moonbat left doctrine repeated is still moonbat left doctrine
It's a war on terror, not a war on Iraq.
We aren't going to allow organized crime jihadists to take over a state. Instead the state has to harass and pursue them so as to keep their organizational capability below what it takes to inflict serious damage anywhere in the world.
Once the Iraqis are stable enough to do it alone, as they'd prefer by the way, we can leave.
Then it's on to the next failed state, for both Al Qaeda and the US, to repeat it again.
Bush's confidence is the confidence of determination, not some sort of prophecy. It's a commitment of whatever it takes.
Unlike the NYT, which is the faint-heartedness of surrender which becomes self-fulfilling by making it seem that terror works.
The audience for the terrorist stuff you see is the NYT and their womenish readers. No audience, no terrorist strategy.
But soap opera pays in the news biz. It's the target audience. They tune in, news or no news, for the same simple-to-write crap, and their eyes are sold to advertisers. That's the news business model.
Part of the media hype is the serious-thinker posture that this soap is presented with. You are serious readers because you like soap opera, is the message. The women love it.
It's not adults we need so much as men. Unfortunately men won't tune in unless there's actual news, so they don't get any vote in the what's deemed worthy of print.
Every national debate is thus mediated by the tastes of soap opera.
As you see on the pages of the NYT.
Why fight jihadists? Because now modern weapons are too dangerous to fall into the hands of a group large enough to acquire and deploy them, and that size is falling.
The fight consists of keeping the odd organization below that size, not in eliminating every moonbat fanatic.
That requires infiltration, monitoring, encouraging the odd betrayal, and everything that the NYT is against.
The moonbat jihadist fanatic aims at eliminating the war, via media photo ops, and the NYT jumps to their bidding. As here today.
They want to eliminate the war because it's working.
It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
``I must give him his due. He has considerably cretinized me.'' Lautréamont
Pics click to enlarge.
- ► 2016 (35)
- ► 2015 (66)
- ► 2014 (185)
- ► 2013 (116)
- ► 2012 (118)
- ► 2011 (104)
- ► 2010 (230)
- ► 2009 (146)
- ► 2008 (263)
- YouDebate: If Only the Candidates Were as Interest...
- The Anti-Reform Farm Bill (NYT)
- Taxes in the Global Economy (NYT)
- No Exit Strategy (NYT)
- Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial Preside...
- Phantom Voters in New York (NYT)
- How the Energy Dice Were Loaded (NYT)
- What Would a Diplomat Do? (NYT)
- FEMA Runs for Cover (NYT)
- Power Without Limits (NYT)
- Vetoing Children’s Health (NYT)
- Overhaul in Albany (NYT)
- Long-Delayed Security (NYT)
- The Iraq War Debate: A Reality Check on Military S...
- The Iraq War Debate: The Great Denier (NYT)
- Trying Times Ahead: The Prospect of 60 Million Cal...
- Fighting AIDS Behind Bars (NYT)
- Where to Discuss the Nation’s Ills (NYT)
- The Politics of Fear (NYT)
- The Road Home (NYT)
- Appreciations: Beverly Sills (NYT)
- In Politics, Money Is Trump Card (NYT)
- Looking Outward on the Fourth (NYT)
- Origins of Our Food (NYT)
- Cats Among Us (NYT)
- The N.R.A.’s Senate (NYT)
- Is Your Doctor Tied to Drug Makers? (NYT)
- A Much-Needed Second Chance (NYT)
- The City Life: Predatory Newcomers Flit About (NYT...
- Let Blair Be Blair (NYT)
- Abuse of Executive Privilege (NYT)
- ▼ July (31)
- ► 2006 (1223)