Hmmmm Seems the democrats

[85Sooner]

have some new members/supporters.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/al_qaeda_sends_.html

[sooner_born_1960]

In a portion of the tape from al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, made available only today, Zawahri says he has two messages for American Democrats.

"The first is that you aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost
Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.

[85Sooner]

Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.


We should bring the enola gay out of retirement and give him and introduction!

[sooner_born_1960]

We should bring the enola gay out of retirement and give him and introduction!
We should, but the Mujahideen won the election. We can't now.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

"The first is that you aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost..."

Isn't that the same logic Alabama uses for all those national championships?

[Okla-homey]

It is kinda interesting that in November, the US joined every other nation which has been attacked by Al-Q by electing an anti-war government. Those guys are good. They blow your people up, then make you too skeered to fight them over it.

Frankly, when we get hit again, I'll blame the libs.

[Jerk]

It is kinda interesting that in November, the US joined every other nation which has been attacked by Al-Q by electing an anti-war government. Those guys are good. They blow your people up, then make you too skeered to fight them over it.

Frankly, when we get hit again, I'll blame the libs.

The sad thing is that Osama predicted as much, basically saying that the West is weak and can't stomach a protracted and bloody war. I think he learned this from our response to Blackhawk Down, which was to turn tail and run after losing 17 troops.

[Vaevictis]

They blow your people up, then make you too skeered to fight them over it.

Who says the November elections had anything to do with fear? Nobody I've talked to -- and no poll I've seen -- wants anything done to appease the terrorists.

It all boils down to one thing: Job performance. Things have been getting worse in Iraq for a long time, and up until Bush and party got a bitch-slapping at the polls, they insisted that everything was just fine.

If they had admitted that things weren't all honky-dory and taken visible corrective action about 8-12 months prior, (imo) they'd still be in charge today.

If your scenario happens, you can blame the "libs" if you want, I guess. Just recognize that it was Bush's multi-year mishandling of the situation that put them in a position to be able to do whatever it is they're going to do in the next two years.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The dims have promised to EXHAUSTIVELY investigate Hurricane Katrina, to determine who is at fault(guess who will be found to be the perp). They are going to have a busy and VERY productive legislative session!

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Just recognize that it was Bush's multi-year mishandling of the situation that put them in a position to be able to do whatever it is they're going to do in the next two years.

Could someone please shed a lil' light, short of armchair quaterbackin' troop levels, how Bush mishandled the conflict? Not argumentatively of course, but as an honest answer to an honest question. You hear that a lot. But you never hear specifics as to what, except for the occasional 'troop level' answer which I have to admit, I'm not engaged strategically nor tactically enough to know what that would be, much like everyone here I'd venture to assume.

Help me out there.

[Frozen Sooner]

1. Well, the troop-level thing isn't really Monday-morning QB'ing, as people have been telling them we needed more boots on the ground since the beginning.

2. We had no strategy for victory, just a strategy for going in and kicking some butt. Near as I can tell, it took us four years to even get around to quantifying what would be a victory.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If they had admitted that things weren't all honky-dory and taken visible corrective action about 8-12 months prior, (imo) they'd still be in charge today. Of course, the MSM would have spun it as a worsening situation, just like they always have, no matter what the administration does or doesn't do.

Oh, yes!

[Vaevictis]

Could someone please shed a lil' light, short of armchair quaterbackin' troop levels, how Bush mishandled the conflict?

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the White House's messaging on the issue.

When you say over and over again how great things are going and how things are improving, and the measurables (particularly civilian death toll) say something different, people eventually begin to wonder, "What the **** is this ******* smoking?"

I maintain that if the administration had admitted where things were going wrong -- in addition to pointing out where things were going well -- and outlined how they were working to fix things, the Republican party would have retained control of Congress. Or alternatively, if the Republican Congress had demanded the same and worked to force it, they could have gotten the same result.

People forgive mistakes and errors as long as they feel you recognize them and are taking corrective action. The Bush administration's messaging precluded this, and that is the mishandling I'm talking about.

When you look like you're totally disconnected from reality and pursuing the same **** that just ain't working, eventually, well, you get fired. And that's essentially (imo) what happened in November.

[Sooner_Havok]

We are fighting what should be an offensive war as a defensive one. We are using the greatest offensive striking force the world has ever seen as a defensive force. If we want to fight defensively, pull out and wait for the war to get over here. If we want to use our military as it was intended to be used, then we must engage in total war. Right now neither party has the testicular fortitude to actually engage in total war with these punks but no one wants to see another attack on the US.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

We had no strategy for victory, just a strategy for going in and kicking some butt. Near as I can tell, it took us four years to even get around to quantifying what would be a victory.

