Tuesday, August 15, 2006
More Wisdom from Dr. Dean
The good doctor answer to David Gregory's question on last Sunday's Meet the Press below reproduced with my comments in color (with links to the support for some of my statements):
MR. GREGORY: You talk about defending America. What is the Democratic Party's prescription for fighting and winning the war on terror?
MR. DEAN: Well, first of all, if you want to fight and win on the war on terror, the fact is Iraq is a distraction. (Not according to the people involved, including the Jihadists-- Bin Laden said "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation" Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki said basically the same thing before a joint session of Congress in July)
Iraq never had anything to do with the war on terror (as lefty writer Christopher Hitchens has pointed out Iraq was the retirement home for old terrorists including Abdul Rahman Yasin and Abu Nidal, as well as the shelter for the late Mr. Zarqawi ; Steven Hayes has a whole book about the connection)
and that's just a fact (Democrat talking point)
and that;s what the 9/11 Commission said (not even close--the Commission did find evidence of co-operation between al Qaeda and Saddam, they just didn't find a day to day co-ordination of operations. Since the 9/11 report came out, there have been many documents from Iraq declassified which show a great deal of co-operation between the two. And the Czech counterintelligence service stands by its report that Mohammad Atta met with a former head of Iraqi Intelligence (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani) in Prague a few months before 9/11).
So it's not enough to listen to the right-wing folks that claim that we're fighting the terrorists off the shore so they don't come on the shore. That is hooey. (How can it be hooey that preoccupying the terrorists with basic survival, in the face of attacks from American troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, might keep them from planning and carrying out another attack on us over here? A forward, layered defense is a basic miltenanttenent, as is the maxim the best defense is a good offense).
The people who fought the terrorism best in the last couple of weeks have been the British, who uncovered this plot. (Yes. Well done Brits).
We need to upgrade our airport security (Do we really? No one will be able to use a hijacked plane as a weapon again because the passengers will beat them to death and the liquid explosive route seems much more difficult now. Isn't this closing the barn door after the horse has escaped?)
and we've tried to do that in the Democratic Party, (really? When? Name the bill)
and our additions to the budget in Homeland Security have been turned down by the Republican majority (really? When? Name the bill)
We need a real tough fight on terror, (agreed)
but we need to be tough and smart (you mean like John Kerry smart? No thanks),
not just talk tough. (When have the Democrats, other than Joe Lieberman, ever talked tough about the Jihadists, much less been tough about defeating the Islamic fascists?)
It's not as bad as the scream, but the mixture of false statements with wrong headedness from the head of the Democrats' National Committee is simply breathtaking.
MR. GREGORY: You talk about defending America. What is the Democratic Party's prescription for fighting and winning the war on terror?
MR. DEAN: Well, first of all, if you want to fight and win on the war on terror, the fact is Iraq is a distraction. (Not according to the people involved, including the Jihadists-- Bin Laden said "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation" Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki said basically the same thing before a joint session of Congress in July)
Iraq never had anything to do with the war on terror (as lefty writer Christopher Hitchens has pointed out Iraq was the retirement home for old terrorists including Abdul Rahman Yasin and Abu Nidal, as well as the shelter for the late Mr. Zarqawi ; Steven Hayes has a whole book about the connection)
and that's just a fact (Democrat talking point)
and that;s what the 9/11 Commission said (not even close--the Commission did find evidence of co-operation between al Qaeda and Saddam, they just didn't find a day to day co-ordination of operations. Since the 9/11 report came out, there have been many documents from Iraq declassified which show a great deal of co-operation between the two. And the Czech counterintelligence service stands by its report that Mohammad Atta met with a former head of Iraqi Intelligence (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani) in Prague a few months before 9/11).
So it's not enough to listen to the right-wing folks that claim that we're fighting the terrorists off the shore so they don't come on the shore. That is hooey. (How can it be hooey that preoccupying the terrorists with basic survival, in the face of attacks from American troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, might keep them from planning and carrying out another attack on us over here? A forward, layered defense is a basic miltenanttenent, as is the maxim the best defense is a good offense).
The people who fought the terrorism best in the last couple of weeks have been the British, who uncovered this plot. (Yes. Well done Brits).
We need to upgrade our airport security (Do we really? No one will be able to use a hijacked plane as a weapon again because the passengers will beat them to death and the liquid explosive route seems much more difficult now. Isn't this closing the barn door after the horse has escaped?)
and we've tried to do that in the Democratic Party, (really? When? Name the bill)
and our additions to the budget in Homeland Security have been turned down by the Republican majority (really? When? Name the bill)
We need a real tough fight on terror, (agreed)
but we need to be tough and smart (you mean like John Kerry smart? No thanks),
not just talk tough. (When have the Democrats, other than Joe Lieberman, ever talked tough about the Jihadists, much less been tough about defeating the Islamic fascists?)
It's not as bad as the scream, but the mixture of false statements with wrong headedness from the head of the Democrats' National Committee is simply breathtaking.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 5:28 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
the Commission did find evidence of co-operation between al Qaeda and Saddam.
Using the article you link here as a reference....
While it found no operational ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has concluded that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network had long-running contacts with Iraq's neighbor and historic foe, Iran.
(emphasis added)
I see, you got confused between Iraq and it's neighbor. Forgivable. It is a one letter mistake.
Again from the article (in fairness)....
The Sept. 11 panel's findings on Iran have been eclipsed by the continuing political debate over Iraq, which the commission said had NOT developed a "collaborative relationship" with al Qaeda despite limited contacts in the 1990s.
Remember, this link was supposed to give evidence of "co-operation" between Iraq and al Qaeda. Had the 911 commission established that a "collaborative relationship" had existed between the two, then you would be right. Collaborative implies co-operation, limited contacts only assumes cooperation, which is exactly what you have done despite the evidence, or rather lack there of in this case.
Your case that a "great deal of co-operation" was evidenced by some unverified documents that indicate there was an agreement to build a training camp. Had there been a camp, or if any action had taken place to that effect I could begin to see your point.
And the evidence that Atta met with a "former head of Iraqi Intelligence" is tenuous at best. I know that the disgraced and ousted Stanislav Gross stands by his statement, but his word isn't worth much around here these days. Sure, the Czech government wanted this war. The Czech army has the best chemical weapons detection team in the world. The became known as the most bored soldiers in Iraq.
I've mentioned before that a friend of mine followed the story back and found that they were both indeed in Prague, and in fact had visited the same place. However, no one could veryfy that they met. That is why the story of the meeting never hit. He was trying to get a scoop for the WSJ but came up short. Just not enough evidence. The outrageous story that they met in front of Radio Free Europe is so ludicris it defies description. Have you been there? LOL! No, they both visited the same shady place, a dark hole in Prague. Go figure those too would hang out in the same kind of place.
The connection you imply between Iraq and al Qaeda is not even worthy of being called tenuous.
A bit sloppy I think. Sorry.
But even if it were there, lets say Atta got a little spending cash from the former Iraqi minister. Let's just assume he did. Does that justify making Iraq the central front in the war on Terror? $300,000,000,000 spent so far. $1,000,000,000 spent on homeland security.
The central front in the war on terror is at home and in the schools and villages of Africa and Asia. The sooner we start realizing that, the safer we are going to be.
Using the article you link here as a reference....
While it found no operational ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has concluded that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network had long-running contacts with Iraq's neighbor and historic foe, Iran.
(emphasis added)
I see, you got confused between Iraq and it's neighbor. Forgivable. It is a one letter mistake.
Again from the article (in fairness)....
The Sept. 11 panel's findings on Iran have been eclipsed by the continuing political debate over Iraq, which the commission said had NOT developed a "collaborative relationship" with al Qaeda despite limited contacts in the 1990s.
Remember, this link was supposed to give evidence of "co-operation" between Iraq and al Qaeda. Had the 911 commission established that a "collaborative relationship" had existed between the two, then you would be right. Collaborative implies co-operation, limited contacts only assumes cooperation, which is exactly what you have done despite the evidence, or rather lack there of in this case.
Your case that a "great deal of co-operation" was evidenced by some unverified documents that indicate there was an agreement to build a training camp. Had there been a camp, or if any action had taken place to that effect I could begin to see your point.
