New spin on Iraq war - they MEANT for Al Qaeda to come to Iraq

[Woodstock]

I was talking to a guy today who has been having doubts about voting for Bush again. I thought, OK, this is an opportunity to tell him about some Dem candidates. He said he likes Lieberman, and thinks Dean is too far left. I told him Lieberman didn't have the support of the base & Dean is a moderate, but he didn't really want to talk about that, he wanted to talk about Bush some more.

OK. So what's bothering him? Bush's failed foreign policy/the Iraq war, I thought, that surely is it, so I brought it up. BUT NO!!! He said Bush's foreign policy will be remembered as "brilliant." He's a big William F. Buckley fan. His theory (which he presumably got from WFB) is that Bush deliberately went to war in Iraq to "take the war away from the US home territory." They meant to engage Al Qaeda there so they'd leave us alone over here. But, what about the lack of funding for homeland security, I asked? The vulnerable ports, the laid off police and fire fighters? No, no, he said, the battle with the terrorists is all in Iraq now.

My mind was completely boggled to hear this. To me this whole "take the war to them" theory sounded like a big fat RED HERRING. I told him, but Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the war, it's only really there now because of what we did (and the Bush Admin. was warned by everyone and his mama that this would happen.) I told him Pakistan was teeming with Al Qaeda, but Bush is playing nice with them and turning his head. I told him the Saudis are a problem, too - so what is Bush's strategy for that? Blank stare. I told him the Bush Admin. is now trying to bail from Afghanistan and actually - gasp - negotiating with the Taliban to let the "moderate" Taliban come back into power. Blank stare.

So, is this the latest bull the neocons/Bush apologists are floating about to justify Iraq? That they wanted to take the war away from home?

[LittleApple81]

1. Where have you been hiding? That has been around for at least

a month. They say that Iraq is the "cockroach motel" to attract the terrorists so that America is not attacked in Missouri or Montana.

[Woodstock]

3. AUGGGHHH - I was still stuck on their "liberating the people" spin

What is wrong with people, don't they know how to think critically anymore? Must they have a hero that they worship to the point they get their news from him and him only? For some it's Rush, for some it's O'Reilly, for others it's Buckley. The implicit trust, the seeming need of the sheep for a shepherd to show them the way, I just don't get it.

[Junkdrawer]

6. Even earlier. After George "Brain Boy" Bush said "Bring it on"...

a few conservative bloggers came up with the "flypaper" spin that shit-for-brains boast was actually a brilliant plan.

[Gman]

2. And in some back room somewhere, a group of neocons are sitting

around laughing their asses off saying, "BWAAAAA HAHAHAHAAA!! Can you believe the idiots believe that one! Ok, Ok... now, let's tell them that... BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAA! They'll believe anything, BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!"

[Minstrel Boy]

4. They call it the "flypaper strategy"

Except it's hardly a strategy if it's concocted after the fact to rationalize away why everything's gone to hell. Oh yeah - it's because we secretly wanted it this way. Brilliant!

And these same people who say Iraq is to become al Qaeda's killing zone are the ones who say Iraqis are actually much better off now. There's no internal coherence to their case.

Flypaper? More like toilet paper.

[Jackpine Radical]

22. In WWII, as the Allies rolled across one Pacific atoll after another,

toward Japan, the Japanese press kept reporting how the enemy was becoming overextended and falling further and further into the trap set by the brilliant Japanese military leaders.

[Code_Name_D]

5. Oh this is just too rich.

[alcuno]

7. They've been trying this one for some time now.

Here's the counter argument. Al Quaeda was in AFGHANISTAN. We were in AFGHANISTAN. Why go to Iraq when you AND THE ENEMY are already in the same country? We took troops and resources OUT of Afghanistan so we could fight them where they weren't?

This is the "Alamo" defense. They've got us surrounded and are picking us off AND THAT WAS THE PLAN? What happened to "We'll take the fight to the terrorists?" Now they have to chase us around the Middle East in order to find us. Stupid argument made up on the fly.

One attack on US soil and they'll have to make up another whopper.

[Woodstock]

15. AKA the Pee Wee Herman defense?

I meant to do that!

[Jacobin]

8. I guess it doesn't dawn on these idiots that this, um, plan is in

stark contrast with, and not consistent with one of the other major rallying cries to justify the invasion (after WMDs went missing) that we invaded to "liberate and help" the poor Iraqi people.

How does it help them to attract swarms of "terrorists" to blow up Iraq while at the same time we are spending billions to "rebuild" Iraq.

