Video: All we are saying, says Bush, is give Petraeus a chance; Update: Domenici video added; Update: DSCC video added
posted at 3:10 pm on July 10, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
From his town hall meeting today in Cleveland. McCain, just back from Baghdad, gave him a boost this morning by refusing to join Domenici and company in the lifeboat (“The terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is, are we?”). That gave Bush his opening to push the crowd here on letting the surge play out, notwithstanding the fact that Maliki is evidently going to hit precisely zero of the 18 political benchmarks that were set for him.
There’s some sleight of hand going on towards the end here. Bush frames the goal at the end of the surge as having enough troops to secure Iraq’s border, target Al Qaeda, and train the Iraqis — coincidentally, the very same goals laid out in Baker-Hamilton. Except that it’s not a coincidence at all, of course:
[T]he president has mapped out a best-case scenario for Iraq on Jan. 20, 2009, that would still see considerable numbers of U.S. troops on the ground, but in a different role. If events work out as Bush hopes, aides said, U.S. forces by then will have sharply reduced their mission, pulling out of sectarian combat and focusing instead on fighting al-Qaeda, guarding Iraq’s borders and supporting Iraqi troops. Instead of operating under a U.N. mandate, the United States would negotiate an agreement with the Iraqi government for a smaller, long-term presence.
Such a reduced mandate would resemble the vision advanced in December by the Iraq Study Group, led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). A Pentagon study last year concluded that even the more limited mission would require about 120,000 U.S. troops, compared with about 160,000 today, according to administration officials. But officials said it could be done with 60,000 to 100,000 troops.
Bush hopes the net result would be a situation stable enough that the next president — even a Democrat with an antiwar platform — would feel confident enough to sustain some form of U.S. mission despite domestic pressure to pull out altogether.
B-H is the best he’s going to do now and he knows it. So does Reid, apparently, because he’s backing off his own explicit endorsement of B-H from five days ago (and implicit endorsement just yesterday) and calling now for the Democrats to “put some teeth in” to their withdrawal proposals above and beyond what B-H calls for. So it’s a three-way debate: “B-H now” for the Republicans, “B-H in September” for Bush, and “B-H Plus” for the Democrats. If they compromise and do what the public wants, Petraeus will get his two months — followed by an almost total withdrawal by April.
I may have some updates coming. Stand by.
Update: Here’s Domenici making very clear that he won’t vote with the Democrats for one of their plans, he’ll only vote for Baker-Hamilton. Which is also convenient, since the Reed-Levin plan is similar to B-H in most respects. Since they’ll probably rework it now to push the deadline for withdrawal up, the question is how much earlier will Domenici and company let it be pushed before they refuse to sign on to it. Click the image to watch.
Update: The first line of attack will be a bill to mandate the intervals between troop deployments to deny Bush the option of increasing manpower by extending tours. Meanwhile, Olympia Snowe says she’s thinking seriously of joining Hagel and Gordon Smith in voting for a timetable for withdrawal. Jon Kyl says he thinks the GOP has enough votes to block any attempts at a timetable or to cut the funding, but then he thought shamnesty was going to pass — both houses — by July 4th.
Update: Hold the phone. Tony Snow said today that the Iraqi government has met some of the benchmarks. Not many, though, it sounds like.
Update: Here’s the ad the DSCC put together to pressure Mitch McConnell, who’s expecting a tough re-election campaign next year. What, no flag-draped coffins?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I watched this on C-Span and also saw Biden on the floor of the Senate. Bush is right and Biden is convincing.
I don’t like where that leaves us.
TunaTalon on July 10, 2007 at 3:16 PM
And in the meantime, Rudy has named Norman Podhoretz as a foreign policy advisor to his campaign. Norman Podhoretz of “The Case for Bombing Iran” fame.
rho on July 10, 2007 at 3:24 PM
…calling on Congress…
Oh, geeeezzzzz, there are no surrender-crats in Congress.
Hey President want some advice? Dump the MSM and get the news out to the people what GOOD we have done in the region.
Best kept secret in the world.
