Support Terrorists By Voting Democratic!

[weasel]

from WorldNetDaily: Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat

"Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are 'tired'.

Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."


Cutting and running is not the answer. To do so would show the entire world that can America can be beaten and would encourage attacks on our nation. Why then should we support a party that supports putting America in greater risk then it already is?

I acknowlege that the situation in Iraq is bumpy at best and I think we could have done more to prepare. But we're stuck their now: get over it. We're bringing the democracy we take for granted to a nation that hasn't experienced it for decades. More than 4,435 soldiers died fighting for the independence of America. 116,516 men died in WWI. I'm not callously dismissing the 2,000 heroes who died for this nation in Iraq; all I'm saying is that this is nothing compared to what we've faced before. To cut and run would throw away the sacrifice these people made and show the entire world what cowards we are.

Your comments are appreciated.

[RickSp]

Gee, that is exactly what President Bush says. So I guess WND is saying that Bush is a terrorist or maybe just that Bush thinks like a terrorist. One or the other. Of course anyone who takes WND as a reliable source will believe anything.

President Bush said terrorists will win if Democrats win and impose their policies on Iraq

And Weasel you claim that you are not "callously dismissing the 2,000 heroes" who had died for nothing in Iraq, yet that is exactly what you are doing. And the number is now far closer to 3,000 than to 2,000, not that you obviously give a good goddamn.

[Oh_My]

Cutting and running is not the answer. To do so would show the entire world that can America can be beaten and would encourage attacks on our nation. Why then should we support a party that supports putting America in greater risk then it already is?

No, Weasel, you are mistaken. "Cutting and running," as Republicans call it, would show the entire world that the United States is capable of making mistakes and can admit that we were wrong.

Phased withdrawal ("cutting and running") does not imply weaker security in the U.S., as much as Republicans would like you to believe.

[RickSp]

It is hard to see how "Staying and Losing" will demonstrate US strength either.

Everyone except Bush supporters wearing rose colored glasses sees that we are losing that war. A phased withdrawal is far better than being driven out.

[weasel]

Quote by: Oh_My "Cutting and running," as Republicans call it, would show the entire world that the United States is capable of making mistakes and can admit that we were wrong. Phased withdrawal ("cutting and running") does not imply weaker security in the U.S., as much as Republicans would like you to believe.

Bull crap.

from The Dangerous Consequences of Cutting and Running in Iraq

"Failure as an Option: There are at least five likely consequences that would flow from abruptly abandoning the people of Iraq. Such a shortsighted U.S. policy would be a severe blow to the Iraqi security situation, Iraqi oil exports, U.S. allies in the region, the global war against terrorism, and the future of all Iraqis.

Consequence #1: An Army Up for Grabs. A sudden U.S. withdrawal would raise the risks of full-fledged civil war and disintegration of the army into hostile factions. The defection of soldiers to various militias, taking with them their heavy equipment, would bolster the militias’ firepower and capacity to seize and hold terrain. The result would be a bloody and protracted civil war such as the conflict in Bosnia following the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Consequence #2: Energy Uncertainty. Growing anarchy in Iraq and the possible breakup of the country into autonomous regions would severely affect Iraq’s oil exports. In 2005, Iraq produced about 1.9 million barrels per day (MBD) of oil and exported about 1.4 MBD. By June 2006, Iraqi oil production had risen to 2.5 MBD, and the govern­ment hopes to increase produc­tion to 2.7 MBD by the end of the year. A U.S. withdrawal would undermine the security of oil pipelines and other facilities and increase the vulnerability of Iraqi oil production to sabotage. The resulting drop in Iraqi oil exports would increase the upward pressure on world oil prices in an already tight oil market. Energy uncer­tainty would be increased further if Iraq splintered and Iran gained domination over a Shia-dominated rump state in the oil-rich south.

Consequence #3: Allies in Jeopardy. The chief bene­ficiary of a rapid U.S. pullout would be Iran, which has considerable influence over the dominant Shiite political parties, which represent most Iraqi Shiites: about 60–65 percent of the population. If Iraq imploded, Iran quickly could gain dominance over an emerging “Shiastan” rump state endowed with the bulk of Iraq’s oil reserves. This would give Iran additional resources and a staging area to escalate subversive efforts targeted at the Shiite majority in Bahrain and Shiite minorities in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. These and other countries look to the United States to serve as a guarantor against an aggressive Iran. If the United States fails to follow through on its commitment to establish a stable government in Iraq, it will severely undermine its credibility. Abandon­ing Iraqi allies would erode the confidence of other allies in U.S. leadership and further fuel conspiracy theories about American plots to carve up Iraq to keep Arabs weak and divided.

Consequence #4: Al-Qaeda Triumphant. Osama bin Laden would trumpet an abrupt U.S. withdrawal as a victory for al-Qaeda and proof that America is a “paper tiger,” just as he claimed after the U.S. with­drawal from Somalia in 1994. An unstable, failed state in Iraq would also provide al-Qaeda and other radical groups with a sanctuary for recruiting a new generation of suicide bombers and a strategically located staging area for deploying terrorists for attacks on Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and elsewhere around the world. The recently declassi­fied “key judgments” of the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,” pointed out that a perceived victory for jihadists in Iraq would boost their strength and ability to threaten Americans.

Consequence #5: A Humanitarian Catastrophe. Iraq is a mosaic of ethnic, sectarian, and tribal sub­groups. Baghdad and other major cities include sig­nificant intermingling of Sunni and Shiite Arabs, Kurds, Turcomans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and other Christians. Instability and civil war would put many of these people to flight, creating a vast human­itarian crisis that would dwarf those seen in Bosnia and Kosovo and rival the scenes of horror and pri­vation witnessed in Cambodia, Congo, Rwanda, and Sudan. Not only would Iraqis be put at risk of disease, starvation, and violence, but with the gov­ernment unable to meet their basic needs, the Iraqi refugees would fall under the control of the sectar­ian militias, turning Iraq into Lebanon on steroids.

An Alternative to Failure. A continued U.S. mil­itary presence cannot ensure success in Iraq unless Iraqis cooperate in building an effective govern­ment, but a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. support would unquestionably guarantee failure, with disas­trous results for Iraq, its neighbors, and U.S. national interests. The only winners would be an expan­sionist Iran and an increasingly lethal al-Qaeda.

The alternative is to insist that the Bush Admin­istration finish the job it started by completing the training of Iraqi security forces, supporting Iraq’s new democratic government, beginning the disci­plined reduction of American forces, and turning the future of Iraq over to the only people who can ensure the nation’s long-term success—the Iraqis."


I'm all for pulling out Iraq when we have finished the job we went there to do.

By the way, this article was written by Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security, and James Phillips is Research Fellow in Middle East­ern Studies in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation; people who know a lot more about this topic then you or me.

[Jack]

The alternative is to insist that the Bush Admin­istration finish the job it started by completing the training of Iraqi security forces, supporting Iraq’s new democratic government, beginning the disci­plined reduction of American forces, and turning the future of Iraq over to the only people who can ensure the nation’s long-term success—the Iraqis."

And where are the plans for accomplishing that and the timeline for doing so? If the right cannot offer plans and timetables then I see nothing wrong in the left's insistence that we withdraw before our pointless interference gets even more people killed and tarnishes our reputation in the world more than it has already.
Thus far all I'm hearing from the Bush camp is, "Follow me! I don't know where I'm going, but follow me anyway."
The right's mindset would make Goering proud,

“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger.”

