The Iraq War: Pretty much the opposite of a war on terror

The Soviet Union spent a lot of time and money trying to convert southern Africa to Leninism, and exported a lot of weapons into that area for the use of their allies (a term I use advisedly, because most of the African "big men" were more interested in personal power than a political philosophy). Those weapons didn't just melt away in the rain. They're there and they're easy to buy. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudan/2006/0406curse.htm

The going rate for a Kalashnikov in Africa: $30.

Let me correct you, AGAIN: al Qaeda doesn't have the ability to operate in this country because of the efforts of our troops in Afghanistan. Not Iraq. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq until Bush and Rumsfeld established favorable conditions for al Qaeda to take advantage of.

 

Do you really think it's possible to "clean up" Iraq now?

 

I love the "gotcha" attitude a couple of jackasses have on this thread as they point out that we're admitting there are terrorists in Iraq, which must mean our presence there is justified.

Sorry, but you don't get credit for cleaning up failing to contain the mess you made.

Let's forget this shit for a minute, because really, there's no arguing that it's a complete and total disaster and has accomplished the exact opposite of what we wanted.

Let me ask this: How do you fix this? You're elected president tomorrow, what do you do?

 

The premise in your third paragraph is false, dog.

 

Not "terrorists," sir. Alll of the people fighting us in Iraq are not terrorists. A lot of them are Iraqis content to fight each other in a religious war for control of the country. Sadr's not "coming here." The Mahdi Army's not coming here. That's just bedwetting nonsense. Sadr wants to run Iraq, and he's close to doing so as we speak. To paraphrase, this thing is going to end bloody. And all we can do is choose when.
By the way, secret agent man, a whole passel of generals came out yesterday and said that your super-secret source with special sauce doesn't have a clue. Pass it on.

 

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015386.php

 

Lyman, you'd have as much credibility if you posted a link to the Farmer's Almanac.

 

The central point in the portion of the report that the fucking idiot, John Hinderaker, says that the Associated Press maliciously omitted is included in the second paragraph of the AP story:

But to these guys, anything less than servile religious awe to all things GOP is "liberal bias."

Here's another part of the malicious omission:

Gee, I can't imagine what the U.S. could be doing to instigate at least two of those underlying factors.

Fucking idiot.

 

Time's "Blog of The Year"!
Damned liberal media.

 

"Nattering nabobs of negativism".

Spiro's only legacy (thanks to Safire)

I think you can trace this "liberal media" nonsense back to Agnew.

 

Yes

 

He said "brave", not "reckless"