And the evidence that Atta met with a "former head of Iraqi Intelligence" is tenuous at best. I know that the disgraced and ousted Stanislav Gross stands by his statement, but his word isn't worth much around here these days. Sure, the Czech government wanted this war. The Czech army has the best chemical weapons detection team in the world. The became known as the most bored soldiers in Iraq.
I've mentioned before that a friend of mine followed the story back and found that they were both indeed in Prague, and in fact had visited the same place. However, no one could veryfy that they met. That is why the story of the meeting never hit. He was trying to get a scoop for the WSJ but came up short. Just not enough evidence. The outrageous story that they met in front of Radio Free Europe is so ludicris it defies description. Have you been there? LOL! No, they both visited the same shady place, a dark hole in Prague. Go figure those too would hang out in the same kind of place.
The connection you imply between Iraq and al Qaeda is not even worthy of being called tenuous.
A bit sloppy I think. Sorry.
But even if it were there, lets say Atta got a little spending cash from the former Iraqi minister. Let's just assume he did. Does that justify making Iraq the central front in the war on Terror? $300,000,000,000 spent so far. $1,000,000,000 spent on homeland security.
The central front in the war on terror is at home and in the schools and villages of Africa and Asia. The sooner we start realizing that, the safer we are going to be.
Thanks for reading beyond where I stopped on the link. Does anyone dispute that Iran backs all Jihadists? Also, am I mistaken about the findings of the 9/11 Commission about non-operational but still very real connections between al Qaeda and Iraq? My memory has been going but it's not completely gone.
And the meeting between Atta and the Iraqi guy (whatever the details) was not a serious reason for finishing the Gulf War. That the Gulf War was unfinished was a 100 times more the reason than a terrorist connection (and no one doubts that Saddam was paying Philistine bombers in Israei, by the way). I think your ratio of offense to defense is about right and we had the chance to create a shining city on the hill of Iraq but that might be a few years off, now. I agree about the schools (but what exactly do we do?) but disagree that we should cover up and wait. England knew the Armada was coming but didn't wait, they attacked Cadiz and burned water barrels up and down the Spanish Coast. Attack and disrupt, I always say.
And the meeting between Atta and the Iraqi guy (whatever the details) was not a serious reason for finishing the Gulf War. That the Gulf War was unfinished was a 100 times more the reason than a terrorist connection (and no one doubts that Saddam was paying Philistine bombers in Israei, by the way). I think your ratio of offense to defense is about right and we had the chance to create a shining city on the hill of Iraq but that might be a few years off, now. I agree about the schools (but what exactly do we do?) but disagree that we should cover up and wait. England knew the Armada was coming but didn't wait, they attacked Cadiz and burned water barrels up and down the Spanish Coast. Attack and disrupt, I always say.
Also, am I mistaken about the findings of the 9/11 Commission about non-operational but still very real connections between al Qaeda and Iraq?
Well, in short, yes. There was "limited contact" which in my mind is far short of "very real connections."
No one is arguing that Iraq was not supporting Palestinian suicide bombers. What they are arguing is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and thus picking Iraq as the central front on the War on Terror that was initiated as a direct response to 9/11 was, and is, innappropriate.
Your propensity for linking al Qaida to Iraq to justify the invation is specifically what I take issue with.
Your use of the British/Spanish example is somewhat like comparing apples and oranges, but nevertheless, if you wish to disrupt, doesn't it seem like OBL and Afghanistan should be at least equally in focus as Iraq if not more so?
This point seems beyond obvious to me.
Post a Comment
Well, in short, yes. There was "limited contact" which in my mind is far short of "very real connections."
No one is arguing that Iraq was not supporting Palestinian suicide bombers. What they are arguing is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and thus picking Iraq as the central front on the War on Terror that was initiated as a direct response to 9/11 was, and is, innappropriate.
Your propensity for linking al Qaida to Iraq to justify the invation is specifically what I take issue with.
Your use of the British/Spanish example is somewhat like comparing apples and oranges, but nevertheless, if you wish to disrupt, doesn't it seem like OBL and Afghanistan should be at least equally in focus as Iraq if not more so?
This point seems beyond obvious to me.
<< Home
