Losing the War on Terror, Mr. Bush?

[Skeezix]

Bush crowed that we were winning the war on terror based on his administration's report that terror numbers were at a 30-year low. Now that they've admitted they were wrong and revised the numbers to show that terrorism is at a 20-year high, can we conclude that we're LOSING the war on terror under his leadership?

[klenke]

No. We can't conclude anything.

[JoshK]

I'm sure we've killed plenty of terrorist leaders. At the same time, terrorists spring up like weeds over there, so when we kill 1, 2 pop up. I would agree with Klenke, no real conclusion can be drawn yet. IMHO, however, we have lost more than we have gained in terms of international prestige, respect, etc. and it's time to boot him and get somebody else in there.

[Skeezix]

Maybe you guys missed my intended irony. Bush said we were winning the war on terror ...using the earlier wrong numbers as evidence. He's quieter now. Just like "Mission Accomplished." Ha ha ...what a loser Bush is!

[jon]

It was said from the beginning that this will be a very long war. Who knows how many high profile attacks have been thwarted. Get a clue.

[Skeezix]

It was said from the beginning that this will be a very long war.

Yeah ...war without end. Just like Orwell's 1984.

[jon]

Well Bush can only be in office for, what, 5 more years. So who are we going to blame after that?

[chucK]

I think we can squarely give blame/credit for the Iraq War on Bush, no matter how long it lasts.

[Dru]

its probably 95% bush's fault and 5% richard simmons'

[jon]

I think we can squarely give blame/credit for the Iraq War on Bush, no matter how long it lasts.

 

This isn't about Iraq, Chuck. This is about a group of people who are hellbent on killing us and anyone who sides with us. They are developing chemical and biological weapons and plan on using them. They are going to attack our infrasture, blowing up roads and bridges and buildings. They are going to try and take down our power grids and contaminate our water. They are going to try and take down the internet. This is a war without any clearly defined rules and most likely without any. Remember Daniel Pearl, where was the Geneva convention when he was murdered? And all of the sudden people expect us to treat his killer humanely. Fuck that, this guy was behind the killing of thousands of completely innocent people. Do whatever it takes to get the information out of him that prevents the killing of more innocent people.

[troubleski]

only 5 more years??? you must be forgetting Jeb....

 

we will be blaming this on a Bush for the next 12...

[Dru]

This isn't about Iraq, Chuck. This is about a group of people who are hellbent on killing us and anyone who sides with us. They are developing chemical and biological weapons and plan on using them. They are going to attack our infrasture, blowing up roads and bridges and buildings. They are going to try and take down our power grids and contaminate our water. They are going to try and take down the internet. This is a war without any clearly defined rules and most likely without any. Remember Daniel Pearl, where was the Geneva convention when he was murdered? And all of the sudden people expect us to treat his killer humanely. Fuck that, this guy was behind the killing of thousands of completely innocent people. Do whatever it takes to get the information out of him that prevents the killing of more innocent people.

 

hmmm yes "He who fights monsters must beware lest he become one himself" - Neitzsche

[jon]

Dru, you know who Ahmed Ressam is?

[JayB]

What we need is more tactical advice from Canada....

[chucK]

Ooops sorry, thought we were talking about Iraq. Guess I better read the thread title .

 

My belief is that we can obviously blame Bush for the Iraq war, and if that ends poorly (produces weak state that can't even control the people within its own borders), then Iraq will be a new sanctuary for international terrorists a la Afghanistan. Unless we get Iraq quite a bit more tidy than it seems to want to be, we could be blaming Bush for increasing the terrorist threat for a long time to come.

 

There's also the deal about whether our agressive takeout of Iraq will prove a deterent to other nations harboring terrorists. At the present, with our hands quite full of twin quagmires, I don't think too many nation states are cowering in their boots over what we might do to them if they get uppity. I'm sure the Wolfowitz plan was to get everybody scared of the big mean USA who invades whomever they want, but right now we've got Iran seizing a British ship, N Korea talking tough, Pakistan too scared of their own populace to let us openly use our forces within their borders, and OPEC getting uppity. Not to mention Spain, France, (S Korea, G Britain soon?), and half our own populace pissed off at anything the lying liars choose to bungle into.

