Everyone has probably heard Harry Reid's famous quote:

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense (understands) and -- you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows -- that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything."
So, the Senate Majority Leader believes the war is lost. Clearly, if that is the case, he should call for an immediate withdrawl of US forces. As John Kerry famously said:
How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
But he didn't do that. He passed a bill filled with pork that keeps US troops there for at least a year. Why would he do that? If he truly believes what he says, that the war is lost beyond all hope of redemption, why not demand and immediate withdrawl and cut off all funding for the war now? Why indeed. Consider another quote from Mr. Reid from April 12:
"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Sen. Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."
So there you have it. He says he believes the war is lost. But he knows that if the Democrats force an early withdrawl and chaos ensues, it will be pinned on them. On the other hand, if the situation remains as is, Democrats will be able to use Iraq as an issue.

So soldiers be damned. Who will ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake? Harry Reid and the congressional Democrats.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/the_squalid_politics_of_war.html

Your war is lost. Doesn't matter how much patriotic mumbo jumbo you muster up, it didn't make a difference before and it still wont.

Bush ignited a civil war and we lost. America is tired of feeding it's young to this disasterous failure. The cost is astronomical, and for what. The Republicans are sunk.

Bush ignited a civil war and we lost. America is tired of feeding it's young to this disasterous [SIC] failure. The cost is astronomical, and for what. The Republicans are sunk.

The poster before Genji couldn't spell "won't."

So much for the "intellectualism" of leftists.

It is remarks like theirs that now pass for "patriotism" in the Democrat Party.
Jane Fonda's treachery is alive and growing.

"Peace in our time." - Neville Chamberlain

The Revolutionary War was also unpopular. Only one person in three living here supported it. Talk about "lost," we fought against the strongest military in the world, and defeated them ultimately.

Our Founding Fathers were made of stern stuff indeed.

Cowards crying "peace" today do not deserve to be called "Americans."

"One thing that [Iraqi war theater commander Gen. David Petraeus] reminded
us was, this [war] is a test of wills, and he admonished us... that what
we say to the world, to our adversaries and our allies, is listened to by
the other side... It must come as a shock to al-Qa'ida leaders to have an
aide come into their safe house and tell them that Senator [Harry] Reid
has declared that, in fact, they are winning and the war is lost. I think
it's highly irresponsible for the leader of the U.S. Senate to have said
that and, just speaking for myself as the ranking Republican on the Armed
Services Committee, I think that the leader of the Senate should step down
from that position." ---Congressman Duncan Hunter, California Republican,
on Wednesday, after Gen. Petraeus' closed-door congressional briefing sessions

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." - Arab proverb

"We dare not tempt them (our enemies) with weakness." - President John F Kennedy

The poster before Genji couldn't spell "won't."
So much for the "intellectualism" of leftists.

You can't spell "Tunguska".
Pot/ kettle shade differentiation situation?

Just Why Democrats Are ‘Dangerous’ When It Comes To America’s Defense
Investor's Business Daily
Oct 20, 2006




Thomas Sowell, the distinguished Stanford scholar, wrote on this page a week ago that there’s a difference between the major parties: “The Republicans are disappointing and the Democrats are dangerous.” We’d like to take this opportunity to elaborate on his second point.

We and our allies are in a serious global war against fanatical, determined Islamic terrorists who have declared war on America and the free world. Their stated objective is to kill all the Americans they can, eliminate Israel, control and enslave women, and in time overpower and rule with an iron fist nations from Spain to the Far East. They intensely hate our freedom and successful way of life.

While Democrats in Congress always assert they “support our troops,” their political policies and actions have continually undermined our nation’s fight to win the war on terror and defend America. Here is their national security record:

1. On missile defense of America — Democrats voted against it.

2. On the Patriot Act — Democrats voted against it.

3. On tapping foreign terrorists’ phone calls to the U.S. — Democrats voted against it.

4. On tracing terrorists’ money flow between foreign banks — Democrats voted against it.

5. On building a border wall to control illegal immigration and stop dope — dealers, terrorists and criminals — Democrats voted against it.

6. On interrogating captured terrorists — 194 Democrats just voted against it.

7. On telling the world (and our enemy) about a timetable for withdrawing from and deserting Iraq — this is Democrats’ retreat and defeat plan.

Think that’s bad? Here’s the Democrats’ national defense record for the last 40 years:

A. Democrat President Johnson misjudges the Gulf of Tonkin incident, pursues the Vietnam War until a liberal CBS TV announcer thinks we’re losing and says we should quit. So we quit and lose. The victorious communists then kill 2 million innocent civilians.

B. Democrat President Jimmy Carter during the Cold War withdraws U.S. support for our longtime military ally, the Shah of Iran. Carter doesn’t like his human rights treatment of Soviet spies in prison. The shah is overthrown, and Ayatollah Khomeini returns, seizes power and creates an Islamic nation. Opponents are killed, the idea of suicide bombers is introduced to the PLO, and Iran’s oil wealth is used to spawn and support Hezbollah, a terrorist militia that killed 241 Marines in a Beirut bombing and that lately attacked Israel. Iranian radicals storm our embassy, taking 52 American hostages for 444 days. Carter fails in an amateurish attempt to rescue them. Eight military personnel and eight aircraft are lost in a desert foul-up.

Democrat Carter, self-assured and well-meaning but dangerously naive, was responsible for bringing into power an Iranian Islamic regime that’s now creating nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel and blackmail the U.S. and Europe. Iran has further provided weapons and support to Shiite militia and death squads in Iraq and could provide nukes to al-Qaida, with which it has a working relationship.

After the Soviets meet the inexperienced Carter, they invade Afghanistan. Then the communists capture Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Grenada and Nicaragua. The Afghanistan invasion attracts young Osama bin Laden, who raises money and recruits other Muslims to fight the anti-Soviet jihad. After the Soviets leave, this band becomes al-Qaida.

So Carter’s glaring weakness in dealing with the communists and Iran leads directly to both the current terrorist nuclear threat of Iran and the birth of al-Qaida, a group of mass murderers that would never have been possible if the Soviet Union’s Leonid Brezhnev had not been emboldened to invade Afghanistan after seeing an inept, appeasing American president, Carter.

Carter’s ongoing, worldwide damage to America’s future national defense does not end there. In 1994, civilian Carter goes to North Korea and negotiates an agreement that President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright buy into. The North Koreans use our money and help to secretly spend the next six years in researching and building nukes. Deceived again by a worthless piece of paper, Carter becomes America’s Neville Chamberlain.

These Democrat policies and actions were not only incompetent and ineffective in defending the U.S. They also proved to be highly dangerous, creating the greatest threats to America’s future security — a radical Islamic Iran and a North Korea with nukes, either one of which could hand weapons off to al-Qaida killers. And Carter is still out there giving us advice.

Ronald Reagan inherited from Democrat mismanagement a rapidly expanding communist enemy, 12% inflation (highest in 34 years), 21% interest rates (highest since Abe Lincoln was president), a depleted military and a serious energy crisis. Reagan’s motto was “peace through strength,” not peace through retreat, weakness and accommodation.

He kicked communists out of Grenada and defeated them in Nicaragua, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. He supported those fighting against communist regimes. He attacked Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, who much later surrendered his nuclear weapons program after America’s military captured the tyrant Saddam Hussein hiding in a hole in the ground.

For eight years congressional Democrats ridiculed and fought all of Reagan’s defense and economic policies. They said he was dumb, stupid, too old and a warmonger who was going to start WWIII with the Soviet Union. Democrats were proved wrong on nearly every vital Reagan policy. His tax cuts set off a huge seven-year economic and technological boom, just as George Bush’s broad tax cuts have done, creating millions of new jobs.

In the end, the Reagan-Bush administration defeated the 70-year-old Soviet Union, and communism disintegrated on the ash heap of history under Republican Reagan’s relentless pressure and determination to build a missile defense system to make the Soviet nuclear arsenal obsolete.

The present terrorist threat to our security did not begin on 9/11, but in the early 1990s, after Democrat Clinton was elected in November 1992. In February 1993, terrorists bombed New York’s World Trade Center. In October 1993 two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters were shot down in Somalia. Eighteen Americans were killed and 73 wounded. In response, Clinton withdrew our forces.

In January 1995, Philippines police uncovered a plot to blow up 12 American airliners over the ocean. In June 1996, Khobar Towers, which housed U.S. Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia, was blown up, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi and wounding 372 others.

In February 1998, bin Laden declared “war on America,” saying the murder of any American anywhere on the earth was the “individual duty” of every Muslim. In August 1998, al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 200 and injuring 5,000. In October 2000, 17 U.S. sailors were killed when al-Qaida attacked the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden.

According to Michael Scheuer, a 22-year CIA veteran and head of the agency’s bin Laden unit, the 9/11 Commission report confirms that the Clinton administration had at least 10 chances to get the al-Qaida leader, but Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke or Clinton simply could not make the decision to act. The CIA knew where bin Laden was and the military had plans, but they were almost always called off at the last minute.

So when presented with 10 specific opportunities, Clinton’s Democrat administration never took any action that was effective or produced any positive result. From Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s to the policies and actions they push today, Democrats haven’t been just weak and ineffective in defending against America’s enemies.

This year, two other forces are feverishly working to undermine this election and our war on terror. One force is made up of elite national media based mainly on the East Coast. On several occasions they have given our enemy vital defense secrets. They also disgracefully report and relentlessly repeat only bad news. Such dishonest journalism confuses and deliberately misleads the American public. The TV networks have lost 50% of their audience and still refuse to change their one-sided news coverage.

The other force is represented by terrorists who are desperately attacking as many people as possible in Iraq in the weeks leading up to our election. They believe they can intimidate us like they intimidated Spanish voters in the wake of the Madrid bombings and affect our congressional election in a way that will result in our quick withdrawal from Iraq. But quitters never win.

As difficult and complex as the war has been, America has a very strong economy — with over 95% of our population employed and 70% owning homes — plus freedom, opportunity and a standard of living that other countries can only envy.

We’ve also been protected against further terrorist attacks by a strong, competent and determined president.

:rolleyes: blahblahblahblah :yawn:

You can't spell "Tunguska".
Pot/ kettle shade differentiation situation?

1. It is Leftists who constantly promote themselves/yourselves as being supremely "intellectual." Therefore it is incumbent on self-styled leftist "intellectuals" to practice that which they/you proclaim.
This, they/you clearly have not done. Take Al Gore, please.

2. Since you Leftists likewise attack conservatives as being "stupid," you can hardly pretend to hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourselves.
Wait, I guess you can. Hypocrisy is one of your key metiers.

3. Notwithstanding the previous truths, pots and kettles are inanimate, and neither "calls" the other anything at all, but

4. IF they did, both would still be correct, wouldn't they.

Other than those four issues, your statement is..., well, rather inane.

You see, Leftists will use any tactic, however trivial and silly, to change the subject, or feel as if they have "won" an argument.

Wordplay is one of their/your favorites, "depending on what the meaning of 'is' is."

You are misrepresenting the issues, and are furthermore wrong on amost all points. You know, our old enemy was the USSR, a vast nation with many resources, nuclear weapons, a huge army and submarines. Our new enemy is a scattered group of stone age thugs. I would hardly equate them to a mortal enemy. The danger is being exaggerated for political purposes.

You are misrepresenting the issues, and are furthermore wrong on amost all points. You know, our old enemy was the USSR, a vast nation with many resources, nuclear weapons, a huge army and submarines. Our new enemy is a scattered group of stone age thugs. I would hardly equate them to a mortal enemy. The danger is being exaggerated for political purposes.

Speaking of "misrepresenting," and "our old enemy"....


Democrats maliciously attacked President Reagan as he challenged the USSR as "The Evil Empire."

Democrats mocked and ridiculed him and called him a fool and said he "would start World War III." "They'll just match us," you said. They/you said that time and time again.


When Reagan's brilliant plan worked, and Gorbachev indeed did "tear down this wall" in Berlin, Democrats spun a different tune.

Then they/you said, "We knew it was going to happen."