It seems like it's always been pretty clear to me. Stomp the bad guys. Remove the regime. Establish a representative element and restore power to the people. And once the people have that power and are able to defend it, let them have Iraq back in whole.

Am I just reachin' here or is all that fairly cut and dried as far as a 'victory' strategy? I mean, wasn't that the premise from jump?


Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.


The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

Taken from the President's speech March of 2003.

Seems pretty straight forward what the stakes, the consequences, and the victory terms are. I mean, it does to me. So given that, I ask again, how did he mishandle the conflict?

[Frozen Sooner]

It seems like it's always been pretty clear to me. Stomp the bad guys. Remove the regime. Establish a representative element and restore power to the people. And once the people have that power and are able to defend it, let them have Iraq back in whole.


That's not a plan, man. That's a statement of what you'd like to have happen. I mean, I can say "Step one: underpants. Step two: ? Step three: Jessica Alba massaging me with cocunut oil" but that doesn't make it a plan.

You say that a goal was for the people to have the power to have a representative government and defend it, but we disbanded their military and turned them loose.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

So with that in mind, what would constitute definition of 'the plan'?

With definition of 'the plan', at what level does the administration need to reveal it to ease you or the public's mind to the fact that yes, we do have 'the plan'? Does it include specific measurable tactics, such as securing X square miles of Y neighborhood, broad and generalized strategies such as securing a troop presence and operational capability in, say, Baghdad, or generalities above the strategic level? Seriously, Mike. I'm not seeing it. And I'm not trying to argue for the sake of partisanship, I really, truly want to know how this jives for those in opposition. Example from my position being...

I go to the store.

I have a number of things I need to purchase. The significant other wants to know where I'm going. I tell her. I give her an idea of what I'm cooking for dinner and that I'll be purchasing some of those things at the store. Comfortable in the fact that I can navigate around the store, she doesn't ask how I'll be going about it. Doesn't ask which aisles I'll be going down first. Neither do I give her a detailed example of. She knows I'm going to the store, why I'm going, what it is I want to accomplish while I'm there, and what I expect the end result to be. However, I'm not sure exactly how busy the store is going to be so I can't rightfully say how long it will take. I'll be there until I'm done, then I'll head home.

How's that not a plan again? Seems identical (outside of the loss of life of course, no trivialization intended) to what it is we have going over there.

[Vaevictis]

We are fighting what should be an offensive war as a defensive one.

You may be right, but I think that's not quite it. The real issue, to my mind, is that are perpetually yielding the initiative. The enemy has decided the terms upon which he will fight us, and we are allowing him to do it.

The enemy decided asymmetrical urban warfare, and we are obliging -- to our detriment. We are allowing him to engage us in a way that maximizes his strengths and minimizes ours.

How we fix that, I don't really know. But that's the main military problem as I see it.

To be honest, at this point, I say let the savages at each other. If they want to rape and murder each other non-stop, that's ****ing fine with me. There's no reason for our troops to stand between them if that's what they're intent on. Sooner or later, they'll get tired of it, and when they do, we can help them get a democracy up and running.

And if a faction we don't like gains power? That's great, actually. In order to exercise that power in any meaningful way, they'll have to come out of the shadows and essentially form a traditional government/military, and our military is exceedingly efficient at putting the hurt on those. At that point, why, there's one less faction we don't like.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

And if a faction we don't like gains power? That's great, actually.

Kinda like the overthrow of the Shah in Iran has really worked out great for us?

[85Sooner]

Who says the November elections had anything to do with fear? Nobody I've talked to -- and no poll I've seen -- wants anything done to appease the terrorists.

It all boils down to one thing: Job performance. Things have been getting worse in Iraq for a long time, and up until Bush and party got a bitch-slapping at the polls, they insisted that everything was just fine.

If they had admitted that things weren't all honky-dory and taken visible corrective action about 8-12 months prior, (imo) they'd still be in charge today.

If your scenario happens, you can blame the "libs" if you want, I guess. Just recognize that it was Bush's multi-year mishandling of the situation that put them in a position to be able to do whatever it is they're going to do in the next two years.

After dealing with alot of folks from the kileen area. I would say the media has had the biggest impact on making sure everything damaging about the war was published. Interesting how the left week "newsweek" mag rag reported that iraq is at an all time high in their economic standings.

[Frozen Sooner]

So with that in mind, what would constitute definition of 'the plan'?

