"These terrorists would be in NY if we were not fighting them in Iraq"

[Elwood P Dowd]

Did anyone hear John McCain tell Costas this on Larry King Live? Does this man think we all just fell off the turnip truck?

On another CNN show tonight, the repuke lady (?) said the terrorists were hitting us hard, and we had to take the attack to them in order to survive. That is why Bush keeps tying 9-11 to Iraq. Iraq is the key to winning the war on terror.

Folks, these people are getting desperate.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

1. McCain jumped the shark a LONG time ago.

Circa 2000, to be exact.

[oblivious]

2. Yes, utter desperation. Despicable lying propagandists. Criminals all.

US prosecuted Nazi propagandists as war criminals

The Nuremberg tribunal and the role of the media
By David Walsh
16 April 2003

In the period leading up to the invasion, the American media uncritically advanced the Bush administration’s arguments, rooted in lies, distortions and half-truths, for an attack on Iraq. It virtually excluded all critical viewpoints, to the point of blacking out news of mass antiwar demonstrations and any other facts that contradicted the propaganda from the White House and Pentagon.

The obvious aim was to misinform and manipulate public opinion, and convince the tens of millions within the US who were opposed to the administration’s war policy that they constituted a small and helpless minority.

...This makes the US media an accessory before and after the fact to crimes carried out in Iraq and future crimes against other peoples in the region and around the world. Sitting far from the ravaged Iraqi cities, in well-appointed boardrooms, the media moguls may believe they will never face such charges. There are, however, historical parallels and precedents to the contrary.

The Nuremberg precedent

...Nonetheless, in their arguments US prosecutors set forth a democratic legal principle derived from the international experience of a half-century of carnage: that planning and launching an aggressive war constituted a criminal act and that those who helped prepare such a war through their propaganda efforts were as culpable as those who drew up the battle plans or manufactured the munitions.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/nure-a16.shtm...

[LynnTheDem]

3. They sure do believe Americans are stupid as dirt; see, no American can

figure out that by quagmiring our troops in Iraq, terrorists can come attack America and we don't have troops IN America to fight them.

Rightwingnut pundits think Americans are TOO STUPID to figure out that just because IRAQIS are fighting their foreign invaders -that would be us- it DOES NOT mean all the terrorists from around the world and those ALREADY IN America can't still attack us.

And of course rightwingnut pundits KNOW -make no mistake about it, THEY KNOW- that Iraq had NOTHING whatsoever to do with 911 or al Qaeda; BUSH has said so, RUMMY has said so, RICE has said so, POWELL has said so.

But they think Americans are SO STUPID they will believe Iraq did 911 and was in bed with al Qaeda.

Thing is, they're right; HALF this country IS THAT STUPID. The rightwingnut half.

[wake.up.america]

5. Where is the logic?

How does McCain figure terrorists end up fighting US forces in Iraq, rather than in Central Park, because US forces are fighting in Iraq?

[LynnTheDem]

9. Logic? And McCain? Logic and any republican?!

:rofl:

[NightOwwl]

4. I wish one of the interviewers would ask them this...

Are you saying the reason it's better to attack the terrorists "over there" is because this Administration has done such a poor job of making our country safe, that the terrorists you speak of could bypass all security and just waltz right into this country and start attacking?

[Elwood P Dowd]

6. I've used that on them

I told my stupid, repuke sister, "If that's the case, then George Bush is the most worthless president in US history. If he can't even protect us from a few morons living in caves, then we're in serious trouble".

[Richard Steele]

7. Of course they can't 'WALTZ' right in!

Don't you read the papers?

If they approach a 'Border Checkpoint' on foot,
CARRYING A CHAINSAW COVERED IN BLOOD...

Then our expert Homeland Security Employees
will detain them briefly,
and CONFISCATE the CHAINSAW...

...before allowing them to WALK in!


NO "waltzing" of any sort was involved!


(_HERE_ is where the "sarcasm" smiley would be if this hadn't actually happened)

[Crunchy Frog]

17. Yes, this charming fellow.

(This picture is for real, and they really did let him through carrying a bloody chainsaw.)

[NightOwwl]

19. He looks like he could be 'The Runaway Bride's' brother.

:silly:

[donkeyotay]

23. I feel so safe!

I'll bet they confiscated his toenail clippers, though!

[NightOwwl]

18. Hey, it could have been animal blood, you know!

"The next day, cops discover that the strange-looking young fellow's Canadian neighbors had been murdered. One of the victims had been decapitated (his head was stuffed into a pillowcase under the kitchen table) and the other stabbed to death.

