than killing full grown healthy terrorist who has taken the path of death and destruction of their own accord? I am not a hero, nor do I pretend to be because I support the WOT. We, however, did not start this war, nor is it now or was it ever unnecessary.

• 11. Goldwater  |  July 14th, 2008 at 1:22 am

  The media turned the Iraq- AQ connection into a fantasy, if you want to learn more about it here’s a few references for you: Richard Minters ‘Disinformation. 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror’, Regnrey Publishing, Washington DC, 2005, Joscelyn, Thomas, “More Than Enough Evidence”. What George Tenet really says about Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/596texms.asp, 05/01/2007 12:00:00 AM and the most informative former Clinton advisor Kenneth M. Pollocks ‘The Threatening Storm’, Random House, New York, 2002. There’s 3 direct links you can look up, as opposed to your vague swipe with no factual support. It’s easy to say “Well everyone knows” and give no facts to support it – nice try but I saw through it.

  As for your racist comment, I disapprove. I am aware of the difference between Sunnis, Shias, Arabs and Persians. You lumped them all in to one family, not me. Buildings for cover? What’s your point? The point I was making that Iraq was far more urbanized which allowed their guerrilla tactics to be far more effective than in the open in Afghanistan. Who said anything about forming squares?

  Warmongering cretin hey? Why was he developing nuclear weapons? For fun? For something to do? Or, for what he instructed his nuclear teams to do on 3 separate occasions as already mentioned to construct a dirty bomb to use against Iran, Israel and coalition troops. So once he had the bomb had we not invaded he would have been perfectly behaved hey? Who’s the cretin here? This is a regime that defied 17 UN resolutions yet you firmly believe that he would have done no wrong once he had the bomb. Yes Saddam was a top guy and were the villains here. Where did those 300,000 people disappear to under his rule again?

  Pro life cred? I’m not a religious conservative, not my fight pal. Wear a flag pin? Like Obama you mean? He wears one and supports the troops, you must mean he’s one of us. I am no more a warmonger than I assume you are 100% anti-war. Because you couldn’t be, right? Because that would mean Nazism would never have been defeated, the Civil War would not have been fought and slavery would not have been ended and the brutal fascist occupation by Imperial Japan in the Pacific region would still be going on to this day. And if you want to see what war can do, go and look up the effect the UN’s withdrawal from Rwanda had on the population there. 800,000 slaughtered over the course of 3 months because they did not have the courage to fight against such viciousness. I am in no way pro-war, but it is without a doubt a necessary evil. George Bush’s administration has overthrown 2 dictatorships and liberated 50 million people and you can’t give him the slightest bit of credit. Anyone who believes in fighting against such evil you call a warmonger. Iraq was a dictatorship, so had we not of fought there, 25 million people would still be under the oppressive rule of Saddam – yet you accuse others of being keyboard generals.

• 12. dedosinuna  |  July 14th, 2008 at 1:53 am

  Goldwater -

  “Whether Saddam was doing everything in his power or only using some of his power, he was a future threat that had to be dealt with.”

  He was being dealt with. As Colin Powell clearly stated in Feb, 2001, Saddam had been completely contained by US no-fly zones and 10 years of enforced sanctions. He posed no credible threat to his neighbors, much less to the US.

  Because a country might pose a future threat, does that then warrant a full scale invasion, however unrealistic that threat appears to be? There were numerous other countries in the world that posed a more credible threat to the US than Iraq in 2003. Why didn’t we invade them? Guess what? - there are a lot of bad dictators in the world pal. We can’t go invading them all because they look at us funny.

  You know, instead of invading entire countries to avoid the next threat, maybe Bush should merely take the time to read his security memos. You seem to be saying that 1) it is worth the enormous costs of invading any country if it poses even the slightest threat to the US, but 2) it is not worth Bush’s time to listen to Richard Clark, or take national security memos seriously.

  ” Iraq was more about the next 9/11 as opposed to the failed policies of pre-9/11 where it took a massive attack to wake the country up to the threat from Islam-fascists.”

  1) Show me any evidence at all that Iraq was planning to attack the US 9/11-style. 2) Yes, Islamic fundamentalists are a threat… so why did we choose to invade Saddam’s Iraq, the one country in the region - after Turkey - that was the most secular, and led by the regime with the fewest ties to radical Islam?

  Saddam was a paranoid dictator who regularly tortured Islamic fundamentalists, and was the leader least likely to trust any of them. This article from the conservative Cato Institute should educate you more on the fallacy of this well-worn non-sense that Saddam was somehow in collusion with the “Islamo-fascists”: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3017

  “And AQ had strong connections to Iraq, the liberal media are the only ones who claim otherwise.”

  Uh, no, pretty much everyone who has any knowledge of the middle east makes the claim that al-qaeda did not have strong connections to Iraq, including our own State Dept, Israeli intelligence, and the aforementioned Cato Institute. The only ones who make the claim that al-qaeda did have strong connections to Saddam’s Iraq are you ignorant wingnuts on your wingnut blogs.

