« SD 45 CHILI & CHAT TOMORROW EVENING | Home | JACOBS: “THERE’S A FEAR THAT NEITHER FRANKEN OR CIRESI IS THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR WINNING” COLEMAN’S SEAT »
FRANKEN, DFL DONOR MEETS WITH “…LEADER OF IRAQI INSURGENTS WHO HAVE BEEN TARGETING AMERICAN SOILDERS”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | June 19, 2007
"Peace activist, retired businessman and Democratic candidate for president Dal LaMagna is in Amman, Jordan, where he met Monday with an unnamed leader of the Iraqi insurgents who have been targeting American soliders. LaMagna plans to travel to Baghdad to officially kick off his campaign for president." Source: Seattle Times, June 6, 2007
Click here for the complete story.
###
LaMagna donated $500 Al Franken's campaign on March 28, 2007 and $1000 to the Minnesota DFL on September 18, 2006.
Please check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed for more information on this developing story.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 81 Comments »
81 Responses to “FRANKEN, DFL DONOR MEETS WITH “…LEADER OF IRAQI INSURGENTS WHO HAVE BEEN TARGETING AMERICAN SOILDERS””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 19th, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Are you suggestion (I dare ask) that Franken wants the insurgents to win? Tread lightly Mr. Brodkorb, tread lightly.
June 19th, 2007 at 11:57 AM
I’m pointing out that a donor to both Al Franken’s campaign and the Minnesota DFL had a meeting with an Iraqi insurgent leader.
June 19th, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Well…FrankenFan and other Liberal-mindless-robots:
You all howled like rabid screeching tree monkeys when you found a few dollars from Jack Abramoff were found in GOP contributions. You clowns pulled off your shoes and banged them on the table, demanding the money go back.
Now we have a TERRORIST SUPPORTING contributor in Franken’s report. Say what you want about Abramoff, but at least HE ISN’T SUPPORTING THE TERRORISTS THAT ARE KILLING OUR TROOPS!
June 19th, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Franken doesn’t exactly have a spectacular record when it comes to this issue.
We just saw video of him in the last week telling us all he wants to defund the troops.
Yes, he and the DFL should give money back from anyone willing to sit down with people targetting our troops.
Seems like a no-brainer right?
June 19th, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Anyone read Vince Flynn’s “Transfer of Power”?
June 19th, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Anyone bother to read LaMagna’s original report that Postman referenced? You’re giving bloggers a bad name by reporting only one side of a story without referencing the original source.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:35 PM
I strongly suggest reading the full story from the Seattle Times. Doesn’t support Michael’s premise.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Can anyone really be surprised by the fact that someone who seeks defeat by defunding the troops would be political allies with someone supporting the insurgents?
I think this is a non-story simply because it’s so obvious — it’s like posting a story that Franken supports abortion.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Are you suggestion (I dare ask) that Franken wants the insurgents to win?
Okay, I’ll bite.
Yes, Angry Al Franken wants the “insurgents” (actually, terrorists, people who want to kill Al, you and me) to win.
I think he’d be happier if every woman out there was wearing a burka and he was forces to live under Muslim laws. That is, after all, what the affects of his beliefs would have. He may as well just come and say he’s for them winning.
Feel better?
June 19th, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Disgusting. Purely and utterly disgusting.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:43 PM
You are right Tim.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:28 PM
What the hell are you talking about, the article is pretty clear that he met with the leader of the insurgents who have been targeting American troops. I’m not sure how it could be any clearer.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Cue teh theme music to “Man Of LaMagna”
June 19th, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Give back the money? Why Keith Elliason did not give CAIR money back! Sick, sick, sick. Please go to Michael Yon’s blog sight and read what our hero’s in Iraq have begun. Maybe Al will read it and be not afraid to give back the money.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Who could or would deny that Franken is anti-American?
Can any of us really be surprised by this? Find anyone that hates America and has some money to buy political candidates and you will find you have a new donor to the democRat party.
Let me guess my liberal friends he was really there to support our troops.
Maybe he was going to help them with intelligence and help kill more American troops so it can help your press crusade of how bad things are going for us?
Most Americans have not forgotten what our liberals here did to our troops when they returned home from duty. No one should ever trust a democRat to lead the military again! In fact we would be smart to just pass a law that no liberal shall ever make a military decsion as it is clear they are more than incapable to protect America.