From "starting World War III" to "we knew it was going to happen."

Only the despicable liars of the Democrat Party can say such things with a straight face, and seem even to believe it themselves.

Evil is like that.

Who's being cynical? Bush doesn't trust the Iraqis to solve their own problems, and so he made this mess. When Germany was rebuilt after WWII, we gave money and grants to Germans to rebuild their civic institutions. Instead Bush gives the money to foriegn contractors, many of whom ran away with it. He's trying to use our forces, trained to kill and win wars, to be policemen and nation-builders. It doesn't work that way. We defeated Saddam, now let's get the hell out of there and fight the real terrorists.

Genji, can you refute this on a point by point basis, or don't you have the mental capabilities? oh and I forgot do you have any fact to refute any of this. Oh Mega Poster Supreme:::::::puke::puke::puke:

Speaking of "misrepresenting," and "our old enemy"....


Democrats maliciously attacked President Reagan as he challenged the USSR as "The Evil Empire."

Democrats mocked and ridiculed him and called him a fool and said he "would start World War III." "They'll just match us," you said. They/you said that time and time again.


When Reagan's brilliant plan worked, and Gorbachev indeed did "tear down this wall" in Berlin, Democrats spun a different tune.

Then they/you said, "We knew it was going to happen."

From "starting World War III" to "we knew it was going to happen."

Only the despicable liars of the Democrat Party can say such things with a straight face, and seem even to believe it themselves.

Evil is like that.

You mean Reagan's brilliant plan of negotiating with the enemy? Sounds like a Liberal idea to me.

"... I think it's highly irresponsible for the leader of the U.S. Senate to have said that and, just speaking for myself as the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, I think that the leader of the Senate should step down from that position." ---Congressman Duncan Hunter, California Republican, on Wednesday, after Gen. Petraeus' closed-door congressional briefing sessions"

I agree with Congressman Hunter and I agree with General Petraeus.

Baron Max

1. Missile defense. Doesn't work, very expensive, kowtows to the military-industrial complex, and encourages an arms race at the very time we should be encouraging non-proliferation.

2. Patriot Act. Pushed through without time for debate, contains provisions unrelated to the terror threat, undermines civil liberties.

3. On tapping foreign terrorists’ phone calls to the U.S.. If we know they are terrorists, we can follow the constitution and get a warrant, even after the fact. FISA provides for this.

4. On tracing terrorists’ money flow between foreign banks. No one is against tracing the flow of terrorist money through banks. The program lacks oversight however. The potential for abusive intrusion by government into the financial affairs of private citizens and businesses is growing almost unnoticed and unchecked.

5. On building a border wall. How can you praise Reagan for the fall of the Berlin wall while you propose to build another one? This would be very expensive, damaging to wildlife, and it wouldn't solve the basic issues of Mexico's corrupt oligarchy, and trade agreements that put local farmers out of business.

6. On interrogating captured terrorists. Actually, Democrats are against torture, not interrogation.

7. On telling the world (and our enemy) about a timetable for withdrawing from and deserting Iraq.

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

George W. Bush, 6/5/99 [talking about Kosovo]

- Lie: In October 1993 two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters were shot down in Somalia. Eighteen Americans were killed and 73 wounded. In response, Clinton withdrew our forces.

Reality: (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/09/25/clinton/index.html) Clinton said: "They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in 'Black Hawk down,' and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations."

If anything, Clinton understated his own defense. After the U.S. troops were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, numerous conservative senators and representatives -- mostly Republican along with some conservative Southern Democrats -- demanded that Clinton withdraw all American troops immediately, insisting that the U.S. had no interest in Somalia and that not one more American troop should die there. They gave speeches stoked with nationalistic anger and angrily demanded immediate withdrawal, and even threatened to introduce legislation to cut off all funding for any troop maintenance in Somalia.

Clinton -- along with Democratic senators such as John Kerry -- vigorously argued against immediate withdrawal, in part because of the concern that America would look weak by panicking and abandoning its mission at the first sign of trouble (just like President Reagan did in 1983 when he immediately withdrew U.S. forces from Lebanon after the attack on U.S. Marines). Clinton had to virtually beg to be allowed to keep troops for an additional six months (and he even increased American troop levels) to stabilize the situation, demonstrate U.S. resolve and a commitment to the mission and, most of all, avoid a panicky, fear-driven retreat.

Did you do any research at all, or do you just enjoy being a parrot of liers?

Bush enabled Al Quida to invade Iraq, so who's the traitor?

Deja vu all over again., Tet 68, in Iraq.

spidergoat

Bush enabled Al Quida to invade Iraq, so who's the traitor?

Proof is required, your opinion is just that your opinion.

That is one of the problems with your posts you make grand statement and then fail to provide any verifiable proof of your grand and glorious statement.

Al Quida is but a small portion of those forces fighting the US in Iraq. They did not exist in Iraq before the invasion, with the exception of a small training camp Saddam could have destroyed (if not for the no-fly zones).

Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html)

Al Quida is but a small portion of those forces fighting the US in Iraq.

As I see it, there's very damned few people fighting the USA in Iraq ...they're mostly killing their own fellow Iraqis ...and women and children who can't fight back.

Baron Max

Al Quida... They did not exist in Iraq before the invasion, with the exception of a small training camp Saddam could have destroyed ,,,

Exceptions are fun to play with and talk about, ain't they? :D

Baron Max

spidergoat

Reality: Clinton said: "They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in 'Black Hawk down,' and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations."

The reality of Clintons orderly transition to U.N. control, and the U.N.s ability to control any thing.

Fresh fighting in Somalia kills at least five : Mail & Guardian Online
Mail & Guardian Online: Fresh fighting in Somalia kills at least five.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/&articleid=305074

Al Jazeera English - News
'Hundreds dead' in Somalia clashes (03 Apr 2007). Somalia fighting enters fourth day (01 Apr 2007). Somali clan says 1086 killed (10 Apr 2007) ...
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1F7EEE26-F4E9-496F-B937-AB6A355CEFDB.htm

Fighting rages in Somalia's capital - Africa - MSNBC.com
Heavy artillery and mortar fire pounded northern Mogadishu on Friday as Islamic militia and secular fighters battled for control of a now-deserted ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12742886/

As fighting in Somalia intensifies, UN official voices concern for ...
12 April 2007 – With fighting in Somalia is at its heaviest since the outbreak of war over a decade ago, the top United Nations humanitarian official today ...
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22200&Cr=somalia&Cr1=

i will be honest. i didnt read all of that because im already sleepy its late. but going by the title of the thread, yeah democrats are dangerous. so are communists republicans and everybody who has power wich leads to greed,


sorry if that was off topic but yeah screw you guys im tired.

peace.

spidergoat

1. Missile defense. Doesn't work, very expensive, kowtows to the military-industrial complex, and encourages an arms race at the very time we should be encouraging non-proliferation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile

Three shorter range tactical ABM systems are currently operational: the U.S. Patriot, Navy Aegis combat system/Standard SM-3, and the Israeli Arrow.

So they don't work?

If we have solved the short range BM intercept problem, and fielded those systems, do you think we will eventually solve the high space ICBM intercepts?
It is called research and development, that is how anything is developed for use, you over come the technical problem, and developed a usable system.
That is how ever weapons system was developed, you work out the bugs, that is the case for every thing that we have ever made from concept to final production, and fielding.
Sometime back in history it was said that man would never have powered flight, the technological problems would never be over come, look at us now, Mach +3+, It was also said that we would never put a man into space, the technological problems would never be over come, and we have a space station, the U.S. has been to the moon, and we are planning to go to Mars by 2030, the technological problems will never be over come, which way are you will to bet, that we will do it?, or we won't? I will put down a $1000 that we will.

Did you do any research at all, or do you just enjoy being a parrot of liers?

spidergoat



Proof is required, your opinion is just that your opinion.

That is one of the problems with your posts you make grand statement and then fail to provide any verifiable proof of your grand and glorious statement.

Ok Mr, proof time to put your money where your mouth is.

Please name and link the stories to the number of Americans, that Saddam Killed, prior to us invading his country. Thank you sir. And before you go.

Published on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 by Reuters
Bin Laden Labels Saddam an Infidel - Jazeera TV
by Samia Nakhoul

DUBAI - A taped message believed to be from fugitive militant Osama bin Laden on Tuesday warned Arab nations against supporting a war against Iraq as threatened by the United States -- but branded Saddam Hussein an infidel

Listen, here is evidence. What you provide is right wing conjecture. Saddam was a secular muslim. He represented everything Bin Laden despised. For instance, Udai Hussein having a brothel builti inside of the home he lived in. Chosing to wear Western Clothes over the traditional Muslim attire. Attacking and bullying his neighbors with imperialistic aspirations. He brutalized the fundamentalist Shia's and Sunni's during his entire tenure. So please cut the shit when you say Al-queda was already there, and that's who we're fighting. We're fighting the people of Iraq, we're occupying their Country. We're infidels to them. We eat pork, watch porn, do drugs, all things that will get you beheaded in the Radical Muslim countries. So trust me, they despise us. It's a shame our soldiers are stuck there policing their civil war to see who succeded the Prophet Muhhammad in the 7th Century.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

Exceptions are fun to play with and talk about, ain't they? :D

Baron Max

The United States has heavily armed Right Wing Milita's who delcare the US Government, all "Blacks, Minorites and Jews the Enemy. And they're arming themselves for what they believe is a comming Race War. The Klu Klux Klan has training camps. So does the US support the Arayan Nation, since they haven't destroyed their compounds, and disarmed a group who has committed acts of terrorism. Right Wing Nuts like Eric Rudolph who blow up abortion clinics, and the Olympics to further his right wing agenda?

Ganymede

Ok Mr, proof time to put your money where your mouth is.

Please name and link the stories to the number of Americans, that Saddam Killed, prior to us invading his country. Thank you sir. And before you go.

No problem, We didn't go to war and remove Saddam because of American causalities, we went to war to remove Saddam because after 12 years of sanctions he was still playing games and had not complied with the U.N. Cease Fire Resolution 686 (1991), that is the only reason and it was the official government policy why we were going to remove Saddam, Nice try, trying to change the focus of the present debate.

the knights templar and the illuminati have you all fooled.

peace.

After the Soviets meet the inexperienced Carter, they invade Afghanistan. Then the communists capture Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Grenada and Nicaragua. The Afghanistan invasion attracts young Osama bin Laden, who raises money and recruits other Muslims to fight the anti-Soviet jihad. After the Soviets leave, this band becomes al-Qaida.

The Carter administration helped provoke the Soviets into invading Afghanistan.

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

In light of what has happened since, his 1998 comments downplaying the creation of radical Islamists seem very naive.

We instigated a proxy war in Afghanistan, which completely destroyed the country, radicalized millions, killed possibly hundreds of thousands, and ultimately led to the attack on 9/11.

I'm curious what the author thought should have been done to prevent the fall of the Shah. Should we have been willing to put troops on the ground in order to keep a dictator with a very poor human rights record in power? The movement to oust the Shah was a popular one; do we only agree with democracy if the outcome is in the favor of the US?

Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

He's exactly right. Osama learned from that experience to draw the US into the same kind of actions in Iraq. Bush was dumb enough and greedy enough to fall right into the trap.

Repo Man

How About this? Looks like Jimmy was running a protection racket, with a little extortion as a sweetener?

http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/index.php?p=3901

President Carter?s anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carter?s name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidants, these businessmen told the Shah that President Carter wanted a contract. previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.

The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that President . Carter was ?trying to be helpful?. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which President Carter was doing him.

According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidants about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.

Just Why Democrats Are ‘Dangerous’ When It Comes To America’s Defense
Investor's Business Daily
Oct 20, 2006

Welcome to SciForums!!! Great post, I agree 100%. Always glad to see more conservatives around here.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/29/201145.shtml

"Reagan’s War” reveals new information that Carter, as president and later as a private citizen, sought the help of an avowed foreign enemy of this country to undermine Reagan’s candidacy in 1980 and, even more shocking, tried to cripple President Reagan’s foreign policy in 1984.