With definition of 'the plan', at what level does the administration need to reveal it to ease you or the public's mind to the fact that yes, we do have 'the plan'? Does it include specific measurable tactics, such as securing X square miles of Y neighborhood, broad and generalized strategies such as securing a troop presence and operational capability in, say, Baghdad, or generalities above the strategic level? Seriously, Mike. I'm not seeing it. And I'm not trying to argue for the sake of partisanship, I really, truly want to know how this jives for those in opposition. Example from my position being...

I go to the store.

I have a number of things I need to purchase. The significant other wants to know where I'm going. I tell her. I give her an idea of what I'm cooking for dinner and that I'll be purchasing some of those things at the store. Comfortable in the fact that I can navigate around the store, she doesn't ask how I'll be going about it. Doesn't ask which aisles I'll be going down first. Neither do I give her a detailed example of. She knows I'm going to the store, why I'm going, what it is I want to accomplish while I'm there, and what I expect the end result to be. However, I'm not sure exactly how busy the store is going to be so I can't rightfully say how long it will take. I'll be there until I'm done, then I'll head home.

How's that not a plan again? Seems identical (outside of the loss of life of course, no trivialization intended) to what it is we have going over there.

What amount of plan do they need to give to reassure us that a plan, in fact, exists?

Well, for one, I'd like to see some sort of coherence when discussing what needs to happen in order to accomplish our goals. Do we plan to restore their infrastructure? When, and where are we getting the money to do it? Do we plan to rebuild their schools? When, and where are we getting the money to do it? Do we plan to just give them a representative democracy where they can all just sit around illiterately in the dark and vote themselves a theocracy? OK, when do we plan on going back to war with them again?

In your example, your plan consists of going to the store and wandering aimlessly until you randomly find the items you need and not leaving until you do. Personally, when I go to the store, I start at one end of the store and work my way through the store until I get everything I came for. Now, I admit, your plan has its charms, but in the long run mine's going to get the shopping done a lot faster. A logical progression of steps that leads to a stable Iraq-or three separate countries where Iraq used to stand that are all stable and have defensible borders-to me sounds like a plan. We can't just stick a bunch of troops over there and magically expect a democracy to coalesce.

Further, I expect that when you go to the store, you don't tell your wife when you're going to be home. However, I'm guessing that she doesn't expect you back sometime next week or for you to run up a bill of $20,000. If that's how long it took you at the store, or you spend that much on groceries, I'm relatively sure she'd want to know what the hell you were doing over there. She's generally not going to accept the answer "What, did you want me to cut and run?"

[Vaevictis]

Kinda like the overthrow of the Shah in Iran has really worked out great for us?

If we don't have the will to smash the enemy when he shows himself, well, then it doesn't really matter what the strategy is, does it?

[Vaevictis]

I would say the media has had the biggest impact on making sure everything damaging about the war was published.

Railing about the media is both pointless and stupid.

The President can get on the radio or on the television whenever he wants. He has no trouble getting his message out. You need look no further than FDR and his fireside chats for proof of that. If the President fails to avail himself of the tools available, or fails to sway people when he does, it's his own damned fault.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Well, for one, I'd like to see some sort of coherence when discussing what needs to happen in order to accomplish our goals. Do we plan to restore their infrastructure? When, and where are we getting the money to do it? Do we plan to rebuild their schools? When, and where are we getting the money to do it? Do we plan to just give them a representative democracy where they can all just sit around illiterately in the dark and vote themselves a theocracy? OK, when do we plan on going back to war with them again?

Thanks for clearin' that up. Every one valid concerns.


In your example, your plan consists of going to the store and wandering aimlessly until you randomly find the items you need and not leaving until you do.

An assumption. Given that I have in fact been to the store before and am well aware of the specific tactics required to make the trip as quickly and successfully as I can, I think we can assume that because of the expertise of the shopper, the task requirements of each tactical objective shall be conducted in a concise, expedient manner. In other words, you assume I wander. I assume it gets banged out and done. An issue of conflict in the real world Iraq scenario because interpretation of 'wandering' versus 'banging it out and going home' differ between parties. I agree, with the information the administration has given, that is a question in and of itself. But to assume that because the information wasn't given that the plan, if it exists at all, consists of wandering vagaries and guesses is not only illogical, but suspect as to intent.


However, I'm guessing that she doesn't expect you back sometime next week or for you to run up a bill of $20,000. If that's how long it took you at the store, or you spend that much on groceries, I'm relatively sure she'd want to know what the hell you were doing over there. She's generally not going to accept the answer "What, did you want me to cut and run?"

