Progressive/Liberal Talking Points: Administration Ignored Real Terrorist Threat

between making the inevitable sacrifices inherent in direct pursuit of Al Qaeda and ignorantly fanning the flames of fundamentalist islamic hatred by waging war on an uninvolved country under a banner of fabrications and lies.

Don't you just love how the Hysteric Left states their opinion as if it were fact??? What "Banner of fabrications and lies?" NOT just empty retoric but ACTUAL documented lies. Provide the DOCUMENTED proof. Not some wacko hate Bush website but REAL proof of these mytical "fabrications and lies".

So basically what you seem to be advocating is "OH, don't fight back against the Terrorists, you will just make them mad." WHEN is the Hysteric Left going to wake up to the fact that 3000 people DIED 9-11 BECAUSE of this pro-terrorist hate American "can't we all just get along" mindset. Instead of the usual hyperbolic hate America retoric, how about some SOLUTIONS from the Hysteric Left from a change? The Hysteric Left spends all this time sneering at Bush's actions but presents NO alternative solutions. So instead of the usual "my aren't I so wise and tolerent" sounding posts full of sneers at Bush, HOW ABOUT THE HYSTERIC LEFT OFFER SOME ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS.

The reason you never see the Hysteric Left offer any solutions is THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY. So instead we get this endless parade of posts sneering at Bush and whining about how he is doing it all wrong. If you want to be taken seriously "Zac79" offer us some ALTERNATIVES solutions rather then just stating your hyper partisan opinions as if they were facts.

Obviously, if someone reaches for a gun to kill you, you have the right to protect your life and shoot first. However, directly outside that sphere of Islamic militants actively engaged in killing Westerners are millions of disenfranchised young Arabs who share the moral code of the terrorists, but simply haven't made the leap to "reaching for" the gun. How do we convice them not to?

I know this is going to blow your hardwired little partisan mind but there is an obvious solution. We teach the Whabbist wanna bees the same way we taught Young Nazis, Young Italian Fascists, young Imperial Japanese Samurai, Young North Koreans, Young Chinese Young North Vietnamese and Young Iraqis. You kill enough of them and they learn that "Jihad" is not a game you want to play with the USA. When is the Hysteric Left going to pull their head out of the sand and deal with reality? What the Islamic Terrorists hate is YOUR SECULAR HUMANISM. The VERY ideas you claim to hold most dear: toleration, respect for religious diversity, women and minority rights etc etc etc, are the ideas that qualify the Westerners as INFIDEL in the minds of the Islamic Terrorists. You cannot sit down and negotiate with people who believe that they gain Heaven by KILLING YOU. There is NO way to peacefully coexist with a group of murderous thugs who loath your very existence and the values that define who you are. PUT all the oh so fashionable hate American pro-terrorist propaganda out of your head and DEAL with the reality. NO matter how much physcobabble pro-terrorist propaganda the Hysteric Left spews out the TERRORIST will STILL want to kill them just for being a Westerners. Time to come out of denial and DEAL with the post 9-11 reality.

Daily Talking Points is a product of the Center for American Progress, a non-partisan research and educational institute committed to progressive principles for a strong, just and free America.

ROTFL! "Non-partisan"... yeah, right!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

Shouldn't there be a closing line at the end of that above? Something like, don't forget napkins for after you drink the Koolaid.

All I had to do was read the words "Center for American Progress" and I knew ;-).

"We went from February of 1993 to September of 2001 without an Al Qaeda strike within the shores of the United States. Does anyone want to argue that the absence of an attack against us over an eight year period means that Clinton's policies worked? I didn't think so."

I guess attacks on US Soldiers, Sailors and Airman overseas don't count. Iraq was responsible for the 1993 WTC attack. Al-Queda's fist attack against the US was in Samolia. It took them years to plan an attack upon US soil. Unmolested by the Clinton administration, Al-Queda was free to develop these attack plans despite repeated attacks on the US military and it's Embassys. And don't forget the offers by Sudan to hand over Bin Laden. Anybody who defends the Clinton administration's "war" on terror is simply ill informed, unable to read or a shameless liberal.

I know this is going to blow your hardwired little partisan mind but there is an obvious solution. We teach the Whabbist wanna bees the same way we taught Young Nazis, Young Italian Fascists, young Imperial Japanese Samurai, Young North Koreans, Young Chinese Young North Vietnamese and Young Iraqis. You kill enough of them and they learn that "Jihad" is not a game you want to play with the USA.

