Iraq has not made us safer... - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!

Judge · 05-26-2008, 07:52 AM

Uh, can we now call B.S. on that? From Powerline:

On the stump, Barack Obama usually concludes his comments on Iraq by saying, "and it hasn't made us safer." It is an article of faith on the left that nothing the Bush administration has done has enhanced our security, and, on the contrary, its various alleged blunders have only contributed to the number of jihadists who want to attack us.

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful. What follows is a partial history:

1988
February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, Chief of the U.N. Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.

December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel.

1991
November: American University in Beirut bombed.

1993
January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three.

February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.

1995
January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden's plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered.

November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia.

1996
June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240.

June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one.

1997
February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen.

November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan.

1998
January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed.

August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000.

1999
October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled "Allahu Akbar!" as he steered the airplane into the ocean.

2000
October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.

2001
September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill around 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

December: Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers.

The September 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al Qaeda, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden's cause and that more such attacks would follow. In fact, though, what happened was quite different: the pace of successful jihadist attacks against the United States slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq war, and has now dwindled to essentially zero. Here is the record:

2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.

2003
May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.
October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

I have omitted from the above accounting a few "lone wolf" Islamic terrorist incidents, like the Washington, D.C. snipers, the Egyptian who attacked the El Al counter in Los Angeles, and an incident or two when a Muslim driver steered his vehicle into a crowd. These are, in a sense, exceptions that prove the rule, since the "lone wolves" were not, as far as we know, in contact with international Islamic terrorist groups and therefore could not have been detected by surveillance of terrorist conversations or interrogations of al Qaeda leaders.

It should also be noted that the decline in attacks on the U.S. was not the result of jihadists abandoning the field. Our government stopped a number of incipient attacks and broke up several terrorist cells, while Islamic terrorists continued to carry out successful attacks around the world, in England, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere.

There are a number of possible reasons why our government's actions after September 11 may have made us safer. Overthrowing the Taliban and depriving al Qaeda of its training grounds in Afghanistan certainly impaired the effectiveness of that organization. Waterboarding three top al Qaeda leaders for a minute or so apiece may have given us the vital information we needed to head off plots in progress and to kill or apprehend three-quarters of al Qaeda's leadership. The National Security Agency's eavesdropping on international terrorist communications may have allowed us to identify and penetrate cells here in the U.S., as well as to identify and kill terrorists overseas. We may have penetrated al Qaeda's communications network, perhaps through the mysterious Naeem Noor Khan, whose laptop may have been the 21st century equivalent of the Enigma machine.

Al Qaeda's announcement that Iraq is the central front in its war against the West, and its call for jihadis to find their way to Iraq to fight American troops, may have distracted the terrorists from attacks on the United States. The fact that al Qaeda loyalists gathered in Iraq, where they have been decimated by American and Iraqi troops, may have crippled their ability to launch attacks elsewhere. The conduct of al Qaeda in Iraq, which revealed that it is an organization of sociopaths, not freedom fighters, may have destroyed its credibility in the Islamic world.

The Bush administration's skillful diplomacy may have convinced other nations to take stronger actions against their own domestic terrorists. (This certainly happened in Saudi Arabia, for whatever reason.) Our intelligence agencies may have gotten their act together after decades of failure. The Department of Homeland Security, despite its moments of obvious lameness, may not be as useless as many of us had thought.

No doubt there are officials inside the Bush administration who could better allocate credit among these, and probably other, explanations of our success in preventing terrorist attacks. But based on the clear historical record, it is obvious that the Bush administration has done something since 2001 that has dramatically improved our security against such attacks. To fail to recognize this, and to rail against the Bush administration's security policies as failures or worse, is to sow the seeds of greatly increased susceptibility to terrorist attack in the next administration.

Mercmar · 05-26-2008, 08:30 AM

I voted for Bush twice; would probably do it again, considering the pusillanimous pansy airheads that the DemocRATs field. However, I don't believe our attacking Iraq has had anything to do with whether we've been successfully attacked at home.

Vigilance at home is probably more responsible for our safety than is attacking Iraqis. The Prez hasn't articulated any reason for the war in Iraq that would convince me that the sacrifice of one of my sons to have been worthwhile.

KingArthur · 05-26-2008, 09:08 AM

Well, I am not suprised that would comment about Iraq would come Barrak Hussein Obama. The same guy that studied in Jahkarta at a Islamic school for two years, the guy who states that all white Americans are inherently racist, a guy who subscribes to a minister who shouts, "Goddam America!" whom he credits as being his spiritual mentor, a guy who refuses to recognize the flag on the United States either by putting his hand on his chest for the pledge of allegiance or the National Anthem, a guy who refuses to have a flag on his lapel like other senators or a candidates because he detests it so much, a guy who wants to have open dialogue with anti-Unites States terrorist nations to "negotiate" with them, and a guy voted to be the most liberal Senator of 2007. Now, why would Barrak Hussein Obama say a thing like that.....LOL

Judge · 05-26-2008, 09:14 AM

What "vigilance at home" has thwarted a terrorist attack?

