the left's defeatist lies are losing traction

[there buster]

November 21, 2007 -- THE situation in Iraq has im proved so rapidly that Democrats now shun the topic as thoroughly as they shun our troops when the cameras aren't around.

Yes, Iraq could still slip back into reverse gear. And no, we're not going to get a perfect outcome. But the positive indicators are now so strong that the left's defeatist lies are losing traction among the American people.

Attacks of every kind are down by at least half - in some cases by more than three-quarters. A wounded country's struggling back to health. And our mortal enemies, al Qaeda's terrorists, have suffered a defeat from which they may never fully recover: They've lost street cred.

Our dead and wounded have not bled in vain.

What happened? How did this startling turnabout come to pass? Why does the good news continue to compound?

Some of the reasons are widely known, but others have been missed. Here are the "big five" reasons for the shift from near-failure to growing success:

We didn't quit: Even as some of us began to suspect that Iraqi society was hopelessly sick, our troops stood to and did their duty bravely. The tenacity of our soldiers and Marines in the face of mortal enemies in Iraq and blithe traitors at home is the No. 1 reason why Iraq has turned around.

Without their valor and sacrifice, nothing else would've mattered. Key leaders were courageous, too - men such as now-Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno. Big Ray was pilloried in our media for being too warlike, too aggressive and just too damned tough on our enemies.

Well, the Ray Odiernos, not the hearts-and-minds crowd, held the line against evil. Only by hammering our enemies year after year were we able to convince them that we couldn't - and wouldn't - be beaten. If the press wronged any single man or woman in uniform, it was Odierno - thank God he was promoted and stayed in the fight.

Gen. David Petraeus took command: Petraeus brought three vital qualities to our effort: He wants to win, not just keep the lid on the pot; he never stops learning and adapting, and he provides top-cover for innovative subordinates.

By late 2006, mid-level commanders were already seizing opportunities to draw former enemies into an alliance against al Qaeda. Petraeus saw the potential for a strategic shift. He ignored the naysayers and supported what worked.

Oh, and under Petraeus our troops have been relentless in their pursuit of our enemies. Contrary to the myths of the left, peace can only be built over the corpses of evil men.

The surge: While the increase in troop numbers was important, allowing us to consolidate gains in neighborhoods we'd rid of terrorists and insurgents, the psychological effect of the surge was crucial.

Pre-surge, our enemies were convinced they were winning - they monitored our media, which assured them that America would quit. Sorry, Muqtada - that's what you get for believing The New York Times.

The message sent by the surge was that we not only wouldn't quit, but also were upping the ante. It stunned our enemies - while giving Sunni Arabs disenchanted with al Qaeda the confidence to flip to our side without fear of abandonment.

Fanatical enemies: We lucked out when al Qaeda declared Iraq the central front in its war against civilization. Our monstrous foes alienated their local allies so utterly that al Qaeda in Iraq is now largely a spent force - the hunted, not the hunters. The terrorists have suffered a strategic humiliation.

Religious fanatics always overdo their savagery - but you can't predict the alienation time-line. Al Qaeda's blood-thirst accelerated the process, helping us immensely.

The Iraqis are sick of bloodshed and destruction: This is the least-recognized factor - but it's critical. We still don't fully understand the mechanics of black-to-white mood shifts in populations, but such transitions determine strategic outcomes.

What we do know is that, when tyrannical regimes collapse in artificial states such as Iraq (or the former Yugoslavia), a lot of pent-up grudges play out violently. People seem to need to get suppressed hatreds out of their systems.

The peace-through-exhaustion mood swing happened abruptly in Iraq. Suddenly, the people have had their fill of gunmen and gangsters who claim to be their defenders. Heads-down passivity has morphed into active resistance to the terrorists and militias.

We're all sober now, Americans and Iraqis. And peace is built on sobriety, not passion.

As Thanksgiving approaches, consider a vignette from Baghdad:

As part of its campaign to eliminate Iraq's Christian communities, al Qaeda in 2004 bombed St. John's Christian church in Doura, in the city's southern badlands. By last spring, local services had stopped completely.