The former Democrat president, who had been ousted by voters four years earlier, wanted the Soviets to help him put a Democrat back in the White House.


"All we have right now,” Schweizer added, "is based on these accounts by [former Soviet Ambassador] Dobrynin. And it begs the question: Is there any more material based on his [Carter’s] dealings with Moscow?”

'Carter Won't Forget' Soviet Assistance

Schweizer’s book, which is going straight to the top of the best-seller list, reveals that during the 1980 campaign when Reagan was gaining in the polls, Carter "dispatched [pro-Soviet industrialist] Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy for a secret meeting with Ambassador Dobrynin to ask for Soviet help” with Jewish emigration and other potential vote-getting issues for a sitting president. The Soviets were promised that "Carter won’t forget that service if he is re-elected.”

George W Bush has murdered more Americans than al Qaida allegedly did on 9/11 and he's greasing up the machine to send more to their deaths. Bush is the ultimate traitor and should hang with Dick in Baghdad.
The rightists here want more coffins coming home. Those of us wanting the hell out of an Islamic civil war want our soldiers protecting America, not Bush's failed 'legacy.' He is not man enough to finally tell us all that he killed all these young soldiers for nothing. Putrid piece of shit has a rough year ahead. The elections prove he lost the support of America's citizens yet he still runs his personal war as badly as he's run everything else. Simple minded stubborness does not equal strength. What could a pussy Yale cheerleader that evaded service in Vietnam possibly do to be considered strong??

Republicans will lose more elections if they rally behind the war criminal in Office. Since Gop Party of God nuts have no spine they will, and be wiped out on election day in Nov. '08. 7 years of full Republickin control proves they are a truly failed party now that the neocons and the Godsquad have hijacked the conservative movement in the US. Best thing for Democrats and all that oppose this criminal regime? The Gop candidate lining up behind failed little George. God this will be a fun 20 months!!!!!!:p

You're full of more than just yourself.

Bush has killed no one. Your friends the evil muslim terrorists are the ones killing everyone.
He decided to go to Iraq and get Saddam. That's something NO ONE else would do even though they knew he was evil. That's "strong" imo.

Republicans will lose more elections if they rally behind the war criminal in Office. Since Gop Party of God nuts have no spine they will, and be wiped out on election day in Nov. '08. It's better to lose fighting for what's right than to win by selling out. Even better to win fighting for what's right. And that's what's going to happen.

The Democrats are going to overplay their hand and reveal their true nature to the American people. They won this election cycle by hiding all the crazies in the basement and pretending to be centrists. The crazies won't stay in the basement. They all want their due. No matter how far to the left the congressional democrats go, it won't be far enough for the party faithful. They'll alienate the American people in record time.

One thing that [Iraqi war theater commander Gen. David Petraeus] reminded
us was, this [war] is a test of wills, and he admonished us... that what
we say to the world, to our adversaries and our allies, is listened to by
the other side... It must come as a shock to al-Qa'ida leaders to have an
aide come into their safe house and tell them that Senator [Harry] Reid
has declared that, in fact, they are winning and the war is lost Why is it that Republican can't get quotes straight, or take meaning from context, as ordinary human beings can ?

Unfortunately, our leadership has painted us into a corner. We cannot do what's best for us and Iraq, and use Iraq to fight Al Qaida in, both.

We have done enough damage to Iraq, using it as a proxy battlefield against Al Qaida. Al Qaida has not been weakened by this strategy. Time to give the Iraqis a break, and a chance to pull their country together. The Shia and regular Sunni and Kurds of Iraq outnumber the AQ there twenty to one, everyone is heavily armed,so there is little danger of AQ getting any kind of foothold in the country without the cover of US occupation.

iceaura

Why is it that Republican can't get quotes straight, or take meaning from context, as ordinary human beings can ?

Because we learned it from liberals like you, and now serve it back to you.

Those of us wanting the hell out of an Islamic civil war want our soldiers protecting America, not Bush's failed 'legacy.'
Our soldiers are protecting us right now. Whatever you think about the wisdom of going into Iraq (I know what you think), being percieved of as losing a war is dangerous and makes us much less safe. We must win because, as Kennedy said, we must not tempt our enemies with weakness.

Three shorter range tactical ABM systems are currently operational: the U.S. Patriot, Navy Aegis combat system/Standard SM-3, and the Israeli Arrow.

So they don't work? The short answer is: No, they don't work. There's a longer answer, that involves some small, slow missiles they can actually shoot down once in a while, but the short answer is better to keep in mind.

The only thing Republican foolishness with ABM systems has done is trash some disarmament treaties and gift a shitload of money to corrupt cronies. That and wreck the people, cultures, and landscapes of a few very nice Paicific islands.

As far as the opening post, there isn't a complete sentence of accurate info or correct assertion in it. Most of its statements actually can be made more accurate by negating them, or replacing the word "Democrat" with the word "Republican".

Since assertion is obviously easy, and refutation longwinded, let's just look at one incident, choosing one in which we can directly compare a Democratic and Republican administration's response to the same event.

The Cole bombing was Oct 12, 2000. Elections were less than a month away, and Clinton's last term had less than three months to go in a political atmosphere of hostility and Congressional opposition. Nevertheless, the response was rapid and effective - the attackers were identified, co-conspiritors arrested, and the attack traced to bin Laden (there were several other possibilities, at the time) within a few weeks - despite the complications of having to cooperate with Yemeni authorities.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/17/usscole.02/
] U.S. officials said the trail is increasingly leading in the direction of Osama bin Laden. However officials stress other possibilities cannot be eliminated, including at least one Islamic terrorist organization with no known ties to bin Laden.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/12/07/cole.suspect/
Al-Harazi is one of three suspects that are still on the run. The other two were believed to be in Saudi Arabia last week.
- -
Six other suspects, whose cases are now in the hands of prosecutors, are expected to go on trial in January. Of those six, four are believed to be civil servants who helped provide the other suspects with false identification papers.
There is no info available on W&Co response to the Cole bombing, because there wasn't any. Handed all of Clinton's records and strategies and a counter operation already set up and running, faced with a direct and active terrorist threat from an identified agent, W did nothing for nine months.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/clarke.rice/index.html
How did the Clinton and Bush administrations' approaches differ?

CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration.

I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.

RICE: The decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop-off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority. ...

On an operational level, therefore, we decided immediately to continue to pursue the Clinton administration's covert action authority and other efforts to fight the network. ... We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive strategy to try and eliminate the al Qaeda network.
- ---
Why didn't Bush respond to the USS Cole bombing?

CLARKE: I suggested, beginning in January of 2001, that ... there was an open issue which should be decided about whether or not the Bush administration should retaliate for the Cole attack

Unfortunately, there was no interest, no acceptance of that proposition. And I was told on a couple of occasions, "Well, you know, that happened on the Clinton administration's watch."

I didn't think it made any difference. I thought the Bush administration, now that it had the CIA saying it was al Qaeda, should have responded.

RICE: I do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the Cole, given the kinds of options that we were going to have. ... We really thought that the Cole incident was passed, that you didn't want to respond tit-for-tat. ...

Just responding to another attack in an insufficient way we thought would actually probably embolden the terrorists -- they had been emboldened by everything else that had been done to them -- and that the best course was to look ahead to a more aggressive strategy against them.
We note in passing that the Republicans have yet to identify, let alone arrest, the US facilitators of the 9/11 attack. Clinton's team was far more effective, despite greater obstacles, with the Cole attack as well as the original WTC attempt.

So given an incident allowing direct comparison, the Reps don't look so good.

Because we learned it from liberals like you, and now serve it back to you. But you appear to believe these lies yourselves. Is there some benefit to fooling yourself, because a liberal fooled you in the past?

[QUOTE=madanthonywayne;1369325]Everyone has probably heard Harry Reid's famous quote:

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense (understands) and -- you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows -- that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything."
So, the Senate Majority Leader believes the war is lost. Clearly, if that is the case, he should call for an immediate withdrawl of US forces. As John Kerry famously said:
How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
But he didn't do that. He passed a bill filled with pork that keeps US troops there for at least a year. Why would he do that? If he truly believes what he says, that the war is lost beyond all hope of redemption, why not demand and immediate withdrawl and cut off all funding for the war now? Why indeed. Consider another quote from Mr. Reid from April 12:
"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Sen. Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."
So there you have it. He says he believes the war is lost. But he knows that if the Democrats force an early withdrawl and chaos ensues, it will be pinned on them. On the other hand, if the situation remains as is, Democrats will be able to use Iraq as an issue.

So soldiers be damned. Who will ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake? Harry Reid and the congressional Democrats.


because he doesn't want to be attacked by right wingers like you for not supporting our troops because everytime some suggests getting our troops out of iraq or that it been screwed up to far to be fixed by us they get aattacked for not supporting the troops

The poster before Genji couldn't spell "won't."

So much for the "intellectualism" of leftists.

It is remarks like theirs that now pass for "patriotism" in the Democrat Party.
Jane Fonda's treachery is alive and growing.

"Peace in our time." - Neville Chamberlain

The Revolutionary War was also unpopular. Only one person in three living here supported it. Talk about "lost," we fought against the strongest military in the world, and defeated them ultimately.

Our Founding Fathers were made of stern stuff indeed.

Cowards crying "peace" today do not deserve to be called "Americans."
how is it cowardly to stand for peace. how is it cowardly to care enough about your fellow man that you wish not to kill him but work with him to elevate humanity as a whole. it isn't it takes a coward to not do these things

how is it cowardly to stand for peace. how is it cowardly to care enough about your fellow man that you wish not to kill him but work with him to elevate humanity as a whole. it isn't it takes a coward to not do these things
You do not get peace by running from a fight. Showing weakness encourages futher attacks. Pulling out before order is restored would be either stupid, cowardly, or both.

Heres a video showing the democrats in all their glory: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017524.php

Shit, rightwingnuts have their cowards too. It's about where their values hold most weight. I know a christian conservative republican, flagwaving racist asshole who evaded service in vietnam because he didn't want to die because he felt his life is more important than others. He was always condemning jane fonda and communists and everything unamerican. When it comes to self-preservation, it comes first unless you can get their ego really riled up and then they want someone else to do their dirty work.

You see, Leftists will use any tactic, however trivial and silly, to change the subject, or feel as if they have "won" an argument.
Hypocrite - I made the comment because, as you conveniently failed to acknowledge, YOU were the one to pick on a triviality.
And you're a fool for assuming I'm a leftist...

Mod Note: 3 threads about how Democrats are bad have been merged.

I don't have time to read 51 posts so I will just say demoncrats are the scourge of our society. The liberals are what's wrong with the USA. They got God/prayer out of schools and look how that turned out.:eek:

They support killing babies and homosexuality--both abominations in the Bible.
They hate the USA, God, and President Bush. Also wrong according to the Bible.
They support being nice to criminals and terrorists. Clinton thought the USS Cole attack (and all terrorist attacks) should be handled as law enforcement issues.:confused:
Many are communists/socialists.
They enable satanic forces to gain power. Many are satan worshippers.:eek:
They let child molesters out of jail.
They support criminal aliens.
They commit the most crimes.
They fill our jails.
They take most of the welfare, food stamps, free healthcare.
They have entitlement mentalities.
They hate the rich. They are anti-capitalists.
They should move to France. Or Iran.

iceaura

But you appear to believe these lies yourselves. Is there some benefit to fooling yourself, because a liberal fooled you in the past?

No I don't believe your definition of what are lies, I have learned to do some research to vet information my self. So you now admit that the liberals lie, ? funny I knew that all along. Liberals say thing so often as so long that they eventually can't tell the fantasy from reality, that means they start to believe their own lies.

You are misrepresenting the issues, and are furthermore wrong on amost all points. You know, our old enemy was the USSR, a vast nation with many resources, nuclear weapons, a huge army and submarines. Our new enemy is a scattered group of stone age thugs. I would hardly equate them to a mortal enemy. The danger is being exaggerated for political purposes.


So spoke the liberal.

1. I repeat, you liberals were dead wrong when you screamed that "Reagan will start World War III." You were dead wrong then and you haven't changed a bit.

2. Reagan's brilliant tactics resulted in the demise of the USSR, contrary to your liberal claims.

And you have the temerity to claim I am "wrong on most points" without bothering to elaborate. Typical.

3. These "stone age thugs" use modern electronic technology to blow up civilians all over the world, in Pakistan, in Malaysia, in Spain, and in England.
Oh I know. Bush started the whole thing. Before Bush, the world was one big Garden of Eden, right?

4. When it comes to exaggeration for political purposes, that is what you liberals do best.

Global Warming is the world's biggest bogeyman.
Look out for underfunding of public education. That's real bad.
Ditto "art", such as "Piss Christ" and "Feces Spattered Madonna" and countless other offensive attacks on Christians by the Left - certainly including you.
"Right wing religious extremists" are as bad, if not worse than Islamofascists.
Animal experiments are bad, so the labs need to be burned after the critters are released.
SUVs are bad, and need to be burned.
Big business is horrific. (What kind of car do you drive?)
Profits are obscene and need to be taxed into losses.

etc, etc

America is a terrible place, to hear liberals talk. Funny, but none of you are leaving for some hypothetically better place. Don't let the door hit you in the gluteus.

Our soldiers are protecting us right now. Whatever you think about the wisdom of going into Iraq (I know what you think), being percieved of as losing a war is dangerous and makes us much less safe. We must win because, as Kennedy said, we must not tempt our enemies with weakness.Our soldiers are in Iraq protecting us? How? What threat in Iraq threatens the USA? If we withdraw do we lose the freedom of speech!:eek: :rolleyes: The soldiers in Iraq are making us new enemies by the day. There is no winning the civil war Bush unleashed. Bush owes the world an apology for his disastrous mistake. Obviously the elections stated the public is no longer on his side.

Mod Note: 3 threads about how Democrats are bad have been merged.
Now how about merging some "America is bad" and/or "Bush sucks" threads?

I don't have time to read 51 posts so I will just say demoncrats are the scourge of our society.

Meh. Whatever.

The liberals are what's wrong with the USA.

You're liberal. You just don't know it. Maybe you ought to look up what liberalism is.

They support killing babies and homosexuality--both abominations in the Bible.

And eating shellfish! Kill the shellfish eaters! They are a worse abomination!

They hate the USA, God, and President Bush. Also wrong according to the Bible.

Yes. God says we must all love President Bush! I agree with you.

They support being nice to criminals and terrorists.

I'm sure Osama bin Laden would make a most interesting dinner guest.

Many are communists/socialists.

Democrats are communists. Yeah... I get it. I see that. Follows from the name, doesn't it?

They enable satanic forces to gain power. Many are satan worshippers.:eek:

Ooh. Satanic forces. Ooh err. Scary.

They let child molesters out of jail.

But:

They fill our jails.

So, are the child molesters in or out of jail? :confused:

They take most of the welfare, food stamps, free healthcare.

What free healthcare? America doesn't have a health care system, to speak of.

They have entitlement mentalities.

But:

They hate the rich. They are anti-capitalists.

So capitalists don't have entitlement mentalities? Hmmm...

A little confused, but I'm still with you. Promise.

They should move to France. Or Iran.

Yeah. Throw out about 50% of the US population, I say! They can all go somewhere else. Leave the rednecks in peace. Then they can use their guns to shoot each other in peace.

You do not get peace by running from a fight. Showing weakness encourages futher attacks. Pulling out before order is restored would be either stupid, cowardly, or both.

So do you get peace by picking a fight, then lying about who started it?

So do you get peace by picking a fight, then lying about who started it?Once you're in a fight, it does not matter who started it. You fight to win. Running away (strategic redeployment) shows weakness, and guarantees you will be attacked. Why not attack? You're obviously too much of a pussy to fight back.

Once you're in a fight, it does not matter who started it. You fight to win. Running away (strategic redeployment) shows weakness, and guarantees you will be attacked. Why not attack? You're obviously too much of a pussy to fight back.

You're absolutely right.
Better to be a bully than, um, not a bully.

So do you get peace by picking a fight, then lying about who started it?

I don't know. Perhaps we should ask Saddam Hussein about that one? Oh that's right. He was executed (despite Republican protest) by his own people for murdering hundreds.

You're absolutely right.
Better to be a bully than, um, not a bully.
As I said, it doesn't matter why the war started. Once it starts, you must fight to win until you win.

But since you insist, Saddam started the war when he invaded Kuwait and then didn't comply with the cease fire agreement.

Since the only way for the US to "win" in Iraq would seem to be a massive genocidal slaughter of at least 50% of Iraqis, we have a very serious problem on our hands.

Much like our previous effort to save south east Asia from the south east Asians, we will prop up a puppet, try to train a fighting force, and then leave. But not before wasting trillions more dollars, and at least a few thousand more of our soldiers lives. In the end, the outcome will be the same. A majority Shia government, closely aligned with Iran.

As I said, it doesn't matter why the war started.

Really? So you've given up on defending it? Nice.
Sort of goes with the whole "if America pulls out, it's cause we're too good anyway." At least you are acknowleding that it's unjustified and unwanted, however tacitly.

Once it starts, you must fight to win until you win.

You know winning means genocide, yes? Americans, frankly, don't have the balls for that. So it's either lose now, or lose later. Losing now is much cheaper.
Or we could pull a Saddam and start targeting civilians.

But since you insist, Saddam started the war when he invaded Kuwait and then didn't comply with the cease fire agreement.

1. Saddam invaded Kuwait, not the US. But I guess since they fucked up oil prices, it's the same thing.
2. America virtually gave Iraq the go ahead, along with bushels of weapons, material, and equipment.

As I said, it doesn't matter why the war started. Once it starts, you must fight to win until you win.

But since you insist, Saddam started the war when he invaded Kuwait and then didn't comply with the cease fire agreement.

Hate to be the one to tell you, but Saddam is already dead and so is his regime. In europe it was all over the newspapers.

