Bush Has Lost The War On Terror

[SHRED]

Hard hitting and precise.

---


Over and over intelligence was spun, excuses were made, deceptive soundbites were crafted and handed down to the right-wing media machine. Over and over We the People were told that the insurgency was waning, that great progress was being made, that there was light at the end of the tunnel, that things would improve in another six months.

It would be cheap, it would be quick; it would be Mission Accomplished.

Through it all to this day, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars evaporate like morning fog while morgues and trauma care wards full of dead and maimed Americans are quietly stacked away by the same despicable operatives who claimed to support the troops.

If the President was being truthful about the significance of Iraq to the war on terror and the stakes therein, doesn't it flow by elementary deduction that the White House and the Republicans have lost the Central Front in the War on Terror?

Much More:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/19/9516/2124

[Tom Joad]

1. The US is waging a war OF terror.

[texpatriot2004]

2. There is no "War on Terror" there is only the * regime and their

Media whores repeating this phrase over and over and over.

[CJCRANE]

3. It's all absurd.

How does a "war on terror" in Iraq have anything to do with stopping terrorism there or anywhere else?

If anything, it creates more terrorism.

[izzie]

5. It is sort of crazy. It is a way that has been used for a long time.

If one would think about it the things done after terrorist killed the Arch-duke and his wife started WW1 and the results of that into WW2 and in all this time and through out Russia history the terrorist have been right in the middle of it all. We have also seen them in Asia, Am. Eng. Eu. It is just a way for people with no power to make a statement or hope to start something. It does work well, starting thing, for Bush any how. Hard to pin point what they really want. Russia always played into it well also. We do not always call them terrorist by the way. In the 60's in this country we did not call them that, but they were working the same way.

[agincourt]

4. It was nothing but a war on democracy all along,

Osama gets to build a bigger Al Quiada while we get bogged down in Iraq. Anyone who questions why half a trillion went missing, or why the Taliban are getting stronger gets dumped on by the pigboy media. The conservatives collude with the terrorists, and most Americans STILL don't get that.
When Bush/Rove/Cheney collude with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for another big terrorist attack, the sheeple will still beleive it's happened because of a democratic congress, just like they swallowed "Clinton did nothing", the Gorelick memo, and the "Wall" shit back in 2001.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Porcupine]

7. Nowadays we call that "Genocide"

The practice of carpet bombing cities spends money and looks amazing but mostly you kill non-combatants and do little to reduce the combat effectiveness of insurgents.

My ex-wifes dad was a targeting specialist for the US Navy during Vietnam. He directed the murder of thousands. We still lost.

How many kids would Jesus kill to secure Iraq?

[yurbud]

9. the ones near the oil fields?

[yurbud]

8. point is, if Bush defined this as central front in war on terror, pull out will ruin him like Dad

Papa Bush said Saddam was worse than Hitler, so when he decided to leave him in place, people were mad because they believed the propaganda not the realpolitik.

That will probably happen here. Rather than people realizing the real reasons for the war, they will see the failure in terms of the propaganda myth.

Like if a priest did an exorcism on an epileptic and she dies. Instead of thinking exorcism is bullshit, her family will think he isn't a very good exorcist.