Beautiful response! Touche. But I also present to you what was a trip for steaks and taters, pre-wrapped and ready to go, to having to wait for the butcher. The produce guy to get the big baking potatoes out of the back that he's out of in the case. Heading back to the meat department only to find some old lady just klepto'd your one inch ribeyes and you'll have to wait even longer for the butcher to cut more. Turns a momentary trip into an endeavor. And turns a rapid insertion, disassemblage of a government and reconstruction efforts into a drawn out battle for victory where the butcher won't get off his nuts and train a sizeable fighting force to preserve his continuance, the produce guy bailed on getting your potatoes because his people no longer support the same conflict they did when it was 18 U.N. resolutions and a ceasefire coupled with worldwide understanding of the intelligence of the day, and that old lady insurgent who snatched your steaks before is hovering on the next aisle just waiting for you to turn your head so she can steal that last bottle of marinade in your cart and by doing so, shatter any resolve you once had as a nation for not only having steak, but going to the store in the first place.

I think I'm gonna stick to El Charito TV dinners next time. ;)

[85Sooner]

Railing about the media is both pointless and stupid.

The President can get on the radio or on the television whenever he wants. He has no trouble getting his message out. You need look no further than FDR and his fireside chats for proof of that. If the President fails to avail himself of the tools available, or fails to sway people when he does, it's his own damned fault.


i AGREE with your statement but it is neither pointless or stupid. I is IMO the biggest downfall of the President and the GOP in general. Not calling out the media each and every day is a mistake if they are consistently going to support the enemy.

[Okla-homey]

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the White House's messaging on the issue.

When you say over and over again how great things are going and how things are improving, and the measurables (particularly civilian death toll) say something different, people eventually begin to wonder, "What the **** is this ******* smoking?"



With all due respect V, regarding White House optimism, that's what presidents are supposed to do.

WTF would you have Bush and his people say? "Why yes, thanks for asking, we're getting our asses kicked by these people!" No, you want optimism that engenders courage and resolve in the people. This is particularly important in an era when the news media is no longer "on the team" as they were during WWII.

Even during the darkest days of WWII, FDR never gave one of his "fireside chats" in which he didn't tell the folks we were all over it and it would end well. That sort of thing continued after the disaster at Kasserine Pass where we were first blooded in North Africa and where we lost more American lives in one hour than we've lost in four years of this war. Ditto the carnage of the Ardennes, which was still raging 62 years ago today. In the Pacific, after the GI scarecrows in the Philippines were unable to hold out any longer and were marched off to jungle prisons, there was nothing but optimism from FDR.

Frankly, I just wish the folks, and the newsies, and the armchair generals in Congress would let the professionals run the war. Unfortunately, that's just not possible in the 21st century, unless we can get it done in 100 hours like we did in Gulf War I, and keep the newsies penned-up and away from the action. I still think that was one of the coolest things about Swartzkopf, he controlled the international media access to the area and the newsies only got what he told them.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I still think that was one of the coolest things about Swartzkopf, he controlled the international media access to the area and the newsies only got what he told them.

See, that's a GOOD thing. For morale, both in the troop contingent and back here at home. It's commonly understood that in the Public Information Officer role at large emergency scenes, the officer relates public safety concerns as well as the progress of the incident. And when was the last time you saw a Jon Hansen or a Larry Bowles come out and say, "Yes, it is a major incident, and I'll have to be honest with you. We're getting our *** kicked around our ears in there. In fact, we're seriously considering washing our hands of it and lettin' it go to sh*t." It just don't happen.

Good points, Homey.

[bri]

This thread makes me sad. I thought I was the only one that got a cool Jihadii Decoder Ring for using my Democratic vote to undermine America. :mad:

[Vaevictis]

With all due respect V, regarding White House optimism, that's what presidents are supposed to do.

WTF would you have Bush and his people say? "Why yes, thanks for asking, we're getting our asses kicked by these people!" No, you want optimism that engenders courage and resolve in the people. This is particularly important in an era when the news media is no longer "on the team" as they were during WWII.

Optimism isn't what the White House was projecting. Delusion was. Optimism is saying, "We can do this, we will do this." Delusion is saying, "We're making progress" when in fact, it's clear that no progress is being made.

One engenders courage and resolve in people. The other may also for a short time, but it causes just the opposite when they realize you're blowing smoke up their ***. Eventually, they get wise, and they stop believing what you say. That's exactly where Bush is now.

And by the way, you can acknowledge the gravity and hardship of the situation and still project confidence:

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Dunkirk.html
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/churchill.htm

*shrug*

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Delusion is saying, "We're making progress" when in fact, it's clear that no progress is being made.

Thanks for writing off the entirety of efforts of the Kurds. I'm sure they appreciate your writing them off from the Iraqi body politic.

[PhilTLL]

The concerns I have with Democrat national security policy aside, I get the feeling OBL and AQ would issue taunts and proclamations of victory no matter who won which election. The rap would just be different ('You reelected the party which will lead you into endless slaughter Allah willing,' etc).

[Vaevictis]

Thanks for writing off the entirety of efforts of the Kurds. I'm sure they appreciate your writing them off from the Iraqi body politic.

... you do realize that the Kurds were a largely independent and stable government unto themselves prior to our recent invasion, right? There was no progress there because there was no need for progress there.

Ever since we implemented that no-fly zone after Gulf War I, Saddam had little or no power there. They've been de facto independent since.

[PhilTLL]

... you do realize that the Kurds were a largely independent and stable government unto themselves prior to our recent invasion, right? There was no progress there because there was no need for progress there.

Ever since we implemented that no-fly zone after Gulf War I, Saddam had little or no power there. They've been de facto independent since.

And as long as they can maintain that status--they want for independence but ask the Turks about that one--they don't care if we're there or not, nor terribly much what goes on in the rest of the country. The deterioration of the state is bad for them, too, but in different terms than the rest of the land.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

People forgive mistakes and errors as long as they feel you recognize them and are taking corrective action. The Bush administration's messaging precluded this, and that is the mishandling I'm talking about.

When you look like you're totally disconnected from reality and pursuing the same **** that just ain't working, eventually, well, you get fired. And that's essentially (imo) what happened in November. Sorry, Vaevictis, your friendly, pro-American MSM was largely in control of public opinion on the war, and still is, unfortunately. They totally stonewall any good news, and there's lots of it, the troops say.
They have been pulling for US defeat, evidenced by the stupid reporting on Abu Greg and Club Gitmo. for years, now.

[Scott D]

you know what the best part of this thread is?


This message is hidden because RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone! is on your ignore list.

I'm sure however he's managed to attack the msm at least twice, and has mentioned osama and hillary at least once, and I'm surprised if he hasn't suggested that osama and hillary have been carrying on a love affair for the last 15 years.

[soonerspiff]

Frankly, I just wish the folks, and the newsies, and the armchair generals in Congress would let the professionals run the war. Unfortunately, that's just not possible in the 21st century, unless we can get it done in 100 hours like we did in Gulf War I, and keep the newsies penned-up and away from the action.


:rolleyes:


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june06/iraq_4-13.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm




:pop:

[OklahomaTuba]

:rolleyes:


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june06/iraq_4-13.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm




:pop:

Part of the problem with those generals is that they had a huge problem with Rummy's attempt at changing the military into a smaller more modern terror fighting force instead of a cold war model in the first place.

Not that they were totally wrong though.

[OklahomaTuba]

... you do realize that the Kurds were a largely independent and stable government unto themselves prior to our recent invasion, right? There was no progress there because there was no need for progress there.

Ever since we implemented that no-fly zone after Gulf War I, Saddam had little or no power there. They've been de facto independent since.
A stable government? lol

You do realize the kurds were fighting a civil war most of that time, right?

:rolleyes:

[OklahomaTuba]

Optimism isn't what the White House was projecting. Delusion was. Optimism is saying, "We can do this, we will do this." Delusion is saying, "We're making progress" when in fact, it's clear that no progress is being made.

It wasn't only the President saying this, its also many of the men and women fighting over there that said this.

You know, those poor souls who are "stuck" there, and can't get out.

[OklahomaTuba]

That's not a plan, man. That's a statement of what you'd like to have happen. I mean, I can say "Step one: underpants. Step two: ? Step three: Jessica Alba massaging me with cocunut oil" but that doesn't make it a plan.

You say that a goal was for the people to have the power to have a representative government and defend it, but we disbanded their military and turned them loose.

Just wondering, but you know how long it took to get the marshall plan going after ww2?

Might look that one up.

[soonerspiff]

Part of the problem with those generals is that they had a huge problem with Rummy's attempt at changing the military into a smaller more modern terror fighting force instead of a cold war model in the first place.


Please, elaborate, because honestly, this might help prove the existence of some semblance of a plan.

[soonerspiff]

...and by elaborate I mean like quotes and articles, not like... just your opinion... man.

[Jerk]

nm

[Vaevictis]

A stable government? lol

You do realize the kurds were fighting a civil war most of that time, right?

:rolleyes:

A war which ended in 1999 with a power sharing agreement between the two warring factions. By the time we got there, the place had been self-governing and stable for about four years.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

http://media.collegehumor.com/ch6/1/b/collegehumor.a1a9ae310a93ace00a75751bb62e8445.jpg

Jennifer Love Hewitt supports the troops...shouldn't you guys :P