Spies For Saddam’s Regime Arrested in USA
Um wait. I’m really confused here. (not my) Speaker Pelosi and Honest Harry Reid tell me that the Iraqi Theatre has nothing to do with, and never has had anything to with, the War on Terror (WWIII).
So how exactly do they explain spies of Saddam being in the USA before the invasion of Iraq to enforce the countless United Nations Security Council resolutions? (They were just arrested and charged.)
Two Detroit-area men have been charged with spying for Saddam Hussein’s intelligence service, supplying the executed dictator’s regime with information about its enemies in the United States, according to federal court documents unsealed today.
Ghazi Al-Awadi, 78, of Dearborn, allegedly told the Iraqi Intelligence Service in 1997 that he killed his son-in-law because the man belonged to an anti-Hussein political party, court documents said.
Najib Shemami, 59, of Sterling Heights, allegedly provided Iraqi intelligence with information about Iraqi expatriates who might be called upon to guide U.S. troops during the invasion of Iraq and potential political candidates for the new government.
The charges were based on Iraqi intelligence documents captured by U.S. forces in Iraq.
The men are believed to be the first Detroit-area residents to be charged on the basis of such documents, which were authenticated by former members of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
On Monday, a federal jury in Chicago convicted Sami Latchin, 59, of Des Plaines, Ill., of working as an Iraqi sleeper agent, spying on Iraqi dissidents in the United States. He is facing a possible 40-year prison sentence.
Please someone help me to see what Pelosi and Reid cannot.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
88 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
***Please someone help me to see what Pelosi and Reid cannot.***
It’s not possible. Leftists have a recessive gene that disables them from seeing the writing on the wall. It’s why they’re always slamming up into it, every time they open their mouths. Not a bright bunch, Bruce.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — April 18, 2007 @ 7:36 am - April 18, 2007
LNC, right on. This same bunch admires dictators like Saddam Hussein for having banned guns during their reign, yet feel that the Second Amendment should be repealed.
They also support abortion on demand but no death penalty for murderers.
In other words, they kill the innocent and spare the guilty.
Disgusting.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 18, 2007 @ 9:12 am - April 18, 2007
That’s because the innocent are guilty of not being guilty.. so that makes them better. And Leftists want everyone to be equally poor.
Comment by Vince P — April 18, 2007 @ 9:18 am - April 18, 2007
Liberals are routinely dishonest about terrorism links.
It is just part of the liberal condition.
Comment by Bill — April 18, 2007 @ 9:18 am - April 18, 2007
Man, it’s a tough time to be a lefty (participating in this blog) who supports the GWOT.
Comment by Mike — April 18, 2007 @ 10:12 am - April 18, 2007
Israel has spies who spy on us, Russia does, Britain does, China does, Germany does, hell I’ll bet the Kiwi’s do too.
What does that have to do with the WOT?
The answer? Nothing. Just some more inflammatory BS from the right in the futile attempt to link Iraq to 9-11.
Comment by keogh — April 18, 2007 @ 11:31 am - April 18, 2007
#3 – Looks like the Supreme Court finally came to its senses regarding partial-birth murder.
And even funnier – Justice Kennedy, who wrote the scathing ruling upholding partial-birth murder in 2000, did a Kerry and flip-flopped on the issue, voting with the majority.
Wonder what made him see the light?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 18, 2007 @ 11:57 am - April 18, 2007
“What does that have to do with the WOT?”
Easy, IRA. It shows that prior to the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein, he had sent spies to the USA to check out Iraqi dissidents who had fled his murderous regime, possibly to shut them up. Permanently.
And in case you missed it, the entire idea behind getting these jerks was our policy of pre-emption, which both the House and Senate voted for overwhelmingly following 9/11. You know, that date that all libtards seem to forget?
I rest my case.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 18, 2007 @ 12:03 pm - April 18, 2007
Having spies on our soil is not unique to Iraq.
Further you still haven’t answered my question regarding “What does this have to do with the WOT?”
And thanks for bring “libtards” back into your vocab. That makes my day!
Comment by keogh — April 18, 2007 @ 12:10 pm - April 18, 2007
It shouldn’t be called The War On Terror anymore. It should be called The War On Islamo-fascists And Their Allies (which would include 99% of “the left”). Until some decide to recognize the enemy for what it is, some will continue to be useful idiots to that enemy (keoght, that means you, btw).
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — April 18, 2007 @ 12:12 pm - April 18, 2007
LNC, sign me up for your brigade, honey!
In other related governmental news, a Clinton-appointed federal judge silences free speech in the name of “feelings.” Sorry, but to me, freedom of speech doesn’t require that I take your feelings into consideration.
