April 08, 2008
Biden PWN3D Crocker! ...In the Community-Based Reality
For reasons rational people will never fathom, lefty bloggers and blog readers are filled with glee over, well, this:
There was once a blog called Joe Biden Is Thugged Out. (I swear this is true.) Biden just proved why. He asked Ryan Crocker, who used to be ambassador to Pakistan, whether it would be better for U.S. interests to go after Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border or Al Qaeda in Iraq.Crocker, in an impossible political position -- give the correct answer and humiliate the Bush administration; give the administration's answer and look like a fool -- dodged as much as he could. Then Biden forced him down. Crocker: "I would therefore pick Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."
Biden "forced him down" how, exactly?
Clearly Ackerman, the flickering bulbs at Think Progress and other gloating liberals didn't actually hear how Crocker responded.
Let's go to the videotape:
BIDEN: Mr. Ambassador, is Al Qaeda a greater threat to US interests in Iraq, or in the Afghan-Pakistan border region?CROCKER: Mr. Chairman, al Qaeda is a strategic threat to the United States wherever it is--
BIDEN: Where is most of it? If you could take it out, you had a choice, the Lord Almighty came down and sat in the middle of the table there, and said, 'Mr. Ambassador, you can eliminate every al Qaeda source in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or every al Qaeda personnel in Iraq, which would you pick?'
CROCKER: Well, given the progress that has been made against al Qaeda in Iraq, the significant decrease in its capabilities, the fact that it is solidly on the defensive and not in a position as far--
BIDEN: Which would you pick?
CROCKER: I would therefore pick Al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.
So despite the cleverly truncated quote at Think Progress (seriously, when are lefty bloggers going to tire of being set up and used as fools by these shills?) and Ackerman's own deceptive forgetfulness, what Crocker actually told Biden is that our military had severely damaged the operational capabilities of al Qaeda in Iraq (by 75-percent in the last year alone, according to the Iraqi Interior Ministry) and knocked it into a defensive posture where it is far less of a threat.
How much less of a threat?
According to StrategyPage.com, Osama bin Laden admitted defeat in Iraq on Oct 22, 2007, a sentiment that Marine Colonel Richard Simcock shared contemporaneously as it related to al Qaeda's former strongholds in al Anbar in specific. Battered, tattered, and lethally-harassed by coalition soldiers at night and former Sunni Iraqi allies during the day, al Qaeda's morale in Iraq is crushed, along with most of it's capabilities.
Thanks to Iraqi and coalition efforts, Al Qaeda in Iraq is beaten, fragmented, and on the verge of a final collapse, according to the terror organization itself. With this enemy almost defeated, it is only common sense that Crocker would select the remaining al Qaeda hiding along the Afghan-Pakistani border as being the greater threat.
I guess Ackerman can pretend that Crocker's quite logical response--to advocate the targeting the terrorists that are still alive, instead of those we have already dispatched--is humiliating to the Bush administration, but outside his insular nutroots community, in a land where common sense prevails and truncated quotes are not swallowed at face value time and again, Crocker got the better of this exchange by merely pointing out that we've run out of al Qaeda in Iraq to kill.
Remember when we had to pick between fighting the Germans ot the Japanese?
Me neither.
Posted by: Pablo at April 9, 2008 06:11 AMI watched "Morning Joe" on MSNBC this morning. The showed the Biden question and response...with the exact ommission you note. The entire context related to the deterioration of AQ in Iraq was omitted.
Posted by: Bill Van Luchene at April 9, 2008 07:35 AMI guess you and Crocker disagree with Fred Kagan's claim yesterday that Iraq is still the central front in the fight against Al Qaeda, then?
Regards, C
Posted by: Cernig at April 9, 2008 07:38 AMBut the Iraq War Resolution didn't list al Qaeda as an objective for using "all means necessary" in Iraq, so Biden's point is cute but not relevant.
Posted by: Neo at April 9, 2008 07:51 AMI think I've got the liberals strategy figured out. Ever since the beginning of the war the left has lied and said that al Qaeda was not in Iraq. Now that we've killed off most of al Qaeda in Iraq they can continue to say "see, al Qaeda is not in Iraq."
