The DU d'RAT Review

I created this blog as a response to the hypocrisy, nastiness, and negativity at Democratic Underground. The D'RATS do not allow disagreement on their site; they demand their posters tout their party line word-for-word. Any poster who does not march in lockstep is immediately banned. Their cowardice in this, and their calumny towards America's leaders, will not go unanswered as I address the issues of the day--and one of the most negative, detrimental influences in the blogosphere.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

The Silk Pony's Last Ride...

WTC 9/11/2001

Hey, Breck Girl, Put THIS On Your Bumper!

** John Edwards calls war on terror a "bumper sticker slogan"

12 Comments:

Anonymous said...: how can that pos deny this?; 8:14 AM
Anonymous said...: President Bush today: "These people attacked us before we were even in Iraq!"

In Iraq, Shi'ites and Sunni are fighting each other to the death. Under what possible logic can they be joined by a common identity?

There is no "these people" except in their common Middle East-ness.

Iran and Iraq fought a decade-long war - Shia against Sunni. They are, to our president, "these people." "They" attacked us. "They" continue to attack us. Iran, Iraq: all the same.

The people who attacked us on September 11 were from a group called "al Qaeda." According to U.S. intelligence, Iraq was one of the few countries in the Middle East where Al Qaeda did not have a beachhead.; 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: It gets worse:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic; you once again mentioned al Qaeda. Does that mean that you are willing to leave American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi government does? I know this is a question we've asked before, but you can begin it with a "yes" or "no."

THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

So, what happens if we leave as the President has said we would do. Will they STILL follow us? And if so, should we ignore the President and the sovereign Iraq government and stay so they dont follow us home?

Just asking, ya know...; 3:31 PM
Anonymous said...: les, do you always deal with complex problems so simply? I'm thinking there are nuances.
One also has to understand that the thinking in that region isn't American, or anything close to it. Power is EVERYTHING...the winner is everything...in every negotiation. it's what makes me grin when I hear our lefties calling for a songfest with the bad guys;...as if they'd negotiate anything. Sure, we tell them we like them and we're leaving the region, and THEY"ll like US, too!

please, les.; 5:56 PM
VerityINK said...: THANK YOU, ZINLA--The way ANON. and LES deal with problems IS simplistic...

LES--We may stay in Iraq, or we may go, and we may STILL have them attack us in America. So FAR, the best strategy has been to occupy them--make the 'frontline' of the war--in Iraq. If you'd studied war, history, and military strategy you would know that battle conditions could change on a moments' notice. Us fighting at Anzio did not prevent the Battle of Midway, us fighting in the Solomon Islands or Corregidor did not prevent us from bombing Dresden or Tokyo. War is not usually an 'either/or'; there are usually many things going on, many changing conditions that are not mutually exclusive.

ANON.--We have been under attack by the muslims since approx. the Munich athletes were murdered. The litany of our dead at their hands is a long one--the Achille Lauro, Khobar Towers, Embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, the first WTC, Blackhawk down, the taking of the Iranian hostages--you name it. ALL of those things happened before 9/11.

You cannot break up muslim societies into hundreds of disparate groups and say each of these acts is a 'minor' police action--not when the perpetrators claim the same religion, the same goals, and the same reasons for fighting the west. You can't say their threat is negligible when they ALL express the same desire to bring down western society, extinguish Israel, and get even for the Crusades. They are all of a piece--as the muslims have themselves claimed.

The acts they have done elsewhere AFTER 9/11 underline this point even more: the London subway bombs, the Madrid train bombings, the beheaded journalists and kidnapped contractors, the Bali bombing, the Paris riots, the author/filmmaker fatwahs and deaths, the kidnapping of British soldiers, the loon statements from bin Laden, Zawahiri, Al Sadr, the resumed rocket attacks upon Israel, the renewed calls for her destruction, the plot behind the Ft. Dix 6, the shooting of a Jewish center a few blocks from here in Seattle, gunplay and murder at LAX, the attempt to smuggle explosives over the Canadian border that was scotched in Port Angeles, the murdered schoolchildren in Chechenya--how much more do I need to name?

It's not just Iraqis in Iraq anymore, so the idea that we are simply interfering in a civil war between indigenous people is silly. The people we are fighting in Iraq now--like Al Qaeda--ARE some of the same people that have done much of the above-mentioned stuff.

This IS a war on terror between the middle eastern muslim countries and western and Israeli democracies. If you do not wish to take MY word for it, take the imams, bin Ladens, Al Sadrs, Zawahiris etc. They are telling the world EXACTLY who they are and what they plan to do.; 2:01 AM
Anonymous said...: But I ask the question again, if we are asked to leave, what do we do? Do we stay and continue to 'occupy' (meaning keep the terrorists busy) them or do we do as President Bush says and leave at the request of the sovereign government of Iraq. Pretty simple question really. Oh and as Bush once said, "we dont do nuance". So how about it?; 7:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Z, Just curious. You seem to be pretty up on this issue. What prominent Democrat (or lefty) is calling for negotiation with the terrorists? Certainly not Nancy Pelosi who followed her Republican colleagues to Syria and was followed by Condi and by all accounts of serious people, was following the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group report. Who is negotiating with the terrorists? Hillary?
Just wondering...; 10:30 AM
VerityINK said...: LES, President Bush has said we will leave if we are asked to leave. The threat here exists whether we do or not, so it would seem to be prudent to keep our word to a sovereign nation.

(And p.s., your posts might get better or quicker answers--and by a larger group--if you left off your snide one-lines at the end such as 'it's a pretty simple question, really', or 'just asking', or 'just wondering'...)

You write quite well enough to make a point without those...; 12:04 PM
Anonymous said...: So are you saying that the threat is the same if we leave or dont? How does that square with the theory that they will follow us home.; 6:13 PM
VerityINK said...: LES--We have killed MANY in Iraq and Afghanistan that would have followed us home. Thus, we are safer because we were/are there. However, there still is a danger of being attacked at home--and us leaving Iraq or staying in Iraq won't change that. Ultimately, if the President has said we will leave if asked, then we must leave.; 7:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Verityink,
Thank you. That is an honest and well thought out answer. Wondering where Jingo stands on this, as he is the lead proponent of the puppy-dog theory of terrorism.; 3:24 AM
VerityINK said...: LES--Not at all. Morgan is simply realistic about what the terrorists, themselves, have said they are going to do.; 4:42 AM