I hope the Circuit Court of Appeals reverses and remands this issue. And if not, I hope it goes to SCOTUS for proper rendering.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 18, 2007 @ 12:25 pm - April 18, 2007
LNC: World War IV suffices for me, although, one can also make the case that Islam has been trying to conquer the world for a thousand years, and this is just another stage in that centuries-old struggle. For that matter, it is even part of a larger struggle… light versus darkness, freedom versus tyranny… that has been going on since the beginning of time.
Peter, on a related note, the topic of the Day of Silence came up at dinner last night. My older son is involved in the gay-straight alliance at his high school, but he is refusing to participate o the grounds that the whole idea is retarded.
Comment by V the K — April 18, 2007 @ 12:38 pm - April 18, 2007
I”ve said elsewhere that this country wont take this war seriously or fight it seriously until the war is called for what it is
War on Islam
Comment by Vince P — April 18, 2007 @ 12:39 pm - April 18, 2007
And V: “he is refusing to participate on the grounds that the whole idea is retarded.”
You have a smart kid. Must take after his dad.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 18, 2007 @ 12:51 pm - April 18, 2007
#13 – And Vince, you are precisely on-target. But because we have so many bleeding hearts and utopian idiots out there who refuse to make others feel bad (see my earlier post), it won’t happen.
As if the 9/11 hijackers weren’t from the Middle East. Give me a break.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 18, 2007 @ 12:53 pm - April 18, 2007
Bruce, not only did Saddam’s Iraq have spies working their magic of coercion on pro-American arabs living in the US, here in Michigan we have about a case a month of another pro-Saddam Iraqi-expat indicted for helping alQaeda move money, recruits, or supplies out of the US. We also read stories about pro-Saddamites shaking down local arab business leaders for support to be sent back home… via some of the radical Pakistani imams operating in our region.
Michigan (and Dearborn specifically) has the largest concentration of arabs outside the MiddleEast and nearly 45% of those are Iraqi. But then, we used to have the largest concentration of Poles nearby… so, it is an improvement of sorts.
To answer some LeftTwit’s querry (was it keogh?) about what does spying and agents of Saddam have to do with the WOT? A lot. And guess what? Many of those prosecutions are proceeding under the powers provided to the US Asst AG via the PATRIOT ACT! I guess the Patriot Act wasn’t ALL about rooting out poor ol’ liberals from their sodden beds.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 18, 2007 @ 1:24 pm - April 18, 2007
VdaK, the Ann Arbor public schools also had the Silence Day. Michigan-Matt partner and I were speakers… we talked about how the gay movement has been taken over by radicalLeft political interests and how the community is widely split over what ought to be a “gay rights” agenda… big day for us: No one boo’ed. The Triangle Foundation moderator from Detroit did say that the gay community isn’t a monolith and if anyone wants to read more, go to the internet and look at all the healthy debate on conservative gay websites.
Bruce, Dan –I plugged ya.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 18, 2007 @ 1:28 pm - April 18, 2007
Some of the comments on this thread have me curious – why is a “Day of Silence” protest “retarded”? I know it’s off topic, but I’m really curious as to why this form of expression is considered such.
Matt, I applaud you participating and sending a message that the community is more varied than many would otherwise think. The balance is good.
Comment by Mike — April 18, 2007 @ 1:39 pm - April 18, 2007
My son’s reasoning is, if you’re protesting that you’ve been silenced by society, it’s stupid to protest by shutting up. It would be like African-Americans protesting past disenfranchisement by refusing to vote.
I think he also believes, as I do, that symbolic protests are more about throwing a self-indulgent temper tantrum than working to address the real issue. He’s told his gay friends he has no intention of participating, and he told them why.
Not that he and I agree on everything. But the rule in our household has always been you can have any opinion you want as long as you can defend it intelligently.
Maybe if some of the lefties had grown up with similar rules, they could argue better in forums like these.
Comment by V the K — April 18, 2007 @ 1:48 pm - April 18, 2007
“Day of Silence” kind of reminds me of back when I was a college student in the late 1980s, when African-American students boycotted classes on MLK Day because UT-Austin did not have it set aside as a school “holiday.”
My reasonable question to this action was (and still is): Why would you boycott an action like going to class, that just recently was declared as a civil right thirty years ago? And what would Dr. King say about your wasting a day of education, which he earnestly purported as being the best way to achieve equality?
To this day, nobody can answer that question. And I know why.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 18, 2007 @ 1:58 pm - April 18, 2007
VK: Your statement sounds like the introduction on the Gates of Vienna blog
Comment by Vince P — April 18, 2007 @ 2:26 pm - April 18, 2007
I would explain what V the K and Peter are saying this way, Mike.
With a few phone calls, I could likely have a hundred teenagers out to protest the fact that some AIDS patients don’t have enough to eat.
With a hundred phone calls, I could likely get a few teenagers to help cook and serve them meals.