God bless our troops and forgive the democRats!
June 19th, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Isn’t that akin to treason?
June 19th, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Please tell me how that story does not support Michael’s premise. LaMongrel is meeting with a “leader of Iraqi insurgents”. I read the whole thing. The whole thing supports that this lunatic is pulling a John Kerry and meeting with our nation’s enemies at a time of war.
Further, LaMongrel gave money to Franken. Franken is a coward who advocates the U.S. surrender in Iraq and to terrorists elsewhere. Franken has advocated cutting off funds the resources from our soldiers in battle.
What does all this matter? Hell, Minnesota already has elected an official with ties to terrorist supporters, why not elect an official with ties to a traitor who more openly aids and abets terrorists.
Hell, if there were a Franken/Ellison presidential ticket, they’d carry Minnesota for sure. Let’s change the name of the state to Minnesotastan.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Again, here’s the DFL logic:
Take money from Jack Abramoff….BAD!
Take money from a terrorist-endorsing foreign national who is supporting the thugs that are killing our soldiers…GOOD! No PROBLEM!
This is the DFL. Greasy to the last drop.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Funny thing is Dave, is they took money from Jack Abramoff too.
DFL: Hypocritical to the last drop.
June 19th, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Fair point, Chestnut. Allow me to extend and revise my remarks:
GOP takes money from Jack Abramoff…BAD!
DFL takes money from Jack Abramoff…GOOD!
DFL takes money from a terrorist-endorsing foreign national who is supporting the thugs that are killing our soldiers…GOOD!
DFL: Greasy AND Hypocritical AND Anti-American to the last drop!
June 19th, 2007 at 4:04 PM
If being funded by an enemy sympathizer isn’t grounds for dropping out of the race then what is?
June 19th, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Biggester Kahuna Says:
June 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Anyone read Vince Flynn’s “Transfer of Power�
I’m reading it now, and there are 5 or 6 more books with the central character being Mitch Rapp. Only 1/2 done with it, but so far a great book.
June 19th, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Articles like this one are a good test for whether or not someone can read and process information. Or whether a person looks at a headline, sees the name a person he or she hates, and rabidly and blindly goes on the attack.
By the way, although I haven’t decided who on the Democratic side to support in the Senate race next year, it was good to se Franken at Grandma’s Saturday mixing it up and talking to people as I ran by. Will Norm be making any appearances in truly public and open venues any time soon? Or is he going to run a “rose garden” campaign and stay in front of friendly crowds in managed events and send surrogates out to do the campaigning?
June 19th, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Or, in your case otter, to not process information and blindly go on the defense.
June 19th, 2007 at 4:36 PM
LaMongrel is holding secret meetings with our enemy. Franken is whoring himself to LaMongrel.
June 19th, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Ah yes, that’s what every runner really wants. To be pestered by an un-funny “comic” during a marathon. Maybe he was wearing that idiotic single-man transmitting unit with the dish on his head. Wow, I bet the runners would have thought that was a hoot.
June 19th, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Of course, the reason Angry Al has all this time to go cheer at marathon races is that he’s unemployed and, in his las job, he was a miserable failure for almost 3 full years.
June 19th, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Wish I would have been running so I could have flipped him off as I ran by.
June 19th, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Otterscrubber,
I live in Duluth and volunteer for the marathon and we could care less if there is a politician in the crowd. It is a waste of time talking to 17,000 runners relatives who don’t live in the state anyway. It would be a waste of time to campaign on marathon day in Duluth but AL is not smart enough to figure that outsince he takes money from people who support killing our troops.
June 19th, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Leaving the Left….
Thank you for volunteering and the hospitality your city displayed. Top notch as usual.
I’m not sure being at a marathon is a waste of time. There are thousands of people there. Amy was at the Twin Cities Marathon and Kennedy wasn’t and she thumped him by 20 points. I’m not saying Franken is going to win, I only point it out because I think the consensus is that Amy ran a pretty mistake free campaign, so Al might be advised to copy her where he can.
June 19th, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Amy only won because she lied like the rest of the liberals lie and people were stupid enough to buy into her BS.
June 19th, 2007 at 8:42 PM
She won because she was an inoffensive candidate running against a Bush-style Republican in a horrible Republican year.
June 19th, 2007 at 11:00 PM
I didnt see one single lie from Amy, she ran a flawless campaign and has so far been exactly what I wanted as a US Senator.
