Ummm... Guys...

[RI Bills Fan]

Yeah, I know it hasn't officially started yet but barring something horrendous happening he's it for the next four years.

 

Four years is a long time politically. So when does this administration start accepting the responsibility for the things that still need to be fixed?

 

It's Clinton's fault just doesn't cut it anymore. Clinton left office in 2001. Bush has had a Republican Congress for his entire first term and starts his second term with the same. When does the reality of that simple fact set in?

[_BiB_]

Yeah, I know it hasn't officially started yet but barring something horrendous happening he's it for the next four years.

 

Four years is a long time politically. So when does this administration start accepting the responsibility for the things that still need to be fixed?

 

It's Clinton's fault just doesn't cut it anymore. Clinton left office in 2001. Bush has had a Republican Congress for his entire first term and starts his second term with the same. When does the reality of that simple fact set in?

134569[/snapback]

 

But trust me, four years is not a long time bureaucratically.

[Alaska Darin]

Yeah, I know it hasn't officially started yet but barring something horrendous happening he's it for the next four years.

 

Four years is a long time politically. So when does this administration start accepting the responsibility for the things that still need to be fixed?

 

It's Clinton's fault just doesn't cut it anymore. Clinton left office in 2001. Bush has had a Republican Congress for his entire first term and starts his second term with the same. When does the reality of that simple fact set in?

134569[/snapback]

Politicians who take responsibility? Yeah, that's likely. Pass whatever it is you're drinking, smoking, snorting, etc.

[/dev/null]

Yeah, I know it hasn't officially started yet but barring something horrendous happening he's it for the next four years.

 

Four years is a long time politically. So when does this administration start accepting the responsibility for the things that still need to be fixed?

 

It's Clinton's fault just doesn't cut it anymore. Clinton left office in 2001. Bush has had a Republican Congress for his entire first term and starts his second term with the same. When does the reality of that simple fact set in?

134569[/snapback]

 

bush should follow clinton's example of a 2nd term and find a chunky intern, get a blow job, dial in the next 4 years, and pardon half his campaign contributors in his last week

[Alaska Darin]

bush should follow clinton's example of a 2nd term and find a chunky intern, get a blow job, dial in the next 4 years, and pardon half his campaign contributors in his last week

134703[/snapback]

Don't worry, at least some of that'll come to pass.

[Wham Rocks]

If Bush is smart, which his constituents assure me he is, he'll find a way to fix

the self-inflicted quagmire in Iraq. He'll also explain why "nation building" is a good idea now even though he opposed the same idea four years ago... back to a time when I actually agreed with his stance on foreign relations. Pointless wastes of American resources and energy in Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Sudan were enough for me. I was hoping for a new president that opposed the notion of acting as the world police. Oh well, true conservatism is dead anyway.

[UConn James]

If Bush is smart, which his constituents assure me he is, he'll find a way to fix

the self-inflicted quagmire in Iraq.  He'll also explain why "nation building" is a good idea now even though he opposed the same idea four years ago... back to a time when I actually agreed with his stance on foreign relations.  Pointless wastes of American resources and energy in Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Sudan were enough for me.  I was hoping for a new president that opposed the notion of acting as the world police.  Oh well, true conservatism is dead anyway.

134801[/snapback]

 

It boggled my mind why Kerry never mentioned that buzzword from the 2000 campaign (that is probably the biggest reason Bush got in the White House) and say 'Told ya so.' Or speak Simpleton with a phrase like 'When you point your finger at someone else's mistakes, you've got 3 fingers pointing back at yourself.' Was this some kind of line he didn't want to cross? Badly run campaign b/c he didn't go for the jugular and FULLY explain things like his Iraq funding No vote based on how we were going to pay for it rather than not wanting to provide supplies for the troops. He let Bush define him. Run a better candidate in '08 (FYI, it will not be Hillary) and I'll see if I vote for them after balancing all their schtick.

 

I don't like us playing World Cop either. Come back to bite us more times than it's actually done much good. Someone you try to help today is your sworn or tacit enemy 20 years later.

[_BiB_]

Unfortunately, 9/11 changed everything. That was a dynamic never considered when the original policy statements were issued during the campaign. It's not like the guy lied. Once the true nature and aspirations of the new enemy were fully realized, a strategy was embarked on to combat them. The media and many of our politicians have made this out to be a war against Al Qaida, retribution for the attacks of 9/11. The popular view is that AQ hates our way of life (true, but not their main purpose). This is not the reality of the situation. I can go on with the diatribe, but I've already done it about three dozen times and chances are you've read it.

 

If there wasn't a 9/11, we wouldn't be here. And this is not a case of nation building just to do it, it's part of an overarching strategy to combat terrorism, and to defeat the goals of those who want to establish a pan-islamic fundamental muslim state within the entirety of the middle east and western asia. People might not like it, but they should understand what it's really about.

[Wham Rocks]

If there wasn't a 9/11, we wouldn't be here. And this is not a case of nation building just to do it, it's part of an overarching strategy to combat terrorism, and to defeat the goals of those who want to establish a pan-islamic fundamental muslim state within the entirety of the middle east and western asia. People might not like it, but they should understand what it's really about.

134886[/snapback]

 

Some strategy.

 

Let's remove the only secular ruler in the middle east that clamps down on Islamic fundamentalists. You do realize that Iraq is 60% Shiite, which is coincidentally the faction of Islam that supports and contributes to al Qaeda most fervently. And as you know, none of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq.

 

Let's be extremely generous and assume democracy graces the political halls of Iraq within the next ten years. Do you want a Shiite led country in power? There's a reason why Shiite majorities are indiscrimately repressed in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. They're nuts. More than half of Saudis, primarily Shiites, consider Osama bin Laden a hero. Same deal in Pakistan. This is not a friendly faction of Islam nor should Shiites be trusted with power.

 

Iraq is not only a quagmire presently, but Iraq also has the potential to become an Islamic theocracy if democracy is ever established. The Shiite majority is so easily swayed by Islamic rhetoric, and I can scarcely believe they won't vote based on theocratic doctrine. Islam isn't just a religion, it's a way of life encompassing moral, economic, and political mandates. That's why fundamentalist Muslims are often so fervent about Islamic rule. That's why out of the 15 current armed conflicts in the world, all 15 include a Muslim faction.

[DC Tom]

Some strategy.

 

Let's remove the only secular ruler in the middle east that clamps down on Islamic fundamentalists. You do realize that Iraq is 60% Shiite, which is coincidentally the faction of Islam that supports and contributes to al Qaeda most fervently.

134941[/snapback]

 

The Taliban and al Qaeda are Sunni, as are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Iran (Shia) nearly went to war a couple of times against the Taliban, in part over their genocidal pogroms against the Shia population in western Afghanistan (and in part over the nasty habit the Taliban had of executing Iranian diplomats). And the lion's share of financial support for the Taliban and al Qaeda come from: Saudi source (Sunni), and Pakistani madrassas (Sunni). Shiite support for al Qaeda is simply a fable.

[Mickey]

Some strategy.

 

Let's remove the only secular ruler in the middle east that clamps down on Islamic fundamentalists. You do realize that Iraq is 60% Shiite, which is coincidentally the faction of Islam that supports and contributes to al Qaeda most fervently. And as you know, none of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq. 

 

Let's be extremely generous and assume democracy graces the political halls of Iraq within the next ten years. Do you want a Shiite led country in power? There's a reason why Shiite majorities are indiscrimately repressed in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. They're nuts. More than half of Saudis, primarily Shiites, consider Osama bin Laden a hero. Same deal in Pakistan. This is not a friendly faction of Islam nor should Shiites be trusted with power. 

 

Iraq is not only a quagmire presently, but Iraq also has the potential to become an Islamic theocracy if democracy is ever established. The Shiite majority is so easily swayed by Islamic rhetoric, and I can scarcely believe they won't vote based on theocratic doctrine. Islam isn't just a religion, it's a way of life encompassing moral, economic, and political mandates.  That's why fundamentalist Muslims are often so fervent about Islamic rule.  That's why out of the 15 current armed conflicts in the world, all 15 include a Muslim faction.

134941[/snapback]

I think what you are saying is that basically, a democratic government in Iraq isn't going to last much longer than the presence of our troops. We leave, they fall thus, we may not be able to ever leave.

 

I have the same worry but you know, we are committed to that outcome for good or ill. Should we have invaded? We did. That question fades in importance. I thought it was important in deciding whether or not we should trust GW's judgment but the election is over so that is no longer an issue. Should we build a democracy in Iraq? It is the only choice we have right now.

[Wham Rocks]

The Taliban and al Qaeda are Sunni, as are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

 

You're making the false assumption that royalty won't intermingle with the peasants. Al Qaeda is led by a branch of Sunni extremists but they cordially invite and recruit Shiites (among others) just the same. Terrorists don't exactly have discriminating tastes when it comes to recruiting those who are willing to blow themselves up.

 

The Taliban even accepted suburban white boy, John Walker Lindh, to fight off the marauding infidels. They ally themselves with anyone sympathetic to their cause. For example, the mujahideen allied themselves with the Allah-less Americans in the 1980's in order to defeat the communist pinko Soviets. Consequently, the Taliban was US friendly until our interests met a crossroads after 9-11. The Taliban and al Qaeda aren't stuffy aristocrats, they won't turn up their noses at the drooling proles if they are sympathetic to their objectives.

 

And while Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are ruled by minorities, Shiites represent a majority in both countries and overwhelmingly sympathize with bin Laden and other terrorist networks. Just look at recent polls taken in Saudi Arabia, more than half the population laud bin Laden a hero.

 

The fued between Shiites and Sunnies is largely attributed to political divisions where ruling Sunni minorities refuse to share power with Shiite majorities. The Iraq war and anti-US attitudes in general are a few issues where these two groups hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

 

Shiite support for al Qaeda is simply a fable.

