"It's best to fight the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight....."

'..them here". I just heard Bush say this as he got off his chopper on his return from Camp David. Just what is meant by that statement?
If we were not in Iraq, we would be fighting them here? Is that what we are to infer from those remarks?

But, doesn't that mean that the Homeland Security Dept could not protect us from the terrorists? Why are we spending so much time and giving up so many of our freedoms if that is the case? Let's pick one or the other would seem to be the logical choice. If we're going to keep the terrorists busy in Iraq, we do not need the Homeland Security Dept or the Patriot Act. We could spend that money elsewhere.

Last night it was 'rather fight them in Baghdad than Boston, Kabul rather than Kansas'. It's all part of tying 9/11 to Saddam. and to give cover for the original WMD bullshit. 'Course, they can't quite make up their mind if the Iraqis are 'insurgents, guerillas, Baathist deadenders, Saddam Loyalists, etc.' This administration is incredible for the out-and-out lies they spew on a daily bais.

Isn't an insurgent one who revolts against civil authority or a government in power?

Since Saddam Hussein is absent from power who has civil authority in the Iraqi government, which doesn't exist.

It's like we have a choice.....either we fight them in Iraq, like that was the Bush plan all along, or we fight them here.

Did anyone hear Chris Matthews ask that question on his program?

is saying to his buddy, "Is your passport still valid?" This moron is toast in 2004.

And another thing, how about if we fight them in Afghanistan instead of making them chase us all over the Middle East.

This has been his sneaky way of linking terrorism (9/11) with Iraq from the beginning....He's careful not to come out and say openly that Iraq is responsible for 9/11, but he INFERS it, in almost every utterance about fighting terrorism. He does it in such a devious way....God he's disgusting...:puke:

You know, America is valuable and Iraq is expendable? My first thought is I wonder how the Iraqis feel about that statement.

...invading Iraq, Sudam's fleet of Aircraft Carriers would be sailing into New York harbor, right about now.

And we can be 100% sure that the USA's action in Iraq will prevent any
terrorist action from ever happening here.....

That's logical, isn't it, if we follow bush's so-called reasoning? But, considering that Iraq was never a "central front on terror" until bushco made it so, we are all being hoist on bush's pathological petard.

We are all so royally screwed by this administration and its terrorist fetish. 9/11 should have been treated as a crime, not an act of war, and the appropriate global resources brought to bear upon its instigators. Fighting a military-style "war on terrorism" is like fighting a cloud with a feather. The cloud moves around, but it never goes away.

fighting a cloud with a feather....

did you come up with that

really like that one

this one is by far the worst, and deMANDS an instant comeback.

matter of fact, shouldn't a thread be devoted to the response to this idiotic assertion?

the obvious implication in this statement is that, as long as there are any terrorist acts, we'll have to STAY in Iraq, right, or else invade the next terror breeding ground.

by that logic, shouldn't we be invading Phoenix, South Florida, and San Diego? Buffalo, Chicago suburbs?

all terrorist hotbeds, yes?

who are fighting an invading army that has overrun their country.

right?

ask Ronald Reagan

It will then be much more convenient to attack Americans right next door. No need to spend all that money crossing oceans.

While the terrorists are busy blowing up our guys in Iraq, we can feel much safer here.

of a wack a mole game... keep the guys with the hammer focused on the moles - so they are too distracted to turn around and get the standing on the other side of the machine/game. The idea - of using our military as decoys/sitting ducks - which is what Bush is suggesting - is disgusting.

Bush's strategy CREATES NEW terrorists. Our armed forces kill a few and their family and friends come in to the fight and replace them. Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9.11. If he wanted to fight the terrorists on their own turf he should have kept our armed forces in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden actually probably is and has power.

He has been spewing this tripe for a couple of months now, and here are the facts. 1. How exactly is the war in iraq stopping terrorists from plotting to bomb the crap out of the U.S.? Are the terrorists collectively sighing to themselves that now they won't have to splurge on a plane ticket and can just go to Iraq to kill Americans?

2. How exactly does it make the Iraqi people feel that your "master plan" was to turn their backyard into a Guerrilla war zone?

Jeezus, no WMD, no connection to 9/11, and countless other failed attempts at justifying this madness and this is all that they are left with. Bush has failed miserably, and thousands of people have had to pay for his idiocy with their lives and limbs

I wan't to hurl every time some nitwit repeats it.

What makes bunnypants think that simply because we've caused a catastrophe in Iraq, that no terrorist could POSSIBLY initiate an incident in the U.S.?

What is it? 6,000 miles of basically unprotected borders here?

the most effective aspect is that it's such an economical sound bite that it requires an equally brief and effective refutation.

Brevity

they're so good at spewing out these BS talking points, as if from a fax machine gun.

dems really need to work hard at coming up with pat responses that turn this garbage around, and demonstrate the propagandistic intent behind such programmed utterances.

maybe something along the lines of always referring to the fact that all their talking head pals use exactly the same memes (probably not "meme"), WORD for WORD. they should have a list of people who've said the same thing, over and over, and start saying: "well, Mr. pResident, so and so has said that thirty-three times, on such and such dates......so and so has said the EXACT SAME THING, in the exact same words, fifteen times, on such and such dates......"

I don't know; where does one go with this?

I heard this shit said over 30 years ago, when the enemies were Communists. The talk then was "...if we don't fight the Communists in Vietnam, we'll have to fight them in Florida/Texas/California..."
(ad nauseum)

:puke:

What this little soundbite *really* says: "We're fighting in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. In order for the United States to be 'safe', we're throwing the entire region into chaos, with slaughter of civilians occurring in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and - probably soon - Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan. Being 'safe', of course, means that the Israel/Palestinian issue won't be solved in our lifetimes, but it's all ho-kay because we're not fighting 'them' in Boston or Kansas."