  “…collaboration on the U.S.S. Cole bombing…”

  Which wingnut blog did you pull that one from? Evidence please.

  “…Bin Laden meeting at least 8 times with Iraqi security officials…”

  uh, bin Laden was wanted for arrest by Iraqi security officials. Again, give a credible, independent source for this wild tale. And no, “Sean Hannity said so” doesn’t count.

  “…Abbas al-Janabi’s confession that there was a strong connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda…”

  Prisoners will confess to anything under torture, especially if they it’s clear what the torturers want to hear.

  “…Abu Abdullah being sent to Iraq to seek training in poisons and mustard gas as well as their collaboration on chemical weapons plants in Sudan …”

  ditto. credible evidence?

  “…had we of made the tiny investment and little development that you spoke of we would once again have been labeled as imperialists and occupiers and would have further angered the radical Islamists who would have used said investment and presence to make claims of imperialism.”

  Sigh - once again you demonstrate zero knowledge of the basic history here. After the Soviet withdrawal, the US was fairly popular in Afghanistan, since we had helped the Afghans rid their country of a cruel invader. We were not militarily occupying Afghanistan back then - we merely provided some weapons and training. Had we followed that up with a small investment to rebuild a destroyed impoverished country to which we owed much, we might have been able to build upon the good will we’d already generated in assisting the Afghan’s resistance to the Soviets. With rebuilt schools, hospitals and basic infrastructure, it is doubtful Afghanistan would have fallen to the Taliban. Afterall, Afghanistan was not fertile ground for radical Islam prior to the destruction wrought by Soviet invasion - in the 70’s, Afghan women were among the most educated in the region. But we will never know what might have been, because Bush I declined to “nation-build” after the devastation caused by the USSR.

  Again, you really should educate yourself about this history - which means you have to expand your info sources beyond wingnut email rings and websites. At the very least, rent “Charlie Wilson’s War”. That’s no substitute for actually reading some serious history texts - but at this point I’ll take any show of curiosity at all from you.

  “After 2001 we did stay to rebuild Afghanistan, I know a number of troops there as we speak and the progress there has been ongoing.

  Yes, but we what we have committed to rebuilding Afghanistan is a tiniest fraction of a fraction of the resources we have squandered by invading Iraq. For less than 1% of the resources we have flushed by invading Iraq for no good reason, we could have made a real difference in Afghanistan.

  “It is not out of control, it will be dealt with swiftly and continue to develop as it has since they were liberated from the Taliban. “

  It will be dealt with… “swiftly”? Uh, it’s been almost 7 years since we overthrew the Taliban, and said Taliban have been gaining strength ever since. That’s “swift”? The fact is that we once again squandered a window of opportunity in Afghanistan when we diverted much needed resources and security personnel to invade Iraq. And yes, now we will have to “deal” with that - 7 years late.

  “AQ in Iraq is in tatters,…”

  “AQ in Iraq” never existed until we invaded Iraq - but I’m glad to hear it’s in tatters now.

  “…Iraq is no longer a threat,…

  Iraq wasn’t a threat to begin with. Iraq was contained, and in the words of Colin Powell, “posed no threat to its neighbors”.

  “… two democracies have been planted which now have the chance to influence other dictatorships in the region and show their neighbors that freedom is possible… “

  You mean those dictators … we support? Gee, aren’t we nice. Now, countries led by US supported dictators can look to countries we invaded to see that they can be free too! Yiipppee - and it only cost us $2 trillion, over 4,000 US soldiers, and probably well over 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead. How many more of these beacons of freedom and democracy can we create? I can hardly wait.

  But sorry pal - I wouldn’t hold my breath for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to become democracies just because we invaded Iraq.

  “The only thing that has happened is that rich white countries in Europe hate you even more than they did before Bush got in office.”

  Uh, actually, there’s a lot more that has happened. In case you missed it, we’ve lost over 4,000 soldiers, and Iraq lost over 100,000 civilians. This will end up costing us something in the neighborhood of $2 trillion, at a time when our economy is on very shaky ground. And as pointed out, it has cost our national security dearly.

  Personally, I could give a rat’s petootey what Europeans think. However, I don’t think most of them “hate” us. What they really think is that we are ignorant and belligerant. Considering the ignorance regularly displayed on this website, I’d say they’re probably right.

• 13. dedosinuna  |  July 14th, 2008 at 2:16 am

  Rightlane -

  “Mortimer, where did all the terror related attacks on US interest overseas go and why if not for the war? When was the last time a terrorist attacked a target in the US?”

  OK, so the US hasn’t been attacked by terrorists in the 7 years since 9/11 - and you somehow attach great significance to that?

  Foreign terrorist attacks have always been extremely rare. Prior to 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, how many times has the US homeland been attacked by foreign terrorists? Just once: the 1993 bombing of the WTC. After that, we had more than 8 years without a successful foreign terrorist attack here on US soil. So the fact that 7 years have passed since 9/11 without terrorist attacks on the US means nothing. One could happen tomorrow - or one could happen in 10 years. Either way, there is no connection to our having invaded Iraq.

