Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The Warmongering AmericaBlog
Posted by: Jon Henke on Saturday, July 14, 2007

Peggy Noonan recently noted that it's worthwhile to distinguish between people who are reflexively unhinged about President Bush, and those who genuinely disagree with him for considered and objective reasons. Both types exist.

Well, this post from AmericaBlog is the kind of rank idiocy that, despite their accurate warnings about the dangers of the Iraq war, makes it very difficult to take some critics on the Left seriously.
George Bush knows where Al Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan, he just doesn't care

Next attack is the Republicans' fault.
After raging against the invasion of Iraq for years, John Aravosis has apparently decided that we need to invade Pakistan - and failure to do so will make any future terrorist attack the fault of Republicans.

By the way, Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
John Aravosis has apparently decided that we need to invade Pakistan
He says no such thing. He has identified a problem or inconsistency, and expressed outrage about it, but the proposal to "solve" that problem by invading is yours. Are you deliberately setting up a strawman, or just able to imagine a non-military solution to any foreign-policy problem? Either way, it’s not John Aravosis who is in error.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
George Bush knows where Al Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan, he just doesn’t care.
He says no such thing. He has identified a problem or inconsistency
And if he is proposing nothing be done about the inconsistency, then either he is endorsing it or he is saying nothing at all.
Are you deliberately setting up a strawman, or just able to imagine a non-military solution to any foreign-policy problem?
There is no possible non-military solution to the problem, short of what GW Bush is doing, which is hoping some opportunity arises.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Hmmm, then why the calls from Democrats (and others) to remove troops from Iraq, so they can hunt al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Of course, they aren’t just in Afghanistan, they are mostly in Pakistan.

So what are we doing sending troops to a place where al Qaeda doesn’t have camps, but is just across the border from a place that does...

I mean, it’s not like the Democrats have said what our troops would be doing, other then "hunt for al Qaeda."
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Are you deliberately setting up a strawman, or just able to imagine a non-military solution to any foreign-policy problem?
We have two options for dealing with this: diplomatic and military. The piece notes that we’ve chosen not to go into Pakistan without the permission of the Pakistani government. Thus, we’re taking the diplomatic approach. Aravosis seems to think that’s not correct.

Likely, you are correct — he does not, and would not, support a military intervention. Nor would I. But despite that, he’ll criticize our inability to stop it, anyway, and lay the blame for any future attacks on Republicans. Because, if Republicans can’t take out terrorists hidden somewhere the hell inside a large, recalcitrant, nuclear-armed country, then clearly Republicans are to blame for any future terrorism.

And for what it’s worth, Democrats have made similar suggestions about Iran - up to and including military action and regime change. Yet, they have the gall to suggest that action against Iran should be off the table for Republicans.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Your points are well taken Jon, I’ve pointed out these discrepancies in the past, and taken them as making the entirety of the positions of the democratic party on the war on terror, as a lie.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
And for what it’s worth, Democrats have made similar suggestions about Iran - up to and including military action and regime change. Yet, they have the gall to suggest that action against Iran should be off the table for Republicans.
Diplomacy is a wide ranging thing. Perhaps Aravosis sees the targetted sanctions, financial isolation and general hostility directed at Iran as different from the military aid, recognition of an anti-democratic coup and Whitehouse visits provided to Pakistan. Maybe Aravosis thinks that the pucker-up-and-kiss approach could be modified to a slightly more hostile position without becoming a war.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
The back-up contingent in Pakistan is more anti-American than Musharraf - or, at least less cooperative. Antagonizing Pakistan would seem to have a worse effect than antagonizing Iran. In Iran, you strengthen the existing anti-American leadership. In Pakistan, you may bring them to power.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Yeah. Tricky thing is that Musharraf must know this and therefore it is in his better interests to have a strongly anti-American threat to ensure your support, hence perhaps why Al Qaeda/Taliban is now training in the tribal areas. They fufill his requirements in being both very bad and primarily acting outside of Pakistan.

 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Anyone notice that Oliver Willis was also talking about Pakistan? Its the easy way to shiny up their national security credentials with big talk: yes, we’ll leave Iraq, but we’ll go to Pakistan (population 5 times larger than Iraq) and take care of business.

Also, we do attack Pakistan and probably have some special operations running there. The Pakistanis, while not totally on board, do cooperate to some extent and a lot of their guys died when they were actively fighting in the frontier. But I think they redeployed because killing terrorists just lead to more terrorists.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider