ConservaGear

Anti-Terrorist, Liberal Bashing t-shirts, bumper stickers and more.

ConservaGear

Get the Right Stuff at ConservaGear

Sqotty's Blogroll

Minnesota Organization
of Bloggers

Blogs For Bush

GOP Bloggers

Newsfeeds

Reciprocal Links

Acknowledgments

All trademarks and related service marks are the sole property of their respective owners.

Main

January 16, 2008

Brits Nail al-Qaeda Online Propagandist

I read with interest about the arrest and conviction in the U.K. of Younes Tsouli, an al-Qaeda linked IT student who was responsible for pushing al-Qaeda propaganda, including videos of the kidnapping and murder of hostages such as Nick Burg in Iraq. Tsouli, the son of a Moroccan diplomat, was initially thought to be a minor person of interest until after his computer hardware was thoroughly examined.

From the Daily Mail:

Under the name Irhabi 007 - combining the James Bond reference with the Arabic for terrorist - he worked with al Qaeda leaders in Iraq and came up with a way to convert often gruesome videos into a form that could be put onto the Web.

I guess this pig fancies himself as the James Bond of terrorism.

When he was seized, forensic science officers found that Tsouli had been creating a website called YOUBOMBIT.

and

In 2005, Tsouli became administrator for the web forum al-Ansat, used by 4,500 extremists to communicate with each other, sharing such practical information as how to make explosives and how to get to Iraq to become a suicide bomber.

Thank God the U.K. caught this guy and now have him behind bars, hopefully for the full 16 years Tsouli was sentenced to serve. There is no mention of whether or not Tsouli will be deported after serving his sentence.

Like many papers these days, there is a trail of comments, most of which are very supportive of British Intelligence agents performing their duties, which I whole-heartedly concur with. as one poster put it: "You Brits rock!" Especially since it lead to the capture of numerous other terrorists around the world including two right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. and 17 more in our neighbor to the North, Canada.

There was one very disturbing comment though.

Anon, UK - kind of like the motivation Bush has had and continues to have to plot so many murders and deaths, don't you think? Except, of course, that Bush plotted for hundreds of thousands and now millions of murders and deaths. Tsouli is microscopically small fry next to Bush.

Vierotchka, Geneva, Switzerland

This particular Moonbat is comparing Bush to Tsouli and al-Qaeda? It figures that this gutless wonder lives in Geneva. This nut actually believes Bush plotted to murder millions of people? If you are going to make these kinds of Moonbatty claims, you better be able to back them up with facts, not stupidity.

Tags:

November 15, 2007

House Dems Vote Surrender, Again

The U.S. House of Representatives has yet again passed an Iraq Surrender Bill, this time tying $50 billion of funding to a requirement to draw down troop levels (which is already in the works) and ending combat by 2008. That last is a signal to terrorists, sectarian death squads, and Iran that hey only have to wait out a year before they can stage a surge of Islamo-Fascism in Iraq. Good job, Nancy!

From BreitBart:

The legislation, passed 218-203, was largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who already has begun reducing force levels but opposes a congressionally mandated timetable on the war. And while the measure was unlikely to pass in the Senate-let alone overcome a presidential veto-Democrats said they wanted voters to know they weren't giving up.

So the House Democrats want Americans "to know they weren't giving up" even though that is exactly what they are attempting to do: surrender, er, I mean tactical withdrawal. Actually, I hope they keep trying to push their agenda of surrendering to terrorists.

For years now Democrats have been drawing comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. In part they are right. Militarily we were winning in Vietnam; the government of South Vietnam wasn't what we would like it to have been; and the same anti-war zealots are pushing to end our involvement in Iraq just as they did during Vietnam. The consequences of listening to the Dems and withdrawing from Iraq before the job is done will not be paid for by American troops, but, like Vietnam (and Cambodia), by civilians, and in blood.