Erma Bombeck once said that she hoped her kids could not only tell someone what they were against….but what they supported.
The Day of Silence does nothing to promote the latter, which requires cogent thought, and much to promote the former, which only requires contradiction.
And, to quote Monty Python, “Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.”
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 18, 2007 @ 2:28 pm - April 18, 2007
Thanks for the commentary – those are perspectives I hadn’t thought of.
Comment by Gun Carrying Lefty — April 18, 2007 @ 2:39 pm - April 18, 2007
#16 – I agree with you, MM. if sleeper cell (or any other types of) spies in the U.S. are discovered providing intelligence to any terrorist faction, regardless which one, whether they are U.S. citizens or not, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I’m one lefty who agrees with most provsions of the Patriot Act – for the record.
Comment by ndtovent — April 18, 2007 @ 2:47 pm - April 18, 2007
yawn. non-event. israel spies on us too…our ally.
unfortunately, this still doesn’t absolve bushco’s immoral act of war on iraq. face it, there was no reason to go to this war, which incidentally, has claimed over 3000 american servicemember lives, untold number of iraqi civilian deaths, and at a tab of over $2 billion A WEEK.
bzzzt. try again bruce. but somehow you’ll never find a reason for this atrocity.
Comment by rightiswrong — April 18, 2007 @ 4:20 pm - April 18, 2007
#9 – I just explained it to you, IRA. Are you having trouble with your reading comprehension again? If so, I’ll say….it…slower….for…you.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 18, 2007 @ 4:46 pm - April 18, 2007
I just have to say that while I usually agree with GP it really bothers me that he calls the Speaker of the House:
It is way to reminiscent of the head in the sand (not my) (p)RESIDENT Bush comments I saw repeatedly on the left after the 2000 elections.
Of course she is the Speaker of the House and unless you are from another country she is your speaker – she was chosen by the members of the house who were all elected here in the good old US of A.
You don’t have to respect the person but you should respect the office and she legitimately holds that office.
(As a side note, every time I hear her name on Fox News I can’t help but yell out Nancy b(e)lows-me (eeewww yuck) tourettes like. It makes me laugh like an eighth grader and and pisses my boyfriend off every time.)
DKK
Comment by LifeTrek — April 18, 2007 @ 4:53 pm - April 18, 2007
Funny how the libtrolls on this board have no trouble with Iran, Iraq, Israel or any other country beginning with an “I” having spies in our country…but God forbid we should spy on NON-US CITIZENS AND THEIR CONTACTS WITH AL-QAEDA AS OUTLINED IN THE PATRIOT ACT.
When you start making excuses for our enemies and blame the USA and its government for all your troubles – then yes, I DO question your patriotism.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 18, 2007 @ 4:56 pm - April 18, 2007
I’m not surprised Saddam had spies in the US. Glad we caught them. But as others have asked, what does that have to do with the “WOT?” So far the most detailed answer has come from MM: “a lot.” Wow, illuminating!
Speaking of Iraq, how’s that surge working for you? It’s not working so well for the vast majority of Americans:
Time to get behind Russ Feingold and end the war funding as of March 31, 2008. It’s what Americans want.
Comment by Ian — April 18, 2007 @ 6:33 pm - April 18, 2007
Ian, surveys show most americans are still opposed to gay marriage. So you’re all for getting behind that too?
And it’s always funny when people go back to ‘Saddam + 9/11′ theories. so far, there’s no paper trail. That’s fine, it was never stated there was one.
Now at the same time Saddam’s ties to terror have a long history. People ignore that?
Comment by The_Livewire — April 18, 2007 @ 7:06 pm - April 18, 2007
#30:
That’s true but at least we’re moving in a direction of accepting SSM. The opposite is true for this disastrous occupation. More important, the occupation is deadly, gay marriage is not.
Comment by Ian — April 18, 2007 @ 7:21 pm - April 18, 2007
Only a third of colonial Americans supported the Revolutionary War. Perhaps, Washington should have surrendered to the English and ended that disastrous quagmire.
Comment by V the K — April 18, 2007 @ 7:27 pm - April 18, 2007
Actually V the K, I fear, with historical hindsight, I likely would have been a Tory.
Ian, I was using that as a counter to your appeal to ‘most people say’ Which I will admit is akin to a 6 year old saying “but everyone does it!”
Comment by The_Livewire — April 18, 2007 @ 9:07 pm - April 18, 2007
#30 bzzzt. wrong. bushco and the repubtards have tried to paint saddam + 9/11 since 9/12/01. i recall darth cheney on meet the press stating atta & saddam’s henchmen plotting and planning in hungary or some such eastern european nation……slam dunk, ya know, oh, and the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Comment by rightiswrong — April 18, 2007 @ 9:13 pm - April 18, 2007
#25: Boy am I sick of Leftists total inablity to recongnize that
Iraq cooperating with Al Qaida
DOES NOT MEAN THAT
Iraq cooperated with the 9/11 plan
Comment by Vince P — April 18, 2007 @ 10:24 pm - April 18, 2007
I love the new Democrat plan for Genocide in Iraq and creating another taliban-like state for operations against us to be hatched and implemented.
