The Truth About Bushs "Primitive, Inarticulate Argument".

Is there any truth to 'the enemy would follow us here?'
By William Douglas
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - It’s become President Bush’s mantra, his main explanation for why he won’t withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq anytime soon.

In speech after speech, in statement after statement, Bush insists that “this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here.”

The line, which Bush repeated Wednesday in a speech to troops at California's Fort Irwin, suggests a chilling picture of warfare on American streets.

But is it true?

Military and diplomatic analysts say it isn't. They accuse Bush of exaggerating the threat that enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland.

“The president is using a primitive, inarticulate argument that leaves him open to criticism and caricature,” said James Jay Carafano, a homeland security and counterterrorism expert for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy organization. “It’s a poor choice of words that doesn’t convey the essence of the problem - that walking away from a problem doesn’t solve anything.”

Don't they understand that having a "primitive inarticulate argument" is the POINT.

The opposite of that would be a "SOPHISTICATED ERUDITE AGREEMENT" and what self-respecting Neo-Con R would go for that wussy liberal pablum?