Our Army's 2nd Battalion of the 12th Infantry stepped up. Under Lt. Col. Stephen Michael (a Newark native), our soldiers methodically cleaned up Doura - no easy or painless task - and aided the reconstruction of the church.

Last week, a grateful congregation returned for a service that was, literally, a resurrection. Fifteen local Muslim sheikhs attended the Mass to support their Christian neighbors. Could there be a more hopeful symbol?

Those long-suffering Iraqi Christians will celebrate Christmas in their neighborhood church this year. "Peace on earth" will mean more to them than mere words in a carol.

As for the grunts of 2-12 Infantry who made it all possible, their motto is "Ducti Amore Patria," or "Having been led by love of country."

On Thanksgiving Day, be thankful for such men.

[Joe_in_RP]

What can I say. I am speechless.

I wonder if the rest of the world knows this?

[there buster]

[John317]

Amen! I am deeply grateful for such soldiers. Thank you, Ed, for that great news item.

[Neil D]

I too am glad that we have soldiers to go where our leaders want them to go...Wise leaders make wise choices to further our national interests....

but I am bothered by the article...

I am bothered that we Christians are emphizing this world as our home, when we should be reminding ourselves that 'this world is not our home' and that we are just passing thru.... Oh, I know that we desire to leave it in better condition than how we recieved it, but it seems to me that the more we meddle, the more troublesome the problem becomes, and the more troublesome we become with ourselves....We argue and wrangle arguements and all the while forget Jesus' words- "Blessed are the peacemakers", and " Blessed are the merciful"...

Just think for a moment, if we had done more talking before we had been rushing in without a plan? Why, there wouldn't be the causulties today that we currently have...We would have been more judicious in our planning to topple Saddam, and would have immediately put into plan the rebuilding of Iraq with local population with good paying jobs too...We would not have needed to spend so much on protecting, as we would have encouraging the rebuilding...Instead, when we got in there, we waited for 6 month twiddling our thumbs...Dureing this time, we were not looked upon as rescuers, but rather as occupiers, and then as an opposing army...This gave the discontented time to vent thier frustrations out upon the 'rescuers'. The local population at first looked on us with guardedness, and then as we allowed looters and chaos to reign, they began to look at us with contempt. they didn't want OUR lifestyle...they wanted their own....Our policy was to give the our lifestyle and democracy...Their culture wasnt ready for that...It took us a long time to figure that out...In fact,2 terms and 3000+ of our best women and men to figure that out.

The American people said that it should have taken only ONE term to see those results that Ed put up..It was the progressive liberals who demanded change. And it took the 2nd term for the current administration to get the message. Now the GOP is searching for a new leader, and America is nearly berift of money, influence, and has a lot of debt, so much so that our grandchildren will be paying on it...Our dollar is weak, which comes as some benefit, and some not very good benefits. As a collective, the american people want some energy changes so that we are not dependant upon the middle east for oil. We are tired of that middle east stuff...The honest truth is that our state of the Union sucks...

and our leaders are sitting on thier hands....when they need to get off thier tush and get to work...

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I am bothered that we Christians are emphizing this world as our home

Too many Christian groups are guilty of this. I wouldn't lump Adventists in with them. Adventists tend to focus a lot on prophecy and the hope of Jesus return.

Quote:

if we had done more talking before we had been rushing in without a plan?

The US spent over 12 years talking. We had a plan. The defeat of Saddam will go down in history as one of the most magnificent military victories in the history of warfare. The plan did not anticipate Iran supporting the insurgency. Consequently many mistakes were made in dealing with the insurgency.

Quote:

there wouldn't be the causulties today that we currently have...

Saddam would have gotten sanctions lifted and be well on is way to a nuclear bomb.

Quote:

would have immediately put into plan the rebuilding of Iraq with local population with good paying jobs too...

We have been rebuilding Iraq. The country's infrastructure is actually in better shape now than when it was under Saddam. It is the insurgency that is working against the people of Iraq and tearing down the infrastructure - not the US and its allies.

Quote:

we were not looked upon as rescuers, but rather as occupiers, and then as an opposing army...

The only area where the majority of Iraqis have felt this way is within the Sunni triangle. In the south and the north, only a minority of Iraqis have felt this way. Taking the entire population into consideration, the majority of Iraqis respect our motives. The problem is the insurgents - not the US. Most Iraqis know that, they are not stupid or blind.

Quote:

the american people want some energy changes so that we are not dependant upon the middle east for oil.

There is a lot of untapped oil in Alaska and off shore. If the American people want change so bad, they should let their elected leaders know. We can also convert coal into crude oil for $40/barrel and we have over 200-year supply of coal.

[Woody]

Quote:

I am bothered that we Christians are emphizing this world as our home

Too many Christian groups are guilty of this. I wouldn't lump Adventists in with them. Adventists tend to focus a lot on prophecy and the hope of Jesus return.

I always thought that this world was our home. It will be re-made but this planet earth is where we will abide forever after we come here from heaven after the thousand years. Right?

[carolaa]

I'm wondering if this topic should be in World Affairs, where most of the political-type discussions are.

[John317]

I always thought that this world was our home. It will be re-made but this planet earth is where we will abide forever after we come here from heaven after the thousand years. Right?

Exactly right.

[LifeHiscost]

Those long-suffering Iraqi Christians will celebrate Christmas in their neighborhood church this year. "Peace on earth" will mean more to them than mere words in a carol.

Being a conscientious objector, I don't like to give the impression I believe war to be a viable tool that God uses to affect the fulfillment of His righteousness. However one can hardly ignore the fact that war started in heaven and if it hadn't been for God's loyal angels fighting, who can imagine where we would be today.

Thank you, EDD, for a well thought out post about a very volatile subject. IMO, one of the reasons why some of your correct observations did not happen sooner was because in the course of history, many North Americans have been fearful (and perhaps rightly so) to apply the same standards in the U.S. civilian population in todays wartime experiences as were applied during WWII. While I understand only one person suffered the death penalty during WWII for inappropriate behaviour leading to charges of traitorus activity during wartime, one can do almost anything with impunity jeopardizing our frontline troops, if not actually the national security, today in the name of freedom of civil rights.

Also, though it is a tragedy beyond the comprehension of most of us, the loss of life of Americans in today's war is very small as compared to any other U.S. war and it becomes somewhat ludicrous when choosing our personal convenience as more important than possible jeopardizing of the troops in the line of fire.

"And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Micah 4:3 KJV

Come Lord Jesus!

[LifeHiscost]

I always thought that this world was our home. It will be re-made but this planet earth is where we will abide forever after we come here from heaven after the thousand years. Right?

While the meek will inherit the earth, it is not the efforts of the population that now exists that will make it habitable for the eternities.

"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you." John 15:19 NASB

"He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal." John 12:25 NASB

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

I always thought that this world was our home. It will be re-made but this planet earth is where we will abide forever after we come here from heaven after the thousand years. Right?

Exactly right.

There does seem to be some difference in eternal rewards.

"These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb." Revelation 14:4 NASB

Regards!

[Dr. Shane]

When Christians say, "This world is not my home," I have always understood them to mean this sinful world. Certainly the new Earth will not resemble much of this sinful world. It may not even be made up of the same elements.

In political discussion this is an important point because Christ said His kingdom is not of this world, if it were, then would His servants fight. To me, politics is like cleaning house. Why do we have to clean our homes? Most certainly we will one day die and no longer need them. Yet we clean them because we must live in them while we are here. So it is with politics. We form human governments to run society until Christ returns and establishes His kingdom. Our governments here are a temporary and imperfect solution do disorder and anarchy.

[lazarus]

Quote:

Well, the Ray Odiernos, not the hearts-and-minds crowd, held the line against evil. Only by hammering our enemies year after year were we able to convince them that we couldn't - and wouldn't - be beaten. If the press wronged any single man or woman in uniform, it was Odierno - thank God he was promoted and stayed in the fight.

There may be one other reasons why the tide has turned somewhat in Iraq:

A big reason for the current turn around is that the US government is paying and arming Iraqi insurgents to fight AQ. The insurgents were called terrorists at one time. They are now US allies in the war on terror.

What's that quote? The enemy of my enemy is my friend!!! This is not a new tactic. It was used extensively in the cold war.

As they say however, what goes around comes around.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2413200.ece

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1108/p01s04-wome.htm

The switch in tactics proves the point that the real fight in Iraq was not against AQ it was against Iraqi insurgents. I think in another thread I talked about the benefits of talking to terrorists. The US has gone one step further and is paying them!

[there buster]

Quote:

The insurgents were called terrorists at one time.

Perhaps by you. If you conflated one with another does not mean anyone else did.

The terrorists goals, methods, religious views, and for the most part, their national origin are quite different from the indigenous tribes. When the tribes realized that, they realized who was really helping them.

Quote:

the real fight in Iraq was not against AQ it was against Iraqi insurgents

Interesting logic. The tribes are fighting with us against AQ but it's not a real fight.

Besides, the left insists we are NOT fighting AQ in Iraq. Well, the insurgents are fighting someone, and they believe it's AQ. But of course, leftist pundits thousands of miles away know better.

Like Harry Reid said: The war is lost. Either he was totally wrong, or we didn't realize whose side he was on.

And as for negotiation:

Quote:

hammering our enemies year after year

yup, negotiations all right.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hey Ed, this came to mind while reading this thread.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. Ecc 3:1-8

I believe these verses to be true today.

Norman

[lazarus]

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-our-enemies-in-iraq-are-not.html

Ever since our invasion of Iraq began, we have been relentlessly subjected to angry complaints from many sources that the use of the term "insurgent" rather than "terrorist" to describe the people we are fighting in Iraq reflects some sort of moral perversion, that it is the by-product of an inability or refusal to call things by what they are and, most likely, a deep anti-Americanism which sympathizes with the terrorists and therefore seeks to call them by the more flattering, romanticized term "insurgents" rather than what they are -- evil, murderous terrorists. And, of course, these language monitors have excoriated the "politically correct MSM" for using the euphemism "insurgent" to describe the terrorists who we are fighting in Iraq.

Indeed, Bush himself repeatedly conflated the Iraqi insurgency with "terrorists" in order to equate opposition to the war in Iraq with a weak-willed refusal to fight "terrorism":

Bush on November 16, 2002, explaining the need for military action against Iraq:

We are committed to defending the nation. Yet wars are not won on the defensive. The best way to keep America safe from terrorism is to go after terrorists where they plan and hide.

And here was Bush on October 24, 2004 -- two weeks before the election -- defending the war in Iraq:

THE PRESIDENT: But this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the enemy.

We are dealing with killers who have made the death of Americans the calling of their lives. If America were not fighting these killers west of Baghdad and in the mountains of Afghanistan and elsewhere, what does Senator Kerry think they would do? Would they be living productive lives of service and charity? (Laughter.) Would the terrorists who behead innocent people on camera just be quiet, peaceful citizens if we had not liberated Iraq?

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities.

(Applause.) . . .

The desperate executions of unarmed Iraqi security forces show the evil nature of the terrorists we fight. It proves these terrorists are enemies of the Iraqi people, and the American people, and everyone who loves freedom. The terrorist insurgents hate our progress, and they fight our progress. But they will not stop our progress. (Applause.) We will stay on the offense against these terrorists and we will prevail. (Applause.) We will help the Iraqis get on the path to stability and democracy as quickly as possible, and then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned. (Applause.)

There's more, check the link.