 

I don't know if we're losing the war on terror, but I do believe almost anyone could be doing a better job winning it than the BushCo has done and is currently doing.

 

Face it, this Iraq war is really tieing us down in terms of being able to effectively fight international terrorism. The war is Bush's fault. They lied like hell to get us into it. Maybe they really thought it was for our own good, that it was going to help us versus terrorism, but the plan just don't seem to be working. At present we've got a giant burden on our back and a government front with a huge credibility problem (i.e. NO negotiating base).

 

I guess if you think that state-sponsored torture without any transparent due process will help tkeep us safe against terrorism; then, well you might say the Bush administration scores some points there. Except for the fact that it sort of blew up in their faces? They've now shot our wad in that respect because they weren't even smart enough to keep it more controlled. If they would have kept the torture shenanigans limited to the covert special ops guys versus real high value detainees (as in Afghanistan), we the public, and most of the damn world would still be unawares, and the forces of good could still be using every resource to obtain important information. But anyway, thanks to mismanagement, looks like our hands are now tied on there too.

 

I think Bushco just keeps squandering our ammunition. Time to reload with a new administration.

[Gary_Yngve]

What we need is more tactical advice from Canada....

 

Hey, they seem to be doing the right thing -- they haven't had any terrorist attacks on their soil.

[Bronco]

They are going to try and take down the internet.

 

You know what really scares me is - what are all of the internet junkies going to do for entertainment if the w.w.web is taken down? what will I do?

[jon]

More deadlifts, obviously.

[klenke]

Yeah, that's right Gary, the terrorists just devise their plans in Canada then cross the border into the U.S. to do their dirty work. Remember the guy who got caught trying to smuggle bombs destined for LAX through Blaine? That was Ahmed Ressam.

 

Like it or not, Canada is in this with the rest of the Western World.

 

Also, regarding Iraq and the War on Terror, it could be legitimately argued that, had Bush not gone into Iraq to remove Saddam, the terrorists could have used Iraq to train and recruit anyway. No one knows for sure what could have happened in an alternate scenario (an alternate universe).

[j_b]

hmmm! so let me see if i get this right. when the report had a number of terror victims that were slightly lower than last year, it was good enough to conclude we were winning the war. but now that the report has been "fixed" and the number of victims is double than what was initially reported, the report is not good enough to say anything? now that the numbers of significant events are highest in 21 years it does not mean anything?

[Bronco]

More deadlifts, obviously.

 

You don't know how hard it was for me to resist recomending deadlifting the couch to the guy looking for core training advice.

[jon]

Or getting a bunch of friends together and going around town deadlifting/moving Ford Fiestas and other compact vehicles.

[Dru]

klenke there is only one solution

 

 

oh wait. timothy mcveigh? John walker? Didn't I just read on Slate yesterday that Al-Qaeda has more American than Iraqi members? Shit, make an America-sized bomb too!

[jon]

hmmm! so let me see if i get this right. when the report had a number of terror victims that were slightly lower than last year, it was good enough to conclude we were winning the war. but now that the report has been "fixed" and the number of victims is double than what was initially reported, the report is not good enough to say anything? now that the numbers of significant events are highest in 21 years it does not mean anything?

 

Of course a small factoid that all of you have cleverly decided to leave out is that the terror report statistics covered THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD!

[chucK]

Also, regarding Iraq and the War on Terror, it could be legitimately argued that, had Bush not gone into Iraq to remove Saddam, the terrorists could have used Iraq to train and recruit anyway. No one knows for sure what could have happened in an alternate scenario (an alternate universe).

 

Saddam had greater ability to control terrorists within Iraq than we have now. I think it's obvious that Saddam enjoyed his power, and he must have known that we would invade and dethrone him the minute any terrorist attack on the USA was linked to him. From what I've read I think Saddam was much more interested in keeping his position than he was in facilitating a jihad on the US for religious or other reasons.

 

But you're right Klenke, we'll never know with certainty. Just like we'll never know whether or not Sadam would have just peacably given himself up once he turned 80 and promoted a wonderful utopian democracy.