Yesterday's anti-war protest in Corning made the Corning Leader (pdf here, thanks to Reader Elmer). This is the first protest story I've seen that quotes Republican veterans against the war.
Wow, a handful of long-hairs and a couple of "Republicans" walking around a park with signs probably paid for by Massa for Congress... as if Randy Kuhl COULD stop the war even if he did want to. Ridiculous, folks.
Fri, 07/20/2007 - 14:02 — Rottenchester
Kuhl could not stop the war, but he could vote against it, which is the whole point, as you well know.
Fri, 07/20/2007 - 14:06 — Erik (not verified)
What good is voting against the war going to do? Nothing. Not a damn thing except hand the middle eastern madmen a gigantic pr victory.
Fri, 07/20/2007 - 15:15 — Rottenchester
The real (not pr) victory has already happened. Al Qaeda won this round. Our strategic blunder of invading Iraq made them stronger. Kuhl's vote for or against a bill will not change that, but it may help us get out of Iraq sooner so we can concentrate on the real enemy that's been multiplying while our attention was diverted in Iraq.
Fri, 07/20/2007 - 16:23 — Elmer K (not verified)
Still left unanswered - There have been no attacks on our soil for almost 6 years. Is that related in any way to our being in Iraq? You would have to be very closed minded to not at least consider this point.
Fri, 07/20/2007 - 17:00 — Rottenchester
Pure speculation, but here's my take:
1. The war in Afghanistan disrupted Al Qaeda and set back their planning and preparation for a US attack. The Afghan war was exactly what we should have done in response to 9/11. The shame is that we diverted resources from there before our job was finished.
2. The US became a harder target after 9/11. This is independent of the Iraq war, and related to the billions we've spent on Homeland security along with our stepped-up law enforcement efforts.
3. Targets in Britain and Spain are easier to hit because the ghettoized Muslim population in those countries (esp Britain) can hide terrorists better than the US, and also will provide willing recruits. Those attacks still accomplish many of the aims of Al Qaeda, so they go there first.
4. Some resources and potential recruits that would otherwise go to Al Qaeda have been siphoned off to go to Iraq and fight there. Some of the violence there, but certainly not all of it, is due to Al Qaeda.
So, Iraq might play a small role in the reason we haven't been attacked. When all is said and done, we'll have spent half a trillion dollars there. I'd argue that a small fraction of that investment spent in Afghanistan, and in other hot-spots, would have not only prevented an attack in the US, but also weakened Al Qaeda. Unforunately, we didn't do that, and the latest NIE says that Al Qaeda is stronger than 9/11.
Sun, 07/22/2007 - 03:21 — olean gal (not verified)
Don't know who "Elmer" is but I sure appreciate his posting links to the Corning newspaper. Things are still all-too-quiet in our neck of the woods but the increasingly savvy Corning/Elmira market truly is aware of the importance of this rematch.
Sun, 07/22/2007 - 17:43 — Elmer K (not verified)
Thank you
Sun, 07/22/2007 - 22:50 — Erik (not verified)
Elmer, of course our being in Iraq has taken the front of the war on terror out of the U.S. and into the desert. We created a front to fight these shadowy figures and draw them out of their caves so our first line of defense, the military, can deal with them instead of men, women and children who lost their lives in 2001. We've lost over 3,000 lives in Iraq which is horrible because these were all the most patriotic of Americans and unlike John Kerry, some of the best and brightest. But another attack of the proportions of September 11 2001 could take twice or three times as many people.
Mon, 07/23/2007 - 00:08 — The Lonliest Monk (not verified)
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, an argument that a front there is against the "war on terror," i.e. the people who attacked us 6 years ago, is a distortion of the facts.
None of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq. Most came from Saudi Arabia, and were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Our initial reason for invasion, which I never bought for a second, was weapons of mass destruction, not "creating a front for the war on terror."
Al Qaeda was not operating in Iraq before we invaded. It is true that our presence there has brought extremeists to the country, but that does not mean we are pursuing the masterminds of 9/11.
If our leadership was truly diligent in fighting the war on terror, we'd be fighting in Afghanistan (more so than now), and Pakistan where Al Qaeda's original leadership resides. I'm sure you can come up with a million reasons not to invade Pakistan, but if you asked me in Feb. 2003, I could have given you a million reasons not to invade Iraq.
Yes there are extremely dangerous people out to damage us, but fighting in Iraq does nothing to solve that. Capturing and killing a 6'4" tall Muslim with a shabby beard and an severe inferiority complex probably wouldn't solve that either, but at least it would be justifiable.
