You guys are doing flips and twists to avoid the reality that al-Qaida had reason to cheer. They’re working to get the U.S. out of Iraq, and so are the Democrats. From their perspective, this is a big win. The chance that the U.S. will pull out of Iraq went up substantially with the Democrats controlling both houses. Since that’s what al-Qaida wants, why wouldn’t they cheer the results of the election?
Oh, I’m not at all suggesting that Al Qaeda doesn’t feel happy about the elections. I’m just saying that they’re jubilation is misplaced.
I was going to just roll my eyes…but instead let me ask you a few questions. First off…whats your indication that AQ is growing stronger? They have been pretty quiet to be honest since they got their asses kicked in Afghanistan. A lot of the ‘AQ’ groups have been fringe groups that associated themselves with AQ after the fact. Zarquawi in Iraq was one such.
Next question…what makes hard data makes you think they actually want the Republican’s in office? They want the US to get the fuck out of the ME…and the Republicans have been dicking around in the ME heavily…which seems to run contrary to their wishes. If they have the IMPRESSION that the Dems would dick around less in the ME, why do you think they would prefer the Pubs to the Dems? Or are you just speculating out of your ass because it fits how you WANT things to be?
Last question…do you have a cite that the CIA has data indicating that Bin Laden REALLY wanted Bush to win the last election? Or even cared?
Thanks in advanced…this should be good.
-XT
Only by ignoring the context one can say that.
The Republicans also want out, we disagree only on the timing or what constitutes a victory. (this also ignores that the Republicans lately were accepting plans like the one Murtha proposed (you are also ignoring it was not really cut an run))
And ignore the fact that they have another thing coming at them? IIRC once we leave, Al-qaeda is toast in Iraq, the bigger local insurgency barely tolerates them. So fuck their opinion.
I also remember that Al-qaeda in a recent intelligence report admitted they were actually glad the US was in Iraq, I have to conclude the only thing Al-Qaida is hopping now is that “cheering” like that will have the effect of convincing the remaining followers of “following the course” that remaining in Iraq is the best plan.
Why would they want America out of Iraq ? They’d lose a major propaganda tool, and a place where they have easy access to American targets. Also, if Saddam II takes over, they’d lose the use of Iraq as a training ground and base.
They sure don’t seem quiet to me. No did they “get their asses kicked” in Afghanistan; they left.
They were pro-Bush at the very least, according to the CIA.
They want to weaken and hurt America. The GOP has hurt and weakened America, more than terrorists could in a thousand years of trying. They’re fanatics, not morons; of course they are pro-GOP. Any outright enemy of America is going to be pro-GOP, unless they are simply fools.
< googles > Here’s one.
I’m with those who say ignore it. This isn’t meaningful and isn’t going to last. Keep in mind that the #1 al Qaeda guy in Iraq said he didn’t want us to leave because he wasn’t done killing enough US soldiers yet. That seems more like an endorsement of Bush’s policy than anything else.
This is all too nuanced for the average US voter. Bush said an election victory for Democrats help the terrorists. That’s enough for the Bushites and independents will also fall in line if Al Qaeda, et sl, keeps claiming to be happy. Especially if the Democrats don’t perform to expectations.
I think it’s roughly equivalent to “Swift Boating.”
There appears to be a rising tide of opinion in quarters where is counts for a change in course as to Iraq notwithstanding opinions to the contrary from the cheap seats in Canada in this thread.
I walked past a bar last night and saw that Faux News was pushing this line of reasoning, so apparently the 'Pubs think they can get some mileage out of it. Ultimately, though, I don’t think they’ll hit this idea very hard. They must realize that they need to grow more media-savy, and the whole “Iran endorses Democrats” line sounds too much like something Stephen Colbert would say.
Ah, yes…more superior leftist arrogance aimed at the average American voter. Good on ya, David, keep it up. This kind of attitude is sure to help my side come 2008.
But just for the record, where is the error? Bush says a Democratic win helps the terrorists, then the terrorists themselves cheer the Democratic victory. Sounds to me that the terrorists–who know their own viewpoint far better than you–view the Democratic victory as advantageous for their side.
The whole world over knows the Democrats historically are weak, wishy-washy and factious and reluctant to take anything more than a symbolic stand where anything requiring military action is concerned, so why should the terrorists feel any differently?
I have no doubt whatsoever that they feel their path will be traveled much more safely and easily (and unfortunately, more successfully) with the Dems in power…and even worse, I fear they are right. I see them moving money, manpower and weapons into the U.S. much more easily by taking advantage of Democratic reluctance to cast a suspicious (or in leftist terms, discriminating) eye their way, thus making another 9/11 much more likely, and I see them working much more successfully to spread terror and influence events thoughout the ME as a result of our unwillingness to do anything to stop them.
But we’ll see. My guys took the right approach, but they blew it. It’s only fair now that you guys have a shot at it. My only hope is that you don’t take the wrong approach and succeed with it.
