PS nonfactor, anyone who has any experience with a two year old knows what “the left” is thinking. Not. That. Difficult.

How come I don’t see JaHerer22, nonfactor, or Honora, gmcjetpilot, etc., DEMANDING the safe and humane treatment of OUR soldiers held prisoner by Al Qaeda with at least as much ferver as they undoubtedly did over Gitmo and Abu Gahrib?

What good will my typing on a website where my opinion is often discarded anyways “pweaze mr. tewowwists, wewease the twoops”? Of course I’m hoping they’re found alive, but begging for their return in print is of no use. The Gitmo and Abu Gahrib statements are red herrings.

NOT ONE post from these leftists expressing sympathy, or concern, much less righteous anger and the fate that undoubtedly awaits them (a videotpaped torture and beheading).

Again, some of us would rather hope for the release of the troops in silence than beg for their release on an online blog or attempt to prove to others just how mad we are at the terrorists.

You leftists say you “support the troops” but WE KNOW that means you really want to see them lose and then spit on them when they return.

georgej on May 14, 2007 at 4:13 AM

Yes, georgej, you KNOW exactly what the “leftists” are thinking and are in no way influenced by your own political bent.

Again? If you are allowed to quote the NYT (aka Conservatives Suck) then surely you will allow me to quote the Weekly Standard which is doing nothing more than reporting on a CIA report.

Firstly, if you read the nytimes article you’d see that there is no political bent, and you’d see that it was written by a pretty distinguished journalist, Mark Mazzetti. Secondly, the Weekly Standard article you’ve quoted was published in 2003, we’re talking about an event (the CIA repudiation of AQ links with Saddam) that didn’t take place until two years after the Weekly Standard article was published.

It just makes you oblivious to the obvious.

JackStraw on May 14, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Ha.

Deep in their heart of hearts, the left is smug and arrogant, believing that they know better than anyone else and they know what is best for other individuals.

coyoterex on May 14, 2007 at 10:54 AM

P.S. I love it how every conservative here seems to know just what “the left” is thinking.

How come I don’t see JaHerer22, nonfactor, or Honora, gmcjetpilot, etc., DEMANDING the safe and humane treatment of OUR soldiers held prisoner by Al Qaeda with at least as much ferver as they undoubtedly did over Gitmo and Abu Gahrib?
georgej on May 14, 2007 at 4:13 AM

Because that will not win their side any political points here in the US. Deep in their heart of hearts, the left is smug and arrogant, believing that they know better than anyone else and they know what is best for other individuals. They have no illusions that these brave GIs will be treated well, and they figure if something bad happens to them, they can trot out the Gitmo or Abu Gahrib card to score political points. It would also dovetail nicely with their cut and run sentiments.

Again? If you are allowed to quote the NYT (aka Conservatives Suck) then surely you will allow me to quote the Weekly Standard which is doing nothing more than reporting on a CIA report. Denying the obvious doesn’t make you edgy or tough/smart. It just makes you oblivious to the obvious.

How come I don’t see these leftists posting here calling for the release of our soldiers?

How come I don’t see JaHerer22, nonfactor, or Honora, gmcjetpilot, etc., DEMANDING the safe and humane treatment of OUR soldiers held prisoner by Al Qaeda with at least as much ferver as they undoubtedly did over Gitmo and Abu Gahrib?

NOT ONE post from these leftists expressing sympathy, or concern, much less righteous anger and the fate that undoubtedly awaits them (a videotpaped torture and beheading).

Instead we get some self-righteous screed about “irony.”

Or silence.

You leftists say you “support the troops” but WE KNOW that means you really want to see them lose and then spit on them when they return.

You liberals posting here can all get screwed!

JaHerer22 on May 13, 2007 at 9:43 PM

See above you tactless jerk-off.

I thought conservatives were supposed to be anti-PC.
Nonfactor on May 13, 2007 at 9:03 PM

I’m refering to your lack of tact.

1.a keen sense of what to say or do to avoid giving offense; skill in dealing with difficult or delicate situations.

You’ll notice I haven’t been “Monday morning quarterbacking;” I pointed out a sad irony of going into Iraq because it was a safe haven for Al Qaeda and us needing to stay in Iraq because if we leave it will become a safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Irony, sad or otherwise, is the province of post-moderns. We who live in the real world know that what happens today or tomorrow is what matters in Iraq, not whether the present is in an ironic interaction with the past. If you haven’t worn underwear for three years, and then the day you decide to wear underwear you almost get blown up in a bus-bombing, and so you crap your underwear, the salient point is not the underwear, the crap, or the irony, but the bus-bombing.
Get it?

Some important lessons are not being learned here:

1. If you’re going to adopt a “Fort Apache” strategy of deploying small units into known enemy hangouts, you need to post enough troops to hold out until help arrives. In this case, the “Quick Reaction Force” took almosst an hour to show up – obviously, a squad-size element wasn’t strong enough to stand alone for that long.

2. We need to put the “Quick” back into “Quick Reaction Force.” An hour to get to the scene? We can forget about finding those missing soldiers. They’re long gone before the cavalry showed up.

3. Related to the above, the enemy is obviously adapting its tactics to take advantage of the fact that we’re leaving small units exposed in stationary penny-packets. Assuming that both of the “burning vehicles” were car bombs, then this is the second recent instance where multiple car bombs were used sequentially to attack an outpost: the first to punch a hole in the outer barrier, the second to ram the attack home; in both instances the double-whammy car bombs were followed by a group of attackers on foot who tried to get inside the post.

The key distinction between the two instances was that in the first one the enemy attacked a platoon-sized element of about 35 men. Although the platoon took several casualties, it retained enough strength to resist the attackers until help arrived. In the second instance, a squad-sized element got overrun.