[John317]

I'm in favor of the American troops in Iraq and of the Iraqi forces fighting alongside us. I understand that quite a few Sunni's have changed sides and are now fighting against al Queda. I also understand that violence is down by about 50% and that Iraqis are feeling much safer, so that a lot of them are returning home again. I'm really glad for them. God bless them and God bless America!

[there buster]

Sorry, your logic just doesn't parse.

Quote:

We are committed to defending the nation. Yet wars are not won on the defensive. The best way to keep America safe from terrorism is to go after terrorists where they plan and hide.

The terrorists did plan and hide in Iraq. They had training camps there. Nowhere does this indicate or imply that ALL Iraqis were terrorists.

Your second example is no better:

Quote:

We are dealing with killers who have made the death of Americans the calling of their lives. If America were not fighting these killers west of Baghdad and in the mountains of Afghanistan and elsewhere, what does Senator Kerry think they would do? Would they be living productive lives of service and charity? (Laughter.) Would the terrorists who behead innocent people on camera just be quiet, peaceful citizens if we had not liberated Iraq?

Is it your position that all the insurgents were beheading people? I think the record shows it was just self-identified terrorists. The conflation and confusion is in the mind of the listener or reader. It is not inherent in the text.

You make much of this statement:

Quote:

The terrorist insurgents hate our progress,

But surely you cannot be serious: If "the terrorist insurgents" means that "all insurgents are terrorists" then the phrase "the fundamentalist christians" would have to mean "all christians are fundamentalists," and the statement "the caucasian adventists" would have to mean "all adventists are caucasians." Patently absurd.

Quote:

There's more, check the link

Multiplying faulty reasoning doesn't make the case, any more than multiplying zero will result in anything other than zero.

We have always been fighting the terrorists. Sometimes insurgents aligned themselves with the terrorists, and we fought both at the same time. Sometimes they do not, as is now the case.

Quote:

The desperate executions of unarmed Iraqi security forces show the evil nature of the terrorists we fight.

It was precisely this sort of brutality that turned the erstwhile insurgents against the terrorists.

These are not fine distinctions.

[lazarus]

Quote:

Perhaps by you. If you conflated one with another does not mean anyone else did.

I surprised you missed this particular tactic of the Bush Admin

The attacks of 911 conflated with Saddam's

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

AQ conflated with the Iraq insurgency see below..again

Iran conflated with AQ

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-iran-most-active-state-sponsor-of.html

If Americans want to initiate a military attack against Iran due in part or in full to Iran's support of Hezbollah's attacks against Israel, that is something they can decide. Plenty of other countries have gone to war before in defense of their allies. But the debate has to be honest and clear. Americans should not decide to attack Iran because the Bush administration is allowed to mislead them -- as they are clearly trying to do -- into believing that Iran (or Syria) is behind the terrorist threats against the United States. Iran has as much involvement in terrorist threats against the U.S. as Iraq had -- which is to say none at all -- and the administration cannot be allowed to get away with implying otherwise.

Here's some more

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041018/news_mz1e18golds.html

..as part of his campaign, Bush must conflate Iraqi resistance and terrorism, terrorism and fear, and fear and war. It is a formula that, judging from its success among white males, has a chance to succeed nationally.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2695

In his commencement speech to the 2004 graduating class of the U.S. Air Force Academy, President Bush likened the war on terrorism to World War II, comparing 9/11 to Pearl Harbor. "The Middle East will set the course of our current struggle," said Bush, we are fighting "the war on terror in Iraq." But even implying that Iraq is like the Second World War ignores history and shows that the president continues to confuse and conflate Iraq with al Qaeda.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...agewanted=print

I was pleased to see you shed light on the new administration meme of conflating all Sunni insurgent activity in Iraq with Al Qaeda. The first time I noticed this was in a June article by The Associated Press on the ''surge'' in Baquba, where I counted eight references to Al Qaeda as the enemy we're fighting there now.

But you miss the other half of the new equation, which (to quote from other recent A.P. articles on operations in Sadr City and elsewhere) refers to Shiite activity as ''militants suspected of ties to Iran.'' So it appears the new math in Iraq is as follows:

Sunni = Al Qaeda.