What arrogance this whole sentence denotes. We're all 'safe' (whatever that means) while thousands of innocent civilians throughout the middle east are being slaughtered. I guess our lives are worth more, according to the Bush doctrine.

they cannot answer logically or assuredly.

I don't doubt, I know, that there would not be a sudden influx of terrorists if the policy in the middle east were changed. they couldn't get Osama, so they need more shadowy figures lurking around every corner of every town in America. It is all BS and they should be cxalled on it EVERY time. They are liars, and the press lets them get away with this garbage.


:kick:

Whats in a name?another guy name George thought the founding fathers were terrorists,the South Africans thought Mandala was a terrorist,and most Arabs think the latest George with a big ego is a terrorist.

Easier said than done King George, they are people too, you know. They bleed just like you. And it sucks to be dead.

Iraqi. Wouldn't that just get you if you thought you were bait now? Not a people who needed help liberating themselves from a tyrant, but bait? This guy is unbelievable. See how much gwb loves you Iraqis? You're bait to him!

this argument is filled with holes ...

first of all, is there any evidence to suggest that "iraqi terrorists" ever had any intention to attack the U.S. ... hasn't bush clearly stated (finally) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 ... and yet, there he goes again suggesting that there's some likelihood of these iraqi terrorists attacking the U.S. ... he just can't seem to let this go ... strike one !

secondly, is it terrorism to fight against soldiers who have invaded your country? why is that terrorism at all? why are Iraqis who fight against U.S. troops terrorists and not defenders of their country? just because they refuse to surrender does not make them terrorists ... strike two !!

third, bush's argument is totally specious to begin with ... just because the fighting is occurring in Iraq in no way precludes "terrorists" from attacking this country ... is his argument that the U.S. has them so pinned down in Iraq that many who were loyal to Saddam could not have infiltrated U.S. society and pose a risk of terrorism on american soil? this is total nonsense ... fighting in one theater in no way precludes fighting in a second theater ... strike three !!! you're outta there ...

the truth of the matter is that while "Nero bush" fiddles around in Iraq and utters such inanities as "bring 'em on" and alienates our potential allies all over the world, the U.S. is at much greater risk of terrorist attacks right here in the U.S. ...

it's about time democrats started emphasizing these points more effectively ...

suitable for blastfax machinegun talking point distribution

that's where they seem to have the advantage.....simple, superficially reasonable solutions to complicated problems.

That's what this war is all about, if you haven't already noticed.

We could be attacked tonight. The war won't stop anyone from doing a 9/11 tonight!

Of fighting off terrorists in the streets, and killing them in the name of their savior, George W Bush.

And by terrorists, I mean liberals and minorities.

"If we don't stop the Commies in Vietnam, we'll have to fight them in California!"

We lost that war 30 years ago, and unless I missed it, the commies haven't invaded yet!

Lies then; lies now!

half a world away.

Bush (in his politically driven, self-protecting idiocy) is practically daring Baathists and Islamists to bring the war to American shores through this line of "reasoning." The "flypaper fantasy" is not merely dishonest. It is telling the terrorists and radicals of the world that in order to win, they need to bring their attack to America.

First the Baathists step up their attacks and what does Bush do? He steps up our departure plans!!

Now he has taken to taunting Islamist radicals by, in effect, laughing at them for falling into a "flypaper" trap. Even if it were true, it is a stupid, America-endangering thing for the "president" to be saying.

Is he nuts?

and not a wise thing to say.

Hosni Mubarak warned the Iraq war would create more terrorists. Story here.

"When it is over, if it is over, this war will have horrible consequences," Mr Mubarak told Egyptian soldiers in the city of Suez. "Instead of having one bin Laden, we will have 100."

It's enough to make you wonder if everything isn't going according to plan, if you know what I mean.

He can't manage to speak a coherent thought with accurate verb agreement, so he relies on quips and one-liners from previous speeches. He comes across as being in pain from having to speak, not having to speak of the dead. There is nothing sincere in this felcher's words.

(I learned a new word at DU the other day.)

is that there is not a set number of "terrorists" that can be eliminated. Terrorism is a tactic, something poor people do when they want to make war against rich people. The longer we lord it over Iraq and, by implication, the entire Islamic world, the more terrorists we are going to motivate. In essence, the Iraq war created terrorists. Fighting them in Iraq and fighting them in the U.S. is not either/or.

Or is it that for Bush, "terrorist" and "Muslim" are interchangeable? Because I suppose there is a finite number of Muslims in the world . . .

It's also something used by the rich to keep the poor people in line.

Think about miners in the early 1900s, striking workers at Henry Ford's plants, and so on.

Don't ask him to define "hegemony" though. He thinks it's a Southern dish.

And they do with all their hearts and minds believe that is the only alternative to getting attacked here in the US.

or doesn't want the American people to understand the nature of the threat. He is either intellectually incurious or so power hungry that he will mislead us about threats to national security, no less.

There is a reason why 'know thy enemy' is oft repeated by those who know their enemy face to face. Because it works.

Bush just doesn't have a clue, to our collective detriment. When you don't know your enemy, your enemy kills you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There is a ridiculous argument about how we're better off "fighting" them there than here. It's just one more in a long line of reasons why we may have invaded Iraq. I believe that the fact that we continue to argue the "why" shows a major foreign policy mistake that needs to be addressed and corrected.

We knew the why for WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Gulf War, and the Bosnia/Kosovo War. Vietnam was a war built on a lie and the country spent years arguing about why we were there and how to get out. We're in a similar situation now.

bloated and in disarray. Smirking as he talks of war.