Making It Up Out Of Thin Air
Posted January 12th, 2008 by Da King
The scene was the New Hampshire debates. Moderator Charles Gibson asked the Democrats the following question: “We started the surge early this year. You all opposed it. But there are real signs it has worked…So I want to ask all of you, are any of you ready to say that the surge has worked?”
Most of the candidates went to the stock Democratic evasion, and said no political reconciliation has occurred, therefore the surge was a failure. Apparently, substantial reductions in violence and deaths mean nothing. Hillary Clinton didn't even apologize for her "willing suspension of disbelief" slander of General Petraeus, the orchestrator of surge progress. Being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry, or even having to acknowledge reality.
But Barack Obama took first prize for creative fiction with his answer. Obama, in a statement not about the Audacity Of Hope, but just pure, brazen audacity, said, “Now, I had no doubt — and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence…I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi'as. We should start negotiating now. That's how you change behavior.”
Obama actually said the DEMOCRATS are responsible for the reductions in violence in Iraq that have accompanied the surge !!! ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME ??? THE DEMOCRATS ??? The 'war is lost', 'impeach Bush', 'bring the troops home now', 'no war for oil', 'Al Qaeda's american political mouthpiece' DEMOCRATS ??? Oh, HELL NO !!! The only thing the Democrats are responsible for in the Iraq war is giving Al Qaeda hope. Except you, Joe Lieberman. Oh wait, the Dems kicked you out. You're an Independent now. Good for you.
Obama also said he opposed the surge even though he knew it would work, due to 'how wonderfully our troops perform' (yes, he's a politician, for sure). Why did he oppose it if he knew it would work ? Could it be because he knows that success in Iraq is very bad news for Democrats ? Could it be because the Democrats are heavily invested in failure in Iraq, that they care more about winning elections than winning the war ? No, I suppose that isn't possible at all. I must be all wrong about that. Sure.
What Obama also failed to mention regarding american troops leaving Iraq (beside the fact that they aren't), is that getting the american troops out of Iraq IS AL QAEDA'S NUMBER ONE GOAL. In 2005, a correspondence from Al Qaeda number two man Ayman Al-Zawahiri to Iraq Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (now deceased) was intercepted, and has been declassified. In that communique, Al-Zawahiri outlined Al Qaeda's four stage plan for domination of the Middle East. Iraq was Job One. The four stages of Al Qaeda domination, in Al Zawahiri's words, are:
The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.
The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.
There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.
The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.
The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
I guess Barack Obama just forgot that, as has the rest of the Democratic party. I hope this also puts to rest the idea that Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism. It's the central front. It's the central front because Bush (and Al Qaeda) made it the central front, that's true, but we still have to be successful there. There is no other acceptable option. Leaving Iraq before the Iraqi government can stay together and defend itself is nothing more than an invitation for Al Qaeda to fill the power vacuum, and isn't Al Qaeda the main enemy ? It may not be the position we want to be in, but it's the position we're in. It's about time the Democrats start dealing with the truth about Iraq instead of making up politically convenient fantasies like Barack Obama just did.
January 12th, 2008 at 11:06 am
"It's about time the Democrats start dealing with the truth about Iraq instead of making up politically convenient fantasies like Barack Obama just did."
Isn't that how the Republicans got us there in the first place?
January 12th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
da truth,
No, that's just MORE Democratic fiction. The Democrats all thought the wmd were there too. I can give you all the quotes from Democrats that you want talking about how we had to stop Saddam's wmd capability. The Clinton administration all thought the wmd were there. The CIA thought so. The UN thought so, that's why there were weapons inspectors in Iraq for over 10 years (who were misled), who were still there up until Bush invaded Iraq. Do you think they were there because everyone knew there were no wmd ? Preposterous. The English, French, and Russian intelligence agencies all held the same opinion about Saddam's wmd capability.
Never underestimate the power of the liberal media. Most americans deny history to believe the same thing you do, because that's what the media told them to believe.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
"The Democrats all thought the wmd were there too", due directly to the LIES of the Republican administration. King, do you wipe your lips w/ Charmin after you talk?
January 12th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
The illegal invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by the U.S. military began in March of 2003. Quickly, the job of removing Saddam and checking for those illusive WMD was completed. Nothing much changed until 2006 when, it's true, Democrats FORCED what, you agree, was a change in strategy by the Bush crooks. Did Bush change strategies or not? Did he change strategies before Dems took back the Congress or after? Why?
The answer to those questions is what Obama was talking about.
You are arguing something that no one disagrees with…..it's a kind of straw man. No one disagrees that with more U.S. military personnel in ONE SPECIFIC area, violence can be tamped down. But that, of course, is not what the purpose of the "surge" was for. The military aspect was only the means to the hoped end of Iraqi political reconciliation.
When Democrats, like Reid, said we were "losing", that's what he was getting at. If the Iraqis can't reconcile politically…..what the hell's the point of it all?