But Michael, you are a horrible, disgusting person for even posting bullshit like this. The article CLEARLY states that LaMagna was telling this terrorist guy to have a ceasfire and have a Gandhi moment. Truly disgusting and immoral.
By the way, whoever said that we shouldnt be meeting with our enemies in a time of war, stupid as well. You should always be talking to your enemies. Maybe they wont be such enemies if you chatted with them.
June 19th, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Yup. Democrats are the “tough” ones that will strike fear into the Islamist heart.
So we should “chat” with the throat-slitters and suicide bombers. they’re so reasonable, once you get through the militant death-cultism, anti-Christianism and anti-Semitism and hatred.
What would we LEARN, exactly? That they want us to convert to Islam or die, like they regularly scream all over the world?
We’ve already told them to “stop it.” They don’t listen – they continue murdering and killing wantonly, emboldened by our perceived weakness.
These are the killers that are laughing at the Democrat’s attempts to “talk” to them. they keep right on killing. Talk doesn’t work with Islamic fanatics.
More about LaManga here. LOTS more.
June 19th, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Ah yes, Amy Kloubuchar from “flawless campaign” to flawless Senator from Minnesota…………
Cut ‘n Run Kloubuchar, tonight, has come to the aid of an illegal alien mother (oops, I mean “undocumented American”, who dropped four instant citizens here) who is now boo hoo hooing to continue squatting here. Just like a flawless
Democrat, to actively support a blatant lawbreaker. How about someone enforcing some “aiding and abetting a felony” laws? A “flawless” federal lawmaker openly supporting a violator of federal law, that’s our Amy.
If you have read any of the Wahaabist, al Qaeda
or Muslim Brotherhood manifestos, you shouldn’t expect any “such” productive “chats” or “Ghandi moments” any time soon. (“Oh, if only we could just understand them better…!” Gag!)
June 20th, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Andrew you ignorant slut.
1) The biggest lie Amy K. told was that she was a good (even competent) DA. Crime soared under her watch as she let murderer’s and drug dealers off easy.
2) Anyone who meets with our enemies in secret during a time of war is a traitor. Period. No one asked LaMongrel to insert is dirty, immoral, treasonous ass into the conversation. When military leaders want to engage in negotiations, that’s one thing. When a traitor/liberal pulls a John Kerry and works to undermine our troops, that’s another. The whole incident underscores that you limp wrist Democrats don’t understand the threat, you don’t support our soldiers.
3) So, what’s the result of this treasonous thug’s meeting? Is Al Queda having a “Ghandi moment” The guy should be drawn and quartered for even saying such ridiculous bullshit. Again, liberals should quit chasing butterflies and let the adults work.
4) You’re a fucking joke.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:34 AM
ROFLMAO Andrew, she lied a lot! But then, you’ve got your head up the DFL’s butt so far you can’t even begin to see the light, so it doesn’t surprise me that you can’t recognize a lie.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:18 AM
Yeah, Andrew! These guys are meeting with the enemies, talking about it surreptitiously in the newspaper, announcing quietly that they are running for President and whispering their plans to any one who will listen. We need to let the Bush administration’s flawless foreign policy go forward.
In all seriousness, please keep attacking candidates who are taking money from people who are telling the insurgents our troops are fighting to stop fighting. It makes y’all look like you want the war to go on forever. Every single one of our Generals has said that ultimately there is going to have to be a political framework, an accomodation, for us to get out of Iraq.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:58 AM
Unbelievable that someone running for President would be so stupid and naive to think that the “Resistance’s” only goal is to “liberate Iraq.”
Their goal is to exterminate all infidels.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:07 AM
Whatever otter. You’re a confused and stupid little rat.
Meeting in secret with our enemies (unidentified leader of an organization killing our soldiers) is treason. Period.
Again, proof positive that liberals don’t support our soldiers. Don’t understand the threat. And hate America.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:08 AM
Well I’m so happy somebody finally was able to distill the internal political situation in Iraq to a form understandable to even a kindergarten student. Since the motivations of a large group of people with divergent interests and beliefs can be described with a seven word sentence the solution can’t be too much more complicated. Maybe Adamski can come up with that sentence next and end the war.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:10 AM
Franken’s a fraud and a phony. Accepting money from this douche bag only confirms it.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:11 AM
… and yes, I question your patriotism (and your judgment). After all, it is questionable.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:33 AM
KH, Adamnski accurately, and nearly in their own words, describes the goals of the Islamists.