I would say the success is due to pursuing the fight on multiple fronts - including the Patriot Act, Iraq, Afstan, work by the CIA, NSA, waterboarding, Gitmo and so on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercmar

I voted for Bush twice; would probably do it again, considering the pusillanimous pansy airheads that the DemocRATs field. However, I don't believe our attacking Iraq has had anything to do with whether we've been successfully attacked at home.

Vigilance at home is probably more responsible for our safety than is attacking Iraqis. The Prez hasn't articulated any reason for the war in Iraq that would convince me that the sacrifice of one of my sons to have been worthwhile.

Prometheus · 05-26-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.

2003
May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.
October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

You've got to be kidding. Thousands of American Soldiers have been killed in those past several years and tens of thousands seriously injured or wounded. Billions of dollars of US equipment has been destroyed.

Can you please explain to us how the Lives of American soldiers are not "US Interests"? Forget about the all the property, money, buildings and equipment... How can you so easily dismiss their lives?

Sorry bub, but your idea that American fighting men and womens lives mean nothing is a slap in the face! Do you even think before you post this drivel?

Of all days to posts something like this, Memorial Day... You are one pathetic shill. I cannot believe your audacity!

bigpov · 05-26-2008, 10:30 AM

Judge, I love to read your posts. They shed a light on things that you don't see watching the news. You and Frankie among many others on this forum share the same ideas and values I think most Americans do. The Leftist media and people in positions of power like Obama and Hilary try to make it seem like the majority of our country is against the war and that it has done nothing but stir up hate among our enemies. It may have, to some degree, stirred some stuff up, but at least it has squashed further attacks not only on our own soil, but it has also protected our interests abroad. People can say what they want about the war, I don't agree with some aspects of it, but overall I feel that it has been a good thing. Millions of people are free from a ruthless, murdering dictator. Who can argue with that?

**Frenchy** · 05-26-2008, 10:39 AM

Iraq

Judge · 05-26-2008, 10:58 AM

Thank you. I agree, in the polls that matter - the elections, we consistent come out on top - we don't have to worry about polling error or biased questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigpov

Judge, I love to read your posts. They shed a light on things that you don't see watching the news. You and Frankie among many others on this forum share the same ideas and values I think most Americans do. The Leftist media and people in positions of power like Obama and Hilary try to make it seem like the majority of our country is against the war and that it has done nothing but stir up hate among our enemies. It may have, to some degree, stirred some stuff up, but at least it has squashed further attacks not only on our own soil, but it has also protected our interests abroad. People can say what they want about the war, I don't agree with some aspects of it, but overall I feel that it has been a good thing. Millions of people are free from a ruthless, murdering dictator. Who can argue with that?

Mercmar · 05-26-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

What "vigilance at home" has thwarted a terrorist attack?

I would say the success is due to pursuing the fight on multiple fronts - including the Patriot Act, Iraq, Afstan, work by the CIA, NSA, waterboarding, Gitmo and so on.

Yeah, we're ALMOST on the same page now. Take Iraq out of your statement and I'm right with you. Iraq will prove to have been as big a screw-up as was Vietnam.

Judge · 05-26-2008, 11:19 AM

I believe Iraq will 10 years from now, be a watershed in positively affecting the arab world's view of the US. We'll see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercmar

Yeah, we're ALMOST on the same page now. Take Iraq out of your statement and I'm right with you. Iraq will prove to have been as big a screw-up as was Vietnam.