Or, as I said, they are trying to discredit the Democrats, who are far more dangerous to them than the Republicans.
Really. And your evidence for “the whole world knowing this” is ? The Republicans are bullies who enjoy attacking people who can’t fight back, and shy away from anyone who can; that doesn’t make them strong, it makes them weak, and scum.
And I have little doubt that they feel exactly the opposite.
No, they took an approach guaranteed to fail, and their incompetence turned it from simple failure into a disaster.
Ummmm . . . if it succeeds, how is it the wrong approach ? That makes no sense.
How on Earth do they figure the Democrats are more dangerous to them than the Republicans?
Oh, please! Where’s your evidence that we ‘enjoy’ attacking people, especially those who can’t fight back, and who do we shy away from who can?
The world is full of countries who are no match for us militarily and yet, amazingly, we haven’t attaked them.
Again, why on Earth would the terrorists fear the Democrats? I’m serious. If you can give me a good reason, it will bouy my spirits immeasurably. 
This part of your claim I’ll grant you.
If it succeeds in bringing about the changes that Dems seem to favor, and those changes allow terrorism to flourish (and even worse, another 9/11 to occur), then it’s the wrong approach.
Yeah, FDR was a real pansy. Truman, the only world leader to authorize the offensive use of a nuclear weapon, was another obviious pantywaist.
:rolleyes:
The Straight Dope is extremely persuasive in the real world.
I’ll go ahead and say the average U.S. voter is ignorant of many subjects and deserves little respect intellectually, at least when it comes to politics. Of course, I could say the same about the average voter in any Western democracy. The problem is the average person is pretty dumb no matter where you go.
This is a devastating assessment. I suggest interning for Mr. Limbaugh, he could use your analytical tools.
The first problem with your hypothesis is that Democrats say they wish to implement the rest of the 9/11 commissions recommendations. If they do that and nothing else they would have done more concrete than the Republicans have in the last five years (at least domestically).
In my estimation, both Democrats and Republicans are willing to wage pointless wars for political clout. The military-industrial complex isn’t in danger of waning away under either party.
I think you could find many instances of Democrats bravely putting their sensitive bits into meat grinders to show how brave and manly they are. I suppose you’re more impressed with the other side’s recert forays (personally, I always thought SE Asia was prettier than the ME, but that’s just me).
This puzzles me. What are we currently doing in the ME to prevent terrorism? I’ve thought we’ve already belabored the point that Iraq was the biggest boon to ME fundamentalism and terrorism in the 21st century.
Just here, anyone can notice that you therefore ignored the letters that show what Al-qaeda’s real ideas are regarding the occupation.
Assuming you are not “like the average American voter” I have to conclude you are willfully ignoring the evidence to score points.
Those were “oldschool” Democrats. He is referring to our modern age Dems. Who knows what would happened to this great country if (shudder) Al Gore were in the White House on 9/11. Surely the entire eastern seaboard would’ve been ceded to and occupied by The Terrorists ™ (who would invade using Iraq’s great navy).
For one thing, I expect the Democrats will actually try to stop them, instead of using terrorism as an excuse to push their agenda. For another, I expect them to push for sensible tactics, instead of military dick-waving. Such as concentrating our assets on going after terrorists, instead of countries that are no danger to us. The Republicans are effectively allies of the terrorists; both sides find the other quite useful. The Dems are not and do not.
1 : Simple observation; the rightwingers always make a point of hurting people, whenever they can. 2 : We atttacked Iraq, which couldn’t possibly stand up to us, or even do serious damage in a direct military conflict. If they had the slightest clue how tough the resistance was going to be, I’m sure they would have never attacked Iraq either. 3 : We have not attacked the other members of the “Axis of Evil”, who could do us damage.
Because we are bogged down in Iraq. Otherwise, the Republicans would. Possibly the Democrats as well, but it’s less likely.
See above.
Yeah, that FDR. What an ass-kicker! What would you have expected him to do after Pearl Harbor?
“Offensive use?” Japan attacked us, chum. Further, they refused to give up and the atom bomb was the only way to get Japan to surrender without a horribly bloody invasion of the Japanese homeland. Not much of a question as to how to proceed if you ask me.
But be that as it may, it’s telling that you’ve had to go back sixty and seventy years to try to come up with examples of militarily strong Democrat presidents.
Unfortunately, Democratic-controlled congresses have played an even greater role in the reputation of a Democratic-ruled U.S. as being weak, wishy-washy and unwilling to take a stand, and that’s what we’re going to have now, I’m afraid.
C’mon SA, don’t ignore me…what about LBJ? He killed lots of people, too! “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” Not enough for SA, apparently…
Since we are assuming him acting like Bush, I see FDR correctly attacking Japan and then the Soviet Union! Those commies had it coming! (He would ignore he was helping Germany anyhow)
You still haven’t demonstrated that America has that reputation under the Democrats. And if it does, it would still be better than the reputation of being a bully and torturer - including from the perspective of fighting terrorists.