"He was a U.S. citizen!" the agents reportedly yammered, when asked why they didn't detain the young man with the crazy looks. And ... besides ... for all we know, that could have been animal blood on his chainsaw!"

Cops eventually found and arrested the fellow, and he is awaiting charges for the murders of the two Canadians."

http://www.theunion.com/article/20050614/OPINION/106140102/0/FRONTPAGE

:eyes:

[bluedog]

20. right

bush has made more terrorists..........he lied to crate a whole shit load...now they say the same old crap.fight them there instead of here.

well, if our boarders were secure.our cargo checked.....we would be safer......but just like the Hart-Rudman papers.they ignore this fact.......I say bring our troops home.let them defend our broarders....they are in the Military to DEFEND this country.not to take a bullet for the LIAR

[deutsey]

8. Anti-war demonstrations in September

www.unitedforpeace.org
www.internationalanswer.org

[necso]

10. McCain's toadying is

really too much to bear.

And does he really think that he can trust the neocons to keep any sort of deal? McCain/Bush, my ass. Hell will freeze over (frist) first.


...

Oh, and confusing the hell out of people about the actual terrorist threat, the "war on terror", the "war" in Iraq, what we should actually be doing to defend ourselves, etc, gives the neocons the cover to do whatever the hell they like in the name of "the war on terror", preemptive self-defense and etc.

In the actual circumstances, most of our opponents in Iraq are Iraqis. And once we pull out they will probably be busy there for some time (as will most, if not all, of their jihadi friends). We can use that time (and the present) to better prepare to defend ourselves from terrorist attacks -- no matter what the source (which is what we ought to be doing in any event -- and which we aren't).

Besides, it's a long-ass swim.

[HeeBGBz]

11. A local freeper told me that yesterday

Only he said, "If we didn't fight them over there, we would have to fight them over here."

I said, "Good, that's where they should be if we're gonna fight them."

[donkeyotay]

28. Right. We'd win protecting our home. They'll win protecting theirs.

There was a Zogby poll that showed overwhelming admiration in the Arab world for America and our values. Despite complaints about us, we could have worked with them on bringing real peace. But now they, along with the entire planet, hate us. We aren't just fighting terrorists over there, we're CREATING them, and we're weakening America at the same time. FUBAR.

[undeterred]

12. We've saved all these terrorists the price of a (one way) plane ticket

by agreeing to host our event in an Arab country... aren't we generous?! :sarcasm:

[Vinca]

13. Actually, he was probably right.

They'd be in New York because we've done ZERO to secure the borders. It's got nothing to do with Iraq.

[flpoljunkie]

14. Floored when Costas asked McCain, what's to stop them from doing both?

McCain gave a rambling answer non-answer--argued that over time, if we are successful in Iraq, there will be fewer terrorists and, thus, less threat to us over here.

I salute Costas for being the first journalist to ask the question.

[Crunchy Frog]

15. Yes, if people fight us after we invade and occupy their country

it means that they would have been fighting us even if we hadn't invaded, and that's why we had to invade.:crazy:

Do people still think that McCain would have made a good running mate for Kerry?

[Igel]

21. I think that he plausibly meant

the non-Iraqis in Iraq, not the Iraqis themselves.

I'm unconvinced it makes his statement any more reasonable. But it does mean he didn't necessarily imply those acting in self-defense.

[ladjf]

16. If terrorists wanted to be in NY, they would be.

Thousands of foreigners fly into NY daily. There's no way to screen out unarmed terrorists. After entering the country, they could easily purchase whatever materials that would be needed for attacks.
They aren't bombing NY because it's not in their best interest.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

22. And if Vietnam falls to communism, so will Cambodia...

...and Laos
...and Thailand
...and the Philippines
...and Australia

What utter crapola. You'd think that a guy who survived Vietnam would be little slower to shovel this crap at the American people.

[berni_mccoy]

24. Exactly! We need to RIP THEM APART with this talking point

see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3978218

[CJCRANE]

25. How are 20,000 insurgents going

to get to America, swim?

Plus there wouldn't even be 20,000 insurgents if the neocons hadn't invaded in the first place.

[ComerPerro]

26. He said that? How do they get away with it?

Why didn't Larry King answer with something like "You can't seriously believe that, can you?"

[Cha]

27. mccain is a STUPID FUCK!

And I'm known this for a long time..this is just more proof that he's not worthy to carry water for a Dem.