Their goal is to kill or convert all non-muslims, and to dominate the world with their radical oppressive agenda.
That’s simply a fact. The idea that it’s a minority of Muslims who support their hate is a myth. Hell, even 26 percent of muslims in the U.S. support suicide bombings.
As for the tens of millions world wide cheering on the terrorists? Hardly a minority.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:42 AM
“Liberate Iraq” is a BS PR cover for the very well documented Islamist goal of wiping out all infidels everywhere. Iraq is the front du jour for that particular scumbag at this time.
But, I should remember that there are still people that think the war on terror is all propaganda.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:59 AM
I’m not a big fan or religion of any flavor and the more fundamental the believer the scarier they are. Islamist fundamentalists have a philosophy that encourages violence but that does not mean that violence is the only way to defeat them. Unless we want to kill the percentage of Muslims that condone violence to further their cause we have to have other options.
June 20th, 2007 at 10:59 AM
KH — by that logic, maybe a more peaceful approach to the WWII Germany and Japan would have worked. Oh wait… appeasement didn’t work. Bombing the hell out of them was the right answer though.
BTW — killing them is the only answer.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:19 AM
History has shown over and over that merely “bombing the hell” out of third world countries doesn’t win wars. We had a golden opportunity after 9/11 to win hearts and minds, but Executive-endorsed torture, “It’s a Crusade!”, and “with us or with the terrorists” put an end to that. This is going to end with a political solution, not when everyone is dead. Ask any of the Generals.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:54 AM
I guess we should start the extermination camps in the U.S. then since by your numbers 26% of Muslims in this country can be counted as the enemy.
WWII was so different in every way I don’t even know where to begin with how that analogy is not valid.
The fact that the supporters of Japan and Germany were more or less contained within their respective countries, had armies to fight and defeat and in the end were more interested in living than fighting is a start. They were two countries that were fairly prosperous and a lot to loose by starting an insurgency. Both Germany and Japan had a set of leaders that could surrender to our military. Who do we ask for a surrender from if we are fighting fundamentalist Islam? Maybe we just nuke every country that has a few people who don’t like us.
Thinking that dealing with Islamist fundamentalism is in any way like WWII is the same as the general during WWI thinking the tactics from the Napoleonic wars would be just fine. That didn’t work out so well for anybody.
If guns and bombs are our only solution to this problem there is no possible way victory will be realized.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Political solution, sure. Everyone knows that. But with a lick of common sense you would realize that a Political solution requires a stable political center. Until radicals are eliminated that can’t happen. It has to be with a government that is in power and in control. Who do you talk to today?
Cutting a peace deal today with an institution that will be killed off tomorrow is pure stupidity.
As for the Bomb the Hell out of ‘em, there seems to be little else they understand. After all, how do you bargain with a group who’s opening bargaining position is “You all die a horrible death.� Do we counter with “Okay, how about you kill half of us, a quarter convert and a quarter live as your servants.� Geez, they kill journalists, peace keepers and humanitarian workers.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Otter, on 9/11 the “Arab street” was dancing and celebrating. The hearts and minds were already lost… no thanks to the surrender in Somalia.
You know shit, much less to learn shit from history.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:24 PM
A dozen mushroom clouds over the Middle East would do quite a bit for world peace.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:24 PM
I’m a poet.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Start by targeting Mecca.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Ah, the megalomaniac style of killing anything that isn’t white, Christian, doesn’t speak English and could cause you the slightest bit of worry. It would make every genocidal leader from King Leopold to Mao green with envy. You better save a few nukes to destroy the asteroids that are in space so they don’t dare hit our country. I’m sure Michael is proud to have you posting on his site.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:48 PM
LOL … nope, just the style of killing anything that seeks to kill everything that isn’t Arab and Muslim. Islam is the disease.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Chestnut,
Typical Republican sentiment actually: all non-white, non-Christians we disagree with are less than human and out to be killed.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Otter,
Typical head in the sand, in denial, appeasement sentiment championed by incompetent lazy Democrats and liberals.
They say, like the terrorists say “the only good Jew or Christian, is a dead Jew or Christian.”
