Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Palau who wrote (60894)	7/13/2007 12:44:07 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Because That's Where the Terrorists Are By Lorie Byrd on Iraq Wizbang Robert Cox adopts a phrase attributed to bank robber Willie Sutton to fit the case for fighting terrorists in Iraq: <<< According to recent Department of Defense and CIA estimates, al Qaeda now has between 5,000 and 20,000 fighters operating in Iraq. Al Qaeda itself claims to have as many as 12,000 fighters in Iraq, but do we really want to take Osama bin Laden's word for anything? While no one in this country knows for sure just how many jihadists are in Iraq, it seems reasonable to believe that there are thousands of them -- making Iraq home to the single largest concentration of al Qaeda members in the world.... So it would seem that however it may have happened, the people who were responsible for Sept. 11 have now massed their forces in Iraq. All of which raises a question: If the U.S. were to withdraw all of its forces from the Middle East tomorrow and were to suddenly learn that al Qaeda had assembled 10,000 to 20,000 armed jihadists in Madagascar, Paraguay or Antarctica, what would most Americans expect President Bush to do about it? ... While no American wants to see U.S. troops put in harm's way, it seems unlikely that a majority of Americans would support exiting Iraq if they fully understood how large a presence al Qaeda now has there, how that compares with its presence elsewhere in the world, and just how much manpower and resources our enemy has put into Iraq. To my friends on the anti-war left, I ask simply this: If we are not going to fight al Qaeda in Iraq when we know it is there, then where and when do they propose we should fight it? To paraphrase Willie Sutton: You fight al Qaeda in Iraq because that's where al Qaeda is. >>> Read it all. examiner.com feeds.wizbangblog.com

To: Mr. Palau who wrote (60894)	7/13/2007 1:30:24 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

House Passes Pointess Legislation To End War In April Of Next Year In Domestic Issues, Politics, War On Terror, The Loony Left Say Anything The tally was 223 - 201. Linked below is the roll call. Four Republicans voted for withdrawal. Ten Democrats voted against it. Meaning more Democrats jumped ship from their party’s position on Iraq than Republicans. Make of that what you will. I’ve got two reactions. First, this is all about headlines. The Democrats know there’s no way this bill is passing. It has to get through the Senate first, and that means 60 votes to get cloture. Even if fewer Democrats in the Senate jump ship than in the House, they just don’t have the votes. And even if they did, Bush would veto it, meaning that it’d take 66 votes to get it back through. Again, the Dems don’t have the votes. So this was about more negative headlines and more undermining the war effort even as our troops fight and die to win this war the Democrats have no intention of letting us win. My second reaction is, why April of 2008? If we can’t possibly win this war, as pretty much every Democrat agrees is true, why wait until April of next year to end the war? Why not try to pass a bill pulling the troops out immediately so that no more die or are injured in this war we “can’t win?” Maybe because even more Democrats would jump ship if the bill was for immediate withdrawal. Meaning that a lot of Democrats are pretty skittish about giving up in Iraq. Which, in turn, means that public opinion against the war isn’t nearly as solid or overwhelming as the left and their mouthpieces in the media would have us believe. feeds.feedburner.com cnn.com clerk.house.gov

To: Mr. Palau who wrote (60894)	7/13/2007 1:35:19 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Harry Reid: Please Ignore The Fact That The Iraqis Will Be Slaughtered If We Pull Our Troops Out In Domestic Issues, Politics, War On Terror Say Anything ABC’s Jack Tapper tried to get Harry Reid to go on record as to whether or not the Iraqi citizens will be safer should we leave Iraq. Reid’s response? A non-answer, a snide comment for Tapper and then a quick change of subject. <<< TAPPER: I’m sorry, if I could just follow up very quickly...Do you think the Iraqi people will be safer with U.S. troops out? REID: It is clear that the Iraqi people don’t want us there. It is clear that there is now a state of chaos in Iraq. And it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe….We can’t do it. It’s time the training wheels come off and they take care of their own country. We have spent billions dollars. We’re now spending $12 billion a month on Iraq. That’s enough. In the last six months of the surge, six months, 600 more dead Americans, $60 billion more of American taxpayers’ money. We, Democrats, unitedly believe that’s enough. TAPPER: With all due respect, Senator, you didn’t answer my question. REID: OK. This is not a debate. TAPPER: Will the Iraqis be safer? REID: We’re answering questions. (calling on someone else) Yes, young man? Anyone else have a question? >>> For all the rhetoric about “ending the violence in Iraq” few on the left are willing to admit that if we bring our troops home before Iraq is secured the violence will get worse. Genocide. Rivaling factions slaughtering one another. Terror/insurgency groups sponsored by Iran, Syria and other nations wiping out each other and whatever civilians get their way all in desperate bids to fill the power vacuum that would be left once our troops were gone. Now maybe the people on the left who oppose the war think this is acceptable (which would make most of them hypocrites given their rhetoric about civilian casualties and the violence in places like Darfur), but they should at least have to account for it when they voice their stance on the war. They should have to acknowledge that it will happen, and tell us why it’s ok to let it happen. feeds.feedburner.com blogs.abcnews.com