It is getting late and I want to watch this program on Channel 51 in Houston that many peope on this bbs will watch and I'm about 20 minutes from home so I did not read the whole thread. I have long been interested in Feingold. I like his vote on the Iraq War, and the Patriot Act and the campaign finance bill at least the idea of it. I agree national health care is the killer issue for Democrats. I have long seen him as a possible presidential candidate. He is photogenic and speaks well. This is a must as you can't afford to lose the annoyingly large percent who vote based on such stupidities as how the candidate looks. I would pick him over Hiliary and John Edwards and even Gore (for electability) even though Gore has really shown since his last run.
The only possible scenario I could see more blueprinted for disaster than Rice in '08 was a re-election bid for W in '04. Oops. I still don't know how the Dems managed to screw that one up, especially after the anti-war crowd (usual Green, myself included) latched onto the Kerry wagon because too much was at stake. If the GOP manages to take this thing again in '08, it'll be almost as if they keep walking the bases loaded and we keep popping out shallow to short.
This is a classic. You indicate 'they were better off under Saddam?' No doubt will come back and claim you aren't saying that. Actually there has been quite a change in Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon since the intervention. In addition there are several former Soviet republics that have also come under US pressure to democratize.
In no way does his position do that. His position makes his distaste from acheiving desirable goals in an inappropriate way self-evident. Until you realize that two sides can want the same goal but have different methods of acheiving that goal, then please stop attaching labels based on your own misguided judgement.
Where in my post did I say that they were better off under Saddam? Basso spoke of the spread of islamofascism and I merely said that it wasn't present prior to the invasion and is a result of our presence. The very fact that you retorted that I would no doubt come back and claim I wasn't saying that proves you intended to put words in my mouth. Oh really? Quite a change? Pressure to democratize? The whole damn world has been under pressure to democratize. I'm talking about regime change - you know, going in with tanks and Apaches. I'm talking about the evident hypocrisy - you know, how Basso speaks of this noble cause of liberating the Iraqi people from the grips of Saddam while in the same breath we're in bed with the Saudis.
i think Zawahiri agrees with feingold, and makes my point. call it what you like, fellow traveler, 5th columnist, apologist, or merely an agent of a misguided policy, but there's no denying feingold, you, batman, or anyone else who advocates a date definite for the w/drawal of american forces shares the same goals as al queda. http://www.dni.gov/letter_in_english.pdf (link is a PDF) -- "If our intended goal in this age is the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet and if we expect to establish its state predominantly-according to how it appears to us-in the heart of the Islamic world, then your efforts and sacrifices-God permitting-are a large step directly towards that goal. So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power. There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them. The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity."
Well I'm betting Zawahiri agrees with banning Gay marriage as do most Republicans and many here on this board does so does that make all those Americans against Gay marriage fellow travelers, 5th columnists, apologists or merely an agent of a misguided policy of Al Qaeda? Context matters.
We have posters on this board that want to blow up hundreds of innocent civilains and spread islamo-fascism?
i doubt it, but we clearly have posters on this board, and high-ranking members of th edemocratic party, who share al queda's interest in a premature american w/drawal from iraq.
While we're on the topic, I'll mention that I'm also utterly against a withdrawl in Iraq, I think it's the wrong thing to do, and right now setting a timetable for departure doesn't help us in acheiving our present goals there. However, I don't need to equate people who want a withdrawl timetable with terrorists though. The link is false, illogical, and unnecessarily insulting. I would prefer to make the merits of my argument clear than to resort to that.
Look you cant equate anti-war activists and terrorists. Yes both want out of Iraq but for different reasons. Terrorists want us out so they can help develop a more fundamentalist government as well as form a base of operations for terrorists. Anti-war activists want us out because they believe that the US presence there has helped encourage instability and has helped to make all problems there worse. While I disagree with the latter, that doesn't mean they support terror. Their argument is that withdrawal would help decrease terror by creating the image of an Iraqi government that is not held back by US presence in Iraq. Both Pro-War and Anti-War activists want to stop terror. One camp believes that a US presence is vital to cementing out terror while the other believes that a US presence is helping to further these problems. The point is you have to prove that anti-war activists want bad **** to happen to America if you want to equate them to terrorists. Do that and maybe I'll agree with you.
Question: Are you trying to imply that these "board members and high ranking democrats" share the same motivation as AQ with regard to troop withdrawal? If not, don't you think it a wee bit incendiary and unfair to state they "share al queda's interest"?
I agree with Al Qaeda on some other things too Basso. I bet Feingold and Batman are with me on this as well. I think we all share a goal of being against the common cold, kidney disease(I'm sure OBL himself is especially against this one), cancer, etc. Wow I must really love those guys since we agree on those things. I am normally very patient and give everyone the benefit of the doubt because there is no point in arguing with the point of view already established that someone is incapable of logic. The logic behind your McCarthyesque tactics is so flawed that it is mind boggling. But your post is also inaccurate. I have said before that the number one goal now that we are in Iraq should be to get the job done correctly. Bush seems to be all for staying the course, which has been a failure. I am not for failure. I prefer seeing the job done correctly, but if our leadership doesn't have the desire or ability than seeing the job done correctly, then immediate withdraw is preferable to prolonging death and failure. But back to your flawed logic. You are against the democratically elected Chavez. Like Saddam you are against democracy. You and Saddam share the same goals. How dare you share the same goals of a man that our brave forces have fought to oust, and are currently working, fighting, and dying to correct the ills done by this opponent of democracy. How horrible.
if you didn't dowdify the quote you'd see i said they share al quesda's interest in an early american withdrawal. feingold and zawahiri want exactly the same thing in that regard. their rationale may differ, and i'm not suggesting feingold is a terrorist, but his policy is misguided because it's the same as what the terrorists want.
Non-sequitor. You can't just say that a policy is "misguided" because someone else desires it too for a different motive. The rationale is everything. If keeping our troops in Iraq increases support for terrorism, withdrawing is an option that needs to be considered, regardless of what the nutjobs in al queda say. Personally, I'm undecided on the matter. I don't think a straight up withdrawal is a good idea, but staying seems pretty daft too. Going there in the first place was idiotic. One more thing: Although you may not have intended it, the implication was there that anyone advocating going against the current Bush policy is supporting the terrorists. If you don't like people getting upset about it, or think that people are misunderstanding you, choose your words more carefully.
Basso; Yes you're right both want the same goal but you're totally ignoring context of where and why they formed those views. Al Qaeda believes Western secular culture is decadent and they would like to see religion play a greater role in civil and political society. Bill First believes Western secular Culture is decadent and would like to see religion play a greater role in civil and political society. Heck even your hero of late Christopher Hitchens seems to agree with Al Qaeda that Western culture has gotten decadent. Under your reasoning both Hitchens and Frist support Al Qaeda, or at least are seeking some of the same goals as Al Qaeda. I don't agree with Feingold on setting a firm date for withdrawl in Iraq but at the same time I understand that he's not supporting Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda believes us leaving Iraq is victory for them. Feingold believes us staying in Iraq is doing more harm than good and that without setting a firm date for withdrawl we will never do what is necessary to get the Iraqis to the point where they can stand on their own. That is a different thing than saying we're going to hand victory to Al Qaeda.
