More like “don’t swallow it.” Iraq is not part of the war on terror and never was. 9/11 was a horrible thing, but it sure helped sell the load of goods that Iraq=terrorists. How I’m not sure. I guess some people will believe anything if you repeat it often enough.
The war in Iraq has nothing at all to do with TWAT. It’s staggering that some of you guys still don’t get that.
Yes, but so what?
This is like saying the US wasn’t related to the second world war until we declared war on Germany and Japan. Technically, it’s true. But, it’s an empty and meaningless statement because we certainly were involved after that so it’s moot what the situation was before.
Dude, that’s politics. If I oppose abotion, I can expect that it will be said or implied that I want to control women’s bodies. If I oppose nationalized healthcare, I can expect that it will be said or implied that I am uncaring about sick children. If you oppose the admins’ policy, you can expect it to be implied that you are “soft on terror.”
None of it is really fair or honest, but it’s the way the game is played by both parties. This is an utterly unremarkable incident.
Scotty didn’t say Helen was against the “War on Terror[sup]TM[/sup]”. He said “I’m sure you’re opposed to the broader war on terrorism”. Is this a copywrited catch phrase for the administration as well? Or a clear slam against Helen?
It’s petty fucking play with words that this administration keeps on pulling.
It’s not a question of nuance. Claiming that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with eradicating terrorism is just a flat lie, It’s factually false- especially when the implication is made that iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Aggravating the problem of Islamic terrorism is not the same thing as fighting it.
Diogenes and Maureen: I know you guys don’t like the war in Iraq. That’s fine. We can disagree about such things. However, it just sounds crazy to be in denial about the very existance of it.
It’s simply a fact that the US under the current administration is engaging in a global war against terrorism, and that this effort is focused around our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To deny this just makes you look like loons.
So a “lie” was not uttered, but it was “infered”? Now, that’s even more progress! And just how did you think the “lie” was infered? I thought that anyone who attempted to equate opposition to the war with support for terrorists was being unfair. Yet, this is precisely what you have done. It is illogical. It is assumptive. And. yes, unfair. But, no matter. As long as it manages to throw some stank toward The White House all is good.
Makes me yearn for the good old days when the left knew what a lie was but claimed it didn’t matter when a perjurious statement was about sex.
To whom? People who unquestioningly swallow everything that comes out of the mouth of a coke head who believes God talks to him? I’m willing to take that risk.
The fact of the matter is, our involvement in Iraq is increasing terrorist activity. But, hey. Job security for the lucky military, huh?
And what you are apparently incapable of grasping is that that is an opinion, not a fact.
Just as, in my example above, some might argue that affirmative action addresses the “root causes” of a race riot, so this admin has argued that regime change in the Middle East addressses the root causes of terrorism. It’s fine to disagree; but it’s pathetic to act as if you don’t even comprehend the opposing argument and are intellectually incapable of moving the discussion beyond the differing presuppositions.
Even better if it manages to stop a few of our troops from dying for that lie. I love the irony of people who loftily lecture against mud slinging while taking as many shots as they can at people who disagree with them.
Thank you so much for proving my point. So tell me. Would you not agree that lying to Congress and getting 2,000 members of the U.S. military is a far more serious lie than whether or not you got blown in the office? And if so, when will we see your outraged letter to your congressman demanding Bush’s impeachment?
Good heavens. Helen Thomas does not support the Iraq War. She is told that this means that she is against the war on terror. This is a lie since there is no connection between the two. An additional lie is inferred in melding this statement with previous administration statements that you’re either on their side or that of the terrorists. If you don’t think that the White House likes to have people infer things from what they say, look at how little they have done to dispel the notion that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
You must be kidding.
As with “the media is controlled by liberal elites,” “the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility,” and “George W. Bush is an intelligent and competent leader,” there is no bullshit line that the right won’t keep touting even long after it’s been proven as accurate as Colin Powell’s UN presentation.
Well, except not in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with al Qaeda and nothing to do with any terrorism directed against the US. I also haven’t seen much evidence that the insurgency is being directed by aQ or by “terrorists” (unless you’re going to simply define the insurgents themselves as “terrorists” which is completely self-serving and disingenuous. They were neither insurgents nor “terrorists” until we attacked them.
Leaving out for the moment that the image of something being focused around something else is a bit, uh, murky, if our operatiions in Iraq and Afghanistan are our best efforts to combat global terrorism, we should quit while we are way behind.
All the evidence points the other way, Bubba. If I said “The Sun is blue”, would you consider that just an opinion, too? Or does evidence matter at all to those of you wandering around Fantasyland?
What the meaning of “is” is depends on the party affiliation of who’s saying it, huh? “Character matters” indeed.
Yeah, but it shouldn’t be. Afghanistan, sure. But not Iraq. There was scant terrorist activity in Iraq before the invasion. Why make them the focal point of a war on terror? Your argument would apply just as well if the US had decided to attack Luxembourg.
As regards Helen Thomas, she is only demonstrably against the war on terror insofar as she opposes its nonsensical expansion into Iraq. Of course, that’s not the implication and was never meant to be. The term ‘Broader war on terrorism’ is deliberately vague, suggesting that Thomas is opposed to any and all expansion of the war on terror irrespective of the reasons given for doing so. It was a shitty, sleazy thing to say.
I’m confused. When did they said that the war in Iraq doesn’t exist?
Iraq is part of the War againest Terrorism by the virtue of Bush overthrowing Saddam(who had little or nothing to do with AQ), for reasons that turned out to be untrue. Even worse, the adminstration has not only done a horrible job trying to salvage something out of Iraq, Afganistan hasn’t been getting the attention it should either and the country is still in turmoil.
And before you paint me as a leftist, I supported Bush and gave him the benefit of the doubt for 4 years. On the WMD thing, on the way the war was run, etc. However, it’s become abundtly clear to me that Bush has no frakken idea what he’s doing over there and doesn’t seem to care either. Anyone who questions that is accused of being unpatriotic or aiding the terrorists. And it sickens me.
I’m rather surprised anyone’s saying it, too. When we invaded Iraq, it was related to the War on Terror only in the sense that that War provided an excuse, but since Al Qaeda is there now, it’s part of that effort.
Be that as it may, “against the war in Iraq” /= “against the war on terror.” That’s not even a rhetorical ploy at this point, it’s a clumsy attempt at Two-Concept Monty.
Well it’s a stupid fucking game, and one we need to eradicate. This “game” of polar absolute views is literally sending the country down the shitter.
Btw, good comment Mace. I was about to say “it is now”, but you beat me to the punch.