As I said, it doesn't matter why the war started. Once it starts, you must fight to win until you win. If you don't know how or why the war started, how do you decide when you've won?
1. I repeat, you liberals were dead wrong when you screamed that "Reagan will start World War III." You were dead wrong then and you haven't changed a bit. Reagan's administration was the key player in organizing and funding Islamic jihadists, and emboldening them by retreating in the face of terrorism, knuckling under to hostage takers, etc.

Some conservatives have been referring to TWAT as "WWIII" (or IV, if they number the Cold War as III).

Let me rephrase that in language conservatives can follow: You conservatives have been screaming that the War On Terror is World War III.

So by the conservatives' criteria, Reagan did start WWIII. He certainly got us into a mess, well furthered by his associates who signed on with W.

iceaura

The sad fact is that Carter gave the Islamics terrorist the first foot hold to power in the world.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825448.html

Iran hostage crisis
Iran hostage crisis, in U.S. history, events following the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran by Iranian students on Nov. 4, 1979. The overthrow of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlevi of Iran by an Islamic revolutionary government earlier in the year had led to a steady deterioration in Iran-U.S. relations. In response to the exiled shah's admission (Sept., 1979) to the United States for medical treatment, a crowd of about 500 seized the embassy. Of the approximately 90 people inside the embassy, 52 remained in captivity until the end of the crisis.

President Carter applied economic pressure by halting oil imports from Iran and freezing Iranian assets in the United States. At the same time, he began several diplomatic initiatives to free the hostages, all of which proved fruitless. On Apr. 24, 1980, the United States attempted a rescue mission that failed. After three of eight helicopters were damaged in a sandstorm, the operation was aborted; eight persons were killed during the evacuation. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who had opposed the action, resigned after the mission's failure.


In 1980, the death of the shah in Egypt and the invasion of Iran by Iraq (see Iran-Iraq War) made the Iranians more receptive to resolving the hostage crisis. In the United States, failure to resolve the crisis contributed to Ronald Reagan's defeat of Carter in the presidential election. After the election, with the assistance of Algerian intermediaries, successful negotiations began. On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration,

The sad fact is that Carter gave the Islamics the first foot hold to power in the world. So conservatives still can't tell a Sunni jihadist from a Shia partisan. Why am I not surprised.

If you are going to trace back all Western/Muslim conflicts, Carter is not the place to find the beginning. Who destroyed democracy in Iran and installed tyranny in the first place ?

Interesting forgotten matter: Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who had opposed the action, resigned after the mission's failure. The US government was not always the dishonorable pack of mobsters and sycophants it is now.

iceaura

So conservatives still can't tell a Sunni jihadist from a Shia partisan. Why am I not surprised

Sorry a mistype for got the (terrorist), and as you liberals are so fond of pointing out one mans Partisan, is another mans Terrorist.



If you are going to trace back all Western/Muslim conflicts, Carter is not the place to find the beginning. Who destroyed democracy in Iran and installed tyranny in the first place ?

ps: Carter is a democrat.
A Democrat, and the British, It was under the Democrats that that happened.

I agree. All US Presidents are full of crap.

On June 23, 1941, the day after Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union, Senator Truman declared: "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word.

I find the last statement especially hilarious.

samcdkey

I agree. All US Presidents are full of crap.

So speaks sam from the cess pool of India.

So speaks sam from the cess pool of India.

Oh, c'mon, Buffalo, give her/him a break. If you'd grown up in the cess pool of India, you'd be a bitter, angry, vindictive bitch, too, wouldn't you? :D

Baron Max

a bitter, angry, vindictive bitch


So what's your excuse?:D

So what's your excuse?:D

So ...it doesn't bother you to be compared to me? And you even do it yourself? Hmmm?

How many poor, old Indians have you helped today, Sam? And, since there's so many out there right now, what the fuck are you doing there at your computer? Get out there and help those poor, old bastards!!

Baron Max

Long as we're on the subject, Reagan's betrayal of the hostages and the US for political gain is worth checking out for its many connections to the current Republican administration.
After the election, with the assistance of Algerian intermediaries, successful negotiations began. It was before the elections, according to all the actual evidence we have of "negotiations".

Here, for the longer conspiracy theory version (and plenty of evidence): http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

Here for a short version without as much supporting evidence: http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
The official history states that after winning the election, before his inauguration, Reagan pushed hard for a resolution. Using the Algerian government as intermediaries successful negotiations were completed. However ther eis strong evidence of what is termed the "Ootober Surprise" took place.

This is the name for the substantuve allegation that representatives of the Reagan presidential campaign made a deal at two sets of meetings in July and August at the Ritz Hotel in Madrid with Iranians to delay the release of Americans held hostage in Iran until after the November 1980 presidential elections, so that Reagan's opponent, then President Jimmy Carter, whose team had been negotiating, wouldn't gain a popularity boost (an 'October Surprise') before election day.

The allegations included a date-specific allegation that William Casey met with an Iranian cleric in Madrid, Spain, and much of the tardy investigations centered on whether, at the weekend in question he was actually at Bohemian Grove retreat in California. Though William Casey was provably in London following the alleged meetings, critical pages of his daybook diary were unaccountably missing when the investigators came to look for them over a decade later.
- - -
A 1981 Congressional probe into the Reagan campaign's theft of White House briefing books on the eve of a presidential debate disclosed that Reagan campaign manager William Casey (later CIA chief), was receiving highly classified reports on closely held Carter administration intelligence on the Carter campaign and the Democratic president's efforts to liberate the hostages. William Casey was Reagan's campaign manager, later named head of the CIA. Reagan's was the kind of Presidency under which such jobs required similar qualifications and expertise.

Not only his otherwise complete and thorough journal was missing pages, but his passport (which would have shown visa stamps,etc) also, furthermore his family refused (and refuses still) to release other relevant personal papers.

And "negotiations" is an interesting word. We won't say "negotiations with terrorists" because as everyone knows Republicans deny doing that, and as many know the Iranians involved were not terrorists. But the eventual payoff - weapons including missiles dealt illegally and under the table to Iran's anti-American government - is not something honest negotiations could have offered.