Let's face it: the Dems want to pull us out of Iraq and let tyranny again take root there. If they were serious about forcing it as they want us to believe, they would cease all funding of military operations and Iraq's reconstruction immediately rather than continue to try and play both ends of the field by tying funding to timetables for surrender, I mean withdrawal.

Tags:

September 18, 2007

Clifford May On Tough Talk We Should Hear

Reading the editorial page in the Star Tribune is hit or miss; Jekyll or Hyde; Night or day. A couple of days ago it was Syl Jones moonbatting about the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration. That's the night, the Mr. Hyde, the miss. Today it is a piece by Clifford D. May on what we need to hear in a presidential campaign to have someone who will truly standout from the pack: a Churchillian viewpoint. It's the day, the Doctor Jekyll, the hit (home run in this case). Not surprisingly, I am an agreement with what may writes. I've read his work before and it is clear he gets it, and, unlike Syl Jones, uses facts not myths to make his arguments. and, as usual, I am surprised that the Strib is carrying his piece.

From the Star Tribune:

I suspect few readers will disagree when I say that not one of the presidential candidates, Republican or Democratic, has yet articulated a compelling campaign theme. All favor security. Not one opposes prosperity. Each promises to protect Social Security and improve health care. Voters can be forgiven if they are not overwhelmed.

Ain't that the truth! There are several candidates I like, but I can't say I am overly excited by any of them, except for the ones I am positively against, like Hillary, Obama, Kucinich, and Ron Paul. I am definitely overwhelmingly opposed to those particular candidates.

Let me offer a different approach on the off-chance that some candidate might find it useful: Tell voters the hard truth -- and challenge them.

I think this is similar to what Gingrich was talking about a few days back. Tell us what needs to be done, not what would be nice to do. And then be prepared to do it.

May elaborates on his point:

In particular, tell them we are at a critical moment in our nation's history: A dangerous enemy is waging an unconventional war against us. Remind them that this enemy has been underestimated by presidents and lawmakers of both parties many times, over many years.

Tell them, too, that fighting this enemy is a burden that history is asking the current generation of Americans to bear. We must do this for future generations -- as past generations fought for us.

Say frankly that if we don't have the stomach for a long and difficult war, we will be defeated by movements that are more determined than we are -- and more ruthless than we can ever imagine becoming.

He then goes on to use the Winston Churchill example: blood, toil, tears, sweat.

War is never popular, especially to those asked to fight it. Sometimes wars must be fought, as Churchill recognized in 1940 at the onset of World War 2. and that is the difference between the hard-core leftists in this country who foolish claim that "War has never solved anything" and the vast majority of our armed forces who recognize the necessity of fighting the terrorists and death squad fanatics. No sane person wants war, but only fools believe in peace at any price.

The Churchill approach would certainly wake up America's voters, shock them into action, one way or the other. The question is, are there any candidates out there today who are willing to walk that path? And make good on it? It would certainly be a breath of fresh air if one could come on strong like Churchill did in 1940.

MoveOn.org and its various allies and their puppets in Congress won't like it. I doubt they would even know how to counter it, except taking the Chamberlain approach of surrendering Iraq to Iran. We would probably see more full page propaganda condemning such candidates as being "traitors" as MoveOn did with General Petreus last week.

may also touches on the Petreus testimony and hits it on the head that it should be up to Genreal Petreus and his eventual successor to decide when and where (and how) to turn Iraq's security matters over to Iraqi troops. Some areas already are under full Iraqi control, an achievement that the left either ignores or denigrates. These matters should not be decided by a bunch of armchair generals relaxing in their air-conditioned offices swilling good booze like a Ted Kennedy on a Chappaquiddick bender.

The New York Times, whose editorial page views are hardly distinguishable from those of MoveOn.org, was closer to identifying the news in Petraeus' report. Its top story: "Petraeus Warns Against Quick Pullback in Iraq." It should not require a Churchill to see that if American forces leave Iraq precipitously, America's enemies will fill the vacuum. And Iraqis who have been fighting with us will be slaughtered. People around the world will get the joke: To be America's friend is more perilous than to be America's enemy.