Upshot: We need to either abandon the “Fort Apache” strategy in favor of mobility, or if we’re going to leave our troops in fixed sites, practically beggng the enemy to try to overwhelm them, then they need to have sufficient strength to withstand an organized attack that comes in multiple waves until help arrives an hour later.

If we leave, Iran our sworn enemy for the last 20 years, moves in.

naliaka on May 13, 2007 at 9:43 PM

Wherein my post was I advocating leaving Iraq? I’ve done three things in this post: 1) Point out the irony of why we entered/why we must stay in Iraq according to the Bush Administration 2) Argued that the Administration did indeed use the words “safe haven” to describe Iraq before we invaded and 3) Explain that I have only done the above two things.

and you have the nerve to make your assinine complaints more important than their feelings.

When in goodness name are you going to get off your soapbox and give someone elses feelings some consideration?

csdeven on May 13, 2007 at 8:02 PM

Talking about not hurting feelings, that sounds like some new-age liberal humanist propaganda…

But seriously, if you let anonymous posters on Internet blogs hurt your feelings you might want to consider getting a life.

We went into Iraq because it was a safe heaven for Al Qaeda to launch attacks on the U.S.; now we have to stay in Iraq because it could become a safe haven for Al Qaeda to launch attacks on the U.S.

Oh, the sad pathetic irony.
Nonfactor on May 13, 2007 at 1:15 PM

With strategic analysis of this one-dimensional quality, we can all thank God you weren’t in charge of post-war Europe in 1946, or even Spain would have been a Russian satellite.
If we leave, Iran our sworn enemy for the last 20 years, moves in. Unlike the USA, Iran does meglomaniacal designs on world domination, and taking over Iranian, Iraqi, Kuwaiti, Dubai,Saudi oil fields will be just the route to take to that end.
Second, notice how the media is using this to wring phoney pathos out of Mother’s Day in order to drive down popular support for the Good Fight? Disgusting hardly captures the magnitude of the callous opportunism they are displaying.

There are members of HA who have family over there and you have the nerve to make your assinine complaints more important than their feelings.

csdeven on May 13, 2007 at 8:02 PM

I’m not allowed to say anything about how horribly ironic this entire situation is because some members of HotAir have family stuck in this ironic situation? Does my making comments on an online blog somehow jeopardize the “mission”? As if I have no friends or relatives who have served in Iraq either. Give me a break with your quasi-emotional appeals.

When in goodness name are you going to get off your soapbox and give someone elses feelings some consideration?

csdeven on May 13, 2007 at 8:02 PM

Again, am I not allowed to point out how ironic the situation currently is because someone else’s feelings might be hurt? Am I not allowed to point out how top government officials claimed (falsely) that Iraq was a “safe haven” (yes, they used those words) for Al Qaeda before we invaded and now they’re claiming that it will be a “safe haven” for Al Qaeda if we leave? Should we forget about the past or governmental screwups because someone might take offense? I thought conservatives were supposed to be anti-PC.

In fact you have not even been called one single name of any kind?

smellthecoffee on May 13, 2007 at 4:36 PM

We’re gonna have to end that streak, smell…

Nonfactor is commited to show the World that he/she has sh*t for brains:

Funny.

Was a safe haven without the U.S. = we went in, ergo is not a safe haven anymore.

No, it was not a safe haven; if you have any evidence to contradict this statement of mine (that hasn’t already been contradicted–see nytimes article I linked) feel free to post it (from a reputable source please, not liberalssuck.net).

It is not a safe haven with the U.S. in = we leave, ergo it becomes a safe haven again.

Ropera on May 13, 2007 at 7:57 PM

Did you not see the point where I said this exact same thing. That is why it is ironic.

Flatten “troublesome zones” until the terrorists cease to trouble our troops.

This candyassed engagements wastes lives, time and only encourage more terrorists by failing to react seriously when they strike.

This is supposed to be a war, not a police action.

Kill the s.o.b.’s or come home.

When in goodness name are you going to get off your soapbox and give someone elses feelings some consideration?

I pointed out a sad irony of going into Iraq because it was a safe haven for Al Qaeda and us needing to stay in Iraq because if we leave it will become a safe haven for Al Qaeda.(May 13, 2007 at 6:58 PM)

What irony?

Was a safe haven without the U.S. = we went in, ergo is not a safe haven anymore.

It is not a safe haven with the U.S. in = we leave, ergo it becomes a safe haven again.

Get a life!

As for the “safe haven” quibble–it’s all Monday morning quarterbacking and completely academic.

smellthecoffee on May 13, 2007 at 4:36 PM

You’ll notice I haven’t been “Monday morning quarterbacking;” I pointed out a sad irony of going into Iraq because it was a safe haven for Al Qaeda and us needing to stay in Iraq because if we leave it will become a safe haven for Al Qaeda. AP stated that “it was never suggested — as you just did — that Iraq had become a “safe haven” for AQ” and sine then I’ve simply pointed out that it was indeed suggested that Iraq was characterized as a “safe haven” for Al Qaeda.

As for the “safe haven” quibble–it’s all Monday morning quarterbacking and completely academic. I could concede you every single point, and it wouldn’t change the only important question–what do we do now? The Dems want to pull out because mistakes were made in the past? Well you don’t fight wars in the past. Well, the Dems do. They’re still fighting the Vietnam War.

Gwillie on May 13, 2007 at 2:28 PM

Thank you. You saved me the trouble.

…The Islamic State in Iraq, an al-Qaida front group, said it had captured several soldiers in the attack, but offered no proof to back up its claim, posted on an Islamic Web site.

I’m sure Al Qaeda is trying to get a propaganda video out of the missing U.S. soldiers, but our soldiers are not the British.