07
Jul
U.S. reports major increase in worldwide terrorism
The U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) announced this week that the number of worldwide terrorist attacks that occurred in 2004 was 3,192. This number is almost five times higher than the figure of 651 “significant” attacks that NCTC released on April 27 of this year, after the administration received widespread criticism for attempting to hide a major increase in terrorist incidents by dropping the data from the State Department’s 2004 report on global terrorism. The large discrepancy between the April and July figures occurred, according to NCTC officials, because the new number includes “domestic” attacks, in which the victims and perpetrators are of the same nationality, as well as “international” incidents of terrorism. NCTC has not provided comparable data from 2003 or earlier for the sum of domestic and international terrorism, so comparisons between 2004 and previous years can be made only by utilizing other data sets. As a result, most news reports of the announcement have focused on the change in the administration’s definition of terrorism rather than on whether the rate of terrorism is increasing or not.
After the initial number was leaked to the press on April 16 (and before it was officially released nine days later), BTC News prepared a graph displaying data on international terrorism from the last ten years of the State Department’s annual report (which, until this year, was entitled ‘Patterns of Global Terrorism’). As the graph shows, the preliminary 2004 figure was itself about three times higher than the previous year’s figure of 208 terrorist attacks (of which only 175 were classified as “significant”). The number of deaths from these “international” attacks similarly increased, from 625 in 2003 to 1,907 in 2004. Back in April, NCTC’s acting director John Brennan claimed that the 2003 and 2004 data could not be fairly compared, because, according to him, a different counting methodology was adopted in 2004. Brennan’s claim was disputed, however, by Democratic congressman Henry Waxman, who, according to CNN, said that State Department and NCTC officials who briefed congressional leaders indicated that “the methodology and definitions used to vet the data were identical to last year’s.”
The number of attacks and deaths for 2004 would be even higher if complete data from the “central front in the War on Terror” were included in the administration’s terrorism statistics. The NCTC figures do not include attacks on U.S. troops fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. If they did, the number of deaths in 2004 would be 958 higher, for a total of 4,150 2,865, and the number of attacks, at an average of 40 per day in Iraq alone, would be about 14,600 higher, yielding an incredible 17,800.
In this week’s announcement, outgoing NCTC director Brennan referred to a new source of terrorism-related data on the web, the “Terrorism Knowledge Base,” which is run by the Oklahoma City-based non-profit National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (which, in turn, is funded by the Department of Homeland Security). The Terrorism Knowledge Base features a nifty “analytical tools” section where you can construct your own charts and graphs using their data. I used the online graph wizard to make the following graph of “international” terrorist attacks from 1995 to 2004:
Notice that because the data sets and terrorism definitions used were different (tkb.org uses data from the RAND Corporation), this graph differs from the one we prepared in April that was based on NCTC data. The axis labels on this graph are hard to read, but the terrorism rate decreases steadily through Clinton’s second term, bottoming out in the year 2000, and then it rises again dramatically. I think this graph is one of the best illustrations I’ve seen yet of the difference between what Karl Rove described as the “liberal” and “conservative” approaches to combatting terrorism.
===================
EDITOR’S NOTE: Greetings to Atrios readers, and a program note: Eric wrote the piece and created the chart before news of the London attacks broke. There’s no prescience, just a tragic coincidence.
- wb
![[Furl]](http://www.furl.net/images/logo-favicon.ico){kind=logo}
![[Newsvine]](http://www.newsvine.com/_vine/images/identity/button_seednewsvine.gif){kind=small}
![[Email]](http://www.feedburner.com/fb/feed-styles/images/email.gif){kind=small}
Yeah, but we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them in the streets of our cities. Also, Clinton’s penis.
July 7th, 2005 at 8:55 amSilly Gary. Can’t you read the graph? Clinton’s penis consistently got smaller as terrorism decreased, while Dubya’s got bigger.
In response, Clinton got a blow job, while Dubya sent thousands of people to their deaths. See, it all makes sense.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:04 amLook! There’s a missing white woman!
Uh, Michael Jackson! BenJen! TomKat!
July 7th, 2005 at 9:06 amLong live the Clenis!!
-
July 7th, 2005 at 9:06 amLooking at that graph, you’d almost think something happened in 2000 that stoked up religious and nationalist extremists around the world.
Probably just a coincidence.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:10 amclinton’s fault - if he hadn’t reduced terror acts so much, they wouldn’t have risen so much under bush, i.e. the graph would be a straight line across the board.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:13 amyeah, clinton’s fault- that’s the ticket!
Yeah, great… except 9/11 was planned during Clinton’s years of appeasement. So the lesson is: terrorists will lay low and build their strength while liberals appease them, and actually fight when conservatives start decimating them.
Remember how upset liberals were when Rove talked about their response to 9/11?
Sounds like they’re saying the same things all over again.
Sigh.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:16 amDammit, Gary… you failed to format it correctly… It’s CLINTON’S PENIS, in all caps.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:17 amYou know, you can draw a similar chart regarding war fatalities during the Neville Chamberlain years versus the Churchill years.
That’s right, it was all Churchill’s fault. The warmonger.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:18 amHey Tall Dave, You’re the man. Those terrorists are real cunning. They lay low when they could get therapy and attack when they can get decimated.
No doubt that’s their recipe for success.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:23 amThat’s right! Clinton attacked a terrost camps becuase…wag the tail! So the right wing freak show told us. Goddamned shameless hypocrites!
July 7th, 2005 at 9:25 amThats terrorist and because. Sorry.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:26 amYou may be tall, but you’re not too bright.
Lets see, Churchill entered WWII to stop Hitler’s after his invasion of Poland, and war fatalities naturally increased. Casualties were the price of stopping Hitler.
Bush invades Iraq purportedly to stop terrorism, and terrorism increases. So, additional terror attacks are the price of stopping terrorism. Ok, gotcha.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:26 amWow, how does someone as stupid as TallDave work a computer?
Hey TallDave, when, exactly, did “conservatives start decimating [terrorists]”? Would that be Aug. 6, 2001? No, that was when Bush was decimating some brush. Would that be September 11, 2001? No, that was when Bush was decimating the fuel tanks in Air Force One, running away from the crisis. Would that be Winter ‘02-’03, when Zarqawi was repeatedly targeted under US-controlled skies but permitted to maintain his training camp? No, because that would have decimated Bush’s argument for war.
Funny, all I see is a bunch of Republican fuckups who are so focused on tax cuts and Democratic penises that they can’t protect the United States.
Worthless goddam troll.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:27 amDave - Interesting that you bring WWII into it. It’s been three years and ten months since 9/11. In that time period after Pearl Harbor, the US defeated Japan.