Shiite = Iran.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/07/expert_mistake_to_focus_too_mu.html

It's this repeated conflation of al Qaeda and the entire Iraq insurgency that caused Cordesman to write:

The Sunni insurgency in Iraq is complex, involving many different groups with varying motivations and goals. By exclusively targeting Al Qa’ida in Iraq, the counter-insurgency campaign may be missing its mark. The US naturally focuses on Al Qa’ida because of 9/11 and the fact it poses a serious international threat. So do some Iraqi leaders, but largely because it is easier for them, particularly if they are Shi’ite, to blame as many of Iraqi’s problems on foreigners and Sunnis as possible.

[there buster]

Wow. Weaker and weaker.

Since your examples of Bush's actual words proved wrong, you now produce other people's discussions of his words as proof. All you've done is produced more examples of people making the same mistake.

This is really a rag tag assortment of error. In one case you cite AP's words about Sunni=Al Qaeda. Hint: AP is not Bush.

Having failed to demonstrate that 2+2=22, you now produce others who testify that it is indeed 22.

Hint: It's not 22.

[lazarus]

Wow. Weaker and weaker.

Ignoring the unnecessary hyperbole......

Bush's use of the term terrorist was to give the impression that those who attacked the US on 911 were the same as those who were in power in Iraq. If Iraq was not attacked then more attacks would be planned on the US from Iraq. The suggestion is that Iraq was in some way behind 911.

You conveniently do not refer to the arguments in the piece. Thats Ok. Its easier I guess. I'll post it again....

Ever since our invasion of Iraq began, we have been relentlessly subjected to angry complaints from many sources that the use of the term "insurgent" rather than "terrorist" to describe the people we are fighting in Iraq reflects some sort of moral perversion, that it is the by-product of an inability or refusal to call things by what they are and, most likely, a deep anti-Americanism which sympathizes with the terrorists and therefore seeks to call them by the more flattering, romanticized term "insurgents" rather than what they are -- evil, murderous terrorists. And, of course, these language monitors have excoriated the "politically correct MSM" for using the euphemism "insurgent" to describe the terrorists who we are fighting in Iraq.

Who asserted that Bush was implying that all Iraqis were terrorists?

The conflation and the confusion is the intent of the speaker for political purposes.

By the use of the term terrorist insurgent Bush deliberately leads his audience down the road that leads to the perception that Terrorist=Insurgent and Insurgent=Terrorist. I can understand why you wouldn't see that point.

Regarding the AP: Clearly Bush is not the only one to conflate.

Quote:

Having failed to demonstrate that 2+2=22, you now produce others who testify that it is indeed 22.

Hint: It's not 22.

Very colorful!

[there buster]

Quote:

Ignoring the unnecessary hyperbole...

Were you ignoring it or citing it? Makes no difference, since it is mistaken. Hyperbole is an exaggerated overstatement. If anything, I understated the disarray of your argument. Saying it's 'unnecessary' doesn't matter, since there was no hyperbole to begin with. Double zero.

Quote:

Bush's use of the term terrorist was to give the impression

In church school they taught me not to assume or attempt to judge the motives or purposes of others. We were told only God could do that.

Quote:

You conveniently do not refer to the arguments in the piece.

Use of the word 'conveniently' simply repeats the mistake of the first citation. Only God knows what is or is not convenient for me.

And, par for the discourse, it's wrong.

What other people say about Bush doesn't change what he said. It is futile to post such psuedo-evidence, and even more foolish to refute it. Yes, Bush's critics agree with you because they make the same logical missteps.

In fact, one piece of 'evidence' cited actively contradicts your premise.

Quote:

The first time I noticed this was in a June article by The Associated Press on the ''surge'' in Baquba, where I counted eight references to Al Qaeda as the enemy we're fighting there now.

But you miss the other half of the new equation, which (to quote from other recent A.P. articles on operations in Sadr City and elsewhere) refers to Shiite activity as ''militants suspected of ties to Iran.'' So it appears the new math in Iraq is as follows:

Sunni = Al Qaeda.