On-my-soap-box on July 10, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Aw hell, let’s just fight the terrorist here. It’s what we all want.
It’s depressing when we give up before we even begin the fight.
Kini on July 10, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Part of me wants to pull out just so the dumba$$ liberals in Europe get what’s coming to them - because for all the hubub about fighting them “here” it’s Western Europe that those jihadi b@stards have their eyes on.
Let Europe burn. It’s the only way they ever learn anything anyway.
thareb on July 10, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Part of me wants to pull out just so the dumba$$ liberals in Europe get what’s coming to them - because for all the hubub about fighting them “here” it’s Western Europe that those jihadi b@stards have their eyes on.
Let Europe burn. It’s the only way they ever learn anything anyway.
thareb on July 10, 2007 at 3:29 PM
I hope it doesn’t come to that, but if it ever does, the Euros will blame themselves. In their PC minds, non-western people do bad things only because western people (Europeans and white Americans) provoke them.
Bigfoot on July 10, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Problem is, Bush will forever be blamed for every terrorist attack going forward. Thus, they won’t learn their lesson.
jediwebdude on July 10, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Give me just a little more time
And the IA and the IP will surely grow
Shiite Baby please Shiite baby
Sunni Baby please Sunni baby
Training is that mountain we must climb
Let’s climb it together your hand in mine (so that I can be sure that you are not stabbing me in the back)
We haven’t been here all (well over four years is a while, but who’s counting anyway) that long
But the surge I have is oh so strong
I know we can eventually get you to all get along there’s no doubt
We owe it to George, John and Joe to find it out
Just,
Give me just a little more time
And the IA and the IP will surely grow
Shiite Baby please Shiite baby
Sunni Baby please Sunni baby
HT: Chairman Of The Board
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Works for me!
But then again, I’m still waiting for the candidate with a slogan of “a vote for me is a vote to bomb Iran and/or Waziristan and possibly even Saudi Arabia if they start givin’ us the stinkeye!” to run.
Citizen Duck on July 10, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Im down, I was in high school in the bronx when they hit the towers, i wouldn’t mind gettin the chance to beat the everliving sh*t outta one of those guys.
ernesto on July 10, 2007 at 3:50 PM
The WOT is already being fought here. Al Queda is just using its surrogates in the democratic party to get its win in the WOT.
I seriously wonder why the democrats never even ask what happens after Iraq ? We go back to Clinton’s Arrest and shoot long range missile strategy ?
OK well unless you place more stringent laws than even the patroit act that isnt going to work. and the Left has made it clear that they want to move in the other direction.
The left honestly believes that the world revolves around their promises. And that their word is enough to keep America safe.
That is one seriously big gamble to make on political promises.
William Amos on July 10, 2007 at 3:52 PM
True. Even if the future perpetrators spell out specific details as to their motivation that have nothing to do with Bush or Iraq (like clubbing “slags”, or the new Caliphate), our friends in Europe will assume they know better and blame Bush and Iraq.
forest on July 10, 2007 at 3:53 PM
What, no flag-draped coffins?
What, not jihadi’s kicking our soldiers in the nards?
On-my-soap-box on July 10, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Funny part about this is Congress is complaining that their Parliment hasn’t done enough of the tough Political benchmarks which we are saying they need to do…
Set aside basic sovereingnity issues… Just what has OUR Congress accomplished in the same period of time?
Romeo13 on July 10, 2007 at 3:56 PM
I wonder if Mr. Bush has yet to figure out why President Reagan avoided creating a power vacuum in Iraq? Let’s see - the power vacuum will be filled by Iranian fundamentalism; an American presence will be required, and it will seemingly be neverending; and the cost of said presence [in lives and money] will be enormous. While it’s moot, is Mr. Bush capable of understanding the above?
If you just make me the benevolent despot that I aspire to be … let it be known that no half-wars will be fought, unless every political pig in perpetuity inside of the Beltway has a son or daughter helping to wage same.
Yes, Mr. Bush, there was a reason that President Reagan avoided creating a power vacuum in Iraq.