What has Bush accomplished?
July 7th, 2005 at 9:28 amAtrios banned me.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:30 amWonder what a graph of terrorist attacks causing fatalities would look like.
WTC-93- 6 dead, 1040 injured
Embassies-213 people killed, August 98
Cole-17 US Servicemen Dead October 2000
WTC 01, The Penatagon-3030 killed.
When you are making graphs displaying an unsafe world, maybe you should do so by casualties.
You really have no plan, except complain. Get a plan, people will listen. I won’t hold my breath. Your absolute ignorance to growing Islamic terrorism is a wonder to behold.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:32 amNice tray Talldave. Actually, bin Laden began planning the Twin Towers attack during the early part of the REAGAN administration:
“Bin Laden said that he was inspired with the idea of attacking the U.S. skyscrapers when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.
“As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust the same way … to destroy towers in America so that it can taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women,” said bin Laden. ”
It’s logic like yours that keeps us from making progress against terrorists.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:36 amJust trying to figure out how the killing of 17 US servicemen counts as ‘terrorism’.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:38 amRiiiight Short(Bus) Dave,
Raygun and King Bush I gave weapons to bin Laden and
the other Afghan Mujahedeen (see “Spies Like Us” and
“The Living Daylights” for historical context, dope) for
a decade.
Everytime Clinton tried to do something about Hussein
OR Al Qaeda, did you right wing fucks say: “I support my
President”? “I support our troops”? “I’m with you not against
you Bill Clinton”? “Fox News and Limbaugh are giving aid
and comfort to our enemies”? No, you assholes smirked
“Wag the Dog!” every fucking day and did everything you
could to distract and humiliate Clinton for 8 years, you
goddamn traitors.
Fast forward to 2000. Bush sez “I’m a uniter, not a divider”.
“I’ll not police the world”. “I’ll use the Powell Doctrine and have
a timetable and use overwhelming force and only when necessary
and only with allies”. But, d’oh! instead of reading “Bin Laden
Determined To Strike US”, prepared by CLINTON’s admin,
your Hero, King Bush the Lesser, went on fucking VACATION
for a MONTH before 9/11. Oh, and let’s not forget how AG
Asscrack was determined to stop hookers in N’awlins and
potheads in Oregon instead of Al Qaeda.
Sorry, I read all the above that REPUBLICANS arm, coddle and
July 7th, 2005 at 9:39 amappease America-hating terrorists and Clinton’s engagement,
alliances and policing, coupled with using measured force,
actually made terror incidents DROP EVERY YEAR. But a retard
like you actually believes that Al Qaeda was laying low and
what, NOT blowing shit up purposely to wait for a Republican
so they COULD blow shit up? Cuz they, like KNEW they’d
get their asses kicked by REPUBLICANS? Gee, next time I
rob a bank, I’ll wait until all the bad ass guards are there
to strike but watch Beavis and Butthead while the half drunk,
3 days to retirement, overweight guard is on duty. THAT’LL
show ‘em!
Want a plan? The first rule of holes is “stop digging”. What, precisely is the Bush plan? “You’re either with us or against us” doesn’t seem to extent to Pakistan.
If Islamic terrorism is the problem, why did the US invade a secular Middle Eastern state, fuelling Islamic Fundamentalism?
The Bush administration is trying to have it both ways: terror attacks go up? Well, the terrorists are desperate and this proves the US is winning. Terror attacks go down? We’re really winning!
July 7th, 2005 at 9:40 amYour absolute ignorance to growing Islamic terrorism is a wonder to behold.
Not as much as your fucking unholy cluelessness. Here’s a hint genius: Why, as you admit, is it GROWING?
Every day people say stupid things, but being smug and dumb at the same time seems to be a right wing specialty. It’s truly fucking amazing.
You want to know how to fight a growing problem? Start addressing it realistically. Let’s set up some parameters for what America should do and what we realistically can do. Iraq wasn’t what we should have done and it sure as hell isn’t a realistic long term strategy for fighting terrorism.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:44 amThe people who bombed the WTC in 1993 were caught and prosecuted under Clinton. The Millenium bomb plot was stopped under Clinton. Kerry lead the investigation of BCCI, the terrorsit’s money-laundering bank. Clinton wanted to go after bin Laden but the right screamed, “No war for Monica! Don’t wag the dog!”
Liberals didn’t appease terrorists, they used effective methods of fighting terrorism AND had a sane foreign policy that didn’t engender hatred towards the U.S. and create more terrorists.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:44 amBush’s blowing a UK intel operation last August may have led to the London bombings
July 7th, 2005 at 9:47 amHave the Homeland Security alerts ever been at Green(low)? I dont remember them ever being green…so I guess according to homeland security we’re still losing the war on terra?
Evidently i was supposed to be scared when i rode the train this morning because there was a bombing in London….but not scared when there is a bombing everyday in Iraq? I’m so confused..
July 7th, 2005 at 9:58 am…
Yeah, good over there
not here.
Nucular.
Penis.
Yeah.
Terrorism!
blah, blah, blah…
blblblblblbblbblblblblb………
…..
July 7th, 2005 at 10:02 amOh, and genius?
Wonder what a graph of terrorist attacks causing fatalities would look like.
WTC-93- 6 dead, 1040 injured
Embassies-213 people killed, August 98
Cole-17 US Servicemen Dead October 2000
WTC 01, The Penatagon-3030 killed.
When you are making graphs displaying an unsafe world, maybe you should do so by casualties.
Hmmm…You know what? It would look almost the same! Add to that the War on Terrorism casualties — our soldiers and Iraqi civilians — and it would look EVEN WORSE!
But whatever. You only want to complain. You have no clue, no plan and nothing to offer.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:03 amPerhaps if Bush hadn’t allowed bin Laden to escape (then redirected our attention to Iraq), maybe those numbers would have gone down the past several years.
Bush appears to perhaps be to blame for that graph going up for the years of 2001-2004.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:05 amHey conservatives, suck on this:
Lastly, as Tony Blair oversees the carnage and anger in his country, he may want to ask his good buddy George W. Bush why his administration crippled Blair’s domestic anti-terror efforts to track down and stop Al Qaeda cells inside Great Britain by exposing a known Al Qaeda asset at a time when the Brits were very close to nailing a ring of Al Qaeda cells inside the country? With today’s tragedy in front of them, don’t you think that British intelligence would have wanted to finish their work last fall in smashing London’s Al Qaeda cells before the Bush Administration blew a covert operation just so Bush could be reelected?