If the "surge" has worked so well, something you agree with, then you certainly wouldn't be opposed to reducing our troops. If the "surge" hasn't worked, then we have to keep our soldiers there. Which is it?
The purpose was to give political calm and breathing space for reconciliation. That's what we were told anyway….(I have my own narrative about the "surge".) That hasn't happened…..and yet neo-cons still want to argue about the success of the surge.
Until conservatives come around to understanding the truth concerning Iraq and why we went there…..they will continue to argue about pointless military strategy like a "surge", and shout "success" every time they can if more Iraqis are killed.
Bush/Cheney's purpose in going to Iraq was to never leave. It was to set up a permanent military presence there, in part, to protect "our" oil. That's why today Junior and his would-be neo-con successor, John McCain, can so casually talk about "long term strategic military agreements" with the American propped up Iraqi government and, in the case of McCain, staying "100 years".
It's not about WMD….it's not about Saddam,…it's not about al-Qaeda….it's not about Iran or Syria…..it NEVER was.
It's about our unquenchable thirst for oil and our unquenchable thirst for blood and carnage in the pursuit of that oil. It's about how far neo-con American leaders will go in securing that oil.
They will defraud the American people by scaring them into thinking Saddam was a direct threat to the United States. They will censor and gag any critics who can explain those facts. They will use fear and fear alone to attempt to stay in power….to continue their empire building in the middle east. They will piss away the greatest opportunity, (after 9-11), to unite the world's nations for positive progress and coalition building….and replace that with the world's contempt for America.
So no, this is not about Obama or the Democrats, not really. The Democrats will have to fix the mess…if it can be done.
What this is all about is a rogue, criminal regime….the Bush/Cheney regime…..a criminal regime who would stop at nothing in accomplishing their bloodlust and bottom line goals. 2/3rds of the nation understands that.
The question is…..why don't you?
January 12th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
King, I see your point, but this isn't about the liberal media. Republicans held Mr. Clinton to a higher standard on things than they did themselves, why shouldn't Mr. Bush suffer the same scrutiny? And Rev is right, if Saddam was what you wanted….you got him.
January 12th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
King, I think that AZ sticks has no ideas about the words of the Dems before the Bush people took over in 2001. He is obviously influenced by the words of the most recent revisionists who are surely liberal as he appears to be.
Maybe you need to give AZ a dose of the words of Dems prior to 2001 just in case he hasn't seen them. Make sure you don't include anything after Januare 2001 since that could have been influenced by the "feelthy" Bush group.
I think that Rev Red has brought one of his red friends along to talk to you.
January 12th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
*** If the Iraqis can't reconcile politically…..what the hell's the point of it all?***
Rev Red is that the way you talk on your blog. Hardly the way a reverend would talk. However, you call yourself that because you thought it would be funny for an atheist to call himself that. I feel sorry for you.
***They will censor and gag any critics who can explain those facts. ***
Red, why are you still able to do what you do with all that censorship you claim they will apply? You talk no different now than in the past and your story is still the same left handed thread it has always been. You understand nothing but what the far left tries to foist off on us and that is all you manage to talk.
Poor soul, you just can't cut it can you. Has it been over a year since you were called poor soul to make fun of the fact that you don't think you have one? Tee hee hee hee
January 13th, 2008 at 7:42 am
AZ sticks,
You must be one of those people who think history started in 2002. The typical american know-nothing. Just answer me one question.
Why were there UN weapons inspectors in Iraq from 1992-2002 (except when they were kicked out by Saddam) if everyone knew Saddam didn't have any wmd ? Hmmmm ? Do you think the inspectors just didn't have anything better to do for those 10+ years, or what ? Or do you believe the wmd were in Iraq until the day Bush took office, and then they all just magically disappeared ?
January 13th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Oh Rev, this is one of your all-time mind-boggling historical switcheroos. You are actually trying to give Democrats credit for the surge now, when Democrats were almost unanimously AGAINST the surge the entire time. Here I thought Obama's lies were bad, but you have surpassed them.
I have a question for you about your recurrent statement that Bush/Cheney have planned a permanent, forever and ever military presence in Iraq….How can they accomplish that when they will be OUT OF POWER IN ONE YEAR ??? Hmmm. I guess you're saying that Obama or Hillary would continue the Bush strategy then, along with every other possible president coming down the line. Yeah, that's reasonable. Okey dokey then. Good thinking.
