redblueamerica.com

Although I agree with your first sentence in a general way, the rest of what you wrote is not true.

Look, Al Queda is in Iraq. There is no way to make that go away!

Was there Al Queda in Iraq at the beginning of the War? Yes. But it was like less than 10 maybe 5 for less. Now they are around 200 or so.

Whose fault was that? Rumsfield and the first General in charge of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

GWB problem is that he is taking advise from people that are just plain incompetent when it comes to dealing and planning in the middle east.

But to say that Iraq is not important on the war on terrorism today is to be the world's greatest most incompetent person known to man.

Al Queda, Iran, Syria and basically all those people who are supplying insurgents have made Iraq the main battle ground. They all have said that its a war over ideology.

What does that mean? It means that beliefs of terrorist is being played out. What is at stake is all the other Islamic countries are watching to see if America has to staying power and the will to face and defeat these terrorist.

Its when I see post like this which shows that the american people are not being told the truth by the media nor by the democratic left nor by the current administration other than a few key truths.

Yes, America has to win in Iraq no matter how unpopular such a stand is. The main reason is that to pull out or fail is to give Al Queda a victory and allow for them to gain power.
With that power they will continue to attack the US but here on main street USA.

How can I say that? All you have to do is read, and listen to what Osama Bin Laden and his Al Queda group has been saying along with Iran, Syria and a few other groups like Hamas and Hezbola which they say exactly what they will do when they win.

All these terrorist have stated that Iraq is the great war between good and evil in the middle east. That the winner in Iraq will prove once and for all who is on the side of good and evil.

These are the words that the terrorist are using not GWB or any of the western countries including the good ole USA.

There is so much at stake in Iraq today.

Did it have to be like that? NO! But then Rumsfield and the first General in charge on the ground screwed the pooch so bad that it has become what it is today.

The problem with Iraq and the democratic party is a straight forward one.

The democratic party needs to stop whinning about how we got into Iraq and start dealing with the current realities in Iraq.

20/20 hindsight is always nice. But it is a stupid way to make policy. In 2001, the right choices were made. True the choices were based on lies. But still the choices made was correct.

Now we have Democrats and Liberals who think that because the war is dragging on because of horrible mismanagement that we should just pull out and leave the middle east to the Mulsims and to the terrorist.

The idiocy with this thought line is that the Terrorist will use the victory to bloom into a powerhouse that could never be defeated and it will give the terrorist the spring board to attack the US not only in any other country in the world but will focus their attacks on main street USA.

This is not scare tactics. Its exactly what the terrorist and the insurgent leaders have been saying for 4 years. To not believe their statements is worse than being incompetent and borders on being a traitor of the US and its military and its citizens to allow it to happen.

What is at stake in Iraq is the overall victory against Islamic terrorism as a global force. There will always be terrorist. But a victory against Al queda will finish this type of terrorism.

How long till victory? Depends on how strong a president we will elect come November and how resolute that president will be to really defeat the enemy.

Which right now is in 4 main places in the world. Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan and the Sudan.

I list Iraq first because Al Queda and the Promoters of Insurgency style terrorism is spending it greatest effort there.

Followed by Afganistan then Pakistan then the Sudan.

But the realities is Iraq is the main battlefield against terrorism because the terrorist made it so.

GWB & Company has used the term terrorist to mislead some uninformed Americans that the IRAQI insurgents are al Quida.
This is a way to justify a MISTAKE.
Bush & Company have taken the LONG more COSTLY route to fighting al Quida terrorist through Iraq and now it will end up once again in Afghanistan extending into Pakistan which means the USA will need to go even a greater distance and more costly one in lives and money. Shld have taken the shorter route and have to admit that not only did we have a dumb-administration--we had dumb voters who put THEM in charge!!

You know that is a trick question.

Has the government found the acceptable substitutions for those labels, particularly 'Jihadist', or does it just use black marker with a code number to indicate the primary value attribute(s)?

It is true we are fighting a mix of labels.

Would 'spirited adversaries' be neutral enough?

I am looking for a suitable replacement for the term 'American Government'