Iraqi Freedom for fun and profit

On 9/26/06, D. L. (A friend of mine that believes this kind of sheet, God Love 'im) wrote: (Fwd)
  
   David Limbaugh: New Column: Who Makes the Terrorists Hate Us?
  
  What other nation in history has obsessively investigated itself during
  time of war? When are we going to quit beating ourselves up and move
  down the road?
  Just a few weeks ago, we were treated to Phase 2 of the Senate
  Intelligence Committee's report analyzing our failures of prewar
  intelligence for the millionth time. The Committee -- with a nominal
  majority of Republicans and a working majority of antiwar members --
  reported that the administration had been wrong in alleging a
  relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
  As Republican Chairman Pat Roberts made clear, the working majority
  cherry picked the evidence to conclude there was no relationship when
  the weight of the evidence indicated there was -- going back 10 years,
  no less. Condoleezza Rice confirmed that there were always dissenting
  opinions, but that the prevailing view among our intelligence agencies
  was that there was indeed a relationship.
  The committee demonstrated its absurdity elsewhere, too, when it
  concluded, preposterously, that Saddam didn't consider the United States
  an enemy because he said so during his debriefing. The committee chose
  to believe that obvious lie from a lying, murderous tyrant over his
  consistently contradictory statements and behavior over the previous
  decade.
  So we're paying federal dollars to be told we must ignore our lying eyes
  and ears: that we must conveniently forget Saddam's myriad verbal jihads
  against the United States because he later made the self-serving
  statement that he hadn't considered us an enemy? This is too much. You
  might also recall that we fought a war against this maniac in 1991. I
  suppose he didn't consider us the enemy then either, or when he shot at
  our planes in the no-fly zones.
  The same kind of counterintuitive, nonsensical analysis has surfaced
  again this week through yet another leak from the treasonous New York
  Times, which selectively reported that an April 2006 National
  Intelligence Estimate concluded the Iraq war has exacerbated worldwide
  terrorism.
  Of course, this little leak wasn't designed to feed into the Democrats'
  November election propaganda message, now was it? Surely you've heard
  the line many times before: President Bush diverted resources from
  capturing Osama bin Laden -- the only terrorist chieftain in the
  non-global war on terror -- to pursue his recklessly quixotic vendetta
  against Iraq. This unprovoked, preemptive strike on the non-threatening
  Saddam has caused Muslims the world over to hate us and swelled the
  ranks of terrorism.
  When will these tone-deaf people get it through their heads that Islamic
  extremists have hated us since before the flood (figuratively, of
  course)? When will they comprehend that Osama attacked us before we
  attacked Iraq?
  Besides, who would expect that our attack on Iraq would endear us to the
  enemy? It's not like we sent them a love letter. But if Iraq were not a
  terrorist-supporting state, why would the terrorists care? Why have they
  invested so much of their resources to disrupt the Iraqi freedom
  experiment? Why are they trying to foment a civil war there if Iraq has
  nothing to do with the global jihad?
  More importantly, why does the left keep dredging this stuff up? The
  answer is they have no alternative plan for Iraq and they figure the
  only way they can make headway on the national security issue is to
  continue to paint Bush as a liar, which brings me to the main point.
  Democrats have been telling us nonstop that President Bush's policies --
  his alleged unilateralism in general, and his attack on Iraq
  specifically -- have caused an otherwise loving enemy to hate and wage
  war against us. If that's true -- which it isn't -- how much more true
  is it that the feelings of the Muslim world (and the European left)
  toward the United States have deteriorated as a direct result of the
  Democrats' constant lies about President Bush?
  If they truly believe our policies have intensified the hatred of
  Islamic extremists toward the United States, then why don't they quit
  telling the world -- when they know better -- that President Bush lied
  about Iraqi WMD and about Saddam's relationship with Al Qaeda? Why don't
  they quit falsely charging that it is the covert policy of this
  administration to torture enemy combatant detainees at Gitmo? Why don't
  they quit saying that President Bush attacked Iraq for its oil?
  Easy. They either don't believe negative world opinion of the United
  States spawns terrorism as they claim, or they don't care whether it
  does or not -- at least they don't care as much about that as they do
  regaining political power.
  
  Posted by David Limbaugh on September 25, 2006 07:05 PM to David
  Limbaugh
  




Part-time Thinker weighs in:


None of this is news, I forget, what is that word for arguing against something nobody ever said just to get your own rhetoric out? Anyway, the fact remains that the invasion of Iraq ////whether there were WMD or not\\\\ was a war of convenience far removed from the WAR ON TERROR. Given a list of threats in the region at that time and even now; Saddam's Iraq *might* have made the top five. It looked like a simple task that would paint a glorious War President and his so-called conservative base as liberators, defenders of Freedom, heroes among men. It hasn't worked out quite like that, of course.

  I personally haven't heard too much from the Democrats, they appear to be as rudderless as ever. The best they can do concerning the coming elections is to stay quiet and watch the so-called conservative Republicans up for election/re-election continue to disintegrate. I keep saying "so-called" conservatives because no person truly holding conservative ideals has ever had anything but contempt for this pretender nor his toadies in the congress. Not in October of 02, and not at any time since. The saddest part of the last four years is how many of them, and their Democratic counterparts, signed on for this waste of human lives, military resources, not to mention the goodwill of many nations around the globe. Signing on for this supposedly simple romp through the desert and easy victory was done soley out of fear of doing otherwise, for the sake of votes.

I'm perplexed about the flood remark, it is fairly common knowledge that Mohammad lived in the 6th and 7th centuries A.D., so I'm supposing that it is a remark towards Arabs. Which, truth be told, that small Earthly percentage of Muslims (about 22%) is the most vocal and active America-haters, most devotees of Islam would relish the annihilation of the Western World. So this guy is an anti-Semite as well? Or maybe he only researches the facts about Islam that back up his rhetoric.

"Osama attacked us before we attacked Iraq." That only begs the question of why abandon the search for bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to attack Iraq? Simpleton.


Changing the reasoning for a war after it's begun has been done before, older folks than myself will back me up, but the bitterest pill is the inane response that "Well, Saddam was a bad guy whaddn't he?" Was he the only nutjob dictator that needed to be removed or just the most ---- convenient.


Bad press for the Administration is what makes terrorists hate us, is that the nugget of wisdom from this rant? Sure, whatever you say dude, you should bottle that and get kids addicted to it for fun and profit. --- Richard