Cheney told half truths in the Iraq debate

[Boetie]

In the last couple of days there has been a debate on whether to implement an exit strategy of just remain in Iraq without an exit strategy.

In this debate, Cheney, and the Republican Party once again gave the American Public half truths. Half truths is the same as lying. Cheney lied the other night during an interview on CNN when he stated that leaving Iraq is giving into the terrorists game plan. The Republican Party lied by sticking to only sound bites ie "cut and run" slogan.

There is a pdf file at West Point's website titled "Stealing Al Qaida's Playbook", which I downloaded.

The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point is currently conducting this type of investigation using recently declassified al-Qa'ida documents, which are being made publicly available for the first time at www.ctc.usma.edu.

From that play book is the following:

If the jihadis are right in their assessment of geopolitics and the situtation in the Middle East, overt U.S. military action or diplomacy can often be more harmful than helpful in the fight against jihadi-inspired terrorism. Indeed, the jihadi ideologues surveyed in the article focus most of their attention on large-scale psychological operations to exploit our actions rather than on direct military action.

The terrorists victory isn't zeroed in on direct military conflict. More from the playbook:

Jihadi leaders are surprisingly frank when discussing the vulnerabilites of their movement and their strategies for toppling local regimes and undermining the United States. Their candor is, in large part, a consequence of struggles for leadership within the movement; thus, a leader of one group will publish his strategic vision in order to gain more recruits and achieve a reputation as a serious scholar worthy of respect.

These playbooks could be in homes all around the world. Breaking into civilian homes in Iraq to find these playbooks is a fruitless exercise.

Abu Bakr Naji, a rising star in the jihadi movement. The solution says Naji is to provoke a superpower into invading the Middle East directly. This will result in a great propaganda victory for the jihadis because the people will be impressed that the jihadis are directly fighting a superpower, be outraged over the invasion of a foreign power, be disabused of the notion that the superpower is invincible the longer the war goes on and be angry at the proxy governments allied with the invading superpower, Moreover, he argues, it will bleed the superpower's economy and military. This will lead to social unrest at home and the ulitmate defeat of the super power.

As everyone can see the terrorists has got the United States by the balls. They got this country split between continuing this stupid occupation of a foreign land or leaving.

This is what you call the Dutch Bookie. No matter what decision one makes when playing the Dutch Bookie's game, one becomes a money pump for the Dutch Bookie. The only solution of course is not to play the game. Unfortunately Bush Jr got us trapped into the game and we are forced to have to make a decision.

We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq, we are fighting an insurgency, local Iraqis that do not want us there. We are not fighting a military with uniforms, we are fighting civilians.

While we are fighting civilians, terrorists organization can remain scattered around the world and watch Crazy Ridiculous American People stand behind The Republican Party and Bush Jr.

By the way the acronym for Crazy Ridiculous American People is C.R.A.P.

[underbear1]

Guess I missed the true HALF!

[Scribbler1]

I thought this quote was interesting: "The solution says Naji is to provoke a superpower into invading the Middle East directly."

This war was not provoked as far as I can see. The Bush administration bent over backwards to get permission to invade Iraq. They WANTED this. They didn't need any provocation at all.

Considering 9/11 was used ad nauseum as a rallying cry for us to go to war, and all the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's, it would seem as though if anyone was provoking us it was Saudi Arabia.

[Sonart]

.

In which case, Scribbler, they both wanted the same thing... albeit for different reasons. I've been saying for some time that I suspected 9/11 was simply an effort to provoke the U.S. into charging off to duplicate the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. If the Bush League was foaming at the mouth to stupidly do it anyway, so much the better, and thus 9/11 worked perfectly. Who'd have guessed we'd so over reach by invading two Muslim countries, not just one, including the country Muslim fundalmentalists least mind trashing.... the hated Saddam's secular Iraq.


.

[Scribbler1]

They may have wanted the same thing, but the Bush administration lied their asses off to get it while the others had it handed to them on a silver platter. In both cases it is entirely George Bush's fault.