05-26-2008, 07:52 AM	#1
Judge XDTalk 2K Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,814	Iraq has not made us safer... Uh, can we now call B.S. on that? From Powerline: On the stump, Barack Obama usually concludes his comments on Iraq by saying, "and it hasn't made us safer." It is an article of faith on the left that nothing the Bush administration has done has enhanced our security, and, on the contrary, its various alleged blunders have only contributed to the number of jihadists who want to attack us. Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing. Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful. What follows is a partial history: 1988 February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, Chief of the U.N. Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah. December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel. 1991 November: American University in Beirut bombed. 1993 January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three. February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000. 1995 January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden's plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered. November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia. 1996 June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240. June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one. 1997 February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen. November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan. 1998 January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed. August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000. 1999 October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled "Allahu Akbar!" as he steered the airplane into the ocean. 2000 October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39. 2001 September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill around 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. December: Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers. The September 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al Qaeda, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden's cause and that more such attacks would follow. In fact, though, what happened was quite different: the pace of successful jihadist attacks against the United States slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq war, and has now dwindled to essentially zero. Here is the record: 2002 October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government. 2003 May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia. October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160. 2004 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2005 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2006 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2007 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2008 So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. I have omitted from the above accounting a few "lone wolf" Islamic terrorist incidents, like the Washington, D.C. snipers, the Egyptian who attacked the El Al counter in Los Angeles, and an incident or two when a Muslim driver steered his vehicle into a crowd. These are, in a sense, exceptions that prove the rule, since the "lone wolves" were not, as far as we know, in contact with international Islamic terrorist groups and therefore could not have been detected by surveillance of terrorist conversations or interrogations of al Qaeda leaders. It should also be noted that the decline in attacks on the U.S. was not the result of jihadists abandoning the field. Our government stopped a number of incipient attacks and broke up several terrorist cells, while Islamic terrorists continued to carry out successful attacks around the world, in England, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere. There are a number of possible reasons why our government's actions after September 11 may have made us safer. Overthrowing the Taliban and depriving al Qaeda of its training grounds in Afghanistan certainly impaired the effectiveness of that organization. Waterboarding three top al Qaeda leaders for a minute or so apiece may have given us the vital information we needed to head off plots in progress and to kill or apprehend three-quarters of al Qaeda's leadership. The National Security Agency's eavesdropping on international terrorist communications may have allowed us to identify and penetrate cells here in the U.S., as well as to identify and kill terrorists overseas. We may have penetrated al Qaeda's communications network, perhaps through the mysterious Naeem Noor Khan, whose laptop may have been the 21st century equivalent of the Enigma machine. Al Qaeda's announcement that Iraq is the central front in its war against the West, and its call for jihadis to find their way to Iraq to fight American troops, may have distracted the terrorists from attacks on the United States. The fact that al Qaeda loyalists gathered in Iraq, where they have been decimated by American and Iraqi troops, may have crippled their ability to launch attacks elsewhere. The conduct of al Qaeda in Iraq, which revealed that it is an organization of sociopaths, not freedom fighters, may have destroyed its credibility in the Islamic world. The Bush administration's skillful diplomacy may have convinced other nations to take stronger actions against their own domestic terrorists. (This certainly happened in Saudi Arabia, for whatever reason.) Our intelligence agencies may have gotten their act together after decades of failure. The Department of Homeland Security, despite its moments of obvious lameness, may not be as useless as many of us had thought. No doubt there are officials inside the Bush administration who could better allocate credit among these, and probably other, explanations of our success in preventing terrorist attacks. But based on the clear historical record, it is obvious that the Bush administration has done something since 2001 that has dramatically improved our security against such attacks. To fail to recognize this, and to rail against the Bush administration's security policies as failures or worse, is to sow the seeds of greatly increased susceptibility to terrorist attack in the next administration.

05-26-2008, 10:39 AM	#7
Frenchy XDTalk 10K Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Mid-Missouri Posts: 13,144	Iraq __________________ ~SC Harvey~ 2008 Election..."Imbrace your ignorance, and vote your preference". It's quite simple, really... *If you vote for Obama, you are a fuking idiot. If you vote for McCain, you are a fuking idiot.* *If your vote is for the lessor of two evils, then you can be comforted knowing that you're less of a fuking idiot than the other guy! Because Fritz says so! RON PAUL IN 2008**

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-26-2008, 08:30 AM	#2
Mercmar XDTalk 1K Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,761	I voted for Bush twice; would probably do it again, considering the pusillanimous pansy airheads that the DemocRATs field. However, I don't believe our attacking Iraq has had anything to do with whether we've been successfully attacked at home. Vigilance at home is probably more responsible for our safety than is attacking Iraqis. The Prez hasn't articulated any reason for the war in Iraq that would convince me that the sacrifice of one of my sons to have been worthwhile.

05-26-2008, 09:08 AM	#3
KingArthur XDTalk 100 Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 187	Well, I am not suprised that would comment about Iraq would come Barrak Hussein Obama. The same guy that studied in Jahkarta at a Islamic school for two years, the guy who states that all white Americans are inherently racist, a guy who subscribes to a minister who shouts, "Goddam America!" whom he credits as being his spiritual mentor, a guy who refuses to recognize the flag on the United States either by putting his hand on his chest for the pledge of allegiance or the National Anthem, a guy who refuses to have a flag on his lapel like other senators or a candidates because he detests it so much, a guy who wants to have open dialogue with anti-Unites States terrorist nations to "negotiate" with them, and a guy voted to be the most liberal Senator of 2007. Now, why would Barrak Hussein Obama say a thing like that.....LOL

05-26-2008, 10:30 AM	#6
bigpov XDTalk 100 Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tremonton, Utah Posts: 247	Judge, I love to read your posts. They shed a light on things that you don't see watching the news. You and Frankie among many others on this forum share the same ideas and values I think most Americans do. The Leftist media and people in positions of power like Obama and Hilary try to make it seem like the majority of our country is against the war and that it has done nothing but stir up hate among our enemies. It may have, to some degree, stirred some stuff up, but at least it has squashed further attacks not only on our own soil, but it has also protected our interests abroad. People can say what they want about the war, I don't agree with some aspects of it, but overall I feel that it has been a good thing. Millions of people are free from a ruthless, murdering dictator. Who can argue with that?