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004815.php
The adminsitration’s ineptness has repercussions.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:06 amIt ain’t about conservatives vs. liberals, or Democrats vs. Republicans. It’s about being smart, and Bush, uh…uh…where’s the teleprompter?
Check out the what the Army War College has to say about Bush - and that’s not exactly a liberal love nest.
http://peoplegetready.blogspot.com/2005/05/army-war-college-criticizes-bushs-war.html
July 7th, 2005 at 10:07 amRepublicans … can’t run a budget, can’t run a war, can’t keep us safe, can’t seem to do anything right besides give their buddies more perks.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:08 amQ. What would be the single best measure of success in the war against terrorism?
A. A reduction in acts of terrorism. (That is, fewer attacks, fewer people killed, fewer injured.)
Q. Have there been more or fewer terrorist acts since we invaded Iraq?
A. More.
Q. So as we measure our success and find ourselves lacking, should stick with our present strategy or consider a different one?
REPUBLICAN ANSWER: Stay the course.
DEMOCRAT ANSWER: We have to finish the job in Iraq because now that we’re there we can’t leave, but the Bush administration isn’t spending enough money on armor and didn’t send enough troops and so we should add more troops and we shouldn’t have diverted our resources from Afghanistan and…..
MORAL: The Republican strategy has made the world less safe, but at least they have a strategy.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:09 amHey, “anybody”
all you’ve proven with your limited dataset (and limited thoughtful analysis) is that on top of the original post, they’re ALSO better pulling it off under Bush.
But then again, you think that the liberal call to understand the terrorists is somehow the same as offering understanding to them.. so CLINTONS PENIS!
July 7th, 2005 at 10:11 amWhat did the FBI know?
Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff has taken his share of abuse lately for Newsweek’s not-true but-true reporting on the desecration of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, so he ought to get some credit for this: Back in November, Isikoff and Mark Hosenball wrote a piece for Newsweek in which they said that U.S. law enforcement officials were extremely concerned about “evidence regarding possible active Al Qaeda plots to attack targets in Britain.”
How worried were law enforcement types? This worried: “According to a U.S. government official,” Isikoff and Hosenball wrote, “fears of terror attacks have prompted FBI agents based in the U.S. Embassy in London to avoid traveling on London’s popular underground railway (or tube) system, which is used daily by millions of commuters. While embassy-based officers of the U.S. Secret Service, Immigration and Customs bureaus and the CIA still are believed to use the underground to go about their business, FBI agents have been known to turn up late to cross-town meetings because they insist on using taxis in London’s traffic-choked business center.”
– Tim Grieve
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/07/07/fbi/index.html
July 7th, 2005 at 10:11 ambobinkc:
Moral: you go to the Gap with the credibility you have
July 7th, 2005 at 10:14 amVote Republican:
July 7th, 2005 at 10:15 amGraft, Recession, War
Would somebody please point out to “anybody” that, in all of those terror attacks he/she posted, the casualty numbers during Clinton’s years do not in any way come close to the number of casualties during Bush’s years. And Bush’s years ain’t over.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:20 amAnd it’s really not all that fair to include the 1993 bombing under Clinton, when people had barely heard of al-Qaida or bin Laden except as a “freedom fighter” for Afghanistan against the Soviets. Clinton had been in office exactly a month and six days. 9/11 came when Bush II had been in almost a year and after a decade of gradually increasing knowledge and experience concerning al-Qaida and Islamic terrorism and a summer of dire warnings and signals. It was also after Clinton’s people told the Bushies their main foreign affairs challenges would be terrorism, particularly al-Qaida, and nuclear proliferation in rogue states like Iran and North Korea. And the Bushies in their allergy to all things Clinton brushed this advice aside and made their priorities hookers in New Orleans, medical marijuana users in the West, unfinished business with Saddam, old Cold War hangovers concerning Russia and China and SDI, all of which, except for Iraq, now seem as quaint as the Bushies found the Geneva Conventions.
The fact that we don’t have 1/1/00 families as we do 9/11 families is because the Clinton people took terrorism warnings and intelligence seriously without hidden PNAC agendas and “other priorities” and focused like a laser beam on actually PREVENTING the millennium terrorist attacks instead of waiting until we’re hit and then thumping their manly chests and hauling out the John Wayne dialogue, then when the Bushies got tired of the way the Afghan fight was interfering with their plans to take out Saddam they decided to attack a secular state that had very tangential ties if any (especially considering all the bad actors in the region with considerably GREATER ties) to terrorism and which was not threatening us in any way or the region in more than potential. And now we have more terrorists there than you can shake a rocket-propelled grenade at, and they’re getting so well-trained in Iraq they’re being exported.
Every thing the Clinton people tried to do that might have made a difference was thwarted or ridiculed or protested. Any attempts to cut off the terrorists’ money supply was blocked by Republicans and some Dems in thrall to the big banks. The bipartisan commission on terrorism set up by Clinton was totally ignored by the Bushies, though many of its recommendations were adopted after 9/11. When the Clinton administration bombing of the training camp barely missed bin Laden, that action was sneered at as “wag the dog” because of some development in the Monica case. Not only was Clinton not supported he was actively subverted by the traitor Republicans in Congress. Funny, all the sensible things his people suggested back in the late ’90s that the GOP wasn’t interested in apparently were good enough to be enacted in 2001. The hypocrisy and venality of Republican politicians and their enablers in the media and the public at large sicken me.
I wish every pasty-faced smug member of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders would have to go to London today and repeat that inane “we’re fighting in Iraq so we don’t have to fight at home” tripe to the faces of the families who have lost loved ones.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:21 amActually, TallDave, the lesson is that terrorists plotted during the Clinton years and struck after an administration that dropped counter-terrorism to an extremely low priority — somewhere below hookers in New Orleans — arrived. They are nothing if not opportunist.
Say, how about that flypaper theory? I guess a few of them got unstuck from Iraq. I guess maybe people such as you simply don’t understand terrorists to the extent necessary to successfully combat them, or you’re too caught up in enjoying the most recent episode of Thug Life with Karl to bother trying.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:21 amA basic statistics lesson. Correlation does not imply causation. Just because terror decreased while a liberal was in power and increased while a conservative was in power does not mean that the two things have anything to do with eachother. And while it is possible that there could be some relationship, it is a mere possibility and there certainly could be other reasons for this kind of pattern. But a broad analysis like this one is unlikely to discern any reliable reason for the sudden increase in terror attacks.
As much as I would like to place the blame for this squarely at Bush’s feet, one cannot do this based soley on the correlation between his years in office and the increase in terror attacks.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:34 amGiven Bush’s incompetence and worldwide unpopularity, the best course of action must be for him to join Al Qaeda and run it into the ground as only he can.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:37 am#21-Yes. I want a plan.
You have none. I will never support someone who can not articulate a plan of action for the most pressing danger of our time.
You have no plan. When you get one, you can say, Hey my plan is better than yours…until that time, shut the f**k up.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:39 amWell over at Little Green Footballs, we’ve been talking about how we’re doing our part in the war on terror. A lot of people don’t know this, but we are just as important in the war as any soldier. We’re fighting the moonbats and the traitor liberals, guided by Charles Johnson. Soon the flag is going to go up and we will be in the streets, hunting down the liberals, taking their wimmin and lexis cars.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:46 amThe shut the f**k up is actually directed to all the critics gathered, who have no plan. If you have a plan, no offense intended.
If your current plan is to diminsh our success or the Presidency, without a counter plan…your are useless.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:50 amShinobi: you’re right, the numbers are meaningless in a vacuum, but they don’t exist in a vacuum. Pretty much everyone, from the CIA to the Weekly Standard, agrees that the invasion of Iraq has been an invaluable recruitment aide for terrorists if not by virtue of its very prosecution then by virtue of the administration’s ineptness since then. And certainly we wouldn’t be able to add terrorist attacks in Iraq to the total if we hadn’t created the opportunity for terrorists to operate there. Friends and foes alike will agree that the Bush administration are not, at least since 911, passive.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:51 amanybody - give me a link to Bush’s plan, then. Something more detailed than “stay the course” - what course? Something less abstract than “defeat terror” - what is the victory condition, when the OED removes the word?
Or do you not support Bush, because he has no plan?
July 7th, 2005 at 10:53 amanybody-
I have a plan.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:55 amYea, we have a plan, we impeach Bush…and then we …?
OK, we pull out of Iraq and….?
Well terrorism wasn’t a big concern until Bush came along….we’ll make it less of a concern.
We’ll have a protest and….?
We’ll call Republicans who support the war and ignore the 29 democrats who also signed the resolution.
Terrorists only need peace love and understanding.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:00 amHey rightwing show me the money!
-Economy is hurting
-War in Iraq with no out in sight
-War in Iraq with nothing on 9/11
-No WMD’s
-60+ a barrell of oil
-Clinton’s been gone for 5 yrs
-US credibility squandered
-Special laws in acted by congress for individuals and not for the benefit of all (Shiavo dicksmacks)
-Mainstream media still accused of being liberal (that’s why blogging has become so unpopular)
-A corrupt senator who wants to change the ethics rules so he doesn’t get in trouble
-A republican dominated house who claims that the Minority is stopping progress?
-The senate wanting to change the rules to benefit the temporary majority
-Outsourcing! China trade deficit!
-A prez that’s done more to divde than Unite
-Worldwide terrorism on the rise
-Terrorism increased because of the war in Iraq
-Not finishing the job in Aphganistan
-Young republicans in college thinking that they would serve their country better at home then in uniform
-A non elitist prez whose father was prez??????
-US foreign policy that helps AQ recruit more terroists, than getting more people to join the US forces???
Please explain to me how the booger in the White House is good for the USA? Because if you tell me a dem in office would do worse, the evidence is already out there and you would be the wrong - the right have no defence. No plan except to blame others for their greed and their lack of foresight. BTW I know there’s alot more that has been left out, cause the list is F’n long of blunders made by the booger.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:05 amanybody
I also have a plan:
1. the US and UK apologise to the Iraqi people for toying with their gov’t over the last 100 years of direct and indirect governance
2. We leave Iraq.
simple plan, no?
Staying the course means fueling the underlying problem in Iraq, over the last century we (US and UK) have proven to the iraqi people that we do not have thier best intrest at heart.
Please manage to keep your response out of Afghanistan. Afghanistan and Bin Laden should be our priority.
The only thing the Iraqi people ever did to us was to not fight back against the governments we keep installing there.
also, CLINTONS PENIS!
July 7th, 2005 at 11:05 amIF you haven’t heard, or chosen to listen to the words of GWB, so be it. Me pointing you to a speech where he basically states that a democratic form of government is less likely to be a haven for terrorists and will lead to a more democratic ME, you simply aren’t listening. You can disagree, but it is a plan nonetheless.
Once again, you prove that your plan is to complain about Bush. You offered none.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:05 amIsn’t it odd that the president of the USA is the son of the former head of the secret police… who has also been president.
In any other country they know to worry.
p.s (clintons penis)
July 7th, 2005 at 11:06 amanybody
I have listened closely to the ords of GWB.
so far, this sums it up.
“Crusading is Hard Work”
and “you forgot Poland!”
That’s all i got from it…
So, how do we winn this war? What is the goal? Who is the enemey, and how do we know we’re winning or losing?
Also, who keeps moving the goalposts?
anybody?
anybody?
anybody?
thought not.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:09 amWell terrorism wasn’t a big concern until Bush came along….
What utter ignorance of the facts.
CLINTONSPENIS!
Looking at the record, Bush failed to make terrorism an important issue until AFTER WE WERE ATTACKED. Fuckin’ jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenyus work, fake “Atrios”.
No, see the plan involves no “therapy” or “touchy-feely” crap. It involves reasoned strategy with long-term plans for securing ourselves. Why? Because waving a gun doesn’t make you secure in the world. Knowing why things are screwed up and taking the time to prevent such things from happening again does.
Dumbass.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:11 am“Yea, we have a plan, we impeach Bush…and then we …?”
Impeach Cheney.
“OK, we pull out of Iraq and….?”
Strawman. Look up “quagmire” in your dictionary (assuming you own one). The only good way out is not to get in.
“Well terrorism wasn’t a big concern until Bush came along….we’ll make it less of a concern.”
Actually, terrorism *was* a big concern under Clinton, and the graph above indicates how well that administration handled it. Ignoring terrorism was Bush’s plan until 9/12/01. Didn’t work too well, did it?
“We’ll have a protest and….?”
This is so moronic my brain hurts just trying to compose a reply.
“We’ll call Republicans who support the war and ignore the 29 democrats who also signed the resolution.”
Like most of your drivel, this has nothing whatsoever to do with reducing terrorism, but would it be to obvious to point out that every single one of the signees, Democrat or Republican, was LIED to about the casus belli? (Look that one up in your dictionary, too.)
“Terrorists only need peace love and understanding.”
The power of Elivs Costello is vast, but I don’t think just one of his songs will do the job.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:14 am“A democratic Iraq” isn’t a plan, it’s an outline.
What’s the plan? The actual plan, not the abstract. The devil is in the details and GWB has none. He never has throughout his entire career, be it business or political.
Give me the details or take your own advice and STFU.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:17 amHm, Ari Fleicher flashback - “That question’s answered”. There’s a massive gap between Bush’s rhetoric and action that’s readily apparently to any reasonably attentive lemur, but not you. If you can actually find this administration’s plan, I could take it apart and show you.
Okay, so a democratic form of government is less likely to trigger terrorism. Why, then, did Bush delay the elections in Iraq? The claim was that they couldn’t use the UN lists - but that is basically what they used.
One big reason why the left doesn’t have “a plan” is because Bush doesn’t have a plan. Another is that Bush continually screws everything up worse. Any idiot could have told you that disbanding the entire Iraqi army and leaving a bunch of pissed off trained soldiers unemployed was a bad plan. Trouble is, Bush isn’t just any idiot.
Step 1 - regain power. This is so that someone else can actually fix Bush’s mess. The best way to accomplish that is to get people to realize that Bush is horribly mismanaging the “War on Terror”. Did you see earlier in this thread where his administration blew the cover on an Al-Qaeda double agent? Boy, talk about “Aid and comfort” to the terrorists.
After that? Stop saber-rattling, it only helps the radicals. Fight government corruption, here, Iraq, the UN, Africa. All bad. Cut the Gordian knot in Israel/Palestine - the path to peace in the middle east goes through there, not Iraq. Announce that the US has no intention of keeping permanent bases in Iraq. Put a halt to radical de-Baathification, and allow Sunnis who didn’t commit crimes to re-join the government.
Internationalize the occupation - which means letting go of control, and acknowledging mistakes. Set a series of steps toward withdrawal. Dismantle the walls around the Green Zone, and the corrupt infrastructure it protects. Give the Iraqis the money to rebuild their country, not Halliburton. Get the US out of Saddam’s palaces.
Fire Rumsfeld. Start rebuilding the military. Make sure that every soldier has modern body armor. Increase production of armored vehicles. Put more research money into the IED problem. Get to a sustainable point where the regular military can handle deployments. Set up peace-enforcing light infantry units who can be deployed to trouble spots more frequently. Spending less of the 51% of the world’s military budget we spend on high-tech toys.
Take border security seriously. Upgrade security. Raise taxes to a level where the economy is sustainable. Increase VA benefits to take care of the new veterans we’re creating.
Stop funding dictatorships in Central Asia. Stop playing footsie with Musharraf and A. Q. Khan. Close down Gitmo (a symbolic move) and stop holding detainees outside of US law. If we have the evidence, arrest them and do what needs to be done. If we don’t, let them go.
Recognize that terror-as-a-tactic isn’t going to go away. Look at the British and French models for living in the shadow of terror. Start including Muslims and people who speak fricking Arabic and know the difference between Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims in the FBI’s antiterrorism plans.
Start a second Apollo-scale projects for energy independence - fusion reactors and orbital mirrors are not far out of reach. Brace for Peak Oil.
Oh, and “Atrios” - Clinton’s people told Condi that terrorism would be her main focus. She didn’t listen. Ashcroft didn’t list terrorism as one of his top 10 priorities. In fact, Ashcroft wanted to cut counter-terrorism funding.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:23 amI love the idea, and it’s not much of an idea, on the part of the right wingnut losers here that one needs to “have an idea” to be able comment here.
Hey, asswipes, this is your mess. You clean it up. I know that all of you fake conservatives are used to having your nanny change your diapers. But the rest of us adults aren’t here to clean up your mess. And if it offends you when we tell you smell liek fresh shit, too bad.
I really have to wonder how most of the people in London feel about Blair and bush’s close relationship now.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:25 amAnybody:
The Commander in Chief is the one that is supposed to have a plan.
Lets review this so called plan:
1. Invade Iraq aka cakewalk. Well that didn’t turn out so good…
2. Capture and destroy all those nasty WMD and prevent the certainty of that big ol mushroom cloud. Um, that didn’t work out too well either.
3. Bring em on. Our military really hate this part of the plan that put a bullseye on their backs.
4. Stay the course. Actually that is not a plan that is simply a hope that things will eventually, someday get better. Maybe.
So far we have 1 and 2 which are just lies and not a plan. And we have 3 and 4 which are stupid dreams of an ignorant fool so not a plan either.
At this point having no plan is still better than having the non-plan of the Commander in Chief
July 7th, 2005 at 11:27 amAnd of course, CLINTON’s PENIS! is relevant,
because it is what far too many conservatives were focused on, while ‘liberals’ like me were calling for the a multi-lateral invasion of Afghanistan..
yeah, back in 1998, that is what this liberal wanted…
but the blue dress was FAR more important, wasn’t it? But was it more important than the thousands of US dead on Bush’s watch…?
eventually, anybody, your veil will fall as well, and you will see Bush for who he is,
a cheerleader, and not a Commander in Chief.
a crooked doubletalker, and not an honest leader
a sneering, not swaggering, played-out cowboy.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:36 amGreyspace - I wish I’d written what you did. That level of eloquence is rarely achieved in the restrictive “blog comment” format. Kudos.
“Atrios” - I’ll save you the trouble; the word “eloquence” means “persuasive, powerful discourse or the skill or power of using such discourse.”
July 7th, 2005 at 11:37 amSilly liberals! You think Dear Leader doesn’t have a winning plan for Iraq? Well, this should shut you up:
1. Blow a lot of shit up.
2. ?????
3. Democracy!
Game. Set. Match.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:48 amFuckholery
Let me be upfront about this - I’ve gotten flack from more than a few e-mailers and other bloggers about daring to make a political commentary on the attacks and their import. We are constantly reminded by conservatives who need…
July 7th, 2005 at 11:57 am“‘We’ll have a protest’ . . . and then?”
Once again, a circumlocution used not so much in the US as in Australia or South Africa. God, you tedious right wing fucks from the former Dominions and your nasty out-from-under-the-rock Apartheid hard-ons for the US to kill brown people on your behalf. I’m sick of you ex-colonial whitey trolls.
Note to all: most trolls aren’t even Americans.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:04 pmwow…what’s the whole point again of this “what is your plan?” garbage? the people in power are the ones who need a plan, they’re the one’s who can implement it. bush has no plan, but the people who own him do.
and anyone who thinks they can hunt liberals, come get me. i’ll start a trophy case.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:11 pmStep 1: Collect Underpants
July 7th, 2005 at 12:17 pmStep 2:
Step 3: Profit!
“Atrios” was yanking your chain.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:18 pm“Approximately 15,000 Soviets were killed and over 53,000 wounded.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Invasion_of_Afghanistan
The terrorist we are fighting in Iraq are the same ones we would be fighting in Afghanistan.
Somehow the proponents of investing 100,000 troops in Afghanistan does not inspire my belief in the potential for success.
It would have been a quagmire.
Along comes Iraq. Dictatorship, violating the Surrender of 91, openly paying 25,000 to suicide bombers. Yep, Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. We are now there at the behest of the government. The first true representative government in the ME. When they can support themselves, we leave. They will not require continued finacial support, and the progress relative to Afghanistan for the Soviets is striking.
Advocates of not invading Iraq and investing more soldiers in Afghanistan-when would that thing end? Do you mind if we had 3 times the number of casualties?
The only country that ever offered an exit strategy-Iraq. We have an ally, other than Israel.
The dems have no plan for dealing with terrorism, pure and simple.
Saw a shot at the internationalizing thingy. Can you coordinate the oil for food scandal with it? Please explain.
Alternate forms of energy? Wonder waht would happen if the WTC in 93 had a garage full of hydrogen cell cars? I favor alternate forms of energy, and would like to see a large rail system to replace long haul trucking. Good luck on keeping unemployment low with that. Good luck stopping a terrorist from blowing up the rail. Every possible solution makes us even more vulnerable.
The big stick theory only works if you whack somebody. Libya gives up its WMD program? Say it ain’t so. North korea’s number one purchaser of arms? Iraq. I’m sure that KJL never would have sought to sell nukes to anybody. AQ Khan? No one really listened to him anyway. Botulinum, anthrax, small pox(soviet strain), old soviet nukes, Iran-
Do you think that as time goes by the world is increasing its capabilities of killing itself off?
All this and you have no plan? I feel better with Bush. Am I optimistic? No. Is it the only game in town? Yes.
This was never just about Iraq, it has always been about playing offense of defense. If we continue to play defense we are stuck waiting for the dems to come along, and can never win. If we establish an ally in the war on terrorism, in Iraq, we have won one of the greatest battles for the hearts and minds in the ME.
Close Gitmo? You really are out of touch with your own countrymen. Enlist in the French Army, you’ll be safer.
Is there any democrat here who actually follows the progress in Iraq? No.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:34 pm[…] I recall Donald Rumsfeld was searching for one a couple years ago, and after a lot of flack–not that much actually, the press pretty much gave up after a while and this story took a back seat to missing white girls–they have released the new statistics. Surprise, surprise, we’re in deep doo doo. […]
July 7th, 2005 at 12:38 pmDid I mention that you have no plan?
July 7th, 2005 at 12:39 pm” … a speech where he basically states that a democratic form of government is less likely to be a haven for terrorists … ”
Comment by anybody — 7/7/2005 @ 11:05 am
What? Are you joking?
Do you think what’s going on in Iraq is democracy?
A place where we set up the parties people could vote for (we didn’t even allow them to vote for indaviduals), and where most of the entries on the ballot didn’t even have that is a democracy.
Sure, let’s have a democracy ion Iraq.
Did we tell them that means a COMPLETE separation of church and state? did we tell them that it means EVERYONE is equal, Sunnis, Shi’a Kurds AND women? Are we enforcing that?
Democracy in Iraq, what a joke.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:42 pmHey anybody, here’s a plan:
The liberals are in charge of America, and conservatives get out of the way and shut the hell up, because so far, the only things you guys seem to be capable of is making things worse, not better.
And I’m not just talking about the “war” on terror … how’s the economy these days?
Or the US health care system?
The environment?
Tell us what you’ve done right
July 7th, 2005 at 12:45 pmWhat’s that Anybody, we have to have a plan before we can talk about how you idiots are screwing things up?
Jesus, talk about a failure of the American educational system … you wingers are just lost … especially when the real world hits you in the face.
Remember, freedom is on the march, and they hate us for our freedom.
Now clap louder!
July 7th, 2005 at 12:48 pmNo, you don’t need a plan if you are going to vote.
If you are going to lead….
July 7th, 2005 at 12:50 pmHey, don’t take it from us center-right “wingnuts.” Ask Harvard:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html
Before analyzing the data, Abadie believed it was a reasonable assumption that terrorism has its roots in poverty, especially since studies have linked civil war to economic factors. However, once the data was corrected for the influence of other factors studied, Abadie said he found no significant relationship between a nation’s wealth and the level of terrorism it experiences.
“In the past, we heard people refer to the strong link between terrorism and poverty, but in fact when you look at the data, it’s not there. This is true not only for events of international terrorism, as previous studies have shown, but perhaps more surprisingly also for the overall level of terrorism, both of domestic and of foreign origin,” Abadie said.
Instead, Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism. Though terrorism declined among nations with high levels of political freedom, it was the intermediate nations that seemed most vulnerable.
Like those with much political freedom, nations at the other extreme - with tightly controlled autocratic governments - also experienced low levels of terrorism.
Though his study didn’t explore the reasons behind the trends he researched, Abadie said it could be that autocratic nations’ tight control and repressive practices keep terrorist activities in check, while nations making the transition to more open, democratic governments - such as currently taking place in Iraq and Russia - may be politically unstable, which makes them more vulnerable.
“When you go from an autocratic regime and make the transition to democracy, you may expect a temporary increase in terrorism,” Abadie said.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:52 pmLet’s review those last grafs again:
nations making the transition to more open, democratic governments - such as currently taking place in Iraq and Russia - may be politically unstable, which makes them more vulnerable.
“When you go from an autocratic regime and make the transition to democracy, you may expect a temporary increase in terrorism,” Abadie said.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:53 pm“The terrorist we are fighting in Iraq are the same ones we would be fighting in Afghanistan.
It would have been a quagmire.”
Where’d you attend military college Anybody, Fredonia Military Academy under the Rufus T. Firefly Scholarship?
If that’s really what the brilliant military minds of the right are thinking, no wonder we’re getting our asses handed to us.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:55 pmCasey-
When do you think the democrats will get back in control?
Are you predicting a 32 seat swing in the house? 5 seats in the Senate?
The dems haven’t even come close to rock bottom, but with the dead weight that the far left(the equivalent of the religious right) brings to the table, you’ll be getting to rock bottom sooner than later. The presidency isn’t decided by the left or the right-it is the independents. The only demographic that Kerry improved upon relative to 2000, were high school dropouts, and PHd’s. African American, Latin, women, seniors, teens, et al. the list oges on forever. Your policies are killing your only chance of beating Bush. I love egging you turds along.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:57 pmThe dems have no plan for dealing with terrorism, pure and simple.
HA!
How about dealing with Osama? Does that sound like a plan?
Maybe you idiots should have been going after who IS responsible for all this, rather than screwing around in Iraq.
Your ineptitude is costing peoples their lives.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:58 pmMac explain how it is wrong…oh that’s right complaining is the democratic solution to everything. Do you want me to show you the democracy corps polls, where Greenburg and carville are trying to help you, by telling you that the number one gripe about dems is that they have no plan?
July 7th, 2005 at 1:00 pmAnybody - you are a bad joke of right-wing talking points. The oil-for-food “scandal” is a bogus smokescreen.
The US sat on the committee that approved contracts. A great deal of the corruption benefited US companies. Saddam got far more money from smuggling oil - which the US tactitly approved, for the benefit of allies like Jordan. More money has been stolen or mismanaged under American management than during oil-for-food - have you read any stories about the CPA’s accounting? Billions of dollars of Iraqi money not accounted for?
AQ Khan - nobody ever listened to him anyway? Do you have any idea who he is? Or of Pakistan’s central role in nuclear proliferation? Obviously not.
The terrorists are are fighting in Iraq are the same ones we would be fighting in Afghanistan? Your idiocy leaves me speechless. Even the administration has quietly admitted that the insurgency is largely composed of Iraqis. Um, also - if we’re fighting in Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan, why are we still fighting in Afghanistan, the world’s opium breadbasket?
This, of course, is the central reason why conservatives claim that liberals have no plans - because their best skill is lying to themselves.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:01 pmHey, don’t take it from us center-right “wingnuts.” Ask Harvard
Oh yeah, Harvard … there’s a bastion of liberalism …
July 7th, 2005 at 1:01 pm“… nations making the transition to more open, democratic governments - such as currently taking place in Iraq … ”
LOL … that’s rich, you fundies crack me up with your fairy tales … now tell me the one about how global warming is a “myth”.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:03 pmWhen do you think the democrats will get back in control?
Comment by anybody
How those poll numbers looking these days kiddo?
July 7th, 2005 at 1:05 pmDemocrats don’t have a plan …
Some Democrats and liberals, not always the same entities, have lots of plans for dealing with terrorists and with the conditions that enable terrorists to flourish. One of our plans is to avoid creating those conditions and then calling them “flypaper.”
The problem is that most effective plans cannot be translated into the sort of language the Bush administration supporters represented on this thread appreciate, i.e., “Hulk smash,” and are therefore not considered to be plans.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:08 pmHey, le petit Macarthur, show me how the guys were; fighting in Iraq are from Afghanistan.
Last time I checked, they were 95% home grown.
Flypaper from Anybody … hey, how’s that whole flypaper thing working? Did the bombers in London today just miss the flight to Faluja.
C’mon, tell me …
July 7th, 2005 at 1:09 pmUBL is in Pakistan. The strongest Al-Queda connections are there. Musharref is a dead man walking. Cause unrest in Pakistan, and you risk giving the cause that brings the Taliban to power. That is…to nuclear power. Sure, let’s go send troops into Pakistan. A wonderful democratic solution. We kill UBL and terrorism ends? You really do not understand the problem we face. I’m not in love with the Bush foreign policy, but it has more rationale than any of you have offerred.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:10 pmOil for food?
Are you listen to Murdoch again Anybody?
If you believe him, I’ve got some WMDs to sell you, cheap.
Only cost 1700+ American lives.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:11 pm95%? Please source that nugget.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:11 pmUBL is in Pakistan.
You mean Osama?
Then why don’t we GO GET HIM?
Following your “rational” (and I use that term loosely), going after Tojo would have been a bad mistake, better if we were to invade New Zealand, and draw the Imperial Army of Nippon to us.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:15 pmHey pal, you’re the one that said their from ‘Stan.
You back up your claim.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:19 pmIraq produces 20 billion us dollars in oil yearly.
We could produce more than that domestically if we drill off CA, FL, and inside Alaska.
How much did you guys want to spend on the third world country of Afghanistan? A kind estimate had it at 4 trillion for bringing them up to speed to pre war Iraq. That does not include the casualties along the way.
Still waiting for the democratic plan to deal with terrorism. You may not have noticed but it was growing long before Bush came into office. 19 men killed 3000.
Even if we only had 10,000 terrorists, that would be 1.5 million Americans. Great plan.
You may also want ot take a look at the pew polls of ME opinions of the US. We went from 15% to single digits. But if you now include Iraq, we are as a whole more popular than we have ever been in the ME. Can you say intelligence operatives?
July 7th, 2005 at 1:19 pmYeah, and once Musharref is dead, they’ll all just stop.
You fundies and your fantasies.
Look! Over there! Yellow Cake from Niger!
July 7th, 2005 at 1:19 pmCause unrest in Pakistan … yeah, such a calm place, ain’t it.
Good thing that dictator in charge is on our side (more or less).
For now.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:21 pmSo you throw out a number of 95%, but you have nothing to back up your claim?
That’s called a lie. Makes you about as legit as Bush is in a democrats eye’s. But you have some special authority that makes you believe that Bush is a liar, so you are justifed in lying? There’s a certain Republican logic to it.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:22 pmWe could produce more than that domestically if we drill off CA, FL, and inside Alaska.
Yeah, screw the environment.
Typical fundie.
What kind of SUV you drive Anybody?
Was it worth having kids die so you can fill it with gas?
July 7th, 2005 at 1:23 pmBill-anytime you want to give the Pakistani government over to the Taliban…
July 7th, 2005 at 1:25 pmStill waiting for the democratic plan to deal with terrorism.
How about not playing into our enemies hand by invading Iraq?
How about going after the guys that did this to us (Where IS Osama? Goss knows, doesn’t he)?
How about cutting off the Saudi’s at the knees since that’s where the majority of the hijackers came from, AND they fund more terrorism than Iraq ever has (better not look at who’s holding the note on our national debt though).
Is that enough of a plan for you?
Probably not.
How about raising CAFE standards by 3 MPG for all vehicles (which would negate out need for foreign produced oil)?
Nah … that’s too proactive.
Better to go pick a fight with someone who poses no threat to us and had nothing to do with 9/11.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:28 pmIn reading back some clarifcation is needed regarding the composite of the taliban in Afghanistan.
It was the frontline in the battle against the soviets. Notice how the leader’s of AL-Queda aren’t from there? Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan…the taliban liked Afghanistan because there was no real government, they ruked it because they had the guns. For all I care they can still rule it…it is a rock farm.
Have you noticed the number of Saudi’s we are picking off in Iraq? Oh that’s right you don’t need sources of info, except Dean’s talking points. So politically astute your party will nominate HRC, instead of Evan Bayh. Thanks for 2008 guys. Sorry for the digression, but I llove pointing to the ’suicide mentality’ occurring in the democratic party is.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:32 pmAgain, Harvard says…
nations making the transition to more open, democratic governments - such as currently taking place in Iraq and Russia - may be politically unstable, which makes them more vulnerable.
“When you go from an autocratic regime and make the transition to democracy, you may expect a temporary increase in terrorism,” Abadie said.
You moonbats are funny. 100,000 troops in Afghanistan? I think the Soviets tried that. Uranium from Niger? Senate says Joe Wilson lied, not Bush. You have lots of plans for dealing with terrorists? I bet you do, but Americans have heard them and they think you’re a bunch of weenies who can’t be trusted to do the job right.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:34 pmSo you throw out a claim that the insurgency in Iraq is populated by outsiders, but you have nothing to back up your claim?
That’s called a lie. Makes you about as legit as Bush, anybody
Put up or shut up.
You brought it up, you show me the stats (quoting NewsMax or or Bill O’Reilly doesn’t count).
What’s the population of Iraq? How many of those are involved in the fighting.
Do you really believe that the MAJORITY of the people fighting against the US occupation of Iraq are from Afghanistan?
You were probably one of those people who thought that most of the people fighting for Ho Chi Min were from “communist block countries”.
Look! Over there! Ties between Sadam and Al-Quida!
July 7th, 2005 at 1:35 pmBill-anytime you want to give the Pakistani government over to the Taliban…
Comment by anybody
Wow … don’t know much about Pakistan, do you.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:36 pmCutting Saudi off at the knees…
Let’s boycott their oil!
Of course we would have to increase domestic production. You don’t mind an oil rig off California do you?
I sure as hell don’t. Far cheaper than the lives lost in Iraq. So if you really care about our soldiers, you’d be advocating drilling at home. You care more about the environment than you do our soldiers. You guys really are sick.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:37 pmBill, apparently I know a lot more than you.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:38 pmFor all I care they can still rule it…it is a rock farm.
Way to show how much you care for the people of Afghanistan.
Don’t they deserve democracy? Don’t you agree with W that the best way to prevent terrorism is by having democratic countries that represent the people?
Yeah, let them rot … what harm could it do us?
Oh, and spare me your 2-bit Neo-con lectures on the region. If I need information, you’ll be one of the last people I ask.
Look! Over there! Osama & the Mujahadeen are freedom fighters backed by the CIA (Thanks Ronnie!)!
July 7th, 2005 at 1:40 pmI don’t drive an SUV, I actaully have a diesel jetta 2004 TDI. 48 mpg in the city. Sorry about the smog(nitrates) but a lot less cO2.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:41 pmActaully we can’t afford democracy in Afghanistan.
We’d be paying thru the nose forever.
Iraq can afford democracy, that’s why we chose it over Afghanstan. IT is and willbe one of the richest nations in the world.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:44 pmNewsmax quotes the Pentagon as saying that 9 in 10 insurgents are Iraqi. It’s pretty clear they wouldn’t be in Afghanistan.
Anybody, if you knew anything about modern guerilla combat, you’d know that as unpleasant as it is to fight in the mountains, urban combat is worse. That’s why the CIA warned that Iraq was becoming a training ground for militants.
BTW, leaving UBL in Pakistan alone because of the danger of Islamists getting nucular weapons goes 100% against Bush’s “dead or alive”/”no difference between terrorists and those who harbor them” rhetoric.
What was that about Bush having a plan, but it was just so simple that somehow you couldn’t find any references to it other than “Democracy good! Hulk smash!”
July 7th, 2005 at 1:50 pmActaully we can’t afford democracy in Afghanistan.
Well, then the last thing we need would be a US President promising an ironclad commitment to help Afghanistan “succeed and prosper” as a democracy.
Or it would, if you believed him. Which you apparently don’t?
July 7th, 2005 at 1:53 pmFriday, June 10, 2005 9:44 a.m. EDT
Biden: Saudis Fighting U.S. in Iraq
More foreign fighters than ever are crossing Iraq’s porous borders to fight U.S. and Iraqi forces, and a growing number are from U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, a Senate Democrat said Thursday.
“The mix is changing,” said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., citing conversations last week in Iraq with Marine and Army generals. “Now the mix is increasingly more Islamists crossing the border … and a lot of them are Saudis. It presents a different profile” that is harder for U.S. forces to confront.
Story Continues Below
Biden, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s top Democrat, gave no specific numbers, for foreign fighters as a whole or for the percentage from Saudi Arabia. He said he was told repeatedly that the totals are going up and that Saudis are “a disproportionate number.”
or
In the past, the U.S. military has said foreign fighters are a small percentage - perhaps one in 10 - of the insurgents fighting the U.S. presence in Iraq. They do a disproportionate amount of killing, however, in part because they are more likely to carry out suicide bombings.
perhaps 1 in 10…
Foreign fighters doing a disproportianate amount of killing…
In regards to urban fighting vs Afghanistan, you have no idea what you are talking about. Is a cave on a rocky hill, harder to attack than a building? Incline of a battlefield is 5 to 1 advantage if used right. In Afghanistan the enemy can selct the area of combat. In Iraq, it is very limited.
That calculation won’t work with foreign fighters, Biden said.
Good link…but Al says Newsmax isn’t credible…and Biden didn’t give specific numbers. a modest hat tip, but hardly convincing.
Still no plans? No surprise here. Find a link to a democratic plan. I’m off to walk my pyr, but I’ll check back with you. My brother just landed at glasgow, so I also need to get some news. Regards.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:10 pmanybody: As noted before, plans abound. If you’re looking for one, easily digestible plan, it would begin with not concocting spurious reasons for invading a Middle Eastern country, and not providing additional recruiting opportunities for terrorists during the occupation of that country if one simply must have one’s invasion.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:58 pmWith all the talk of Bush failing to keep America safe is only coincidental that you ignored the number of only 10 domestic terror attacks in 2004, many of those by Animal Liberation Front?( source from DailyKos, http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ac120644-edab-11d9-9ff5-00000e2511c8.html ) Not to shabby. I also am unclear why you claim Iraq is not included in the stats, according to http://www.tkb.com, they are included. Considering the broad definition of terrorism (arson, vandalsim, etc.), I think it is more revealing to use the RAND data to determine casualty related terror attacks. If you do this you’ll notice that post-9/11 the US has registered zero domestic terror deaths, unlike the Clinton admin. which almost yearly had deaths.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:01 pmJ