OhEssYouCowboys on July 10, 2007 at 4:04 PM
The Dems will keep moving the goalposts until everyone is out of Iraq. It is only a matter of time. Reid and gang will crafy any proposal to get the Fab Five (counting Snowe) to vote for withdrawal before the August recess. Over August our politicians will “hear from the voters”. When they return in Sept., Reid and Company will have a fancy new bill that goes beyond B-H. Far beyond. By then the Fab Five will have grown to the Super Seven or the Awesome Eight. They will already be on record as voting for withdrawal so Reid will have them boxed in a corner. Then comes the big, sentitmental Christmas push to bring home whoever is still left.
Look, the Dems don’t want the troops still in Iraq during the general election. Even McGovern thinks an anti-war candidate will have a hard time winning during a war. But if the troops are on their way home, or better yet if everyone is already out, then the Dem candidate won’t have that problem. The April date is not a coincidence. By then we should know who the nominees are and the wise men in the Democratic party don’t want their girl to have to deal with that issue as a nominee.
Thomas the Wraith on July 10, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Here’s the McGovern link to Politico:
Thomas the Wraith on July 10, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Reagan avoided creating a power vacuum because he was playing Iraq to counter Iran, all in the context of a global cold war that had to be won first. Retard.
Fred on July 10, 2007 at 4:12 PM
“You’re never beaten until you admit it.”
-LTG George S. Patton
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 10, 2007 at 4:17 PM
If they were going to pull the rug out from under the surge why would they democrats to put those troops in harm’s way. Reid has already admitted the war is lost. Petraeous must have his chance.
volsense on July 10, 2007 at 4:22 PM
I FIGURED IT OUT.
I know why the MSM won’t tell the truth about Iraq: They aren’t ready. After we pull out of Irag and the inevitable bloodshed ensues, bloodshed which will dwarf the brutality of the Cambodian killing fields, THEN the MSM will show the brutality of our enemy…then and only then, and it will be 100 times more prolific than Abu-Ghraib, used to blame conservatives FOREVER, FOREVER using the images to never ever allow another defensive action to be taken by the US, and virtually guaranteeing a democratic majority and the socialist nirvana they all willing to kill us all for.
We live in very dangerous times.
JustTruth101 on July 10, 2007 at 4:24 PM
What a great strategy libs.
Massive regional war.
Genocide.
$25 a gallon gas.
Every single problem in the middle east to occur you will own.
And the world will not forget.
Good luck with that.
CNN’s Ware: Troop Pullout Debate Is ‘Delusional,’ Would Hand Iraq to al Qaeda
Video
freedomplow on July 10, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Fred,
Even after the fall of the Berlin Wall President Bush 41 made a similar calculation, with a lot of analysis from Brent Scowcroft.
At the time, even Bush’s Secretery of Defense, Dick Cheney, thought the geo-political ROI of deposing Saddam didn’t work in the favor of the the U.S.
“..how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
dedalus on July 10, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Reagan avoided creating a power vacuum because he was playing Iraq to counter Iran, all in the context of a global cold war that had to be won first. Retard.
Fred on July 10, 2007 at 4:12 PM
… he was playing Iraq to counter Iran … you just made my point … imbecile. He did so to AVOID the POWER VACUUM which would’ve been created HAD IRAQ LOST TO IRAN. Next time, when you try to respond to one of my posts … try, also, not to be so damned stupid. The point of my post was [once again for the illiterate and the ignorant] that Reagan actively avoided the creation of a power vacuum in Iraq.
There’s hardly anything more imbecilic … than an idiot who wants to argue with you; but, in doing so, makes your point for you … and is too stupid to notice. Nice work, imbecile.
OhEssYouCowboys on July 10, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Just wait. All I ask is that if the terrorists must attack, can they at least take out D.C. first. It’s the weak link in the chain.