Comment by Vince P — April 18, 2007 @ 10:26 pm - April 18, 2007
#32:
Well, that’s about double the best estimates of the percentage of Loyalists. Of course, leaders like Washington actually led the troops – unlike the two Georges, then and now.
Comment by Ian — April 18, 2007 @ 10:47 pm - April 18, 2007
#30:
Oh yeah, the “ties” are that he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Of course, he was a piker compared to our “friends” the Saudis.
Comment by Ian — April 18, 2007 @ 10:56 pm - April 18, 2007
I love the disingeniousness of Ian’s snarky comment. So because we haven’t done anything about Saudi I guess we shouljd just disband our military.
Comment by Vince P — April 18, 2007 @ 11:03 pm - April 18, 2007
Now I know I was only edumacated in a Mississippi public school, but I was taught that Washington became president AFTER the war. He was commanding general of the army at the time. Or am I just not as nuanced and arrogant as you are?
Further, when was the last time the leader of ANY nation lead his army on the battlefield?
Why wait? Didn’t Slick Harry say “not one more drop of blood”? If the war is so damn unpopular, why the hell would the liberals want to wait? Why is it ok to allow blood to be spilled until next March?
Oh yeah. The election season. Ian reminds us that it’s a political issue to the left.
I say it’s a good idea. I support Feingold’s proposal. The lib’s Vietnam surrender paved the way to victory for them.
DO IT!!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 19, 2007 @ 2:07 am - April 19, 2007
***face it, there was no reason to go to this war, which incidentally, has claimed over 3000 american servicemember lives, untold number of iraqi civilian deaths,***
rightiswrong, you couldn’t care less about the deaths of anyone – well, only to expoloit them to suit your warped agenda. So, spare us your phony concern.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — April 19, 2007 @ 7:42 am - April 19, 2007
Right On, LNC!
Comment by V the K — April 19, 2007 @ 9:12 am - April 19, 2007
Vince P writes: “I love the disingeniousness of Ian’s snarky comment.”
Well, by that standard, there’s a lot to love in nearly EVERY Ian comment… they’re generally disingenious and intellectually dishonest. Take the “But most Americans oppose the WOT-Iraq… so therefore, it’s wrong” but a higher percentage of Americans oppose same sex marriage so we’ll ignore that public opinion.
Ian long ago left the reservation of civil discourse. He’s right in there with markie and sean and raj —for them, they never grew out of the gleefulness some 13 yr old teens feel when tossing rocks at authority. Pity the boy who never grew to be a man.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 19, 2007 @ 10:17 am - April 19, 2007
V the K – I just get so disgusted with the anti-American crowd spewing how they “support the troops, but not their mission”. Ummm, CAN’T DO ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER!! As much as traitor John Kerry would like to think, our military is made-up of those who are smart and proud to belong to the best armed forces in the world, and know that the mission is vital in supressing Islamo-fascism. I mean, would a liberal leave a hornet’s nest to grow and take over his/her house, because it might upset the nest to remove it? Oh nevermind, they probably would! It all comes back to “the left” not understanding the enemy. Useful Idiots is what leftism is chock full of.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — April 19, 2007 @ 10:46 am - April 19, 2007
LNC, The Democrat Leadership has made it plain that all they care about is power. They don’t care about the implications of surrendering to Islamo-Fascism in Iraq. They don’t care about what will happen to the brave Iraqis who stood with us when Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army take over. They don’t even care about what happens to our troops. They just want their power and their perqs. And they don’t care who suffers or dies as long as they get them.
Comment by V the K — April 19, 2007 @ 11:09 am - April 19, 2007
O/T, I guess the Ann Arbor PS’ Day of Silence is somewhat different in that there’s little silent protest… the part that some here have noted correctly as counter-intuitive. There was some silence –at lunchtime for about 20 minutes.
I’m not sure the goal in A2 is to move gays and str8s to social activism… it’s to underscore that harassment, bullying of gays happens in schools and the “silence” part is a lack of concern by some that gay kids face/feel in the light of bullying. AAPS weren’t too silent because the educators there think they do an outstanding job teaching respect, diversity, tolerance. I think they have a ways to go yet.
Maybe the USSA needs to rethink its spin on Silence Day as a means of supporting those who stand against bullying of gays? It is counter-intuitive… like cutting classes in honor of MLK or skipping the use of hair products to show solidarity with JohnEdwards.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 19, 2007 @ 11:09 am - April 19, 2007
***…skipping the use of hair products to show solidarity with John Edwards.***
THAT’S a friggin’ riot!! He’s the cutest Breck Girl I’ve ever seen!! LOL
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — April 19, 2007 @ 12:18 pm - April 19, 2007
Look up the word “metrosexual” in the dictionary, and you’ll find John Edwards and his gleaming tresses in their full glory…
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 19, 2007 @ 12:27 pm - April 19, 2007
I didn’t think it was possible, but some peacetards came up with an even lamer protest than the Day of Silence.
Comment by V the K — April 19, 2007 @ 12:44 pm - April 19, 2007
Agreed. Ian has specifically stated here that Dems’ entire political plan is to sabotage the armed forces because they think failure in Iraq will cement their grip on power.
Personally, though, I have a feeling they’ll eat their own before this whole thing is over — such as the media reporting on “Two Americas” Edward’s hypocrisy of the week, which could only have been pushed by another Dem campaign.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2007 @ 1:23 pm - April 19, 2007
#40:
Are you seriously suggesting that a commanding general of the army doesn’t lead troops? Somehow I doubt you can blame the Mississippi schools for that level of ignorance.
Comment by Ian — April 19, 2007 @ 5:36 pm - April 19, 2007
#50:
Good grief, NDT, did they leave the ninth off your list of Commandments? Of course, I never said any such thing. The ones who are really sabotoging the troops are the Bushies who sent them into war under false premises and without the proper equipment. There will be a reckoning for Bushco and its Republick Party enablers; it won’t be pretty.
Comment by Ian — April 19, 2007 @ 9:14 pm - April 19, 2007
Sweet feathery Jesus (.com)! I pray that you aren’t that stupid. I did not suggest that the commanding general of the army doesn’t lead the soldiers, which was my point.
The short bus left without you, Ian. Just go back to bed. Everytime you comment here you sink deeper into a pit of dumb.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 20, 2007 @ 1:45 am - April 20, 2007
The commanding general of the army commands other commanders
Comment by Vince P — April 20, 2007 @ 6:41 am - April 20, 2007
52 Ian: What does coveting your neighbor’s wife have to do with anything? Especially for the people here.
Comment by Vince P — April 20, 2007 @ 6:45 am - April 20, 2007
Oh I was raised Catholic… for them the 9th Commandment is Dont covet your neighbor’s wife.
Protestants lump that one with Dont covet your neightbor’s thing (dont be a socialist). and bear false witness (which for Catholics is
is 9th.
Comment by Vince P — April 20, 2007 @ 6:49 am - April 20, 2007
Protestants lump that one with Dont covet your neightbor’s thing (dont be a socialist). and bear false witness (which for Catholics is eight) is 9th.
Comment by Vince P — April 20, 2007 @ 6:50 am - April 20, 2007
You know what’s interesting? The questions the mainstream media never polls on. Such as, “Do you favor surrendering to Al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq?” “Do you think leaving behind a failed state in Iraq will be good for American security interests?” “Do you think a terrorist victory in Iraq will embolden them to commit more violence?” “Will American military defeat make it harder to achieve a diplomatic solution?”
Curious that the media never polls these questions, isn’t it?
Comment by V the K — April 20, 2007 @ 7:00 am - April 20, 2007
failed businessman, failed president. when will you all get really and smell the coffee??
Comment by markie — April 20, 2007 @ 7:48 am - April 20, 2007
VdaK, I’m guessing that’s a rhetorical question?
Just like we rarely see the question: “Who do you trust to provide you with an unbiased, fair and accurate review of the news?” or “Do most journalists have a liberal agenda and ax to grind?”
Newspapers and dinner hour newsreaders –the two most prominent MSM representatives– would have a rating so low it might even be lower than Congressional Democrats approval ratings. Well, maybe not THAT low… but pretty low.
The kind of questions you offer, VdaK, are called “push questions” in our business. They are intended to elicit a persuaded response from the target… like if you get an affirmative answer to something you want a negative answer to, you come back with the question “But do you really think that….” –in short, subtly questioning the target’s conclusions.
As long as MSM organs continue to do polling to generate airtime stories, we’ll continue to have polling like “Who do you think would make the better Prez” even though it’s 20+ months out from Conventions and most partisan voters haven’t made up their minds.
And we get baised questioning from MSM organs intended to drive story content.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 20, 2007 @ 10:52 am - April 20, 2007
#58 –
Most Americans and dems think, if the Iraqi government was forced to actually do something constructive through political pressure without the crutch of American troops, the situation will get better. The problem is the Iraqi government dithers around and expects our troops, or the mercenaries, to keep some kind of order. Terrorists and insurgents can take pot shots at Iraqi civilians all the while the Iraqi gov can blame the America for their problems.
Further most Americans think the goal of Iraq becoming a stable ally on the WOT is not going be the result of the occupation.
V – Do you really feel that in the next 10 years, Iraq will be a country that is on our side in the WOT? Do you really think that it is possible for the country to become a stable functioning ally that is not bent on the destruction of Israel? The American public does not think those goals are achievable that is why we want out.
Comment by keogh — April 20, 2007 @ 11:07 am - April 20, 2007
Well, that’s kind of the point isn’t it? The media does months of non-stop coverage from the POV that America should give up in Iraq, then asks its audience if they agree. Do we see any discussion in the media of what failure will mean? Rarely. And one can’t argue that the media is only in the business of telling the news and not predicting it because they seem pretty keen on telling us what will happen if we don’t agree to fight ManBearPig.
So, yeah, they are push questions, but only because no one is being pushed at all to think about the consequences of a terrorist victory in Iraq.
Comment by V the K — April 20, 2007 @ 11:24 am - April 20, 2007
koeigh: please tell us what the Iraq shuld be doing that it isn’t
Comment by Vince P — April 20, 2007 @ 12:34 pm - April 20, 2007
#63 -
Just a quick few from memory:
The oil law is a classic resource giveaway. This has only strengthened the anti-US feeling and insurgent propaganda in Iraq.
The utter weakness to stop its own ministers from running death squads from Gov. offices.
Torture by security forces
The loss of Millions (or billions) of reconstruction funds – and an inability to hold people and contractors accountable
The botched execution of Sadam
Amnesty for attacking for insurgents while the violence is ongoing…
An ability to provide basic services.
I probably could think of many more if I wanted to give this more thought.
However it boils down to, a lack of accountability and interest in governing, their only interest is to keep US troops in Iraq as long as possible in order to keep their jobs. (In the end I am sure 90% of the gov will be living in the US)
Now, please answer the following:
Do you really feel that in the next 5-10 years, Iraq will be a country that is on our side in the WOT? Do you really think that it is possible for the country to become a stable functioning ally that is not bent on the destruction of Israel?
Comment by keogh — April 20, 2007 @ 1:28 pm - April 20, 2007
If we stay in Iraq. yes they will be an ally
Or do you really think that the Iraqi people are going to supporthe people using chemical weapons on them? As the opposition gets more desperate and resorting to more atrocities, it damages their cause..
So as long as the fcking pussies here in the US will just shut up, we can defeat them.
If we leave, EVERYONE in the country will hate us for fcking up the place and leaving them to be slaughtered.
But you dont care about that.
Comment by Vince P — April 20, 2007 @ 2:36 pm - April 20, 2007
#65 – “pussies”
Your tough talk and John Wayne attitude might endure yourself to your reflection, but it only puts our troops into a maze with no ending.
Brute force may pacify them and force insurgents go to less policed areas, but to “defeat” the insurgency, we will have to pick a side and that will only inflame hatred. If we pick the Sunni’s the Shia hate us and we lose. If we pick the Shia, the Sunni’s hate us and then the Saudis & Egyptians will be P.O.ed.
It’s a lose / lose proposition. There is not an enemy massed anywhere that we can attack. There is nothing that we can do except be police, find leads, strike down doors, run checkpoints and wait to be attacked so we can counter attack. Since we are doing almost nothing to help the Iraqi gov except for being their band aid this tactic will not work.
Further the people are already getting “slaughtered” Bridges destroyed, chlorine gas being used, Massacres are a daily occurrence. The Iraqi people are blaming Americans! They say that if we leave, the attacks against Muslims will go down and all of the attacks are Americas fault. Their gov doesn’t want us to leave because they need us to be the scapegoat.
It’s a shtty situation and I wish it would have gone better but lets force the Iraqi government to protect its own people and get our troops out of there.
Comment by keogh — April 20, 2007 @ 3:20 pm - April 20, 2007
Looks like IRA has been cutting-and-pasting again. Some things never change.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 20, 2007 @ 3:57 pm - April 20, 2007
Ah, the racist keogh comes back.
If we pick the Sunni’s the Shia hate us and we lose. If we pick the Shia, the Sunni’s hate us and then the Saudis & Egyptians will be P.O.ed.
Or we could simply side with people who want to live normal lives versus the insurgents who are trying to kill them.
Keogh is merely trying a variant of the Democrat Party’s usual racist drivel, which basically says, “Them I-rakis are nuttin’ but brain-dead religious kooks who are too savage to run their own country, so we should stay out of it”.
The Iraqi people are more than capable of living in harmony with each other, regardless of religion, race, or creed. It should be instructive that the groups that want Iraq to fail — the insurgents, al-Sadr, the Democrat Party, and the terrorist groups and their supporting governments like Hamas and Hizbollah and Syria that Dems like Pelosi support — are the ones who try their hardest to play to and inflame racial, religious, and ethnic tensions.
If the Democrat Party were honestly trying to help Iraqis, it wouldn’t be so eager to play up and promote sectarian hatreds. But the simple fact of the matter is that Dems want Iraq to fail — and they want it so insanely that they are openly providing support to terrorist groups and organizations like Hamas, Hizbollah, and the Syrian government to get it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 20, 2007 @ 5:25 pm - April 20, 2007
The Democrat Party is full of seditious cowards.
o “I believe . . . that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.”–Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, April 19, 2007
o “Resolved, that this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretence of military necessity, or war power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the States or other peaceable means, to the end that at the earliest practicable moment peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the States.”–1864 Democratic platform
Comment by Vince P — April 20, 2007 @ 7:16 pm - April 20, 2007
The Democrats want us to “talk” to people like this:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/20/video-speaker-of-palestinian-parliament-calls-for-extermination-of-americans/
Video: Palestinian parliament speaker calls for extermination of Americans; Update: Koran forbids recognizing Israel, says former FM
He’s only the acting speaker, so, you know, don’t read too much into it.
Apparently this “sermon” was delivered during his trip to Sudan, a day before he was received by the butcher of Darfur and told of his abiding support for Palestinian rights. I’m linking this not because it’s exceptional but because it’s so unexceptional; for the first few years of LGF, Charles Johnson would post excerpts along these same lines delivered in mosques all over the Arab world during Friday prayers. Eventually he gave up, probably just from the sheer tedium of it, but they’re all archived. The incitements to genocide start around page 6, in 2002 under the “Peaceful Religion Watch” post headings.
Click the image to watch.
Comment by Vince P — April 20, 2007 @ 7:45 pm - April 20, 2007
And surprise, surprise, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her Democrat minions were expressing their heartfelt support for Hamas and its members just a few weeks ago.
It’s almost comical to watch racists like Pelosi and keogh who think all people from the Middle East are stupid be manipulated into providing public support and help to the people whose avowed goal is to kill them.
Or is it not comical…..but ironic?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 20, 2007 @ 9:28 pm - April 20, 2007
NDT and Vince
All of that is nice rhetoric. The sedition and racism rants are quite becoming of you both.
Indeed it shows the desperation of the repub mindset. The war was lost from day the Bush admin invaded with no post war plan and yet somehow you blame dems for it. You are living in naivety if you believe that if we just sent more American soldiers to die, Iraqis will come hand in hand and become an ally against terror.
It makes me wonder in all seriousness:
Is the sky blue in your world?
Comment by keogh — April 20, 2007 @ 10:26 pm - April 20, 2007
Racist? You’re calling me a racist? Well that makes you someone engaging in slander. Fuk off.
Comment by Vince P — April 20, 2007 @ 10:34 pm - April 20, 2007
Thank God they’re building a replacement target for the building I work in, Sears Tower
Chicago Planning Board Approves Proposal for U.S.’s Tallest Skyscraper
Friday, April 20, 2007
E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
AP
April 19: Architect Santiago Calatrava makes a presentation of his design of ‘The Chicago Spire’ to the City of Chicago Planning Commission.
CHICAGO — The city’s planning board has endorsed a proposal for a twisting lakefront tower that would become the nation’s tallest building.
With Thursday’s approval from the Chicago Plan Commission, the design and site plan for the 2,000-foot Chicago Spire goes to the city zoning committee next week.
“This is a wonderful project, and everyone is very enthused,” said Constance Buscemi, spokeswoman for the city’s planning department.
The 150-story tower, which would feature 1,200 residences, would unseat Chicago’s 1,451-foot Sears Tower as the tallest U.S. building. It would also top New York’s 1,776-foot Freedom Tower, under construction at the former World Trade Center site.
The Chicago Spire was designed by Santiago Calatrava, the Spanish-born architect known for designing the Milwaukee Art Museum addition and the Athens Olympic sports complex.
(Story continues below)
Advertise Here
Advertisements
If the zoning panel approves the plan, the City Council will consider it May 9. If it is approved, construction would begin this spring, said Thomas Murphy, general counsel to developer Shelbourne Development Ltd.
Shelbourne executives have declined to estimate the building’s total development cost. Real estate experts put it at well over $1 billion, the Chicago Tribune and Crain’s Chicago Business reported on their Web sites Thursday.
The tallest building in the world is the Taipei 101 tower in Taiwan, which measures 1,671 feet and 101 floors. A tower in Dubai now under construction is expected to rise beyond 2,300 feet and more than 160 floors .
Comment by Vince P — April 20, 2007 @ 10:36 pm - April 20, 2007
I’m almost driving the people on this list to tears
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/newshounds/11813/?a=17428
Comment by Vince P — April 21, 2007 @ 12:08 am - April 21, 2007
#73 – not at all, not my stlye
quote #71
“It’s almost comical to watch racists like Pelosi and keogh…”
I am very glad that you can see that such crap is indeed slander and am very glad you see how ignorant people sound when they resort to such tripe.
Comment by keogh — April 21, 2007 @ 2:28 am - April 21, 2007
# 74 – It seems that they are more annoyed that you are acting trollish on their site…I don’t see anyone in “tears”
Comment by keogh — April 21, 2007 @ 2:34 am - April 21, 2007
They deleted a lot of my comments
Comment by Vince P — April 21, 2007 @ 5:11 am - April 21, 2007
# #58, 63, 66, 72
Turn-your-head-and-Keogh, thanks for showing us again and again and again why liberals have no business running this country with gems like:
But not until the middle of the primaries next year, right? When are the libs going to grab their sacks (if any) and utilized that political capital they claim to have been bestowed? DO IT!
Fortunately, the libs are even more out of touch with the Iraqis than they are with the Americans (if that’s possible). Can you show us exactly which Iraqis are blaming Americans?
When a liberal is accusing someone of slander and “tripe”, or anything else for that matter, it’s wise to look at the accuser. But then I suppose you would know slander and tripe better than anyone.
Cheers mate! If it weren’t for people like you, libs might have actually won a real election. If Pelosi & Reid hadn’t have stayed hidden for the last 2 weeks, the dhimmicrats would be dead and buried. Oh well. One more year.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 21, 2007 @ 6:15 am - April 21, 2007
bummer
Comment by keogh — April 21, 2007 @ 10:08 am - April 21, 2007
That’s right, keogh, just stay confirmed in your racist beliefs about the Iraqi people.
Pity you didn’t read the April edition of Vanity Fair; it talks about how the Kurds of northern Iraq, who were given protection by the American military as needed and who were allowed to deal with terrorists were more than able to carve out a prosperous, stable, and pleasant existence.
You hate that, don’t you?
You hate the fact that brown-skinned people who you and your fellow Democrats consider “inferior” were able to build a thriving society when our military was allowed to help them.
And you’re terrified of more of that sort of thing happening — which is why, from day one, you and your fellow racist Democrats have done everything in your power to sabotage and harm our military — even, as your spokesperson Cindy Sheehan did, openly sending hundreds of thousands of dollars to terrorist and insurgent groups to build and buy IEDs to kill them. Furthermore, your leftist mistress Pelosi and her thug Murtha are trying to push legislation that would prevent US troops from shooting at or attacking terrorists and are making deals with groups like Hizbollah and Hamas that openly state their goal is to kill Americans.
Did you see this video link, Keogh? That’s the people and the beliefs you and Pelosi are supporting. Why do you and the Democrat Party support terrorist groups like Hamas that openly state their goal is to kill Americans?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 21, 2007 @ 3:36 pm - April 21, 2007
[Comment deleted for violating terms of community conduct.]
Comment by keogh — April 21, 2007 @ 4:35 pm - April 21, 2007
Hmmm….
I will try another way:
Comment by keogh — April 21, 2007 @ 5:50 pm - April 21, 2007
NDT-
Let me quote your pal Vince from #73:
“Racist? You’re calling me a racist? Well that makes you someone engaging in slander.
XXX XXX”
Perhaps the hosts of this site will have to come down on you agian
TGC:
Do you think that Iraq will ever be an ally against terrorism and agent of peace in the Mid East?
Comment by keogh — April 21, 2007 @ 5:51 pm - April 21, 2007
Perhaps the hosts of this site will have to come down on you agian
As they should, if I falsely accuse someone.
But in your case, the fact that you and Nancy Pelosi are racists who thinks the Iraqis are inferior savages incapable of having a stable and prosperous country or having their own elected government is not a slander; it is stating the honest truth.
The irony is, of course, that her belief in their inferiority makes it easy for Pelosi to be manipulated by these folks — as we see with the fact that you and her both have publicly stated your support for and belief in the legitimacy of groups that preach the necessity of killing Americans.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 22, 2007 @ 2:00 am - April 22, 2007
NDT your slanders accusations make everything you type irrelevant.
Comment by keogh — April 22, 2007 @ 7:58 am - April 22, 2007
NDT: I agree with you.
Comment by Vince P — April 22, 2007 @ 8:23 am - April 22, 2007
Really, Keogh?
Did Pelosi not meet with Hamas leaders and express her support for them and their goals?
Did said Hamas leaders not say openly in the clip referenced that their avowed goal is to kill Americans?
What I am pointing out is the irony that your and Pelosi’s racist beliefs about the inferiority of these people is what makes it possible for them to manipulate you into supporting them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 22, 2007 @ 7:42 pm - April 22, 2007