- Hermann Goering, second in command of the Third Reich, at the Nuremberg Trials in 1945

[Oh_My]

Consequence #4: Al-Qaeda Triumphant. Osama bin Laden would trumpet an abrupt U.S. withdrawal as a victory for al-Qaeda and proof that America is a “paper tiger,” just as he claimed after the U.S. with­drawal from Somalia in 1994. An unstable, failed state in Iraq would also provide al-Qaeda and other radical groups with a sanctuary for recruiting a new generation of suicide bombers and a strategically located staging area for deploying terrorists for attacks on Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and elsewhere around the world. The recently declassi­fied “key judgments” of the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,” pointed out that a perceived victory for jihadists in Iraq would boost their strength and ability to threaten Americans

Consequence #4 is the only consequence that could cause America to be less safe. You point out that this war can be won and that we can "finish the job." Frankly, I don't perceive that we can win. This war has already killed thousands of Iraqis, only causing their hatred towards the US to become larger. If (and that's a big "if") terrorists are for the most part removed from Iraq, they will simply seek shelter in other countries, will they not? Terrorists will do whatever it takes to cause terror towards their enemies. Believing that this war will suddenly eradicate all threats of terrorism to our country is naive.

[kingmea]

"I'm all for pulling out Iraq when we have finished the job we went there to do. "
So what was the job we were supposed to be doing...let me think...finding WMDs? It seems theres no WMDs in Iraq, whoopsies. We have finished our job, if there was one in the beginning.

You can spew all this crap about Iraqis feeling the greatness of democracy "we take for granted" and our noble capture of Hussein, but the truth remains our occupation of Iraq was meant for the US's benefit only, or more specifically, our oil companies.

The war in Iraq hasn't even paid for itself in oil. We have lost money, lives, for what? We have gained nothing. Our international popularity is down the drain as well. Your quotations are merely exaggerated consequences, provided by a rightist webpage.Why do we give a damn whether or not they kill themselves in civil war, nor the humanitarian consequences. We didn't help the massacre of Rwandans, nor stopped the jangaweed militias.

Basically the only thing we lose that is supposedly worth saving is oil. Deaths of other nations doesn't concern the US, nor has it in the past.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: weasel I'm all for pulling out Iraq when we have finished the job we went there to do.

The job..we...went there... to do...

Which is?
a) Destroy Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, AKA nukes? Nonexistent...

b) Depose Saddam Hussein? Done...

c) Establish a democratically elected government? Happened last year...

d) Carry on the endless War on Terror/War on Freedom? Never gonna end, but that means the bleed down of Uncle Sam's hired guns will continue indefinitely...

e) Eliminate any threat to Israel? Who cares about that other nation? Let them look after their own security by seeking peace with those they currently terrorize...

f) Loot the economy of Iraq? Already happened back in 2003...

g) Generate HooHah patriotic jingoism in the US that translates into political control of Washington for the GOP? Backfired already and not likely to reverse course...

h) Bankrupt the US Treasury? Getting damn close...

i) Generate beaucoup profits for US contractors along with billions in fraud and waste for the elite? When will the greedheads ever get enough?

j) Create a wave of pro-US democracy movements in the Muslim middle east? The atrocities and torture have rendered that one moot, wouldn't you say?

k) Firmly establish US military hegemony in the middle east? Well, that one is still incomplete, yes...

[brien]

Quote by: Oh_My No, Weasel, you are mistaken. "Cutting and running," as Republicans call it, would show the entire world that the United States is capable of making mistakes and can admit that we were wrong. Phased withdrawal ("cutting and running") does not imply weaker security in the U.S., as much as Republicans would like you to believe.

And while the US is retreating, let's hope the Democrats are courageous enough to withdraw entirely from the Middle East. Bring all of the troops home from all of the Middle East countries.

Here is a smattering of the history of the US in the Middle East:

US involvement in the Middle East began with Eisenhower

From the link:

US involvement in the Middle East began with Eisenhower An article published in the latest issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly studies the Eisenhower Doctrine of 1957 to find that it first accepted the responsibilities in the Middle East that the U.S. would retain for decades. The doctrine also increased the likelihood that the United States would fight in the region. It declared that the U.S. would use economic and military aid and armed forces to stop the spread of communism in the region; Congress gave Eisenhower the authority to dispense 200 million dollars to any country seeking assistance against communism. Although never formally invoked during his presidency, the doctrine guided his policy in three controversies: preserving the reign of Jordan's King Hussein, organizing military maneuvers against Syria, and performing a military intervention in Lebanon.

Although we need to substitute the word "communism" with the term "Islamic Fascism", the results are the same. So if we are talking phased withdrawal, please let us be honest and talk complete withdrawl from the Middle East. I can't wait to see the Democrats accomplish this.

And one more source for several well written articles on the US involvement in the Middle East.

More Information on the Middle East - Global Issues

[RickSp]

Weasel, I'll keep this simple. The longer we have stayed in Iraq, the worse things have gotten. Notice the trend? Talk of "victory" is an election-time lie. We have lost already and the longer we stay the worse things will become.

[ibm]

what was our "job" in vietnam back then? to beat the commies? did we finish it when we decided to withdraw?

looks like some never learn anything from history. and this whole republican election propaganda is getting incredibly and childishly silly.

[brien]

When the Democrats regain power, it will remain to be seen if they withdraw completely from the Middle East. Iraq is a good start, but the bigger picture is to begin the entire "phased withdrawal" from the region. We will see how well the Democrats live up to their posturing in the peace process of the Middle East.

Does anyone really think the problems that eminate from the US involvement in the Middle East will completely disappear by a withdrawal merely from Iraq? It is a good start but it must be followed up by a complete withdrawal from every other country in the region and a complete overhaul of the policy that supports Israel. Otherwise, Islamic terrorism will continue to threaten the US.

[Georgia]

Well, responding to the title

Support Terrorists By Voting Democratic!

I have no doubt who the terrorists are cheering for.
I heard the terrorists have published a new propaganda clip of snipers killing Americans.
Democrats have been cheering for the terrorists since the beginning.
It's pretty clear.

[brien]

Quote by: RickSp Weasel, I'll keep this simple. The longer we have stayed in Iraq, the worse things have gotten. Notice the trend? Talk of "victory" is an election-time lie. We have lost already and the longer we stay the worse things will become.

Perhaps the Administration could look at it this way:

We have lost 3000 soldiers.

The US has won:

1) The removal of Saddam

2) The elections of a new government

3) The Establishment of a new Government in Iraq.

Perhaps they should declare victory and start the withdrawal. Works for me.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Georgia Democrats have been cheering for the terrorists since the beginning.

Georgia, I will endeavour to be polite. Not only is that statement incredibly insulting, but it is really mind numbingly stupid.

I am not a Democrat and have never been though I have no doubt that you would lump me into the group all the same. I lived through 9/11 up close and personal and I am still angry of about Bush's refusal to go after the terrorists, choosing to invade Iraq instead.

I have posted this elsewhere but it is worth linking to again.

Because of Iraq

[weasel]

"We will have destroyed a threat that is responsible for inhuman carnage. That is something I am confident history will forgive."

- Tony Blair, on Iraq invasion, to US Congress, 18 July, 2003

[RickSp]

And 650,000 dead Iraqi civilians later, with the country slipping into chaos, I rather doubt that history will be too forgiving.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: brien When the Democrats regain power, it will remain to be seen if they withdraw completely from the Middle East. Iraq is a good start, but the bigger picture is to begin the entire "phased withdrawal" from the region. We will see how well the Democrats live up to their posturing in the peace process of the Middle East. Does anyone really think the problems that eminate from the US involvement in the Middle East will completely disappear by a withdrawal merely from Iraq? It is a good start but it must be followed up by a complete withdrawal from every other country in the region and a complete overhaul of the policy that supports Israel. Otherwise, Islamic terrorism will continue to threaten the US.

So what explains Islamic terrorism being directed at Saudi Arabia? Would the withdrawal include Turkey?

[brien]

Quote by: BobbyO So what explains Islamic terrorism being directed at Saudi Arabia? Would the withdrawal include Turkey?

The US needs to withdraw from all foreign countries.