New Republican Talking Point

[101A]

I first read it yesterday in the Morris Article; now this morning I've heard from two separate media sources.

It goes like this:

• The orignal Gulf War never ended, we simply retreated to Saudi Arabia to keep an eye on Saddam and enforce our sanctions.
• Osama HATED this and actually made it one of his major contentions with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in his fatwa calling for jihad (big, scary islamastremist words).
• As long as Saddam was in power we couldn't remove our troops from Saudi Arabia.
• Whatever the cost we HAD to get rid of Saddam, because as long as we were there, we couldn't get on with the war on terror - because our mere presence was pissing Muslims off.
• We couldn't just leave (Saddam would have been seen as a victor).
• Jihadists see victory over the West as an EVEN GREATER recruiting tool than an actual HOT WAR against us (this tidbit skillfully declassified to discredit the previous NIE leak - which I now believe was Rove all along)
• Ultimately defeating the insurgents in Iraq is the single biggest blow we could deliver to the Jihadists.

This scenario, which seems perfectly plausible and logical has now been out there for 24 hours, and there has been no response, or call of "foul" from the Democrats.

I don't know about you, but I've never seen this spelled out before. Taken as a package it is brilliant politically. If somebody calls for us to pull out, they can now be called REALLY dumb for giving the Jihadists a recruiting tool - and if someone claims that our presence in Iraq is the recruiting tool, the pro-war croud can cite Osama's own words and fatwa in claiming that our having to contain Saddam by remaining in Saudi Arabia wa ALREADY a primary recruiting tool. This makes arguing against the war futile (just cleaning things up to get on with the war on terror), and calling for a pull-out just stupid.

Well played, Rove.

[boutons_]

"The orignal Gulf War never ended"

Of course it did. Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait, as the strongly supported UN resolution called for. As his invading army retreated, it was destroyed by an orgy of "coaltion of the billing" military firepower. All shooting, and threat of shooting, stopped.

The occupation of nearby countries like SA, the close, constant surveillance, the flyovers were required to dissuade and contain Saddam and his broken military which remained broken and no threat.

"As long as Saddam was in power we couldn't remove our troops from Saudi Arabia."

Not true. With the close survelliance by satellite and US flyovers from Turkey and other non-nearby countries, any Iraq troop movements (which were detected by the US before the Kuwait invaision without the US stationed in SA). The US installed itself in SA to protect SA oil and as a base to attack Kuwait. If SA would have insisted the US leave SA, the US could have moved to Kuwait and been just as effective of a containing deterrant and protector of US oil supplies.

After Kuwait was liberated, the US could have moved ALL of its SA bases to Kuweit and nearby countries, getting US boots off Osama's native, sacred SA sand (Mohammed, Medina, Mecca). But I doubt the US was going to the expense of vacating SA and move to Kuwiat just because it was pissing off OBL. Plus the SA royal family has serious man love of Poppie.

"We couldn't just leave (Saddam would have been seen as a victor)."

Not true. UN mandate was to remove Saddam from Kuwait, Mission Accomplished, was NOT remove Saddam from Iraq. Saddam was in no way victorious. His invasion of Kuwait was an Iraq military disaster, from which Iraq never recovered.

"Jihadists see victory over the West as an EVEN GREATER recruiting tool"

What victory over the west? The first Gulf War? There's no way the West lost the First Gulf War.

"Ultimately defeating the insurgents in Iraq is the single biggest blow we could deliver to the Jihadists."

The insurgents term applied when the primary target was the US occupying invaders. The insurgency is now distantly secondary to the sectarian civil war.

The US military at 150K has been, is now, and will always be too small to impose security on the totality of Iraq. Shinsheki was right, Rummy and neo-con desk jockeys were and are wrong. The Repug refusal to increase the US military to a winning level is just another incompetent failure of Repug civilians refusing to meet actual military requirements.

"Taken as package", this sucks hind .

The phony Iraq war was is ALREADY jihadist recruiting tool, and opened the door for al Qaida to install itself seriously in Iraq for the first time.