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 9, 2008 08:17 AMThe correct answer was,
"Senator, although I like to believe the almighty is everywhere, it's hard to imagine he spends much time in these chambers."
Given the close ties between Al Qaeda and the Democrats and how badly they need one another, I would think that the Dem's would want the US to remain in Iraq and avoid focusing on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.
Posted by: iconoclast at April 9, 2008 09:45 AMPablo: "Remember when we had to pick between fighting the Germans or the Japanese?..."
Actually, we did have to pick and we chose to defend England and aid Russia against the Germans as our first priority. However, we clearly also fought the Japanese at the same time.
It was a matter of emphasis - not unlike what we see in the Middle East now. It wasn't then, nor is it now, an all or nothing proposition like the Dems try to make it out to be.
Posted by: in_awe at April 9, 2008 10:38 AMOnce again this incident proves the best policy to live by when reading anything from those rabid moonbat sites is "distrust and verify."
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 9, 2008 10:45 AM"...that would be a smart choice...now let's say the Lord Almighty sat on the table, right there man, and said Selma Hayek or Jessica Alba, but it has to be unprotected - who would you do?"
Posted by: Horsefly at April 9, 2008 01:09 PMHowever, we clearly also fought the Japanese at the same time.
Precisely my point, and anyone who doesn't get it can look to Adam Gadahn for clarification.
Posted by: Pablo at April 9, 2008 03:09 PMGood news! I take your point: we've beat back AQI so it looks like we can get out of Iraq now.
Posted by: Mike at April 9, 2008 07:57 PMI can see Mike in September, 1943. "Well, we beat Italy, so we can pull out of Europe now."
News flash, Mikey: There are more players in this game than just Al Qaeda. Beating one doesn't mean Iraq is safe.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 9, 2008 08:04 PMSo, how many troops shall we send into Pakistan, Mike?
Posted by: Pablo at April 10, 2008 01:31 AMThanks to Iraqi and coalition efforts, Al Qaeda in Iraq is beaten, fragmented, and on the verge of a final collapse, according to the terror organization itself. With this enemy almost defeated, it is only common sense that Crocker would select the remaining al Qaeda hiding along the Afghan-Pakistani border as being the greater threat.
That actually buttresses Biden's point, CY. But thanks for missing that.
Iran's state-run media have de facto confirmed that this was no spontaneous "uprising." Rather, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) tried to seize control of Iraq's second-largest city using local Shiite militias as a Trojan horse. ... Initially, Quds commanders appeared to have won their bet. Their Special Groups and Mahdi Army allies easily seized control of key areas of Basra when more than 500 Iraqi security personnel abandoned their positions and disappeared into the woodwork.Soon, however, the tide turned. Maliki proved that he had the courage to lead the new Iraqi Security Force (ISF) into battle, even if that meant confronting Iran. The ISF showed that it had the capacity and the will to fight.
...
After more than a week of fighting, the Iraqis forced the Quds commanders to call for a cease-fire through Sadr. The Iraqi commander agreed - provided that the Quds force directly guaranteed it. To highlight Iran's role in the episode, he insisted that the Quds force dispatch a senior commander to finalize the accord.
Looks like al-Sadr was a mere spectator at best, more probable, just an Iranian stooge.
Posted by: Neo at April 10, 2008 06:19 PMXan, please see the point I made to Mike earlier.
And next time, try reading before placing fingers on keyboard.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 10, 2008 06:57 PMThat actually buttresses Biden's point, CY. But thanks for missing that.
Yes, it does. Biden's point is that we ought to leave before we've finished them off. That we should leave with them on the verge of a final collapse. Biden is an idiot with a point, which isn't a good one.
You think he'd seen a Bond film or two.
Posted by: Pablo at April 10, 2008 09:02 PMGentlemen, please remember that this is the GWOT, the Global War on Terror, not the Global War on Al-Queda.
We stay until the fight is won.
Everyone on the idiotic left says that they want to pull out of Iraq and hit AQ in Afghan.
Well gents, guess what? AQ is like a cancer, you can not attack only one part of it and win.
Now sit back and let us do our jobs.
Posted by: Eric at April 11, 2008 03:38 PM