Never mind. these people don't think anyway. None of it makes sense and they are grasping at straws to further spin a web of fairy tales to make it all ok.

[Q]

9. Interesting how they keep changing their minds...

...but I guess it's better for them than admitting that the whole friggin 'war' is a fraud.

[Woodstock]

10. It just occurred to me why he likes Lieberman & thinks Dean is far left

Isn't that what the neocons have been feeding the sheep?

The guy said he likes candidates who are socially liberal. It was if they were too far left on the rest that bothered him.

I said, why don't you read about Dean's record in Vermont, I think you'll see he's definitely not far left on the non-social issues.

WHY DON'T THEY WANT TO FIND OUT THESE THINGS FOR THEMSELVES? This was a really intelligent guy, too. I don't get it.

[Ilsa]

11. Alcuno, that's brilliant!

I really like that counter argument against the neo-fascist revisionist rationalizations.

Hey, "Apache", why don't you get on board and dig in here ("here" as in the DU!) I'm still waiting for your first post... Bring it on!

[alcuno]

13. Why thank you, Ilsa.

In my mind, I picture an SNL skit in which terrorists have to pick up and chase after the Americans who moved to a country nearby where, not only do they have to fight off the terrorists, but now provide humanitarian aid AND rebuild an entire country. The rationale has more holes in it than a plaque of Saddam Hussein in Basra.

[RealityDose]

12. I have been thinking that for 2 months

But that is because any other idea holds more water than WMDs. It has a lot of strong points. 1.) It's working, except for the extra Al Qaeda recruitment. 2.) When Bush told Syria to patrol their borders better, he could have been talking to Al Qaeda saying hey, it's real easy to come one in. come in and fight with us. 3.) Bring it on. 4.) THere is nothing there we care about preserving, i.e. the lack of proctection of anything bu oil when we invaded.

Anybody got any others?

[welshTerrier2]

14. Send Your Friend This Link

whether the current fighting is taking place in Iraq or elsewhere, it clearly should have been the U.S. goal to weaken Al Qaeda and decrease its membership ...

strong enlistments mean more U.S. haters willing to sacrifice everything to destroy the U.S.

here's an article from Reuters that describes the rapidly growing ranks of Al Qaeda:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?jsessionid=2C32AAJW3NBCGCRBAEZSFEY&type=topNews&storyID=3617357

[pansypoo53219]

16. too bad

SOME OF US REMEMVBER IT WAS IMMINENT DESTRUCTION BY Sadaam's WMD.

[jayfish]

17. We're All Missing The Real Problem With This Sham.

It doesn't matter if it is working or not. What gives the United States of America the right to invade and occupy a sovereign nation for the purpose of inviting another foreign combatant to engage them in battle there? The logic is mind bending and if that’s the story they want to go with then so be it. We'll see'em in The Hague. Think of it like this. The police break into your house, take you prisoner, stash a million bucks under your mattress, open up all the windows and call out over a PA system..."I've got a million bucks under my mattress and the windows are open." The first would be millionaire is killed in the process of trying to take the Money but in the ensuing gun battle your dog is killed. When you scream at the police officer "Why are you doing this to me?" he replies, "Don't worry ma'am, we don't have anything against you. We just wanted to draw the crooks here so we don't offend the real millionaires or get any of our SWAT team. That would be one of the most cowardly, low down despicable acts in recorded history (Not that it doesn’t rank up there already. Either for or against the war, I would steer your friend away from that argument.

Jay

[Woodstock]

18. Excellent point, thanks

"What gives the United States of America the right to invade and occupy a sovereign nation for the purpose of inviting another foreign combatant to engage them in battle there?"

[ethimtemp]

19. I heard a similar message last week from some clown at the pool hall

I was at the pool hall last week and heard a clown advocating
a similiar point.  He said Saddam was in bed with Bin Ladin
and had tons of "awful" weapons to drop on us. 

When I reminded him that Bush said Saddam wasn't involved in
9-11 and that not WMD were found, he mumbled something and
insisted we are all safer because Saddam isn't around to
develop weapons.

[kodi]

20. al qaeda gives up home court advantage in afghanistan 2 play away in iraq

that's stupid, and anyone who believes it is an idiot, including bill buckley

[Noordam]

21. That is a GREAT ONE

even the Freepers would understand Home Court Advantage........ I like it.

[Plaid Adder]

23. Not new--I dissected the "flypaper strategy" a few weeks ago here:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/plaidder/25543.html

I found it on Andrew Sullivan's blog, but apparently it has been disseminated far and wide.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder