Vice President Reaches a New Low

[andyfox]

Hard to do, considering the lows he's reached before. But the Vice President accused the Democrats today of validating Al Qaeda's strategy in Iraq.

Pretty disgusting stuff from a man who's policies and lies about them have led to the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

This is an administration with no shame.

[slickpoppa]

Excellent

[PLOlover]

Let's get real boys and girls. Where do you think that NY Times treason article came from?

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
Hard to do, considering the lows he's reached before. But the Vice President accused the Democrats today of validating Al Qaeda's strategy in Iraq.

Pretty disgusting stuff from a man who's policies and lies about them have led to the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

This is an administration with no shame.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what he said is way overdue. Under Lincoln, these "peace" democrats would have been thrown in jail.

They are a disgrace to the offfices they hold, and they are traitors to their country.

I will grant you that Cheney and his personal "intelligence" club got way overzealous on some "intelligence". However, every congressman got to review that intelligence and it was only a small addition to the numerous reasons to go to war. Laying the "blame" on Cheney is misguided.

Al qaeda was already in Iraq, Britain, U.S., Afghanistan and abotu 100 other countries. To say Cheney encouraged Al Qaeda into Iraq is silly. However, it is a WONDERFUL strategic advantage to be fighting them on Iraqi soil so that we can maintain stability in a region that would be a lot more unstable if we weren't there.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
To say Cheney encouraged Al Qaeda into Iraq is silly.

[/ QUOTE ] Saddam Hussein persistently and quite brutally cracked down on religious fundamentalism, ever since he took power and right up until the American invasion. As a person, he leaned on the secular, if not atheist, position. (And, yes, when a man nears his end, he will sometimes get religion.)

In so many words, islamic fundamentalism was on the run in Iraq, before the U.S. came in.

[ QUOTE ]
Al Qaeda was already in Iraq, Britain, U.S., Afghanistan and about 100 other countries.

[/ QUOTE ]We can only speculate, of course, but logically that organisation became known after 9/11. Before this, they must have had people in countries only with operational justification. After 9/11, they must've had a lot of enthusiastic applicants from members of the local muslim communities.

And that wave of volunteers must have increased, logically, when the Great Satan attacked and invaded yet another muslim country, i.e. Iraq after Afghanistan.

[ QUOTE ]
It is a WONDERFUL strategic advantage to be fighting them on Iraqi soil so that we can maintain stability in a region that would be a lot more unstable if we weren't there.

[/ QUOTE ]Ouch. This is silly and wrong in many ways.

First, that was NOT the plan! The U.S. did not count on getting such a resistance for the plans to "bring democracy" to the country. Second, having so many religious fundamentalists against you, results in pitting the U.S. against the muslim religion itself. I'm sure that it would be preferable for the U.S. to have instead an equally strong and murderous insurgency but a secular one -- with which one can possibly, eventually come to terms and agree on something.

Third, there is actually no stability in Iraq, and it's nowhere in sight. (Tony Blair is currently putting forward a timeline of his own for pulling back the British troops. Tony cuts and runs, if you didn't get it. link) What we have is instability and this instability is gonna spread around the region, on account of the gross American inability to bring peace and accommodation there.

Fourth, arguing that the flowering of a religious insurgency in an Arab country is a "good thing", by any angle, is arguing that it's a good thing when a fire breaks out on the ground floor of a building when you are trying to put down a fire on the top floor.

And, fifth, the terrorists are an enemy without a country, a capital city, or a mail address. In order to confront them on "their soil", we will have to be somewhat smarter -- and truly meet them there!..

Mickey Brausch

[whiskeytown]

Al Queda's strategy was to get the US bogged down in an America vs. Islam war -

Osama Bin Laden went on live a couple weeks before the 2004 election just to give GWB a bump in his poll numbers.

Osama has been playing GWB like a puppet from day 1, really

RB

[CTKid]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hard to do, considering the lows he's reached before. But the Vice President accused the Democrats today of validating Al Qaeda's strategy in Iraq.

Pretty disgusting stuff from a man who's policies and lies about them have led to the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

This is an administration with no shame.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what he said is way overdue. Under Lincoln, these "peace" democrats would have been thrown in jail.

They are a disgrace to the offfices they hold, and they are traitors to their country.

I will grant you that Cheney and his personal "intelligence" club got way overzealous on some "intelligence". However, every congressman got to review that intelligence and it was only a small addition to the numerous reasons to go to war. Laying the "blame" on Cheney is misguided.

Al qaeda was already in Iraq, Britain, U.S., Afghanistan and abotu 100 other countries. To say Cheney encouraged Al Qaeda into Iraq is silly. However, it is a WONDERFUL strategic advantage to be fighting them on Iraqi soil so that we can maintain stability in a region that would be a lot more unstable if we weren't there.

[/ QUOTE ]

of course you're from ohio.

[iron81]

I almost posted that I agree with the Vice President. On the issue of troops in Iraq, it just so happens that US interests and Al Qaeda interests coincide in the short term.

The reason I didn't say that is because getting US troops out is only a stepping stone for Al Qaeda. Their goal is to establish a fundamentalist state. In the long term, the sooner the US troops leave, the less hatred there will be toward the west and the less likely an Al Qaeda friendly regime will come to power, both in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

[andyfox]

The Democrats in the legislative branch have indeed been a disgrace. But their dereliction of duty pales as virtually insignificant compared to that of the administration that, according to the President, did not consider casualties when planning for the invasion and that, according to the Vice President, saw the insurgency as in its last throes several years ago.

Every problem that has been encountered in Iraq--the insurgency, the sectarian violence, the influx of Al Qaedans, the influence of Iran, the breakdown of law and order, the post-Saddam looting, the perils of deBaathification and disbanding the army, the Iraqis distate for occupation, the possible break-up of the country, the danger of relying on the genetically unreliable Chalabi--all were foreseen by both governmental agencies and non-governmental experts. All was delierately ignored by the administration lest consideration of these things breed negativity both within the government and among the public in anticipation of the invasion. A better case could be made for treason by Cheney and his gang, for sending our kids into harm's way under false pretenses and for deliberately ignoring the dangers they'd be facing. Those who have been critical of the administration's murderous folly are the heroes.

Congress doesn't see the same intelligence the administration does. The president gets a daily briefing; by all accounts, Cheney was very influential in "guiding "intelligence" and bears a major share of the blame for the debacle. He had advocated regime change in Iraq long before 9/11 and it was largely his public statements that gave the public the impression that Hussein was responsible for 9/11. He's shown that he's a pathological liar. He still claims that things are going well in Iraq. He said just yesterday that the British pulling out troops shows this. Yet he insists we need more troops. Which is it?

Of course, this congenital lying should come as no surprise. Every public leader lies when trying to convince the public to go to war. Cheney is not much different than were Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton. The surprise is that people, despite all the evidence, can deny it.

To claim that the region now exhibits stability is a fantasy. Your wonderful strategic advantage has been described by the president himself as "slow failure." He is, of course, correct.

To accuse one's political opponents of supporting Al Qaeda's goals is disgusting. But not surprising, from an administration that has sought to limit "unacceptable" criticism.

[Utah]

I think the VP is a complete scumbag. However, I dont think your comment is fair. You stated:

"Pretty disgusting stuff from a man who's policies and lies about them have led to the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq"

However, wouldn't the following statement also be true:

"Pretty disgusting stuff from a man who's policies and lies about them have led to zero attacks in the US by Al Qaeda since the start of the war on terrorism"