Shiite = Iran.

Not only was this written by someone else, quoting AP, it separates Sunni and Shia, rather than conflating them all with terrorists.

So this one is bonkers on three counts.

1) It isn't something Bush said, it's something someone else said about the administration-- doesn't even rise to the level of a secondary source.

2) It quotes a distinction made by AP, not Bush.

3) The conclusion contradicts the position you are taking.

So, you've managed to cite totally irrelevant verbiage which still manages to contradict your position.

Finally, all of your evidene begs the question, that is, it assumes the conclusion you want to prove. Fundamental error.

NOTHING you have posted has dealt with the simple facts.

We have been fighting terrorists in Iraq.

Sometimes, some insurgents allied with the terrorists.

Recently, former insurgents have allied themselves with us.

I have supplied direct, logical proofs to suppor that.

YOu cited:

The terrorist insurgents hate our progress,

I refuted with:

If "the terrorist insurgents" means that "all insurgents are terrorists" then the phrase "the fundamentalist christians" would have to mean "all christians are fundamentalists," and the statement "the caucasian adventists" would have to mean "all adventists are caucasians."

and:

We have always been fighting the terrorists. Sometimes insurgents aligned themselves with the terrorists, and we fought both at the same time. Sometimes they do not, as is now the case.

You have done nothing to advance the case since then. Repeatedly citing those whose conclusions agree with yours does not change the facts.

[nuff sed]

RIght on , Edd

[lazarus]

Were you ignoring it or citing it? Makes no difference, since it is mistaken. Hyperbole is an exaggerated overstatement. If anything, I understated the disarray of your argument.

LOL, Its amusing that you would use further hyperbole to deny using it in the first place

Quote:

In church school they taught me not to assume or attempt to judge the motives or purposes of others. We were told only God could do that.

the left's defeatist lies are losing traction..... who started this thread anyway????? LOL. Do you not judge the purposes and motives of the left?

BWT, because an opinion is held by an individual it does not automatically elevate that opinion to the status of fact. Just because you say "not so" with all the color and conviction you can muster does not mean it is not so.

Again, I did not say Bush was the only one..... you're arguing against point a have not made.

The point is simply this:

Its is a clear tactic of those who support the war to identify different groups in different ways to support the CURRENT argument/policy. Now that the current policy is one of engagement with the insurgents they are readily called insurgents. Previously, when the admin was asked about contacts with the insurgency the replied was that the US government does not talk to terrorists.

Quote:

We have been fighting terrorists in Iraq.

I think you have been arguing with yourself there!

Quote:

Sometimes, some insurgents allied with the terrorists.

Even those who did not ally themselves with AQ were very often referred to as terrorists because they were opposing US forces.

Quote:

Recently, former insurgents have allied themselves with us

.

Finally back to my original point. They are being paid to do so. The Bush admin has had to soften its line towards these terrorists in order get control. No only do we talk with those who kill Americans we now pay them.

I refuted with:

If "the terrorist insurgents" means that "all insurgents are terrorists" then the phrase "the fundamentalist christians" would have to mean "all christians are fundamentalists," and the statement "the caucasian adventists" would have to mean "all adventists are caucasians."

The whole point is that Bush et al are not dealing with the strict definition of words but with persuading a country/world to accept their policy.

But here is the way its done. In my next speech I will say those "Fundamentalists" but still be referring to Christians. In the listener's mind a link is being made between fundamentalist and Christians. In time they become one and the same. If I use the term Caucasian and Christian interchangeably I can create the impression that Christians and white people and white people are Christians.

Was Saddam responsible for 911? No, but a large minority in the US think he was because reference was repeatedly made to 911, those who attacked us, weapons of mass destruction, Saddam, Terrorists, 911, etc etc.

The same is being done with Iran. A part of its military has been labeled a terrorist organization. If part of the military is terrorist what does that make the government, the leader and even in subtle way, its people.