PRCalDude on July 10, 2007 at 5:22 PM
The bi-partisan approach of favoring the “stability” of totalitarian regimes in the middle east that coddled terrorism and allowed economic and social malaise to fester is not only grossly immoral, insofar as we did so to enable the free flow of oil to fuel the West’s economy, it was also, in hindsight, precisely the thing that allowed radical Islam, which seeks the imposition of new Caliphate from Afghanistan to Spain, to flourish, grow, plot and metastisize. Reagan did not have the evidence we have now to realize the seriousness of that threat to the homeland and was facing down an equally serious existential threat in the form of the Soviet Union. We have no such excuses. It may prove impossible to foster anything approaching a muslim form of democracy in the middle east, but that will be no excuse for returning to a Kissingerian or Scowcroftian “realpolitik” that leaves the field uncontested to the terrorists and radical islamists.
Using bold, by the way, does not make your argument anymore convincing. In my view, it just makes you seem strident.
Fred on July 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM
“May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”
“When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.”
– Dwight D. Eisenhower, Five-star General and thirty-fourth President of the United States.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 6:03 PM
I love all of the “analysis” and appeals to authority here that pretend 9/11 never happened and even if it did, it could never, ever happen again. As though the fight against radical islam is optional.
Its a different world now, folks, than the one that Dwight faced. Besides, I would love to ask Eisenhower if, given a chance to preemptively take out Hitler’s regime in 1937 or ‘38, he would have taken it, knowing what was coming on those damn beaches at Normandy.
We’ll face our generation’s Normandy if we don’t address this threat now.
Fred on July 10, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Mayor Quimby even released Sideshow Bob, a man twice convicted of attempted murder.
(Vote Sideshow Bob for Mayor)
aengus on July 10, 2007 at 6:24 PM
“Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.”
– Dwight D. Eisenhower, Five-star General and thirty-fourth President of the United States.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 6:25 PM
The sad fact is that when car bombs start going off here, we will eventually get used to it. These fundamentalists are brainwashed people that can be easily talked into killing their own children, not to mention us. Iraq is full of them and anything short of us establishing marshal law over there will not shut them down. Anything else we do will just draw out the agony. Americans are not ready to put in the resources to enforce marshal law, so as I see it bombs here are only a matter of time. Particularly with our border situation.
saiga on July 10, 2007 at 6:26 PM
I’m sceptical that a majority of Americans would vote a pacifist into the WH which is why Hillary is always trying to seem hawkish. Gore and Lieberman were hawkish by Democratic standards.
I can’t find the relevant Orwell quote but he said that preventive war was basically fascist or something like that anyway. What’s missing is the context, 9/11 and the fact that its a genuine nation-building exercise not exactly cynical.
aengus on July 10, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Just my thoughts
1. An American-led military victory that weans an Iraqi-made Democracy will invite respect in the Muslim world, and promote greater stability in the cradle of civilization.
2. The purple fingers pointed toward heaven. Democratic opportunity was at hand.
3. But, as in the last Iraq War, we have given them no Security.
4. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfelt-Casey et-al (2003-2007) tried to do it “smaller” faster, stronger, while alienating some local Iraqi authority in favor of others.
5. When AQ in the ME raised the stakes, unleashing military force and terrorist fanatics, America was at first nonplussed. But four years later, with less than 4000 American military deaths but no end in sight, the American public is rightfully upset and doubtful.
6. So, let’s level with the American peeople: to be defeated: to lose face in Iraq, invites the creation of an Islamo-fascist Caliphate in the cradle of civilization - with nuclear arms.
Vietnam has survived; Israel will not.
7. The Muslim fundamentalists who are promoting this religious War against us, the unbelievers, have cells and sympathizers in all Western nations. They have a plan, and it’s very good.
Randy
williars on July 10, 2007 at 6:46 PM
I’m not so sure. The British seem to have but people forget between WWII and the IRA campaign they’ve bombed more than Israel.
aengus on July 10, 2007 at 6:48 PM
I’m not so sure. The British seem to have but people forget between WWII and the IRA campaign they’ve bombed more than Israel.
aengus on July 10, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Whoops! Sorry.
aengus on July 10, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Nation building between Islamic Shiites and Islamic Sunnis in Iraq is delusional.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 6:49 PM
2. The purple fingers pointed toward heaven. Democratic opportunity was at hand.
The purple Shiite fingers were pointed toward Shiite candidates and the purple Sunni fingers were pointed toward Sunni candidates. Few, if any, fingers were pointing toward heaven.