The inability of the Repug's too-small military

1) to stop the insurgency and

2) to stop the sectarian civil war

... is ALEADY a jihadist recruiting tool. Strategically, the Repugs have tied down the US military in Iraq for no US gain, while Syria and Iran look as strong as ever.

The Repugs could have put themselves in a much better position to win in Iraq if they had put in 400K+ troops, or raised the level to 400K+ troops when the insurgency got going. The Repugs are incompetent and THEY are losing Iraq.

The Repug incompetents and their red-state supporters who outright refuse to fight in the war will lose the war in Iraq, and hand a huge victory to the jihadists.

Anti-war dissenters will not be the cause of losing Iraq, but I fully appreciate your intention of placing the blame for the 100% Repug failure and the failure of their chicken- , hypocrital red-state electors, onto anti-war dissenters.

So, 101A, keep sucking Rove's filthy, slime-spewing . You two deserve each other.

[johnsmith]

"The orignal Gulf War never ended"

Of course it did. Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait, as the strongly supported UN resolution called for. As his invading army retreated, it was destroyed by an orgy of "coaltion of the billing" military firepower. All shooting, and threat of shooting, stopped.

The occupation of nearby counties like SA, the close, constant surveillance, the flyovers were required to dissuade and contain Saddam and his broken military which remained broken and no threat.

"As long as Saddam was in power we couldn't remove our troops from Saudi Arabia."

Not true. With the close survelliance by satellite and US flyovers from Turkey and other non-nearby countries, any Iraq troop movements (which were detected by the US before the Kuwait invaision without the US stationed in SA). The US installed itself in SA to protect SA oil and as a base to attack Kuwait. If SA would have insisted the US leave SA, the US could have moved to Kuwait and been just as effective of a containing deterrant and protector of US oil supplies.

After Kuwait was liberated, the US could have moved ALL of its SA bases to Kuweit and nearby countries, getting US boots off Osama's native, sacred SA sand (Mohammed, Medina, Mecca). But I doubt the US was going to the expense of vacating SA and move to Kuwiat just because it was pissing off OBL. Plus the SA royal family has serious man love of Poppie.

"We couldn't just leave (Saddam would have been seen as a victor)."

Not true. UN mandate was to remove Saddam from Kuwait, Mission Accomplished, was NOT remove Saddam from Iraq. Saddam was in no way victorious. His invasion of Kuwait was an Iraq military disaster, from which Iraq never recovered.

"Jihadists see victory over the West as an EVEN GREATER recruiting tool"

What victory over the west? The first Gulf War? There's no way the West lost the First Gulf War.

"Ultimately defeating the insurgents in Iraq is the single biggest blow we could deliver to the Jihadists."

The insurgents term applied when the primary target was the US occupying invaders. The insurgency is now distantly secondary to the sectarian civil war.

The US military at 150K has been, is now, and will always be too small to impose security on the totality of Iraq. Shinsheki was right, Rummy and neo-con desk jockeys were and are wrong. The Repug refusal to increase the US military to a winning level is just another incompetent failure of Repug civilians refusing to meet actual military requirements.

"Taken as package", this sucks hind .

The phony Iraq war was is ALREADY jihadist recruiting tool, and opened the door for al Qaida to install itself seriously in Iraq for the first time.

The inability of the Repug's too-small military

1) to stop the insurgency and

2) to stop the sectarian civil war

... is ALEADY a jihadist recruiting tool. Strategically, the Repugs have tied down the US military in Iraq for no US gain, while Syria and Iran look as strong as ever.

The Repugs could have put themselves in a much better position to win in Iraq if they had put in 400K+ troops, or raised the level to 400K+ troops when the insurgency got going. The Repugs are incompetent and THEY are losing Iraq.

The Repug incompetents and their red-state supporters who outright refuse to fight in the war will lose the war in Iraq, and hand a huge victory to the jihadists.

