In today’s claim that Al Qaeda was stronger than before 9.11 Harry Reid departed reality to such an extent that it could only be true in Bizarro world, where everything is its polar opposite. It is almost inconceivable that the prevarication and distortion in which Reid engages could possibly bespeak a patriotic purpose.
Of course, neither the Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West report nor any other document contains the favorable comparison of Al Qaeda’s strategic position now and on 9.11 that Reid implied. In fact, even Walter Pincus’ typically misleading story, and the WaPo’s even more misleading headline, contains the following statement of fact in describing the classified report’s conclusions: “While asserting that al-Qaeda is still considerably weaker than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001….” In fact, the report merely says that Al Qaeda has regrouped in Waziristan and is stronger than it was one year ago in that area. Al Qaeda is overwhelmingly weaker than before 9.11 and here are a few reasons:
1. They can no longer use the governmental resources of Afghanistan, like passports, banking, diplomatic credentials, military assistance and intelligence and coercive population drafts to fill manpower requirements.
2. They can no longer receive diplomatic assistance and safe haven in Iraq. Surely even the most useful of idiots would admit that Iraq is more dangerous for jihadists than before the Iraqi invasion. If you don’t believe me, ask Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, although you will have to speak up for him to hear.
3. They can no longer receive safe haven and diplomatic assistance from Libya and a large number of other countries.
Not the only victories in the shadow war against unlawful combatants who are motivated to kill with savagery that makes the Nazi death camps look like mealtime on the set of Frasier, but highly significant strategic victories nonetheless. Since W has maintained the United States secure from mass casualty terror attack against civilians or peace time military bases and ships for the longest period time since, well, the last time the Republicans ran foreign policy, January 21, 1993 and the first WTC bombing only four weeks later he must be doing something pretty dead center perfect.
Reid went so far as to say that UBL could openly travel. Where do these relaxing sojourns occur, in the dense mountains of Waziristan, perhaps the most remote location on earth? Here is something UBL cannot do today that he could do before 9.11, get on a plane in Khartoum or Mogadishu and get a military jet escort from the Afghani border to Kabul Airport. UBL cannot even use a cell phone, much less travel openly. Reid also ignored Pakistan’s ongoing war against the Waziristan Al Qaeda inspired extremists who shelter the 6’5” UBL and his lieutenants.
Moreover, the circumstance of this report is not new, nor is the criticism arising therefrom. The Al Qaeda/Taliban forces renew strength in the winter, come out swinging and we slaughter them. We have all heard the same complaint before. That certainly sounds like a war winning strategy to me.
Although the actual contents are far more restrained, and merely describe growing strength and willingness to attack than two years ago, Dingy Harry certainly seized the opportunity to pursue his campaign for the erosion of American credibility abroad and public morale at home. The question of Reid’s motivation for such distortion must logically arise from his statement of today.
One could assume that Reid is offering some bona fide alternative path to victory in the War on Terror (if he thinks there is such a war). If so, whatever is it? The only thing we hear from the appeasers (and yes, appeasement and weakness are a bi-partisan failing) is an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq. So how would it strengthen our strategic position in the WoT if the forces of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia get to implement their agenda for Iraq? The appeasement monkeys provide no reason to believe that the same global jihad that has poured its resources into Iraq would just leave Iraq if the US alliance leaves. Their most recent statements certainly echo the President in one respect; Iraq is the central front in Al Qaeda’s war on the West and its Great Satanic protector here in the land of the silver dollar.
Beyond the false and mindless distortion of Reid’s statement is the absence of any good faith alternative. What would Dingy Harry do, other than attack George W. Bush? Even on this blog, the only alternatives that we hear are silly, like “leave enough troops to fight Al Qaeda”. So, how many is that? Where this unknown number would be based is another rather significant question left unanswered? What would they do while there? Why would that battlefield scenario differ from the current battlefield scenario? Whatever the debate on troop levels before the invasion, there is now an overwhelming military consensus that the pre-surge force levels were insufficient for battlefield victory. Perhaps Dingy Harry should take his own advice and listen to the generals.
Maybe Dingy Harry and Damascus Nancy would cross the Waziri border and invade Pakistan? That would be a diplomatic approach consistent with calling our allies the “coalition of the bribed”. How would increased US force levels, in the highly inhospitable terrain of Afghanistan capture UBL in the even more remote terrain of Pakistan?
So, what is it Harry, are you living in Bizarro world or have you sunk so low in your venal grasp for even more earmark power that you are willing to give Al Qaeda the resources in Iraq that they had in Afghanistan before the Coalition invasion as the price? If it is the former, you are simply delusional and unfit to lead. If the latter is your true motive, as your refusal to answer any of the foregoing questions makes it seem, then history will put you and those like you in well known company, Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold.
