Ask Me Help Desk - Dems pounce when McCain misspeaks on Iraq

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman has to travel with John McCain to make certain that he keeps the Terrorist fairy tale straight. Now I am confused. Are we fighting Al Qaeda or are we supposed to be afraid of everyone? Has the list of our enemies shifted from Al Qaeda to everyone? I am so confused. Could one of you NeoCons please enlighten me? Boy, me and John McCain just can't remember who we are supposed to be afraid of! Wasn't John McCain briefed on this or will the Zionist Joseph I. Lieberman have to follow Mr. McCain around forever?
McCain misspeaks on Iraq - The New York Times - MSNBC.com

Let me take you back to April of last year Gen Caldwell speaking about Iranian training of the insurgency said :

Quote:

In an unusual development, he said coalition forces have found evidence that Sunni insurgents in Iraq received help from intelligence services in the Shiite nation of Iran.
"We have in fact found some cases recently where Iranian intelligence services have provided to some Sunni insurgent groups, some support," Caldwell said. "We do continue to see the Iranian intelligence services being active here in Iraq in terms of both providing funding and providing weapons and munitions."

Iraqi insurgents being trained in Iran, U.S. says - CNN.com

Do you really think Iran cares what sect they are training when it comes to doing injury to the United States or Israel ? Tell me then ;what sect is Hamas ? Middle East: Analyst Discusses Relations Between Iran And Hamas - RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY

The more I think of this the more laughable it becomes . Even the 9-11 Commission saw the link between Iranian cooperation and la-Qaeda
.
Iran's Link to Al-Qaeda: The 9-11 Commission's Evidence - Middle East Quarterly

Before Lieberman put his nose up John McCain's tuchus, I actually respected the man a lot more. Now I think he took a step or two backwards. John McCain, has only one issue in his attempt for bid of the White House, the "Iraqi War." If we look at the whole picture, anyone with a grain of commonsense understands that Iraq is not going to become the 51'st State of the United States of America. When George Hebert Walker finished we paraded Schwarzkopf in a convertible as people showered him with praises. Some twenty years later we are back over there. Sure Hussein was a tyrant and a murderer, but Al qaeda never even considered attempting to be in Iraq when he was in power. Dubya's admin, as tacticians, are genuine screw-ups. BTW oil went up to over one hundred dollars a barrel for the first time in our history a few weeks back and now other country's currency is stronger than our. The Iraqi factions have been fighting with each other and will continue the civil unrest long after after we leave, if it's tomorrow or a hundred years from now, as McCain has dreamt. I hope McCain moves his permanent residency to Iraq. Go McCain, go.

Quote:

but Al qaeda never even considered attempting to be in Iraq when he was in power

Ansar al Islam is the terrorist group that connects al-Qaeda to Saddam .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Ansar al Islam is the terrorist group that connects al-Qaeda to Saddam .

Osama's head would have been hanging from a pole if he crossed paths with Saddam. BTW how's the hunt for Osama coming along five plus years later? I'm looking forward to one on those patent speeches of his, were he broadcasts from an unknown location, only to the chagrin of the Bush administration.

Quote:

Osama's head would have been hanging from a pole if he crossed paths with Saddam.

Agreed ;The Pentagon report based on an evaluation of Iraqi papers translated makes it clear that Saddam was more than willing to collaborate with AQ when there was common interest . But he really did not trust them . His collaboration came in the forming of Ansar -al -Islam to terror attack the Kurds. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was trained in Pakistan by AQ eventually went to Iraq to lead Ansar -al -Islam. He met with Saddam frequently before the US invasion .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Agreed ;The Pentagon report based on an evaluation of Iraqi papers translated makes it clear that Saddam was more than willing to collaborate with AQ when there was common interest . But he really did not trust them . His collaboration came in the forming of Ansar -al -Islam to terror attack the Kurds. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was trained in Pakistan by AQ eventually went to Iraq to lead Ansar -al -Islam. He met with Saddam frequently before the US invasion .