Mon, 07/23/2007 - 00:24 — The Lonliest Monk (not verified)
Just to prove my point, the omnipotent King George the W. is considering military action in Pakistan.
It took 6 years, but hey, they talked about invading Iraq even before 9/11 so, I guess that kind of planning takes time.
Mon, 07/23/2007 - 00:24 — The Lonliest Monk (not verified)
Just to prove my point, the omnipotent King George the W. is considering military action in Pakistan.
It took 6 years, but hey, they talked about invading Iraq even before 9/11 so, I guess that kind of planning takes time.
Comments
Wow, a handful of long-hairs and a couple of "Republicans" walking around a park with signs probably paid for by Massa for Congress... as if Randy Kuhl COULD stop the war even if he did want to. Ridiculous, folks.
Kuhl could not stop the war, but he could vote against it, which is the whole point, as you well know.
What good is voting against the war going to do? Nothing. Not a damn thing except hand the middle eastern madmen a gigantic pr victory.
The real (not pr) victory has already happened. Al Qaeda won this round. Our strategic blunder of invading Iraq made them stronger. Kuhl's vote for or against a bill will not change that, but it may help us get out of Iraq sooner so we can concentrate on the real enemy that's been multiplying while our attention was diverted in Iraq.
Still left unanswered - There have been no attacks on our soil for almost 6 years. Is that related in any way to our being in Iraq? You would have to be very closed minded to not at least consider this point.
Pure speculation, but here's my take:
1. The war in Afghanistan disrupted Al Qaeda and set back their planning and preparation for a US attack. The Afghan war was exactly what we should have done in response to 9/11. The shame is that we diverted resources from there before our job was finished.
2. The US became a harder target after 9/11. This is independent of the Iraq war, and related to the billions we've spent on Homeland security along with our stepped-up law enforcement efforts.
3. Targets in Britain and Spain are easier to hit because the ghettoized Muslim population in those countries (esp Britain) can hide terrorists better than the US, and also will provide willing recruits. Those attacks still accomplish many of the aims of Al Qaeda, so they go there first.
4. Some resources and potential recruits that would otherwise go to Al Qaeda have been siphoned off to go to Iraq and fight there. Some of the violence there, but certainly not all of it, is due to Al Qaeda.
So, Iraq might play a small role in the reason we haven't been attacked. When all is said and done, we'll have spent half a trillion dollars there. I'd argue that a small fraction of that investment spent in Afghanistan, and in other hot-spots, would have not only prevented an attack in the US, but also weakened Al Qaeda. Unforunately, we didn't do that, and the latest NIE says that Al Qaeda is stronger than 9/11.
Don't know who "Elmer" is but I sure appreciate his posting links to the Corning newspaper. Things are still all-too-quiet in our neck of the woods but the increasingly savvy Corning/Elmira market truly is aware of the importance of this rematch.
Thank you
Elmer, of course our being in Iraq has taken the front of the war on terror out of the U.S. and into the desert. We created a front to fight these shadowy figures and draw them out of their caves so our first line of defense, the military, can deal with them instead of men, women and children who lost their lives in 2001. We've lost over 3,000 lives in Iraq which is horrible because these were all the most patriotic of Americans and unlike John Kerry, some of the best and brightest. But another attack of the proportions of September 11 2001 could take twice or three times as many people.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, an argument that a front there is against the "war on terror," i.e. the people who attacked us 6 years ago, is a distortion of the facts.
None of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq. Most came from Saudi Arabia, and were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Our initial reason for invasion, which I never bought for a second, was weapons of mass destruction, not "creating a front for the war on terror."
Al Qaeda was not operating in Iraq before we invaded. It is true that our presence there has brought extremeists to the country, but that does not mean we are pursuing the masterminds of 9/11.
If our leadership was truly diligent in fighting the war on terror, we'd be fighting in Afghanistan (more so than now), and Pakistan where Al Qaeda's original leadership resides. I'm sure you can come up with a million reasons not to invade Pakistan, but if you asked me in Feb. 2003, I could have given you a million reasons not to invade Iraq.
Yes there are extremely dangerous people out to damage us, but fighting in Iraq does nothing to solve that. Capturing and killing a 6'4" tall Muslim with a shabby beard and an severe inferiority complex probably wouldn't solve that either, but at least it would be justifiable.
Just to prove my point, the omnipotent King George the W. is considering military action in Pakistan.
It took 6 years, but hey, they talked about invading Iraq even before 9/11 so, I guess that kind of planning takes time.
Just to prove my point, the omnipotent King George the W. is considering military action in Pakistan.
It took 6 years, but hey, they talked about invading Iraq even before 9/11 so, I guess that kind of planning takes time.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2007/07/july_22_white_house_woul...