You cowards start taking the threat seriously. The threat sure as hell won’t take you seriously, when it’s chopping your secular head off.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:03 PM
I don’t have a problem defending our boarders and I think those that get upset about profiling at airports are ridiculous. But to cross the globe and start a war in a country that did not attack us is a bad strategic decision. The war cannot be won militarily because Islam does not have a definable military, boarders or leadership. When is it won? When every person that has some Islamic sympathies is dead? Do they all have to sign a surrender? Will we destroy all records of Islam so nobody can learn the beliefs and have it start over again? If there is no definition of victory then there can be no victory.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Chestnut,
Cowards are the one who advocate war while sitting at home. I’d rather defend our boarders and live with the remaining small risk of another terrorist attack rather than send people across the world to die so somebody can test a theory.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Cowards are also those who never served (I did) and who refuse to fight evil. Cowards are aka Democrats.
You raise very good questions. One thing is for certain, Iraq and Afghanistan are central fronts to the war. They are critical battles that must be won.
Surrender really is not an option. When Democrats offer suggestions for winning, they’ll be taken seriously. But so long as they continue to advocate surrender and defeat, to aid and abet our enemies, and to undermine our soldiers, I will continue to call them for what they are: Anti-American cowards.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:17 PM
“Ah, the megalomaniac style of killing anything that isn’t white, Christian, doesn’t speak English and could cause you the slightest bit of worry.”
You continually revert to the typical knee-jerk
response that it’s rich, white convervatives who
are at fault for all the world’s problems.
Meanwhile, a hideous ideology is on the move across the globe, threatening to annhilate all Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and the basic way of life of the rest of the world
while you wring your hands about understanding and redressing these psychotic’s grievances in search of some magical political solution (“Peace
in our Time”?).
June 20th, 2007 at 1:25 PM
BTW kh, “defending our boarders” must have a subliminal meaning for liberals. Too many rent-free “boarders” are squatting in our country while we fail to defend our BORDERS!
June 20th, 2007 at 1:28 PM
“Defend:” An action liberals unequivocally refuse to do.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:41 PM
I agree about Afghanistan. Iraq is a war now but I don’t believe it needed to be and I think it has caused more damage than it has corrected. I’ve said it before, now that we are there we are responsible to keep it from becoming what Afghanistan was 6-10 years ago and I don’t believe leaving is the answer.
As for those needing to supply answers for winning I would like to include Republicans and independents in that group. Either can start with the set of questions I asked in post 59. I will say though that I feel that those that advocated for the war, many Democrats included, have a special responsibility to be honest and find a solution rather than spit useless rhetoric about patriotism back and forth.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:58 PM
I am no Liberal as much as that might make it easier for many of the posters here. When I say defend our boarders I mean it. I don’t think illegal aliens should be given any social services and I am for everybody getting rich, even white guys. I advocate for lower taxes, school vouchers, and no Hilary or Romney socialized medicine schemes.
Preemptive war is a very risky business and part of that risk is that the public which votes in our policy makers and funds our government will get tired of it quickly. Those making the decisions to go to war have to be smart enough to take public support into account.
I think Islamic fundamentalisms must be countered but I do not think the military has to be our best much less our only tool to do so.
June 20th, 2007 at 2:06 PM
I think he was picking on how you spelled “Borders”… you spelled in “boarders”…
Borders are boundaries. Boarders are those temporarily occupying space…
June 20th, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Well I never could spell and now admit to relying far too much on spell check. Thanks for the clarification.
June 20th, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Preemptive war is a very risky business and part of that risk is that the public which votes in our policy makers and funds our government will get tired of it quickly. Those making the decisions to go to war have to be smart enough to take public support into account. ~ KH
The public gets sick of it because all they hear from librals is how bad it is going for us in the libral main stream media. I bet if the public was given a death toll on terrorist as well as how many US deaths the tone would probably change. I personally find it disgusting if we are not at least killing them 10 to 1.
Of course if liberals supported the troops as they claim they would load on and head over to “talk” with our enemies!For every liberal that would go over we could bring home a couple troops. After all acording to the liberals who post here all we really need to do is sit and chat with these folks and all will work out fine.
Keep it up liberals.
I am starting to think you are going to blow it big time come 2008! 
June 20th, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Say, if so many Americans want out of the war as the liberals here and nationally on TV tell us, then why are all the democRats in washington getting such low approval ratings? Harry Reid is at 19% approval! Hell I think that is even less than Scooter Libby at this point!