I do agree with you that the Iraq mission was much bigger than merely Saddam. The part you have wrong is, terrorism and democracy is exactly what it's about. If it was about stealing oil, we would have stolen it. We didn't. You always forget that part. If it was about the oil, we didn't need to go into Iraq at all. We were already getting the oil. I'm glad I called this thread 'making it up out of thin air', because that's exactly what you are doing.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:04 am
da truth,
I think Bush should be held accountable for the Iraq war, along with Congress, because it was his and their decision to go into Iraq. I never argued that he shouldn't be held accountable. It's primarily his baby. He gets the blame or credit. That isn't what my post was about. My post was about Barack Obama lying about the Democrats role in the Iraq war, and also the Democrats using those lies about the war for political advantage, both despicable actions.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Roy,
I may well end up having to post pre-Bush Democratic statements about wmd here before it's done, but I have a feeling AZ might not put up much of a factual argument (since he doesn't have one). The people who go right to the insults are generally the ones who are incapable of debate. He appears to be just as you said, another hapless victim of liberal media propaganda. I've actually come to almost feel sorry for those people. They're like the little kids on the baseball team who get a pitch thrown and them and forget to move out of the way. They just stand there and get beaned.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Roy,
Great response to our Reverend's incredible statement about how the Bush admin censors and gags critics. Don't you get the feeling that the Rev and his like are living in some pretend fantasy world, one that they wish existed, as opposed to the one that does exist ? Maybe he's involved in some kind of political Dungeons and Dragons game.
If Bush and company are censors, they are the absolute worst censors in the history of censorship, because an awful lot of criticism is getting by them and onto the tv and the front page.
January 13th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
It wasn't the Democrats who made the change in 2006….it was the American voters.
Obviously you haven't seen the latest Bush/Cheney plan to eliminate the next president or Congress from removing our presence inside Iraq. Yep. Same old lawless schemes of the "unitary executive" criminal.
And AZ sticks is correct. What he was getting at was the fabricated hysteria of the Bush Bunch when they endlessly were preaching about an imminent, direct to America threat coming from Iraq. That was a lie. And it will always be a lie….no matter the efforts of revisionists.
It wasn't the WMD……it was the hyping of some direct threat to America that convinced SOME Dems to vote with the criminal Codpiece. More Dems voted against than for.
Roy: The Bible refers to hell, actually Hades, Sheol, etc. and please…..I AM an ex-Reverend. Bet ya' didn't know that, did ya'?
And about the censoring comment….
While it's true that little nothingburgers like me can say whatever they want……that is not true of the national teevee and print media. 70% of our citizens receive their "news" from corporate teevee.
Still to this day…..national teevee has NOT told the truth concerning Plame, Iraq run-up, Bush lying, etc….and they never will.
At the same time, it would fill an entire page if I listed how many good Americans, who spoke or wrote the truth, and then were fired, blackballed, jailed, or similarly threatened by these White House criminals because of doing so.
You're attempting to defend the indefensible.
One more….
I have soul. I told you that before. I like Ray Charles, some James Brown, etc…..I don't have a soul because no one has one. In that I am just like every homo-sapiens….including you Roy. Or have those Kansans evolved into something else?
January 13th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Mr. King,
One quick correction. Sadaam didn't kick the weapons inspectors out of Iraq. They left after Bush informed them of the imminent invasion. They hadn't found anything and reported that they were unlikely to do so.
January 13th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Interesting stuff, Reverend. Are you like the Mel Gibson character in 'Signs'? Preaching what you know not to be true out of anger toward a seemingly uncaring God?
Maybe aliens can help you.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Nice try, Frank. However, I think that if you stop acting like you think history began in 2001 you may find that the inspectors were thrown out by Saddam back about 1998. Now if Bush was the President then, then you are right. However, he wasn't and you aren't either.
Lovely try at making Bush the only bad guy in all this, Frank. I just wonder why you would say a thing like you did, unless it is that you think I am as without knowledge of history as you seem to be.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Mr. Roys,
Geez, dude. Lighten up. I don't know why you claim that history began in 2001. I just thought Mr. King was referring to our invasion of Iraq. Bush has repeatedly lied about Sadaam kicking out the inspectors before we invaded. I made no reference to you or anything you said (unless you and Mr. King are the same person). I'm just a Joe sixpack but I think I'm pretty good at history.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
frank,
Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out in 1998. Remember, that's when all the Democrats just KNEW Saddam was hiding those wmd. That's when Bill Clinton made regime change the US policy toward Iraq. The policy that Bush ended up carrying out.
And the UN weapons inspectors NEVER gave Saddam a clean bill of health (as they phrased it) on wmd. Never.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Oops, sorry Roy, I didn't know you had already corrected frank about his statement concerning when the UN weapons inspectors were kicked out. I responded before I read your post.
So, whaddya think ? Are you and I the same person, who live hundreds and hundreds of miles away from each other in different states ?
January 18th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
larry: "Preaching what you know not to be true out of anger toward a seemingly uncaring God?"
Once again my friend. What? I stopped preaching when I realized it wasn't true. It's called "learning". I have no anger about any of it. It's been quite liberating….but thanks for asking.
Roy, King: Sorry Charlies it's not Starkist. Bush Junior called for the withdrawal of the inspectors from Iraq in late February, early March, 2003. They were ordered to leave because Bush was about to invade.
Any other revisionism, like Roy is insinuating, is simply that, revisionism.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Rev, I never said Bush didn't order the inspectors to leave before the war. Of course he did. What are you talking about ? No revisionism here.