134966[/snapback]

 

The following groups (Shia included) work closely with al Qaeda.

 

Egyptian Islamic Jihad

Jamaat Islamiyya (Egypt)

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group

Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen)

Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Kashmir)

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group (Algeria)

Abu Sayyaf Group (Malaysia, Philippines)

 

There is even mounting evidence that Hezbollah (overwhelmingly Shia) is stepping up cooperation with al Qaeda.

 

All this combined with the fact that Shiite Muslims represent a significant recruiting block of al Qaeda's foot soldiers, suggests the "fable" is alive and well. Remember: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Wham Rocks]

I think what you are saying is that basically, a democratic government in Iraq isn't going to last much longer than the presence of our troops.  We leave, they fall thus, we may not be able to ever leave. 

135204[/snapback]

 

Sort of.

 

I'm suggesting that majority Shiites may use the democratic process to usher in an Islamic theocracy. It just depends how they are influenced.

 

The entire middle east is a region easily swayed by Islamic rhetoric. Even Saudi Arabian royals who are moderate use anti-Jewish, pro-fundamentlist Islamic rhetoric to appeal to the masses. Its a part of the political game over there.

 

Cleric al Sistini happens to be very moderate but his health is in question. Most polls in Iraq show heavy support for Cleric al Sadr. Not necessarily for president, but as a symbol of Iraqi unity and nationalism.

 

Its like Christian fundamentalists in this country who are easily swayed by anti-gay, anti-atheist rhetoric from pastors on TBN. Now imagine if they represented 60% of the voting block here in America. I have no doubt the march towards theocracy would begin. Thus, my concern for an easily swayed Shiite majority in Iraq.

[KD in CA]

Yeah, I know it hasn't officially started yet but barring something horrendous happening he's it for the next four years.

 

Four years is a long time politically. So when does this administration start accepting the responsibility for the things that still need to be fixed?

 

It's Clinton's fault just doesn't cut it anymore. Clinton left office in 2001. Bush has had a Republican Congress for his entire first term and starts his second term with the same. When does the reality of that simple fact set in?

134569[/snapback]

 

What haven't they accepted responsibility for? I don't hear anyone blaming things on Clinton these days.

[Britbillsfan]

Saudi Arabia is Sunni, overwhelmingly. The large majority of Pakistanis are Sunnis (77%), with about 20% being Shi'as.

 

Al-Qaeda is a Sunni fundamentalist terrorist group.

 

The difference between Sunni and Shi'a fundamentalists is not 'political differences'. Shi'a is (in the minds of many Sunnis) a heretical sect. Think of the European Inquisitions when bearing in mind the fundamentalists' attitudes towards Shi'as. One of the aims of al-Qaeda is to get rid of the 'heresy', if necessary by killing them all. The bombs at the Shi'a Ashura festival a while back were a direct manifestation of the attitude of getting rid of the heretics (271 Shi'as were killed and they were the sole target), also there have been numerous attacks on the Shi'a minority in Pakistan over the last few years.

 

Al Qaeda and Shi'a are totally incompatable, in the same way as Al Qaeda and the USA being totally incompatable.

[ExiledInIllinois]

No point trying to convince the maroons on the right... They are still trying to find the sarin that was in the video.

 

But, it is there... The boogy man is there. All has changed since that faithful day... We are in a brave new world!

 

Keep buying the crap they are shoveling. Please protect me!

 

Excuse my irreverance... It doesn't matter to the ones with the least to lose.

 

[Snorom]

Yeah, I know it hasn't officially started yet but barring something horrendous happening he's it for the next four years.

 

Four years is a long time politically. So when does this administration start accepting the responsibility for the things that still need to be fixed?

 

It's Clinton's fault just doesn't cut it anymore. Clinton left office in 2001. Bush has had a Republican Congress for his entire first term and starts his second term with the same. When does the reality of that simple fact set in?

134569[/snapback]

 

 

When all is said and done, our nation will be alot worse off. We've already started a steady downward spiral, and I loathe what the future hplds for this country.

[DC Tom]

And while Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are ruled by minorities, Shiites represent a majority in both countries and overwhelmingly sympathize with bin Laden and other terrorist networks. Just look at recent polls taken in Saudi Arabia, more than half the population laud bin Laden a hero.

 

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are overwhelmingly Sunni. The only countries with Shia majorities are Iran, Iraq, and I believe Lebanon.

 

The following groups (Shia included) work closely with al Qaeda.

 

Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Egypt)

Jamaat Islamiyya (Egypt)

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group

Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen)

Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Kashmir)

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group (Algeria)

Abu Sayyaf Group (Malaysia, Philippines)

 

135678[/snapback]

 

And precisely which of these groups are Shia? Islamic Jihad, Jamaat Islamiyya, the AIG, the Kashmir groups, and Abu Sayyaf certainly aren't (the last three, in particular, are directly rooted in the Pashtun Sunni mujahadeen). In fact, the Uzbek group is the only one I can't say for certain isn't rooted in the Afghan Sunni movements - but I could make a pretty good circumstantial case.