More sectarian division was at hand.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 6:53 PM
This is the point continually being made on Jihad Watch. What would you do instead if you were CIC? I mean besides Iraq, general policies and the like.
aengus on July 10, 2007 at 6:57 PM
aengus - “What would you do instead if you were CIC? I mean besides Iraq, general policies and the like.”
Off the top of my head -
1) Withdraw at least half of our over used and abused troops from Iraq. Move those left to large enclave bases in Kurdistan and possibly elsewhere in Iraq for now. 80% of our troops being killed are killed by IED’s while just going from point A to point B, not engaging Al Q. Make strikes in other parts of Iraq on a case by case “Golden opportunity” basis.
2) Try to foment rebellion in Iran. If that didn’t work and Iran seemed near “The bomb” order a naval blockade telling the people that when they overthrow their government which is responsible for it, the blockade will end.
3) Fire Chertoff and close off our southern border and fine or jail the living HELL out of those serf masters employing illegal aliens.
As I said “off the top of my head”.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 7:12 PM
I agree with your suggestions.
aengus on July 10, 2007 at 7:15 PM
aengus, you can be my Vice President.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 7:17 PM
WTF?!?!? How does he get away with this misinfomation??? Didn’t I hear ole GWB say it has been 2 weeks?
PPPPFFFTHHH
lsutiger on July 10, 2007 at 7:31 PM
It was a “rolling surge” which started in, I think, February, so if you count Feb., Mar., Apr, May, Jun. and Jul (reaching full strength in late Jun +/-), you could say 6 months, but it would be a stretch. Bush saying 2 weeks would be a stretch in the other direction.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Hey, MB4.
Yes, the Muslim world is ideologically fractured, sometimes murderously. So what’s new?
Why is “Shiites vs Sunnis” more politically intractable than, say, “Reformed vs Catholicism”?
Randy
williars on July 10, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Yo, Randy.
For one thing, because of Mohammad.
He and his teachings were not exactly Christ like.
MB4
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Heh.
MB4/aengus ‘08
aengus on July 10, 2007 at 8:56 PM
You mistake me, MB4.
I was not comparing Christ to Mohammad.
I was talking about getting along….
Randy
williars on July 10, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Yes but if warfare is religiously sanctified as it is in Islam then isn’t the potential for getting along diminished in comparison to Christianity which advocates fairness and goodwill towards men?
aengus on July 10, 2007 at 9:23 PM
williars on July 10, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Not to mention that this whole damned thing can and probably WILL go nuclear…Iran first IF the Pakis aren’t subdued by the Indians/Chinese. THEN Israel
Blitz on July 10, 2007 at 9:44 PM
And the Pope of his time Blessed the Crusaders…,
“Religiously sanctified” war is part of Christian tradition and history aengus, imho. We have been as savage… as anyone. :(
Randy
williars on July 10, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Blitz on July 10, 2007 at 9:44 PM
It’s all about Israel obliteration, Blitz. India and/or China will be waay late.
Randy
williars on July 10, 2007 at 10:01 PM
The Pope was not the founder of a religion, merely the head of a Church. Mohammad was both the founder of a religion and the author of that religion’s holy book.
As for the “religiously sanctified war” this was an idea appropriated from Islam after the jihad conquered previously Christian lands. The Crusades were a counter-attack.
Apples and oranges, man.
Thomas the Wraith on July 10, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Sorry for newbie style missteps.
Randy
williars on July 10, 2007 at 10:03 PM
We are sort of screwed both ways. If we leave now, we yet once again leave in-country allies hanging (probably literally after AQ gets hold of them) and we destroy the last bit of credibility we have left with those who would bravely stand up to dictators in their own country because of our promises to support them. If we don’t leave, we will continue to slowly bleed the blood of our brave military and the money to keep the fiasco going, not to mention continuing to garner the ill-will of many voters who would otherwise support conservative candidates.
