Christmas Day Raid Nabs Key Terrorist Leader
While many of us spent yesterday with family and friends and celebrated the meaning of Christmas… many of our fellow Americans continued to work in the War on Terror to help rid the world of evil.
BAGHDAD - Coalition Forces captured the suspected leader of a murder and kidnapping cell during operations Dec. 25 near Baghdad. The suspect is allegedly responsible for the kidnapping of an Iraqi Army soldier as well as the kidnapping and murder of other Iraqi civilians in the area. During operations, Coalition Forces detained four additional persons for questioning. There was minimal damage done to objective. There were no Iraqi civilian or Coalition Forces casualties.
And for those of you who (like James Baker) who think the USA should negotiate with the Iranians….
The Bush administration said on Monday the arrest in Iraq of alleged Iranian provocateurs, including two diplomats, underscored U.S. concerns about “meddling” amid rising U.S.-Iranian strains.
U.S.-led forces detained the Iranians during operations “against those planning and plotting attacks against multinational forces, Iraqi forces and Iraqi citizens,” the State Department said.“In the course of those operations, multinational forces recently picked up groups of individuals involved in these kinds of activities, including Iranians operating inside Iraq,” it said.
U.S. military and civilian officials in Baghdad and Washington did not respond to questions about any evidence the arrested Iranians were plotting attacks.
“We suspect this event validates our claim about Iranian meddling,” said Alex Conant, a White House spokesman, “but we want to finish our investigation of the detained Iranians before characterizing their activities.”
The War on Terror continues no matter what the season.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
35 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Thank you for your posting. Many people don’t realize that the Iraqi insurgents and their ilk aren’t taking our holidays off.
What’s Gay Patriot’s view on the responsibility of those eligible to serve (healthy heterosexuals 41 and under) who support the war at least to consider volunteering for military service?
Comment by Operation Yellow Elephant — December 26, 2006 @ 1:05 pm - December 26, 2006
Instead of heeding the recommendations from the Iraq Surrender Group and James ‘F the Jews’ Baker, maybe we should be more like the Ehthiopians, and force Islamism into retreat.
As Cliff May comments at the Corner:
Amazing what even a third-world army can accomplish when it isn’t hobbled by political correctness and a media that openly roots for the enemy.
Comment by V the K — December 26, 2006 @ 3:46 pm - December 26, 2006
http://www.dod.mil
News Releases are official statements of the Department of Defense. News releases issued within the past 30 days are listed below. Older news releases are available from the news release archive page. News releases are also available by e-mail subscription. Go to DoD News for more information and for links to other news items.
12/26/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/26/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
12/26/2006: DoD Identifies Navy Casualty
12/22/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualties
12/22/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/22/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/22/2006: Soldiers Missing in Action from Vietnam War are Identified
12/22/2006: Task Force on Future of Military Healthcare Established
12/20/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/20/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/20/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
12/20/2006: National Guard (In Federal Status) and Reserve Mobilized as of December 20, 2006
12/19/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualties
12/19/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualties
12/19/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualties
12/19/2006: Soldiers Missing In Action From Vietnam War are Identified
12/19/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualties
12/19/2006: New Military Health System Governance Plan Announced
12/18/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/17/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/17/2006: Detainee Transfer Announced
12/16/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/15/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualties
12/15/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/14/2006: DoD Announces Soldier’s Captured Status
12/14/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/14/2006: DoD Announces Installation Realignment in Germany
12/14/2006: Detainee Transfer Announced
12/13/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/13/2006: National Guard (In Federal Status) and Reserve Mobilized as of December 13, 2006
12/13/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
12/13/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualties
12/13/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualties
12/12/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
12/12/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/12/2006: Department of Defense and United Kingdom Sign Next Stage Joint Strike Fighter Agreement
12/12/2006: DoD Announces Recruiting and Retention Numbers for November 2006
12/11/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
12/11/2006: Department of Defense and Canada Sign Next Stage Joint Strike Fighter Agreement
12/11/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
12/11/2006: General Officer Announcements
12/11/2006: General Officer Announcement
12/10/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/10/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualties
12/09/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualties
12/09/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualties
12/08/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