The real news in Petraeus' testimony: Americans troops have been beating Al-Qaida in Iraq and, as that job gets done, it is Iranian-backed militias that are becoming the main problem that needs to be eliminated. The regime in Tehran wants Iraq as its colony. It doesn't want Iraq to be an American ally in the war with militant Islamism.

Like Vietnam and Cambodia, this is a very real potential that the left refuses to acknowledge. Either they don't care about the people of Iraq who want Liberty and Western democracy, or they are still blinded by their own delusions that the majority of Iraqis want to live free and in peace (not pieces).

Iran has been backing Muqtada al Sadr and his death squads for years, as well as funneling arms, munitions, cash and manpower to al-Qaeda in Iraq. There can be only one reason for Iran to do this: it wants to prevent Iraq from becoming a stable ally of the United States so it can eventually turn it into another Islamofacist Theocratic Tyranny.

Yes, it would be nice to hear a candidate come out and tell it like it is. Doing so will not only change the dialog, but may also push the American electorate toward a candidate who is willing to do what is necessary to secure Iraq's liberty rather than surrender to terrorists and dictators. I'm ready for such a candidate and I bet I am not alone.

Tags:

September 13, 2007

ANSWER and Gathering Of Eagles Coming Soon

There are times when I wish I had more ability to travel long distances, but hey, like most Americans, I have to work for a living and I have a family to take care of.

Cybercast news Service has a piece discussing the pro-terrorist demonstration scheduled to take place in Washington D.C. this weekend, sponsored by the pro-terrorist group, ANSWER. Part of the demonstration, which starts with a march on the capital, includes a "die-in" which is supposed to represent the soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed by terrorist thugs.

Brian Becker of ANSWER purports that the "die-in" will be unlike any pro-terrorist protest seen before. ANSWER claims to have a thousand people signed up for the exercise in civil disobedience that will help embolden terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq.

From CNSNews:

"Seventy percent [of Americans] support the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces," Becker said.

"You'll see on Saturday that not only have people in general turned against the war, but the Iraq war veterans, the soldiers and Marines, their family members ... are turning more and more decisively against the Bush administration's endless lies in pursuit of endless war," he said.

I have no idea where he gets his poll numbers, but as they typically only survey a thousand or so people, and most likely people living in San Francisco or New York, rather than rural America where I live, it is no wonder I have never been asked by these pollsters where I stand when it comes to Victory or surrender in Iraq.

But CNSNEWS has some of the straight stuff:

A Sept. 8 CBS/New York Times poll found that 30 percent of Americans supported removing all troops from Iraq, while 35 percent supported decreasing the troop presence there. The poll did not ask respondents about a timeframe for withdrawal.

A Sept. 7 ABC/Washington Post poll found that 55 percent of Americans would support legislation setting a spring 2008 deadline for withdrawing troops, while 41 percent would oppose such a measure.

I wonder if these are the same polls that Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) was referring to when she called General Petreus a liar during the question and answer portion of his testimony.

Cindy Sheehan, who must miss being the center of attention of the pro-terrorist movement, has announced that she will be in attendance. She is also challenging nancy Pelosi for the House seat in SF. Funny, I always thought Sheehan was a Democrat, not a Republican. Or is it Pelosi who's a Republican (god forbid!).

Meanwhile, over the same weekend, the Gathering of Eagles is also staging a pro-Victory protest. I really wish I could attend this event. "Operation Eagle Justice," as the GOE event is called, has been in the planning for months now. I suspect that there may well be far more of them than of the pro-terrorist protestors in D.C.

The question will be: who gets the most coverage by the media (no odds on that one), ANSWER is the pro-terrorists will get the most attention, while the GOE will be downplayed and probably ridiculed by the bulk of the media.

Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, a group of Gold Star and Blue Star families, will have a small presence at the GOE rally, according to National Chair Merilee Carlson. But the group's main events will come in the days following anti-war efforts.