The reason you never see the Hysteric Left offer any solutions is THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY. So instead we get this endless parade of posts sneering at Bush and whining about how he is doing it all wrong. If you want to be taken seriously "Zac79" offer us some ALTERNATIVES solutions rather then just stating your hyper partisan opinions as if they were facts.

I believe that if we were to kill a number of Arabs and Muslims roughly equal in proportion to the number of Japanese and Germans we killed in WW2, we would achieve our stated goal. Is this a realistic approach in 2004 considering the catastrophic effect it would have on global stability?

So what we are trying to do is selectively kill those who present a direct and imminent threat to the people of the Western world. As a Westerner, I, just like you all, support this course of action. I have seen no evidence that Saddam Hussein, as bad as he is, falls into that category of people who present an imminent threat. Anytime we kill anyone in that realm, we convince more people to take the leap from sympathizer to terrorist, so we need to be extremely thoughtful about who we go after.

There is a part of me that would like to see a nuclear warhead go off in Mecca during a holy day, so I find accusations of being a terrorist lover repugnant. However, following through with the grotesque fantasy I just described would only serve to destabilize the world further and undermine the United State's diminishing reputation for being a force for good in the world.

We have to destroy the credibility of the clerics and imams preaching this destructive hatred. What we did in Iraq played right into their message, embellishing, not reducing, their credibility.

What would I have done? Walked away from Saudi Arabia, and the rest of our Arab "allies" on September 12, 2001 in every conceivable sense. No more trade, no more travel, no more visas, no more diplomacy, no more military presence. We would have had to dig deeper into our wallets to find other energy providers, but we were ready to make that sacrifice. I say let the Saudi Royals sleep in the bed they've made.

I think that for the most part, the campaign in Afghanistan was handled correctly and was necessary, which is why it hasn't been the subject of my previous criticism. I think that criticisms of Clinton for allowing Afghanistan to fester as long as it had aren't entirely invalid. I think that the conventional military campaign in Iraq is a waste of money that could have been spent on sabotage, espionage, and other covert operations. You may counter that I have no idea how much is being spent on those things now, to which I reply that I don't think you can overspend in that area right now.

I think that if George W. Bush sincerely believes that building a democracy in the middle east is the path to global stability, then thats how he should have sold the war, not just to Americans but to the rest of the world. He didn't. He used scare tactics by portraying Hussein as someone that was an "imminent" threat to the security of the US. Maybe I am an idiot like so many of you have suggested, but a poor kid from the streets of Cairo with a backpack full of explosives sitting next to me on the subway is a hell of a lot scarier than Saddam's "arsenal" of WMD.

As to the issue of Bill Clinton's failures, the answer is simple. Its obvious his anti-terrorism actions were a failure. 9-11 happened, thereby making them a failure along with Bush's pre-9-11 actions. But Clinton isn't running for office in 2004. GWB is. Once GWB is out of office, his failures as president will be off the table just like Clinton's.

My convictions are my own, as are the words I write. I'm not sure why so many of you are so eager to demean me for my convictions, as I don't recall doing that to any of you. Unless you consider my sheer presence here, thinking freely and speaking freely to be a giant insult.

Furthermore, I don't think I ever labeled myself as a liberal or a leftist. If you must know, I find Bill Maher's "talking points" to be most closely aligned with my own, but the things I have said were my own deductions, despite the fact that there are millions of people who agree with me.

I believe that if we were to kill a number of Arabs and Muslims roughly equal in proportion to the number of Japanese and Germans we killed in WW2, we would achieve our stated goal. Is this a realistic approach in 2004 considering the catastrophic effect it would have on global stability?

No but no one's proposing that (except you). The only person here who's even remotely implied that it's rational to think the enemy includes the entire group "Arabs and Muslims" is you.

So what we are trying to do is selectively kill those who present a direct and imminent threat to the people of the Western world.

Or harbor or aid those who do. This was called the "Bush Doctrine". You're trying to change it (by implying that they must be a "direct" threat - and I suppose you get to define what's "direct" and what isn't)

I have seen no evidence that Saddam Hussein, as bad as he is, falls into that category of people who present an imminent threat.

That's true. But this was never the argument in the first place. Nice demolition of a straw man.

Anytime we kill anyone in that realm, we convince more people to take the leap from sympathizer to terrorist

That's an offensive thing to say. (To Arab-Muslims.) You're saying that "anytime" we kill "anyone" in that "realm", people get angry at us for doing it. EVEN IF THAT PERSON IS A MURDEROUS BASTARD. "Arab-Muslims love murderous bastards who are also Arab-Muslim" is essentially what you're saying. Vile slander.

we need to be extremely thoughtful about who we go after.

Fair enough. Saddam Hussein wasn't fair game because...?

We have to destroy the credibility of the clerics and imams preaching this destructive hatred.

credibility of the clerics... clerics... whatever, I'm not picky.

What we did in Iraq played right into their message, embellishing, not reducing, their credibility.

With whom? Idiots? Clerics preaching "don't touch Saddam!!" from Iran certainly didn't increase their credibility with most of the actual people who had to live under Saddam.

What would I have done? Walked away from Saudi Arabia, and the rest of our Arab "allies" on September 12, 2001 in every conceivable sense. No more trade,

There goes our economy. People whining now about a "jobless recovery" have NO IDEA what you'd have in store for 'em

I say let the Saudi Royals sleep in the bed they've made.

Heh. Like they'd care. I'm not sure how well you understand economics but oil is a commodity. They can actually sell it to other people even if we refused to buy from them. Then, most likely, those other people would turn around and sell it to us for a profit, playing middle-man. This all damages the Saudis how?? Why don't we just cut off our nose to spite our face.

I think that the conventional military campaign in Iraq is a waste of money that could have been spent on sabotage, espionage, and other covert operations. You may counter that I have no idea how much is being spent on those things now, to which I reply that I don't think you can overspend in that area right now.

In that case why aren't you pushing for cancellation of Medicare, Social Security and all other government programs? If you "can't overspend" on covert ops and all, that must mean those things are INFINITELY VALUABLE and there's no need to think about messy trade-offs. Just spend all our public outlays on covert ops! Can't spend enough!

Or maybe it's not that covert ops is "infinitely" valuable, but rather, you don't think what we're doing in Iraq has any value, that's why you can make this unthinking tradeoff so easily?

I think that if George W. Bush sincerely believes that building a democracy in the middle east is the path to global stability, then thats how he should have sold the war, not just to Americans but to the rest of the world.

What you seem not to understand is that the only basis the US as a state could POSSIBLY have to "sell" this war to "the rest of the world" (meaning the UN) was violation-of-UN-resolutions. Essentially, "WMD" were the only charges we could bring Saddam up on, before the UN. What the heck does the UN care about democracy in the middle east? Not their jurisdiction. The argument you are proposing Bush should have made to "the rest of the world" (the UN) would have been dead on arrival.

The feds nailed Al Capone on tax charges because that's what they could bring him up on in the venue they brought him before. We nailed Saddam on "WMD" charges for much the same reason. There's nothing invalid about either of these things, and the fact that Capone and Saddam were also guilty of other stuff - and that other stuff was the real reason we were interested in these men - does not invalidate the charges against them.

He used scare tactics by portraying Hussein as someone that was an "imminent" threat to the security of the US.

No he didn't. That's just a lie.

And what the hell are those quotes doing there? Who are you quoting?

And what the hell are those quotes doing there? Who are you quoting?

Donald Rumsfeld, December 2002 I believe.

[Who are you quoting?] Donald Rumsfeld, December 2002 I believe

You "believe"? Got a link?

If you're referring to the 11/14/02 quote here, you've taken the word "imminent" out of context, where it was used as a part of a larger rhetorical argument, involving rhetorical questions. There is no claim in that quote from Rumsfeld that Iraq was an "imminent threat". Rumsfeld is questioning the entire validity of the "imminent" concept in the first place.

And even if it were a (non-out-of-context) Rumsfeld quote, I have to wonder why you used it in a sentence about Bush. Your sentence was "He used scare tactics by portraying Hussein as someone that was an "imminent" threat to the security of the US." and the "He" in that sentence was Bush, not Rumsfeld.

Get your facts straight before you come here with baseless claims.

And thanks for ignoring the rest of my responses to you, unchallenged.