One would think if so many Americas were with the democRats then would it not makes sense they should have much higher approval ratings?
of course what it really is the democRats think if they say it enough it will be true.
June 20th, 2007 at 5:37 PM
BK,
I don’t like the standard Democratic idea, or lack there of, to take care of Iraq either. The issue is that if we are not living a fantasy it must be understood that part of successfully waging a war is having the ability to overcome stupid viewpoints and keep the public positively engaged. There have been too many mistakes; militarily, politically and with the P.R. to get the public to support the war in Iraq at this point. Something has to change substantially. If this fact is ignored further bigger loses will happen. The Bush administration has either lost the war on the ground in Iraq or with the anti-war contingent here. Either way somebody better have a plan on what to do next.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:42 PM
“Either way somebody better have a plan on what to do next.”
Al’s already stated his “plan”- mindless anti-military appeasement and acquiesence, which
fairly matches the Democrat rhetoric for the
last few years as the Democrats have been
entirely co-opted by Moveon, the Loony Left
and the Hollywood Glitterati. The flaw in
their juvenile thinking is that they are
convinced if we cut and run the “problem” will just go away. If and when Israel is overrun or
nuked and the dominoes in Europe begin to topple,
what will Al and his ilk say then?
With as many mistakes as the Bush administration
has made, the US is still in a great strategic
position for the inevitable confrontation with
Iran. We have them in our pincer grasp in- between Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hopefully, our postion in the Middle East
can hold off Iran until the demographic pressure
from underneath can overthrow the 9th Century
mullahtocracy now in charge. Eliminating the
support that Iran gives to the Islamists, Shiite-
style, must then be followed by eliminating the clandestine support that Saudi Arabia provides, Sunni-style.
What’s the plan? Work to strengthen politcial
alternatives to the Hateful Headcutters and
convince the public in these States (starting in Iraq) of the inevitability of their ascension and WILLINGNESS to project power- that’s the only thing these tribal people can respect, backing the wrong horse (camel?) will usually cost you your life.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:38 AM
That might be a workable plan if the following things were true. We had good control of what is going on inside Iraq and Afghanistan. If Muslin Fundamentalism existed only in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran or even the just the middle east. If military build-up outside Iran caused the current regime to weaken. If there was unlimited resources made available to execute the plan.
The problem lies in the fact that none of these things are true. After a significant amount of time Iraq is a huge mess with little, no or negative infrastructure improvement and Afghanistan is not where is should be. The political situation in either country is not progressing at a rate that is encouraging either as they seem to be willing to kill each other at an amazing rate.
Iran has shown in the past that direct pressure by the United States gives the hardliners the reason they need to keep the populace in fear and maintain control. I doubt if military pressure will cause an internal revolt and make them our friends. Especially if they feel our military is stretched thin and there is no public support for any action against them.
Even if that part of plan works to some degree what about the millions of like minded folks in south east Asia or Africa or Europe or America? We can not solve these problems with pincer movements and military pressure even with a military ten times its current size.
To that point, the resources of personnel, money and public support will only be reduced from this point forward. A draft will not happen and we can’t keep forcing our guard, reserves and full time personnel and their families to return for 3rd, 4th or 5th tours of extended service. They have to be able to see a chance of coming home at some point. Up to now the administration has gotten just about every dollar it has asked for and as incompetent as the Democrats are, at some point the funding will end or be reduced. Even without that how many trillions of our kids money paid as taxes is this plan worth? Finally, public support is not currently at a level that will change any of the above issues for the better.
I dislike communism about as much as Islamic fundamentalism but we are currently engaging with China in hopes that the people become wealthy enough to not want conflict. They would have too much to lose. This method contains risks as well but I believe they are more manageable and it is a direction the public can support indefinitely.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:28 AM
Dealing with Iran is simple. Freeze their bank-accounts and suspend their travel privileges to everywhere but Siberia and China…. then cut off all imports and exports.
We’ll feel some short-term pain from the restricted flow of oil in the Gulf. But it’d be nothing compared to completely shutting down the Iranian economy. The public there would revolt, and the Facists Islamic bastards would have no where to run…. and no one to blame… think Romanian President Ceausescu.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:15 AM
“Even if that part of plan works to some degree what about the millions of like minded folks in south east Asia or Africa or Europe or America? We can not solve these problems with pincer movements and military pressure even with a military ten times its current size.”