I think the only way to win now is to let the military do their job without all the political rules of engagement. Let the military break things and kill people which is what we pay them to do. Going in this was a 5 year mission without Rumsfeld ordering Vietnam-esque rules of engagement. The way the politicos have run it I don’t think we could ever truly claim victory now. How a bunch of educated people missed that it historically takes several years after a war to stabilize a country and re-establish a functional government and infrastructure is beyond me. Why this administration never presented that information to the public or made a case for that fact loudly and often is mind boggling. I can only assume that Rumsfeld and company were stupid enough to believe that this time was going to be different and that we would actually be able to accomplish the stated goals in a much shorter time than history has proven is required. I am so angry at the administration for putting our military in harms way so misguidedly. I was a military brat and know the gut-wrenching worry of having loved ones in harms way. I pray that I am wrong.
deepdiver on July 10, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Thomas the Wraith on July 10, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Hey, Thomas.
Christian history is littered with atrocities sanctioned by “The Church”.
We didn’t need to borrow from anyone.
I get the distinction between Mohammad and Christ The Lord, but do you think Jesus would “counter attack”? :)
Randy
williars on July 10, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Christian history has it’s moments of violence, no doubt. But search the New Testament for calls to violence against unbelievers and you will come up short. Plus, since the New Testament was not written by Christ, but by many different men over decades, it requires a certain level of interpretation. For one thing the New Testament is written in a form of ancient Greek but Christ spoke Aramaic. Therefore the very act of writing the New Testament is an act of literal interpretation.
The Koran on the other hand, was written by Muhammad and Muslims consider it to be the Word of Allah, unalterable and unchangeable. It is filled with numerous verses calling Muslims to war against the cities of unbelievers, violence against the unbelievers as individuals, enslaving unbelievers, taxing unbelievers, etc. And interpretation in minimal if any because it was “written” by one man who, they believe, heard the words, in Arabic, from the Angel Gabriel.
Muhammad murdered people and ordered people murdered. Christ clearly did no such thing. The fact that 1000 years after Christ a Pope used religion to mobilize people to defend their co-religionists in a war against Muslims in no way equates Christianity with Islam. The mere suggestion is offensive.
Thomas the Wraith on July 10, 2007 at 10:22 PM
You missed the point he was trying to make. Justify the Crusades by directly quoting passages from the Bible. Now justify the 9/11 attacks by quoting from the Koran. The former is impossible, the latter shouldn’t take up too much of your time.
We didn’t need to borrow from anyone.
aengus on July 10, 2007 at 10:32 PM
williars -
The point is that Islam is inextricably bound with violence against unbelievers, both in the detailed history of Muhammad and the generation immediately following him and in the theology contained in the Koran. This is why ex-jihadists like Hassan Butt and Ed Hussain keep telling the Brits that they need to directly challenge Muslims in Britain not simply to denounce terror but to grapple with the theology and texts that justify, even demand violence.
Just look at the words used to define the two religions. “Islam” means submission. “Muslim” means one who submits. Muhammad himself used these Arabic words as he commanded people to submit to the will of Allah (of course he was the sole source of the will of Allah.) “Christ” (a word by the way that Jesus never used since it is from a language he never spoke) means “the Anointed One”; a Greek translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah. “Christianity” is a Latinate variation used to describe those who believe in Christ.
Thomas the Wraith on July 10, 2007 at 10:36 PM
“Moments” of violence, Thomas?
In spite of the Good News of our Master?
Let’s not drag our Jewish brothers along. They, at least, have honest ignorance.
Randy
williars on July 10, 2007 at 11:19 PM
aengus on July 10, 2007 at 10:32 PM
The God of our OT fathers directed many “atrocities” in Holy Scripture. I wonder what Eric Rudolph was thinking?… or Timothy McVeigh?… or ?
The Koran does not “justify” 9/11. But these terrorists believe passionately in a “current version” of Islam that grants the power of Life and death to the faithful.
They may eat their own.
Randy
williars on July 11, 2007 at 12:00 AM
I never said the God of fathers didn’t direct “atrocities” in Holy Scripture. Whatever Eric Rudoplh or Timothy McVeigh were thinking it wasn’t justified either textaually in the Bible or by popular interpretation of Christian scholars.
Wrong. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you haven’t read the relevant passages of the Koran that not only justify violence against non-Muslims but impel them as obligatory.
aengus on July 11, 2007 at 1:26 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288879,00.html
It’s is not binding, but it carrys a lot of weight. Someone warming up that crow for Murtha?
crosspatch on July 11, 2007 at 3:04 AM
What a mess. The terrorists have their deadline: September. And no matter how much better Iraq is in multiple places, AQ in Iraq will be sure to expend all it has, no matter how much it weakens itself, to make the death count as high as possible through the summer.
That in all likelihood will doom Petraues’ recommendations to keep the pressure up (assuming it is still working) in September.
In the meantime, I am in favor of setting aside my distrust of Bush’s domestic security agenda, and strongly supporting, like the shamnesty rejection, a strong hand in Iraq. He is to be encouraged to not only stay the course until September, but to offer a troop pull-back (he’ll have to offer something) that is results-oriented and not time-oriented.
G. Charles on July 11, 2007 at 7:02 AM
I wish some people would wake up to the fact that there’s absolutly no way that we can totally withdraw from Iraq. It’s inconceivable that we would leave the region to Iran and Syria and groups of terrorists.
If we’re not there as a force then someone else will be because the world’s oil supply can’t be left to the whims of those who would obviously replace us. I would rather it be us.
It was OK back in the good old days when all the arabs wanted was our money. Now they want our souls.
Ernest on July 11, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Fred on July 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Please answer the following … once again … concerning the power vacuum in Iraq, and the ongoing Iranian desire for hegemony in the region -
Inasmuch as Iran has been waging a proxy war in Lebanon for years [including the Hezbollah attack on the Marine barracks], should America invade and occupy Lebanon? If not, then how will America end the Iranian desire for hegemony in Lebanon? If so, please provide our invasion and occupation goals and timetables.
Should America invade and occupy Syria [another long-standing, proxy of Iran], not only because of its influence in Lebanon; but, also, because it is sending Iranian trained insurgents into Iraq? If not, then how will America end the Iranian desire for hegemony in Syria and Lebanon, and the Syrian influence in Iraq? If so, please provide our invasion and occupation goals and timetables.
Should America invade and occupy Iran? If not, then how will the American presence in Iraq eliminate the Revolutionary Guard training camps in Iran? The same training camps that are enabling Iraqi insurgents to kill Americans in Iraq. Can you explain how Iraq was more of a threat to America than Iran is, now? How do you propose to eliminate the Iranian desire for hegemony in Iraq, by not invading and occupying Iran? Should you think it necessary to invade Iran [and don't forget the Iranian progress towards weapons grade plutonium manufacture - along with Ahmadinejad's professed desire to "wipe Israel off of the map."], please provide our invasion and occupation goals and timetables.
Should America invade and occupy Waziristan? If not, how do you propose to eliminate the Al Qaeda terror threat to America, emanating from Waziristan? Should you deem it necessary to invade and occupy Waziristan, please provide the occupation goals and timetables.
Why, in your estimation, are any of the above named areas, known for their past and ongoing support of terrorism against America, any less important to America than the elimination of Saddam Hussein? If they constitute ongoing terror threats to America, please provide the chronology of invasion and occupation of same?
In addition, and inasmuch as Iraq has already cost America $450,000,000,000, along with 3,600 dead and 25,000 wounded, could you please give us your estimations of the future costs to be incurred, by America, in Iraq? Please, also, advise when America will have reached its goal in Iraq?
Moreover, and regarding the aforementioned, and ongoing, terrorist threats to America, which were and are unrelated to the toppling of Saddam Hussein, and, all of which, but for Waziristan, involve Iranian efforts for hegemony in the region, please advise as to your estimates concerning the costs, in money and lives, to be paid, by America, in dealing with same?
Lastly, please explain how the invasion and occupation of Iraq, has worked to stifle the Iranian desire for hegemony in the region?
Yes, Reagan had a reason for actively avoiding the creation of a power vacuum in Iraq.
OhEssYouCowboys on July 11, 2007 at 4:30 PM