  “Yes, there have been a lot of unnecessary deaths in this war on terror, but, by far, the enemy has suffered a much greater casualty rate than the US military and they, not we, are the ones who fired the first volleys. “

  We might not have fired the first volleys, but neither did the Iraqis. They had nothing to do with 9/11, so quit implying that the US war in Iraq started on the streets of NY.

• 14. phnx  |  July 14th, 2008 at 6:44 am

  “So sad, for too long we have taken our eye off of Afghanistan at the expense of the neocon’s involvement in the Iraq civil war.” stretch

  This type of statement, heard constantly from the left, is a perfect example of their simple mindedness…they can only think about one issue at a time. They apparently can’t walk and chew gum at the same time and therefore project their handicap on our military, and the administrations.

  Its as if the thousands of troops we and our allies have in Afganistan have been in their camps watching soap operas, waiting for the left and the media to “focus” again. What fools.

• 15. Tuneup  |  July 14th, 2008 at 7:57 am

  …they can only think about one issue at a time.14. phnx | July 14th, 2008 at 6:44 am

  Do you even follow what your Repug leadership is saying? Turn off Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly for a couple of days. You will get a reality check.

  July 13, 2008 “As far as our troops are concerned, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, has indicated we need troops in Afghanistan,” Senator Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said. “But he has no troops to send to Afghanistan.

  To date $661 billion has been spent on operations in Iraq, the country that did not attack us but has oil. About $170 billion has been spent in Afganistan, the country where the terrorist set up training camps with the aid of the government to attack the U.S but has no oil.

• 16. neocon  |  July 14th, 2008 at 8:56 am

  Our resident liberals have trumped out every single liberal talking point of the past and have added absolutely nothing to the argument. I do like how they denigrate the American populace over their perceived ignorance of AQ, 9/11 and Saddam, however this is the same populace they count on to have such wisdom as to elevate an inexperienced candidate to the POTUS. The length of every one of their posts clearly reveals their inability for critical thought, replaced instead by propaganda memorized over the years.

  Ironic, isn’t it?

  Also, their ability to regurgitate 5 year old talking points on queue further exposes their willingness to be led, fed and indoctrinated. We need more leaders, and less lemmings.

  merci beaucoup
  neocon

• 17. gotbrains?  |  July 14th, 2008 at 9:54 am

  neocon -

  “…is the same populace they count on to have such wisdom as to elevate an inexperienced candidate to the POTUS.”

  I know - his inexperience in the ways of the world, basic geography, history, and foreign policy really make me nervous too. Luckily, there are term limits, so he won’t be running again. Soon, Mr Bush will be going back to Texas.

• 18. neocon  |  July 14th, 2008 at 10:01 am

  gotbrains?

  I know that was your feeble attempt at humor, but it only served to remind everyone why your moniker is so appropos.

  de nada
  peace, neocon

• 19. neocon  |  July 14th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

  nhak,

  I will only quickly address #13, as I have to focus on taking from the poor and giving to the rich today. Her post #12 is simply riddled with false premises & propaganda combined with a demonstrable, and laughable hatred for America originating in her obvious indoctrination at a institution of higher education.

  dedosinuna’s #13 post is intellectually vaccuous. Her assertion that there hadn’t been an attack on US soil completely disregards the numerous embassy attacks, which are all considered US soil.

  Coupled with the attacks on Khobar Towers and the USS Cole and a clear defined pattern starts to emerge, one that the liberals are desperately wanting everyone to ignore.

  And if you consider her post #12 to be that of logic and reasoning, you too are then exposed for your laughable ignorance and willingness to buy into propaganda.

  have a delusional day
  peace, neocon

• 20. neocon  |  July 14th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

  Have any of our embassies been attacked in Iraq? That was the qaulifier, if you can remember.

  Aside from that there was nothing else of substance in #13, not even the favorite liberal meme of accusing everyone of believing that 9/11 and Iraq are connected.

  Serious nhak, I have debated these same talking points for five years now and Diane, or whatever her new name is, continues to spew the same post time and time again. All of you have grown quite repetitious and tedious however, it does expose the absence of any critical or objective thought in those empthy little heads of yours.

  Your allegiance to her baseless propaganda should be embarrasing for you……..but I see you wear it with a badge of honor.

  gracias
  neocon

• 21. neocon  |  July 14th, 2008 at 8:18 pm

  nhak,

  Have you ever heard of double negatives?

  And the first rule of holes?

  peace, neocon

• 22. neocon  |  July 14th, 2008 at 8:23 pm

  And incidentally,

  1. There is not one speck of Iraqi soil that is considered sovereign US soil as our embassies throughout the world are considered.

  2. Those embassies that were attacked were not located within active war zones.

  just saying
  have a hellac day
  neocon

Leave a Comment

Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Matt Margolis on Twitter