Of course, neither the Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West report nor any other document contains the favorable comparison of Al Qaeda’s strategic position now and on 9.11 that Reid implied. In fact, even Walter Pincus’ typically misleading story, and the WaPo’s even more misleading headline, contains the following statement of fact in describing the classified report’s conclusions: “While asserting that al-Qaeda is still considerably weaker than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001….” In fact, the report merely says that Al Qaeda has regrouped in Waziristan and is stronger than it was one year ago in that area. Al Qaeda is overwhelmingly weaker than before 9.11 and here are a few reasons:
1. They can no longer use the governmental resources of Afghanistan, like passports, banking, diplomatic credentials, military assistance and intelligence and coercive population drafts to fill manpower requirements.
2. They can no longer receive diplomatic assistance and safe haven in Iraq. Surely even the most useful of idiots would admit that Iraq is more dangerous for jihadists than before the Iraqi invasion. If you don’t believe me, ask Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, although you will have to speak up for him to hear.
3. They can no longer receive safe haven and diplomatic assistance from Libya and a large number of other countries.
Not the only victories in the shadow war against unlawful combatants who are motivated to kill with savagery that makes the Nazi death camps look like mealtime on the set of Frasier, but highly significant strategic victories nonetheless. Since W has maintained the United States secure from mass casualty terror attack against civilians or peace time military bases and ships for the longest period time since, well, the last time the Republicans ran foreign policy, January 21, 1993 and the first WTC bombing only four weeks later he must be doing something pretty dead center perfect.
Reid went so far as to say that UBL could openly travel. Where do these relaxing sojourns occur, in the dense mountains of Waziristan, perhaps the most remote location on earth? Here is something UBL cannot do today that he could do before 9.11, get on a plane in Khartoum or Mogadishu and get a military jet escort from the Afghani border to Kabul Airport. UBL cannot even use a cell phone, much less travel openly. Reid also ignored Pakistan’s ongoing war against the Waziristan Al Qaeda inspired extremists who shelter the 6’5” UBL and his lieutenants.
Moreover, the circumstance of this report is not new, nor is the criticism arising therefrom. The Al Qaeda/Taliban forces renew strength in the winter, come out swinging and we slaughter them. We have all heard the same complaint before. That certainly sounds like a war winning strategy to me.
Although the actual contents are far more restrained, and merely describe growing strength and willingness to attack than two years ago, Dingy Harry certainly seized the opportunity to pursue his campaign for the erosion of American credibility abroad and public morale at home. The question of Reid’s motivation for such distortion must logically arise from his statement of today.
One could assume that Reid is offering some bona fide alternative path to victory in the War on Terror (if he thinks there is such a war). If so, whatever is it? The only thing we hear from the appeasers (and yes, appeasement and weakness are a bi-partisan failing) is an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq. So how would it strengthen our strategic position in the WoT if the forces of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia get to implement their agenda for Iraq? The appeasement monkeys provide no reason to believe that the same global jihad that has poured its resources into Iraq would just leave Iraq if the US alliance leaves. Their most recent statements certainly echo the President in one respect; Iraq is the central front in Al Qaeda’s war on the West and its Great Satanic protector here in the land of the silver dollar.
Beyond the false and mindless distortion of Reid’s statement is the absence of any good faith alternative. What would Dingy Harry do, other than attack George W. Bush? Even on this blog, the only alternatives that we hear are silly, like “leave enough troops to fight Al Qaeda”. So, how many is that? Where this unknown number would be based is another rather significant question left unanswered? What would they do while there? Why would that battlefield scenario differ from the current battlefield scenario? Whatever the debate on troop levels before the invasion, there is now an overwhelming military consensus that the pre-surge force levels were insufficient for battlefield victory. Perhaps Dingy Harry should take his own advice and listen to the generals.
Maybe Dingy Harry and Damascus Nancy would cross the Waziri border and invade Pakistan? That would be a diplomatic approach consistent with calling our allies the “coalition of the bribed”. How would increased US force levels, in the highly inhospitable terrain of Afghanistan capture UBL in the even more remote terrain of Pakistan?
So, what is it Harry, are you living in Bizarro world or have you sunk so low in your venal grasp for even more earmark power that you are willing to give Al Qaeda the resources in Iraq that they had in Afghanistan before the Coalition invasion as the price? If it is the former, you are simply delusional and unfit to lead. If the latter is your true motive, as your refusal to answer any of the foregoing questions makes it seem, then history will put you and those like you in well known company, Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold.