Anti-war dissenters will not be the cause of losing Iraq, but I fully appreciate your intention of placing the blamine for the 100% Repug failure and the failure of their chicken- , hypocrital red-state electors, onto anti-war dissenters.

So, 101A, keep sucking Rove's filthy, slime-spewing . You two deserve each other.

I disagree with Boutons. That's all I'll say because he has me on ignore anyway.
Having said that, I wonder if Boutons knows it's not the "repugs" that have sent troops into Iraq, it's AMERICA.

[101A]

So, 101A, keep sucking Rove's filthy, slime-spewing . You two deserve each other.

Way to miss the point.

These aren't my points, they are the Republican points, and I believe we are going to start seeing them more and more leading up to the election.

I did not post this as a defense of anything, just an observation of what I beleive to be a new, unforeseen, and possibly succesful political strategy.

How you responded is not new.

[clambake]

Boutons, of course this talking point isn't true. It's to convince the easily convinceble.

Stroke of genious.

[boutons_]

Way to miss the point.

You adore the filthy, s -bag "brilliant Rove.

The talking points are typical Repug bulll , Rove or not. The Iraq war is a disaster in many ways and the Repugs assume no responsibility for it.

The Repugs are 100% responsible for starting, running, and bungling the Iraq war.

The anti-war dissenters have NO responsibiltiy for what's going on Iraq, as hard as the Repugs will try to culpabilize the dissenters.

[clambake]

It's not like Rove is trying to persued a nation of scholars. It's brilliant. Lex Lutherish.

[101A]

Way to miss the point.

You adore the filthy, s -bag "brilliant Rove.

The talking points are typical Repug bulll , Rove or not. The Iraq war is a disaster in many ways and the Repugs assume no responsibility for it.

The Repugs are 100% responsible for starting, running, and bungling the Iraq war.

The anti-war dissenters have NO responsibiltiy for what's going on Iraq, as hard as the Repugs will try to culpabilize the dissenters.

As a political strategist, I believe it is pretty much conventional wisdom that Rove is the best in the business. That doesn't mean I adore him. It means he's good at his job.

Hitler was charismatic.
Clinton is a great orator.
Bush sees the world as good vs. evil, black and white with little grey area.
Hillary is a very smart woman.

All are statements of which I would probably get little argument from many people on either side of the political aisle. Somehow you see each as taking a political position, apparently. Not very logical. Maybe you are just a bot.

[ChumpDumper]

So the new Repuiblican talking point is to blame everything on Bush's dad?

Brilliant.

[101A]

So the new Repuiblican talking point is to blame everything on Bush's dad?

Brilliant.

Semantics.

My point is that I have heard this rationilization (we had to get out of Saudi Arabia because OBL didn't like us being there) THREE times in the past day, when I never heard it before.

I heard it from three separate sources - Morris, a local Pittsburgh morning show (which might be on the talking point fax list), AND on a local TV station's news broadcast Iraq war update.

This is right after the NIE leak last week, followed by the Clinton explosion, followed by the declassification...and every report I have seen on the declassification has mentioned the part about jihadists seeing Iraq as the primary battleground right now, and that losing there would kill there momentum. Now this morning are reports about the president of Iraq stating that the only reason his country hasn't been invaded is because of our troop presence there.

I am not a big believer in coincidences, and the Iraq war, which was as recently as a week ago a HUGE plus for the Democrats, could turn to a negative, or a draw very quickly. Or does someone want to argue that the US voting populace has a great attention span and long memory?

[ChumpDumper]

Or does someone want to argue that the US voting populace has a great attention span and long memory?

I will argue that the US voting populace won't make it through all seven points without flipping over to a "King of the Hill" rerun.

[clambake]

All Rove has to do is tell the enormous masses of stupidity that the "sky is falling".

It's diabolical. I salute you, sir.

[101A]

I will argue that the US voting populace won't make it through all seven points without flipping over to a "King of the Hill" rerun.