That's my point. These recognized enemies of each other would had murdered each, but no thanks to Herbert with his headfirst plunge into Iraq he has reunited forces of hate toward Americans and some twenty years later Dubya has kept the legacy alive. Let's not forget that Ronald Reagan originally had his hand in the cookie jar also. Boy I'm sure all those US loans to Saddam has paid dividends. For heavens sake what a mess the Bush family has got us into. Here's the history: Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

"Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)"

The history goes much longer than 1982 of course. Iran and Iraq were considered the twin pillars by the realpolitik cold warriors who saw the world in a super power struggle. Forgive me if I don't defend the policies of those days . You can tell me about supporting the overthrow of the elected leader of Iran and I would say that was most likely short sighted on our part . I even give Jimmy the C some slack for not doing anything to prop up Shah Palavi although in retrospect the Iranians were much better off under him . But the Reagan adm. Was 100 percent in their assement that it was not in anyone's interest to let the messianic delusional dictatorial theocratic Mullahs of Tehran to control the region .

They have been at war with us ever since. That is the reality . Another reality is that the Mahdi Hatter's goons have been supplying and training jihadists who have attacked and continue to attack the US forces in Iraq . Any retaliation on our part is long over due .

Saddams alliance of convenience with terrorists predates OIF .It is more rooted in the unsatisfactory conclusion of Desert Storm. He should've been decapitated then.

Right! But the Bush admin didn't see the cosequences. That is, you and I know the history goes back for a very long time. I say it will continue if we are under McCain for the next hundred years, or in a couple of years decide to use phased re-deployment. As harsh as it sounds, the reality is we have permitted wars between several sides to diminish themselves and normally we drop strategic bomb payloads and get out. The recent Bush admin did neither, instead plunged headfirst.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BABRAM

Before Lieberman put his nose up John McCain's tuchus, I actually respected the man a lot more. Now I think he took a step or two backwards. John McCain, has only one issue in his attempt for bid of the White House, the "Iraqi War." If we look at the whole picture, anyone with a grain of commonsense understands that Iraq is not going to become the 51'st State of the United States of America. When George Hebert Walker finished we paraded Schwarzkopf in a convertible as people showered him with praises. Some twenty years later we are back over there. Sure Hussein was a tyrant and a murderer, but Al qaeda never even considered attempting to be in Iraq when he was in power. Dubya's admin, as tacticians, are genuine screw-ups. BTW oil went up to over one hundred dollars a barrel for the first time in our history a few weeks back and now other country's currency is stronger than our. The Iraqi factions have been fighting with each other and will continue the civil unrest long after after we leave, if it's tomorrow or a hundred years from now, as McCain has dreamt. I hope McCain moves his permanent residency to Iraq. Go McCain, go.

You can take the boy out of the tribe but you can't take the tribe out of the boy.

Bobby ;aren't you glad you can side with an unabashed anti-semite?

Fark you tom. Just call me ETNAZARENE.

U.S. weekly initial jobless claims rise 22,000 to 378,000 - MarketWatch

Politically... you are wrong about most of it. I know you are not dumb though, just brainwashed. Your party is dragging us and the world down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Bobby ;aren't you glad you can side with an unabashed anti-semite?

Why? Is Hagee running for president? You really should let that one trick mule drink once in awhile.

Vail Colorado-Todays information & news from Vail Daily - Commentary

"Matt Zalaznick
Vail, CO Colorado
March 20, 2008

White America and its news anchors are still afraid of black men. Especially angry ones who criticize the homeland.

I see bigotry, racism, xenophobia, antipathy and distrust in the hysterical reactions to the speeches of Barack Obama's fiery pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and the guilt-by-association some hope will torpedo the Democratic frontrunner's presidential aspirations.

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I detect a slight trace of glee in the full-frontal assault on Obama's connection to Wright by the likes of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and other less-demented pundits'

They seem to almost be breathing a sigh of relief that, if the inflammatory pastor finally sinks his unflappable follower, the threat of a black president will have passed, and we can all move on to being worried about a female commander in chief.

While Jeremiah Wright strikes fear into the hearts of America (and its 24-hour news channels) when he suggests U.S. policy may have triggered the rage behind Sept. 11, white “men of god” and white politicians can bash gays without making a single headline.

And if they do make headlines, their “holiness” — or their skin color — seems to excuse their hate speech. Sometimes, the media and others turn the harmless white bigot into a victim when he or she is blasted and scorned for intolerance.

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum used to call gays one of the biggest threats to America. Former presidential candidate and Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo has called other cultures a major threat to America.

But W. has never been vilified quite like Obama has for his ties to these cultural cavemen, or for his ties to leaders to the religious right who spew even worse hate speech — all while visiting Denver prostitutes.

But a black preacher's sometimes over-the-top anger at a nation that has, during its history, treated his people beyond dreadfully is portrayed as something dangerous, even seditious.

A key part of Obama's riveting speech on race Tuesday was when he talked about the anger and bitterness still felt by blacks of his pastor's generation. Wright still distrusts white America, and the progress made on civil rights hasn't allayed his fears that there could still be backlash against blacks by the ethic majority.

If blacks could be enslaved in the 19th Century and lynched and oppressed well into the 20th, what's to say it couldn't happen again? It may seem unlikely, but that must be the fear that drives some of Wright's anger.

As a Jew, I can't compare my easy American experience to that of American blacks, but I can understand how an older generations' memories of a harsh past can breed fears of future persecution.

Many Jews of my grandparents' and parents generations' — some of whom may never have experienced direct anti-Semitism unless they tried to join the local country club — have a lingering fear that, if our people could have been slaughtered and discriminated against for hundreds of years, Jews also could once again become the target of a tyrannical government, even here in the Land of the Free.

In fact, many Jews I know said the most uncomfortable they've ever been in their lives about their religion has been during George W. Bush's presidency.

A few white Christian males have even adopted a sort-of “reverse victimhood.” They have dominated the nation for so much of its history that when their primacy begins to teeter a bit, they try to play the role of the persecuted when the true victims of the past — such as Jeremiah Wright and his congregation — express their anger and remind the majority of its crimes.

The most offensive aspect of the recent attacks on Obama and his pastor is the ownership the white majority takes of the United States when they brand people like Jeremiah Wright traitors because they've said very unpleasant things about the way we, as a nation, have behaved.

But the great thing about the United States is that — unlike some nations where we are fighting wars (Iraq) or propping up shady regimes (Saudi Arabia) to ensure our oil supply — the country does not belong to any single ethnicity, gender or religion.

To suggest otherwise — and to levy even greater scorn on a member of a minority for criticizing Uncle Sam — is to show a true lack of patriotism."

Quote:

the threat of a black president will have passed, and we can all move on to being worried about a female commander in chief.

Not true .

I would gladly line up and support the right black and the right woman. In fact I think there already is both in one person in Condi Rice. But if she were to run no doubt it would be the left showing their intolerance as we have seen them demonstate many times in the most vile way against her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

not true .

I would gladly line up and support the right black and the right woman. in fact I think there already is both in one person in Condi Rice. But if she were to run no doubt it would be the left showing their intolerance as we have seen them demonstate many times in the most vile way against her.

History's on my side! Name me one black or woman president.

Show me the black or women candidate until now worthy of consideration . Perhaps we should have affirmative action for the Presidency also . I just mentioned one person who's experience and skills merits consideration .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

show me the black or women candidate until now worthy of consideration . perhaps we should have affirmative action for the Presidency also . I just mentioned one person who's experience and skills merits consideration .

Ah-ha! Only "Black Republicans" are White enough for Republican support.

Unlike your two candidates she has achievement worthy of the position . All your candidates have is hue and the correct gender .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

unlike your two candidates she has achievment worthy of the position . All your candidates have is hue and the correct gender .

Geraldine "Tom" Ferraro, you should be ashamed of yourself. :)