12/08/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/08/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualties
12/08/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
12/07/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualties
12/07/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/07/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/07/2006: Comparative Testing Office Announces Projects for Fiscal 2007
12/07/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/06/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/06/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/06/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualties
12/06/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/06/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
12/06/2006: DoD Identifies Navy Casualty
12/06/2006: Navy to Christen USNS Alan Shepard
12/06/2006: National Guard (In Federal Status) and Reserve Mobilized as of December 6, 2006
12/05/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/05/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/05/2006: DoD Disability Awards Announced
12/05/2006: DoD Identifies Air Force Casualty
12/04/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/04/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/04/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualties
12/04/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
12/03/2006: DoD Identifies Air Force Casualty
12/02/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/01/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/01/2006: Soldiers Missing in Action from the Korean War Are Identified
12/01/2006: Stephen A. Cambone to Resign
12/01/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/01/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
12/01/2006: Peter C.W. Flory Receives NATO Assignment
11/30/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualties
11/30/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
11/30/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
11/30/2006: General Officer Assignments
11/29/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
11/29/2006: Navy Names New Arleigh Burke Class Guided Missile Destroyer
11/29/2006: DoD Announces Air Force Airman as Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown
11/29/2006: National Guard (In Federal Status) and Reserve Mobilized as of November 29, 2006
11/29/2006: Flag Officer Assignment
11/28/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
11/28/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
11/28/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
11/28/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
11/28/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualties
11/28/2006: Soldier Missing in Action from the Korean War is Identified
11/27/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualties
11/27/2006: DoD Identifies Marine Casualties
11/27/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
11/27/2006: General Officer Assignments
11/27/2006: DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Comment by Patrick (gryph) — December 26, 2006 @ 4:08 pm - December 26, 2006
Good point, V da K. My question is – what the hell are these Iranians doing in Iraq, anyway? Or is it too obvious to guess?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — December 26, 2006 @ 7:22 pm - December 26, 2006
I don’t know, Pete. I’m still scratching my head over Grandpa Gryph’s irrelevant cut-and-paste. At this rate, he’ll be copy-pasting the contents of Vonage pop-up ads before too long. I guess Michael “the Hutt” Moore posted some crap about the death toll in Iraq passing the 9-11 death toll and, like the little braindead leftist zombie he is, Gryph felt the need to somehow echo the sentiment that’s bouncing around the GayLeftBorg collective.
But getting back to the Iranians, although most of the Iraq-Vietnam analogies are poor and misguided, I thought one of the ones that was accurate (and being overlooked) was that as in Vietnam, our government is neither acknowledging who the real enemy is nor attempting to engage them. The Viet-Cong were just proxies for North Vietnam who were in turn proxies of the Soviet Union. The “insurgents” in Iraq are proxies of the Iranians, and the roadside bombs they use are largely produced in Iranian factories. But the Bush Administration refuses to acknowledge this. Probably because, if they admitted Iran is a problem, they would have to do something about it. And they are, for whatever reason, unwilling to do so.
Comment by V the K — December 26, 2006 @ 8:01 pm - December 26, 2006
What’s Gay Patriot’s view on the responsibility of those eligible to serve (healthy heterosexuals 41 and under) who support the war at least to consider volunteering for military service?
Question, Yellow Elephant; since Democrats allegedly support the war in Afghanistan, when can we expect you to push for them to volunteer?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 27, 2006 @ 2:28 am - December 27, 2006
What we don’t hear enough about is the enemy death toll: 45,000 – 50,000 Islamo-Fascists Sent to Meet Allah
Read the Whole Thing. It’s Pimpalicious.
Comment by V the K — December 27, 2006 @ 12:31 pm - December 27, 2006
tge continuation is interesting:
Comment by comment0r — December 27, 2006 @ 1:10 pm - December 27, 2006
V the K
That forwarded email is well over a year old.
It first came out around Thanksgiving of 2005.
I can’t imagine why Cliff May is publishing this as current events….
Comment by keogh — December 27, 2006 @ 2:20 pm - December 27, 2006
In comment 6 above, dear old NDT dodges the issue once again. The issue, NDT, is Iraq, not Afghanistan, and the Gay Patriots like you who, while once calling Iraq “a noble cause”, still are safely stateside still humping a war you refuse to fight in. In your dodging of this issue for 3 years now, you are at least consistent and predictable.
And thank you, OYE friend. You do good work and are needed here.