10 comments:
I don’t think we need to get into this point by point. Again. But, you really must live in some sort of an alternate universe when you try to make yourself believe that we are somehow in a better position in WOT and strategically stronger in foreign policy thanks to the Iraq debacle.
The whole house of cards will come crashing down if/when the terrorists strike inside the U.S. again. “W has kept us safe” is pretty much the last line of semi-logical defense one can come up for W’s sad tenure.
As a fellow D pointed out on Bleeding Heartland, why haven’t we been hearing anything about “up & down votes” since D’s took over? Nothing significant D’s want is getting an up & down vote in Senate. What’s up with that? - We D’s are such bad sloganeers.
Let me guess - if the US gets hit with another terrorist attack - it will be the DEMS fault. According to Sporer logic they have all but invited them in and given them the material they need. At some point in time I hope reality sets in with you and you have the balls to admit this whole Iraq fiasco was a mistake.
I provided several almost indisputable facts to support my position. I can provide others. Syrian presence in Lebanon greatly diminished. Al Qaeda largely driven out of Somalia. Aku Kahn corralled. Iran militarily encircled-an enormous strategic advantage.
The election of a more aggressive governments in NATO are increasing NATO committments in Afghanistan and elsewhere, which allow US forces to focus on the hardest combat missions.
We have far better relations with several Islamic countries, notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc...
Where am I mistaken. Of course it hasn't been done with perfection or without cost, but we are grinding them down. Jihadi's don't have unlimited manpower or resources.
The evidence of success or failure isn't in an iteration of its cost, its the final result. Right now, all of the foregoing is measured against amorphous conjecture like "more people are hostile", etc....
Why haven't the bad guys been able to successfully launch all of those devastating terror attacks that the liberal press predicted when they were drooling all over Richard Clarke. Weren't we supposed to be nuked by now?
War sucks, it has a big cost. This is going to be a long one but I'd rather have our global position than theirs.
........... and finally, if Iraq isn't the central front in the war on terror why do the jihadists say that it is? why have they poured into Iraq? Because it's unimportant and unworthy of their blood and treasure seems an unwise assumption for "defense" policy.
Anon, no, it will be the terrorists' fault. The Dems make it easier but they are not at fault.
I have provided numerous examples of our tremendous strategic gains and you all respond with advocacy statements or similar complaints about casualties, etc.....
Unfortunately, the people who really are responsible for protecting you and me cannot assume benevolent premises for the terrorists.
Plus you libs prove my point. YOu answered not a single question I posed.
Decent analysis Sporer but the problem with people like me is that I am a patriot. Because of that, I am sick of seeing our country humiliated because our President is incompetent.
AQ has regrouped in Waziristan and Peshwar because Bush refuses to send in the B-52s. Mookie Al Sadr is still inhabiting the planet and Sadr City is not a smouldering crater. Our troops still have to consult a card to see if they can fire back and the ones that DO fire back, end up on trial at Camp Pendleton.
Take this with the recently confirmed "graduation" video, where the diaperheads and goatf--kers are out in the open, it appears that AQ is still clearly a threat.
Simply put, Ted. This war should have been over years ago. Fight like WW2, end like WW2. Fight like Vietnam, end like Vietnam.
One more thing:
The more I think about it, the more I realize how dead wrong Sam Switchback is. There is not a "diplomatic" solution to this Iraq debacle. The only solution is to KILL THE DAMN TERRORISTS and to do so in a brutal and efficient manner.
Switchback is sounding more and more like a Bush clone. Bush Lite. Better yet, Bush 2.0.
Sporer,
“I have provided numerous examples of our tremendous strategic gains” – Tremendous strategic gains? What are you smoking? You don’t acknowledge the much more obvious and incredibly tremendous strategic losses we have suffered. With that level of denial, no use really going back and forth on this, again. No use answering your questions when you are not acknowledging reality. Sorry.
rf - what are the obvious and incredibly tremendous strategic losses we have suffered?
If you really have to ask, you must be living in the W/Sporer alternate universe/bubble where reality does not interfere with fancy. Also, I’m a bit tired of debating this topic, since we seem to be going over and over the same old arguments.
But, since I couldn’t keep from commenting, I at the very least owe you a greatly condensed version of my analysis: With the Iraq War, W has more or less depleted three crucial resources: political capital (both international and domestic), military resources, and monetary resources. In my view, to argue that we are in a stronger position because of the Iraq debacle is laughable.
Post a Comment