The seven points won't ever be expected to be digested ALL at once - the big one is the "Had to get out of Saudi" one - I expect Limbaugh and Hannity to be selling that ALL day - it'll probably then show up on the Sunday A.M. shows next week, and as a sound bite from a Tony Snow press conference sometime in the interim.

[101A]

I will argue that the US voting populace won't make it through all seven points without flipping over to a "King of the Hill" rerun.

OR.....

Bobby: Dad, why are we fighting those evil guys with funny towels on their heads iin Iraq.

Hank: Well, Bobby, because the one with the (pauses) biggest towel said we had to get out of another country over there with guys with different towels on their heads, to keep the price of propane down.

Boomhauer: Yeah....man.......propane.....so ...spensive....man.

Bobby: Wow, dad, I'm glad your job makes you so smart about the guys with towels on their heads.

Hank: That boy aint right.

[101A]

Gtownspur added another piece in his rant in the "liberal media at work" thread.

He points out that he believes 9/11 occurred BECAUSE we had troops in Saudi Arabia (since that was what OBL SAID and he planned 9/11); thus tying the need to invade Iraq directly to 9/11.

[boutons_]

"tying the need to invade Iraq directly to 9/11."

There is no tie, only lie.

The US could have stayed put in SA or neighboring countries and held down Saddam as well as it did from 1991 to 2003.

Invading Iraq in order to vacate SA is total bull .

Invading Iraq, which didn't execute the WTC attack, because OBL, who did execute the WTC attack, hated the US military in SA is the kind of non-sequitur and lie we've been hearing from the Repugs (and jerks like gaytown) since 2002.

[Yonivore]

• The orignal Gulf War never ended, we simply retreated to Saudi Arabia to keep an eye on Saddam and enforce our sanctions.

This is neither new or untrue.

Hostilities ceased when Saddam Hussein retreated from Kuwait and agreed, in writing, to several U.N.S.C. demands. One of which required our on-going presence in the region; the no-fly zones. Nevermind he failed to keep any of the agreements to which he signed and nevermind that neither the U.N. nor Bill Clinton bothered to enforce the terms of the cease-fire.

• Osama HATED this and actually made it one of his major contentions with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in his fatwa calling for jihad (big, scary islamastremist words).

Nope, not a new point. If you read his 1996 fatwa, which probably motivated every al Qaeda attack from that time on (including the U.S.S. Cole and September 11), this is exactly what he did.

• As long as Saddam was in power we couldn't remove our troops from Saudi Arabia.

Again, not new or untrue. Considering his blatant disregard for over a dozen U.N.S.C. resolutions demanding action from him, I'd say this is a fair characterization of the situation.

• Whatever the cost we HAD to get rid of Saddam, because as long as we were there, we couldn't get on with the war on terror - because our mere presence was pissing Muslims off.

I haven't seen this stated in this way anywhere but, to be sure, maintaining a Saddam Hussein "in a box" was a considerable draw on resources that could be used elsewhere.

• We couldn't just leave (Saddam would have been seen as a victor).

Not a new point and not untrue. If we had just abandoned our responsibilities under the cease-fire and resulting U.N.S.C. resolutions, that would have been seen as handing Saddam Hussein a victory. He would have been unrestrained in pursuing whatever objectives he had in mind.

• Jihadists see victory over the West as an EVEN GREATER recruiting tool than an actual HOT WAR against us (this tidbit skillfully declassified to discredit the previous NIE leak - which I now believe was Rove all along)

Their ultimate goal is a global caliphate and, it has been their ultimate goal since before we invaded Iraq. Further, this caliphate can't exist in the climate of the religious freedoms and personal liberties inherent in western-style cultures.

• Ultimately defeating the insurgents in Iraq is the single biggest blow we could deliver to the Jihadists.

They certainly seem to see it that way. All you have to do is look at the correspondence between Zarqawi and others in the Jihadist camp to know they are placing damn near all their marbles in Iraq.

This scenario, which seems perfectly plausible and logical has now been out there for 24 hours, and there has been no response, or call of "foul" from the Democrats.

I don't know about you, but I've never seen this spelled out before.

That's because you don't pay attention.

Taken as a package it is brilliant politically. If somebody calls for us to pull out, they can now be called REALLY dumb for giving the Jihadists a recruiting tool - and if someone claims that our presence in Iraq is the recruiting tool, the pro-war croud can cite Osama's own words and fatwa in claiming that our having to contain Saddam by remaining in Saudi Arabia wa ALREADY a primary recruiting tool. This makes arguing against the war futile (just cleaning things up to get on with the war on terror), and calling for a pull-out just stupid.

Well played, Rove.

Again, "I wan't to be like Karl Rove, that bas can do anything!"

[Oh, Gee!!]

• The orignal Gulf War never ended, we simply retreated to Saudi Arabia to keep an eye on Saddam and enforce our sanctions.
• Osama HATED this and actually made it one of his major contentions with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in his fatwa calling for jihad (big, scary islamastremist words).
• As long as Saddam was in power we couldn't remove our troops from Saudi Arabia.
• Whatever the cost we HAD to get rid of Saddam, because as long as we were there, we couldn't get on with the war on terror - because our mere presence was pissing Muslims off.
• We couldn't just leave (Saddam would have been seen as a victor).
• Jihadists see victory over the West as an EVEN GREATER recruiting tool than an actual HOT WAR against us (this tidbit skillfully declassified to discredit the previous NIE leak - which I now believe was Rove all along)
• Ultimately defeating the insurgents in Iraq is the single biggest blow we could deliver to the Jihadists.

This scenario would make sense if the ME hadn't become an even bigger mess once Saddam was removed from power.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Osama HATED this and actually made it one of his major contentions with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in his fatwa calling for jihad (big, scary islamastremist words).

I'm on lunch so I don't have time to hunt down everything, but Osama has said this many times, including his initial fatwa against the U.S.

[Yonivore]

This scenario would make sense if the ME hadn't become an even bigger mess once Saddam was removed from power.

I believe the Middle East was already headed for a bigger mess -- regardless of whether or not Saddam Hussein had remained in power.

[boutons_]

"I believe the Middle East was already headed for a bigger mess"

and you believe Genesis is scientifically accurate cosmology. your beliefs, they're worthless.

Even if the ME were heading for a bigger mess, why the hurry the mess by invading Iraq?

especially:

when Iraq was serving as a doorstop for Iran?

when Iraq was no direct threat to USA?

while the Afghanistan invasion was still in play?

while the real anti-US threats and terrorists were elsewhere?

Iraq is an unmitigated strategic blunder by the Repugs, right up there with the Repugs 100% responsiblity for not stopping the WTC attack.

[ChumpDumper]

I haven't seen this stated in this way anywhere but, to be sure, maintaining a Saddam Hussein "in a box" was a considerable draw on resources that could be used elsewhere.

Yeah, those resources could be used inside Iraq at a much higher rate and cost..

Brilliant.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, those resources could be used inside Iraq at a much higher rate and cost..

Brilliant.

Actually, they're different assets.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, they're different assets.

Yeah. American lives.

And much cheaper right?

[Yonivore]

Yeah. American lives.

And much cheaper right?

Unless, you've got androids, humans are what are commonly used in an Army.

Look, this goes to whether or not you believe the war in Iraq is legitimate. If you don't, the loss of one American life is unacceptable. If, like me, you believe the war in Iraq is legitimate, loss of life, while a tragedy, is a recognized cost of engaging in war.

I understand you believe the war in Iraq is illegitimate, that's what this discussion is usually about but, throwing out that it is illegitimate because American lives are being lost is not a valid point.

I actually think this discussion over the NIE is good because it shows there are several more reasons regime change in Iraq and, subsequent to that, fighting al Qaeda and the insurgency in Iraq are a desirable alternative to fighting al Qaeda in Seattle or Michigan or San Antonio.

Which, everyone agrees, may eventually happen but, as the NIE points out, that is less likely if we defeat them in Iraq -- or, if they perceive themselves to be beaten in Iraq.