Comment by Rheadher — December 27, 2006 @ 5:20 pm - December 27, 2006
As I was reading GP’s gleeful post about troops knocking on (and in) doors in Iraq, I was struck by the thought that his combat report was incomplete in that it had no information about casualties. I started wondering how many families here at home recieved an unwelcome knock on their door Christmas morning.
Soldiers from Operation Iraqi Freedom that died on Christmas Day:
Sgt. Jae S. Moon, 21, of Levittown, Pa., died Dec. 25 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle while on patrol Dec. 14 in Baghdad. Moon was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.
The Department of Defense announced today the death of three soldiers who were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. They died of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle during combat operations Dec. 25 in Baghdad, Iraq. They were assigned to the 9th Engineer Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Schweinfurt, Germany.
Killed were:
Sgt. John T. Bubeck, 25, of Collegeville, Pa. He later died Dec. 26.
Spc. Aaron L. Preston, 29, of Dallas.
Pfc. Andrew H. Nelson, 19, of Saint Johns, Mich.
Sgt. Jason C. Denfrund, 24, of Cattaraugus, N.Y., died Dec. 25 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his unit while on patrol. Denfrund was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y.
Pfc. Eric R. Wilkus, 20, of Hamilton, N.J., died Dec. 25 at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany, of a non-combat related injury Dec. 22 in Baghdad, Iraq. Wilkus was assigned to the 57th Military Police Company, 8th Military Police Brigade, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. The incident is under investigation.
These guys should have been at home.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 27, 2006 @ 7:28 pm - December 27, 2006
Because in your addled, left-wing mind, the military is just a jobs program for poor dears who didn’t study hard enough. The notion of actually using a military to fight America’s enemies doesn’t even register with you. The idea that a meaningful death is much better than a meaningless life is beyond your comprehension.
Comment by V the K — December 27, 2006 @ 7:34 pm - December 27, 2006
These guys should have been at home.
And if they were, Saddam would likely still be in power.
This is why nobody really believes your whining, Gryph; you claim to be “for” the war and “for” getting rid of Saddam, but you systematically oppose anything and everything that would actually manage DOING so.
Sort of like Joe Biden, who alternates between grinning like a goofy idiot and waving his purple finger in the air, then whines about how unnecessary and unjustified it was for the Iraqis to actually have Saddam gone and free elections.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 27, 2006 @ 7:51 pm - December 27, 2006
Still in power, still paying the $25,000 payoffs to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, still giving the likes of Abu Nidal safe haven, and probably not suffering under sanctions because prior to 2003, the French, the Russians, and the UN were all working hard on getting sanctions lifted. (Who cares about a few thousand dead Kurds. A billion or so in Oil-for-Food bribes buys a lot of forgiveness.)
Meanwhile, those 50,000 dead terrorists our military has dispatched in Iraq would still be alive and, not having the US military to fight, would be looking for something else to keep them busy. I wonder what that might be.
Comment by V the K — December 27, 2006 @ 10:06 pm - December 27, 2006
NDT,
If we would have listened to Biden in 2003, we most likely would have had a stable Iraq now.
Its time for you to face reality and understand that Biden has been THE sane voice on Iraq for the past three years.
Comment by keogh — December 27, 2006 @ 11:13 pm - December 27, 2006
Keogh, I think I was able to find the speech. I haven’t heard of it previously. I read it, and was kind of surprised. Biden was originally for the war, and didn’t equivocate even one year afterwards when things weren’t going well back then. It seems that if Biden’s ideas were followed that Iraq would be in much better shape. But what I’m not sure about is, that even if Bush listened to Biden, that he would have been able to get the necessary multilateral support. Anyway, here is a link for those that are interested.
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20030731.pdf
Comment by Pat — December 28, 2006 @ 11:13 am - December 28, 2006
If we would have listened to Biden in 2003, we most likely would have had a stable Iraq now.
Actually, what Biden wishes is that we had listened to him in 2002 — when he and the rest of the Democrats were trying to perpetuate Saddam in power by claiming we needed the UN’s approval to get rid of him.
Biden demonstrates how Democrats play on the ignorance and stupidity of their base relative to issues like this. For instance, he claims that France would never have supported war under any circumstances, but claims where we allegedly made our mistake was in not taking an additional 30 days to get a majority on the Security Council.
He plays on the fact that ignorant Democrats and leftists like keogh don’t realize that France has the power to veto any action of the Security Council — and in fact, had threatened to veto any resolution that actually forced Saddam to comply.
Furthermore, what Biden leaves out is how Saddam was bribing the UN itself, Kofi Annan and his bureaucracy, plus member governments, with billions of dollars in oil and oil revenues annually to perpetuate himself. He knows leftists like keogh don’t have the intellect or moral ability to recognize such things; besides, they’ve been brainwashed by paid Democratic propagandists like Michael Moore to ignore it.
Biden and his fellow Democrats are nothing but anti-American panderers. Where were they to tell their so-called leftist friends abroad that Saddam was a brutal dictator? Where were their so-called investigators into corruption to reveal the web of illegal transactions by which Saddam systematically bribed the UN and European governments into protecting him? Where were they to point out that the primary reason our so-called “allies” like Germany and France weren’t supporting us was because Saddam was worth billions of dollars to their nationalized companies and politicians annually?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2006 @ 11:56 am - December 28, 2006
What you don’t address, NDT, was that Biden’s solution was to impose apartheid on Iraq, against the consent of the Iraqis, and let ethnic cleansing settle the differences.
No doubt, this would have lead to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being made permanently “peaceful.” Much in the same way that 300,000 opponents of the Saddam regime were made “peaceful.”
And as for imposing a partition on Iraq, well, number 1, aren’t borders artificially drawn by foreign powers part of the reason the Middle East is F**ed up today, and 2, we all know how much Arab peoples love it when westerners tell them how to divide up their countries.
But, of course, to anyone completely ignorant of Middle Eastern history and culture, it probably sounded like a swell idea.
Comment by V the K — December 28, 2006 @ 12:23 pm - December 28, 2006
NDT, I’m only going on what the speech said, and not necessarily what Biden’s real thoughts were. Yes, he did want U.N.’s approval, but knew it wasn’t going to happen. He wanted to wait until more nations would come on board, with or without the U.N.’s approval. This position seemed to differ than other Democrats. Also, afterwards, he supported the U.S. getting more countries involved for the post-war. I honestly don’t remember how hard the Bush Administration tried, or if they felt it was unnecessary or impossible to happen.
In his speech Biden said that Saddam was basically an evil tyrant that had to go, and said the world was much better off without him in power. As for the UN bribery scandal, and Germany’s and France’s financial involvement with Iraq, I honestly don’t remember Bush himself saying anything about that, but I certainly could have missed that.
Comment by Pat — December 28, 2006 @ 12:50 pm - December 28, 2006
As far as hunting down terrorists goes, it is ALWAYS in season! Hoo-rah!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — December 28, 2006 @ 1:33 pm - December 28, 2006
In his speech Biden said that Saddam was basically an evil tyrant that had to go, and said the world was much better off without him in power.
So did Teddy Kennedy, so did Jane Fonda Kerry, and so did the vast majority of Democrats, including Gryph in his more lucid moments.
But, as we’ve seen, all they ever did was to come up with excuses for why the United States should NOT act and why they should continually sabotage the process, either directly or by demanding the impossible for conditions to act.
Why? Because either they a) were too stupid to realize that the UN and the European leftist governments were never going to kill their multibillion-dollar oil-giving cash cow or b) smart enough to realize that they could feign concern about Saddam to their base, but keep pandering to their leftist allies, and the typical Democratic voter would be too stupid to recognize the contradiction.
I lean towards b).
As for the UN bribery scandal, and Germany’s and France’s financial involvement with Iraq, I honestly don’t remember Bush himself saying anything about that, but I certainly could have missed that.
Biggest mistake the US ever made — not publicizing the obvious.
Couple that with allowing manipulative leftist Democrats like Michael Moore, Eason Jordan, and Scott Ritter to cover up Saddam’s brutality, and you have the major problem.
The Bush administration has been far too tenative about publicizing just what these “allies” were doing. Ironically, that being nice may have cost them the most recent election; how well do you think that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could win if it was made obvious that they supported bribery, torture, and corruption at the UN and in European governments over sane US foreign policy?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2006 @ 2:31 pm - December 28, 2006
NDT, I’m sure there were some Democrats that feigned concern. But I don’t necessarily see that there is a contradiction for someone to say Saddam is evil, but let’s not go to war over it. In fact, there are other leaders that are just as or more evil than Saddam that we haven’t gone to war over. I give some credit to Bush for acting, or appearing to act decisively initially with Iraq, but it didn’t work. Perhaps if they avoided the mistakes that you mentioned, like publishing what you apparently thought was obvious, it would have helped matters. And if the Bush Administration did allow the leftists you mention manipulate to somehow coverup Saddam’s brutality, then that would clearly say something about Bush as a leader. Yikes!
how well do you think that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could win if it was made obvious that they supported bribery, torture, and corruption at the UN and in European governments over sane US foreign policy?
Maybe this is just semantics, but…I am fine if you are diametrically opposed to Pelosi and Reid, and think their policies are wrong for America. And I think it would also be fair to say that their policies would not end bribery, torture, and corruption that you mention, or make it worse. But I think it’s a tad unfair to say that they support it. It’s like someone who is against the Iraq War because they honestly feel it has worsened the War on Terror, say “…if it was made more obvious that Bush supported terrorism, he wouldn’t have been elected twice.”
Comment by Pat — December 28, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - December 28, 2006
Ironically, one of the Bush administration’s faults in conducting the Iraq War is that it has been far too diplomatic.
Ironic, because of course one of the infantile Left criticisms is that supposedly Bushco / America didn’t work the diplomatic angle hard enough, acted unilaterally, blah blah blah.
The real story is:
1) There was TWELVE YEARS of diplomacy regarding Saddam, U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution, etc.
2) The U.S. acted multilaterally, in (a) implementing those U.N. resolutions and (b) doing so with over 40 allies. And,
3) From the beginning, Bushco and Congress both offered multiple reasons for getting rid of Saddam – since there were so many good ones. But, for the sake of diplomacy,
4) The U.S. bent over backwards to NOT report information about France’s and Russia’s involvement with Saddam – their transmission of Coalition war plans to him, their secret assurances to Saddam that they would seek to diplomatically block any enforcement of U.N. resolutions, their years-long supplying Saddam with forbidden arms and contraband, etc.
All the above are on the public record – all in “open media” – but not trumpted by leftist media on page 1, hence, lefties pretend not to know to this day.
Comment by Calarato — December 28, 2006 @ 3:36 pm - December 28, 2006
Oh – and as for the Oil-for-Food bribes specifically: well, they weren’t exposed until after (and because of) the Coalition invasion. So they could not have been offered as a rationale.
However, they certainly “cement” the picture of French and Russian involvement with Saddam, and explain why diplomacy with France / Russia was doomed all along (since they were in Saddam’s back pocket).
Comment by Calarato — December 28, 2006 @ 3:45 pm - December 28, 2006
But I don’t necessarily see that there is a contradiction for someone to say Saddam is evil, but let’s not go to war over it.
Unless you have Biden’s record:
Through his work on the Foreign Relations Committee, Biden has sought to promote the use of American power to stop dictators who commit crimes against humanity or genocide. In the 1990s, Biden was among the first to call for active American leadership to end Serbian aggression in Bosnia, and likewise urged U.S. action in Kosovo to stop Slobodon Milosevic’s genocidal actions there. He has urged strong U.S. and international action to prevent genocide in Darfur, and authored legislation to engage NATO and provide additional sanctions to pressure the Sudanese regime.
The simple fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein made all of these look like rank amateurs.
But, unlike Saddam, they aren’t (or weren’t) making it worth their while for European governments, leftist organizations, and the UN to ignore them.
Hence, Biden supported using US military force against them, but opposed using it against Saddam, and has systematically done everything in his power to block doing so or punish the Bush administration for going ahead and doing so.
Do you see a connection?
BTW, that also applies to Pelosi and Reid; if they so oppose corruption, bribes, etc., why did they do nothing to stop them?
And if the Bush Administration did allow the leftists you mention manipulate to somehow coverup Saddam’s brutality, then that would clearly say something about Bush as a leader. Yikes!
Um……wasn’t it “wrong”, according to leftists, for the Bush administration to pay columnists like Maggie Gallagher to get out information about their programs?
And how exactly do you expect a profession in which the vast majority of practitioners not only belong to the opposite party, but loathe and hate Bush, to publicize things that would make obvious how brutal Saddam was — especially when they, like Eason Jordan, had been covering up the fact for years prior to the Bush administration’s arrival in the first place?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2006 @ 4:55 pm - December 28, 2006
Alas, NDT’s Operation Noble Cause continues (celebrating its 4th anniversary this spring), though the tone has changed over the years from a blind certainty to a woulda-coulda-shouda bitterness. Give it up man. You humped a war you had no interest in fighting in, a war that has instead cost the lives of 3,000 OTHER Americans (with another 30,000 OTHER Americans maimed) — a war that when it ends, will more than likely result in another Islamic state with another ayatollah running it. Your “noble cause” argument is as unconvincing now (to those of us with a memory) as it was in 03-04.
Comment by Rheadher — December 28, 2006 @ 5:34 pm - December 28, 2006
Five years without a follow-up attack on American soil. Mainly because the terrorists have been too busy getting killed in Iraq to cause trouble here. Also, because despite the best efforts of the New York Times to expose every counter-terrorism program in existence, the terrorist’s lines of finance, communication, and command and control have also been disrupted.
50,000 terrorists are dead who would otherwise still be free to plot and carry out mayhem if Biden and the left had had their way. The only thing I regret is that it isn’t 100,000. Or pick any number larger. I only fault Bush for being too politically correct and too timid. The Ethiopians are not bound by political correctness, and are kicking Islamo-Fascist ass in Somalia. Notably, the UN (so beloved of the left) is trying to stop them. I wonder who’s paying the bribes this time.
Comment by V the K — December 28, 2006 @ 6:04 pm - December 28, 2006
You humped a war you had no interest in fighting in, a war that has instead cost the lives of 3,000 OTHER Americans (with another 30,000 OTHER Americans maimed)
Meanwhile, your “peace”, when you and your fellow leftists pocketed billions of dollars in oil bribes from Saddam, cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, with millions more starved, maimed, pressed into duty, and otherwise punished for being of the wrong race or religion.
Usually Democrats are more circumspect about their racist beliefs. But I suppose, given the effectiveness of their propaganda machine, they feel semi-certain that they can express their belief publicly that they don’t care about millions of Iraqis being hurt as long as no Americans are.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2006 @ 6:58 pm - December 28, 2006
The Ethiopians are not bound by political correctness, and are kicking Islamo-Fascist ass in Somalia. Notably, the UN (so beloved of the left) is trying to stop them. I wonder who’s paying the bribes this time.
That’s easy, V the K:
The report records names, dates and locations of such transactions, including a donation to the Islamists of one million dollars by Libya and the creation of a reciprocal relationship between the Islamists and Hizbullah.
Eritrea, it says, provided the Islamists with “at least 28 separate consignments of arms, ammunition and military equipment,” including a July 23 delivery of the surface-to-air missiles and infrared-guided anti-tank weapons. Shipments to the Islamists from other countries, notably Iran, Egypt and Syria are also detailed, as is the July 27 departure of 200 Muslim gunmen from Somalia to Syria “to undergo military training in guerrilla warfare.”
It also said the Islamists sent about 720 battle-hardened fighters to Lebanon in mid-July to wage war against Israel alongside Hizbullah.
Only about 80 returned to Somalia, the report says. In exchange, according to the report, Hizbullah arranged for additional support to be given to the Islamists by Iran and Syria, both of which are accused by the United States and others of supporting terrorism.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2006 @ 7:05 pm - December 28, 2006
VtheK writes: “Five years without a follow-up attack on American soil. Mainly because the terrorists have been too busy getting killed in Iraq to cause trouble here.”
What a fool’s argument. Terrorists weren’t too busy during that time to carry out operations in London, Madrid, and elsewhere. The fact that they haven’t conducted an attack within the U.S. is more likely a testament to HLS doing their job (the job they were created to do — over GBush’s initial opposition, we should note) than to being “too busy” in Iraq. God, the length to which Wingnuts will go to justify Dear Leader’s every mistake.
Then, VTK’s fellow traveler NDT writes: “Meanwhile, your “peace”, when you and your fellow leftists pocketed billions of dollars in oil bribes from Saddam”.
Yeah, like I (and the 70% other Americans who oppose this war) personally “pocketed billions” from Saddam. Wingnutia abounds with flailing arguments this morning — all with a faint whiffs of the old “noble cause” argument that NDT so regularly advanced here. That akin to me charging you, as a Republican, with being personally responsible for throwing up obstacles to gay unions and marriage equality…except there’s a body of evidence here at Gay Patriot to actually support that charge.
Hey, why no riposte to my observation that what you Wingnuts have accomplished in Iraq is “a war that when it ends, will more than likely result in another Islamic state with another ayatollah running it”? That’s really not a “more than likely” situation. It’s close to being a certainty now. And Wingnuts everywhere, including those here, will have to answer for that. Can’t wait to read your arguments about the virtues of Sistani’s interpretation of the Iraqi constitution.
Comment by Rheadher — December 29, 2006 @ 8:51 am - December 29, 2006
NDT, I’m not a big fan of Joe Biden. I was only going by what he said in the speech. It wouldn’t surprise me that he is a hypocrite.
But as for Biden, Reid, and Pelosi doing “nothing” to oppose corruption, bribes, and torture, meaning they support it. If we use that argument, then it must also be the case that Bush supports corruption, bribes, torture, and let’s also throw in murder, genocide, deaths for homosexuals, and subjugation of women for good measure.
You and others here have gave very compelling reasons for going to war with Iraq at the time the Administration decided to go to war. Others thought we shouldn’t have gone to war, or thought it was too soon. Maybe they had the foresight that after 3 1/2 years, there would still be major issues unlike in Yugoslavia. Maybe history will prove that you and others were correct. We’ll see.
As for George Bush getting out his message with a perceived hostile media. Every time Bush gave a press conference, address the nation, etc., he could have constantly repeated the points that he believed were not being understood or simply not being heard by the American people. As a leader, he could have and should have found a way to get these messages out, if he really believed these were important points.
Comment by Pat — December 29, 2006 @ 9:43 am - December 29, 2006
The would only work if the media were fair and unbiased. Instead, a Bush speech gets a two-second sound-bite on the news, meanwhile Bush critics get hours of coverage, authors of Bush-bashing books get featured on 60 Minutes, and the only MSM of coverage of the Iraq war consists of months and months of Abu Ghraib pictures, coupled with casualty counts that are never balanced by reports of how evil the enemy is, or of any real progress that is actually made. To the contrary, CNN shows enemy snipers killing American soldiers, and AP and Reuters hire insurgents as stringers and uncritically pass on their propaganda.
The media view the terrorists as noble defenders of their homeland against an occupying force, and our troops as dumb hicks who didn’t study hard and got stuck in Iraq. As long as that remains the media template for reporting the war, nothing Bush or anyone else says will make a difference.
Comment by V the K — December 29, 2006 @ 4:11 pm - December 29, 2006
Yeah, like I (and the 70% other Americans who oppose this war) personally “pocketed billions” from Saddam.
I like to give you the benefit of the doubt. Saddam paying you well is the only logical reason I could see for you to oppose putting an end to actions like I outlined here without you being a racist or some kind of sociopath that doesn’t care about genocide and enormous numbers of people being imprisoned, tortured, and murdered, including such threats to Saddam as the toddler-age children of political dissidents.
Most Americans, though, I don’t think got bribes from Saddam; they just were kept from information like I provided above that outlines how brutal Saddam truly was. Leftist CNN leader Eason Jordan proudly admitted that CNN and other Western news media deliberately hid and covered up Saddam’s atrocities so that they could keep “access” to his regime.
And I shall answer this question by simply emphasizing a portion of it:
Hey, why no riposte to my observation that what you Wingnuts have accomplished in Iraq is “a war that when it ends, will more than likely result in another Islamic state with another ayatollah running it”?
First, you are arguing a probability.
Second, you have established that you never see any positive outcome and always focus on the negative.
Third, given the support of leftists and Democrats like yourself for Iran, it seems odd that you would consider an ayatollah-run Islamic state anywhere else.
Finally, given that you preferred to ignore and cover up the documented and ongoing abuses by Saddam Hussein because you were afraid of what MIGHT happen makes one wonder what your sense of proportion involves.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2006 @ 4:51 pm - December 29, 2006
[Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]
Comment by Rheadher — December 29, 2006 @ 6:28 pm - December 29, 2006
32, V the K, we clearly view the media differently. But even if your assessment of the media is correct, Bush could have made the points I referenced. But for some reason, he chose not to do so.
Comment by Pat — December 29, 2006 @ 9:00 pm - December 29, 2006