The “like minded folks” around the world are
being funded with petro dollars by Saudi Arabia
and Iran. We’re strategically positioned right
at the nexus of the problem.
“Especially if they feel our military is stretched thin and there is no public support for any action against them.”
The “feel our military is stretched thin” because
of your Dems incessant need to castrate our military. Also, our enemies have no concept of
“public support” but I’m sure they appreciate
our media and pressure groups acting as their
useful idiots. (Dems mantra, repeat after me…’There is no GWOT, there is no GWOT,…..
June 21st, 2007 at 10:17 AM
“Even without that how many trillions of our kids money paid as taxes is this plan worth?”
Dems using fiscal restraint arguments, now that’s funny!
How many trillions have been thrown down the toilet with illegitimate and self-perpetuating spending programs. At least the money spent on
defense is legitimately constitutional and
stopping our enemies in the nascent stage of the next World War is worth a lot!
Since you brought China into the argument, in
the big geostrategic picture, it’s paramount to
cultivate allies in South Asia- they already
have millenium-old fears of Chinese hegemony.
Wiping out radical Islamic ideology and
“engaging” Muslims- in “hopes that the people become wealthy enough to not want conflict. They would have too much to lose”- this process would
greatly help in keeping the Chinese in check (if the Clintonistas get back in power and sell more of our military technology it probably won’t
matter).
June 21st, 2007 at 10:39 AM
otter,
Nobody is saying that we should go and kill all of the Muslims. At the same time, the forces of militant Islam have been at war with non-Muslims for more than 2000 years. Your notion that we can just talk to them and plead with them to be nice is naive at best and dangerous at worst. It’s the same kind of appeasement that let Hitler march across Europe.
Andrew,
Private American citizens do not have the authority to conduct foreign policy. It is fair game to not only rebuke this man for meeting with insurgents (even if his motives were good) and to rebuke those who take money from him. Americans should not be giving legitimacy to insurgents by meeting with them outside government channels. End of story. In fact, I believe he should be prosecuted for this.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:39 AM
otter,
Nobody is saying that we should go and kill all of the Muslims. At the same time, the forces of militant Islam have been at war with non-Muslims for more than 2000 years. Your notion that we can just talk to them and plead with them to be nice is naive at best and dangerous at worst. It’s the same kind of appeasement that let Hitler march across Europe.
Andrew,
Private American citizens do not have the authority to conduct foreign policy. It is fair game to not only rebuke this man for meeting with insurgents (even if his motives were good) and to rebuke those who take money from him. Americans should not be giving legitimacy to insurgents by meeting with them outside government channels. End of story. In fact, I believe he should be prosecuted for this.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:11 AM
I don’t know why Democrats bitch about the body count, really. They just worship to a different killing field.
Planned Parenthood murders nearly 300,000 Americans every year. And makes quite a profit doing so:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/CUL20070615a.html
June 21st, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Chris… Chestnut believes it.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:04 PM
The only way to defeat radical Islam is through ideas. The only way we can do that is through education. The only way we can educate is to set up schools in Islamic states. By creating democratic governments and enforcing the laws to respect the institutions of these democratic governments, ideas can prosper. At the same time holding in check fundamentalist countries like Iran, till the people become tired of the oppression and lack of freedom. Eventually all people desire freedom. Desire the ability to raise their children with their own beliefs, see them raised with greater health, and succeed with a better lifestyle.
It too 50 years after the 2nd World War, to show that communism was a disaster. We held them in check and supported democratic governments all over the world. 50 years, not 5 years. We endured losses all along the way as we confronted communism, but we held fast.
The only country that can defeat the US is the US people. We are being defeated by our own media, our own people, and our own selfish interests. If people are dying all over the world, it’s not our problem as long as our interests are secured. Between 250,000 and 500,000 people were killed by Sadam, but that was ok, because after all it was his country. Liberals believe long as we stay out of it and just talk to them, maybe they will reform their ideas and quit killing their people. But we can’t take a stand and overthrow their government, if it takes one American life. Life is so precious, if it’s American, but if it’s poor Muslims, Laotians or Africans, it’s really their government’s responsibility.
Americans have been raised in the right now generation. We want results right now. The Islamic Fundamentalist has been fighting for 1,000 years and will not give up easily. We need to have the same long term faith in our system, which gives freedom to all to live in relative peace and security under laws created by the governed.