Carlson said 500 Families United members will visit Washington to tour the city, visit war memorials and participate in a wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday. Members will tour the U.S. Capitol and meet with elected officials Tuesday.

"Frankly, the fact that we are dedicating ourselves to serving our country at the Arlington National Cemetery, that is how we offset something as despicable as the march and the die-in," Carlson told Cybercast News Service, explaining why Families United won't have a large presence at the Sept. 15 march.

Carlson of Families United has the right idea. Service. And the people that comprise Families United get it while the pro-terrorist groups like ANSWER don't. Sending a positive message is far more powerful than the negative outcries of ANSWER.

America is a wonderful place, because of our right to free speech. It is too bad that groups like ASNSWER choose to use it for such despicable reasons. If there were fewer groups like ANSWER, we probably wouldn't need groups like GOE to counter their shrill cries. But then, this probably wouldn't be America.

Meanwhile, I think ANSWER should change its name to SURRENDER. Just don't know what SURRENDER would be an acronym for.

Tags:

August 1, 2007

Obama Talks Invading Pakistan

Obama is talking tough on terrorism, but has he got the male equipment to do the walk or is he all wind? For some of his talk, it had better be whistling Dixie, as he is talking committing an act of war against Pakistan, who has been somewhat of an ally since 9/11.

From ABCNews (and other places to boot):

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan - with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama will say, according to speech excerpts provided to ABC News by his campaign, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

It is one thing to send troops into another country at their invitation, it is another to invade an ally, no matter how weak they are as an ally. That would be an act of war, just as Iran committed an act of war by taking over our embassy and holding our diplomatic staff hostage back in the '70s. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and would most likely use them in the event we did invade.

Obama attempts at talking tough shows a complete ignorance of what is at stake when it comes to the war on terror. He shows it when he claims our best bet at eliminating al-Qaeda leadership took place in 2005. Actually, the best chance was in the '90s when Sudan offered to extradite bin Ladin to the United States and Clinton turned them down. There were other opportunities to eliminate al-Qaeda early on that Clinton took a pass on as well.

The opportunity that Obama is referencing would have put a strain on our relations with Pakistan as well as carrying substantial risk, and may have failed.

Obama, whose father was Muslim, makes clear that he does not share the views of Democrats who downplay the risk of Islamist terrorism. In language rare for a Democratic presidential candidate, Obama will talk about Muslims who seek to create a repressive caliphate. "To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for."

And if Obama doesn't know that by now, he never will

Right now the debate is on as to who will be more dangerous to this country: Obama or Hillary. Right now it looks like Obama is the biggest threat to this country.

Tags:

LIeberman, Blue Dogs, and Iraq

There are a couple of good pieces in the news today on the war in Iraq. The first is a piece on how firebrand Joe Lieberman is taking his formerly fellow Democrats in the Senate to task not just on the war in Iraq, but the Greater War on Terror as well.

From the Hill:

"I think either [Democrats] are, in my opinion, respectfully, naïve in thinking we can somehow defeat this enemy with talk, or they're simply hesitant to use American power, including military power," Lieberman said in a wide-ranging interview with The Hill.

"There is a very strong group within the party that I think doesn't take the threat of Islamist terrorism seriously enough."

Lieberman is, once again, proving that when it comes to the War on Terror and establishing democracy in the Middle East, he gets it, and the Dems in Senate do not.

He goes on to say that part of the problem is that many Democrats automatically take the attitude of anything Bush is for, then they will be against. This type of attitude brings out the worst in politics and is bad for the country. (Exception: if Hillary is in favor of something, then it may be that you should be against it.)

I don't agree on every issue with Lieberman, but I am happy to say on this issue (and probably a few others) we are in agreement.

Meanwhile, House majority Whip James Clyburn, is advocating a wait and see strategy to see what Petraeus' report will be like before continuing the push to surrender Iraq to the terrorists.

From the Washington Post:

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

Clyburn's comments came as House and Senate Democrats try to figure out their next steps in the legislative battle. Clyburn said he could foresee a circumstance in which House Democrats approve a measure without a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, which has been the consistent goal of the party throughout the months-long debate. But he said he could just as easily see Democrats continue to include a timetable.

With reports coming in that July had the lowest death rate of American troops in eight months, there could be strong indications that things are, in fact, turning around in Iraq. Granted, like everyone else, I would be much happier if the casualty rate in Iraq was zero. But getting the lowest in eight months, and with the surge only now having completed its first month of full operations, I think that is a good sign. I hope that a month form now we can claim the lowest death rate in a year, or more.

With 47 "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House who are likely to side with Republicans should things move in a positive direction vis-à-vis Iraq, it is possible we may stop hearing constant calls from Congress to "let the terrorists win."

Things may well be looking up for the people of Iraq. Let's hope so, as the price of failure will be very high, and it's the people of Iraq who will be making the down payment for that failure.

Tags:

July 31, 2007

Clifford May on the Need to Win in Iraq

It's very rare I see an opinion piece or editorial in the Stra Tribune that gets it right, especially where the war in iiraq is concerned. Here is one by Clifford D. May, and is well worth reading.

The gist of the piece is that if we really are heading for, or have been defeated, and we "redeploy" out of Iraq, expect things to get worse in Afghanistan, and watch for problems throughout the whole theater of operations. It is that important that we win. Not just for America's safety, but also for those countries in the Middle East that have aligned with us.

Tags:

July 27, 2007

China Arming Insurgents and Iraqi Forces

The Washington Times reports that China is playing both ends of the field when it comes to arming Iraq. They have just cut a deal to supply $100 million dollars worth of assault rifles to the Iraqi police.

Recent intelligence reports also indicate that China has been supplying weapons to "insurgents" (their word, not mine) in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Knowing that China is arming your enemies, would you really want to cut a deal with them to buy weapons from China? How can you be sure that the weapons they will provide will in fact be reliable? Me, I wouldn't do it as I couldn't just a country that is arming my enemies to supply me with weapons.

One Bush administration official called the deal "extremely foolish."

"Buying weapons from China will accelerate the alienation of America," the official said. "Iraq purchasing PLA weapons along with the emerging PRC oil deal will contribute mightily to end game Iraq for the United States." The PLA is the acronym for China's military.

The official said the Iraqi government needs to better understand that the U.S. military is fighting and dying to give their nation the opportunity for a free and open society and government. "It is not the PLA, in fact the PLA is arming Iranians to kill Iraqis and Americans," the official said.

Disclosure of the Iraqi government arms deal with China comes as a U.S. military spokesman this week confirmed the flow of Chinese shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to insurgents, first reported in this paper June 5.

The unidentified "official" has a valid point. If our troops are fighting and dying to establish a free society in Iraq, and the American people are being asked to put up the bucks, then why is the government of Iraq cutting arms and oil deals with a communist dicatatorship? Especially one that is simultaneously arming Iraq's enemies?

Tags:

July 24, 2007

Cindy Sheehan For Congress?

Pro-terrorist activist Cindy Sheehan has found a new way to get back into the news cycle: the California Moonbat has announced her intentions to challenge Nancy Pelosi in 2008 if Pelosi doesn't move to impeach President Bush.

From the Hill:

Discussing President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Sheehan said, "We put them there. We can fire them. If Nancy Pelosi doesn't do her constitutionally mandated job by midnight tonight, tomorrow I will announce that I'm going to run against her.

"And not only am I going to run against her, but I will beat her," Sheehan added.

Ultimatums, ya gotta love 'em. Actually, Cindy Sheehan makes Pelosi seem rather moderate, and smart. As for Sheehan's ability to unseat Pelosi, my money (zen, of course), is on Pelosi.

After a failed meeting with Rep. Conyers (D-Mich) to get impeachment underway, Sheehan and a number of other Pro-terrorist Moonbats marched on Arlington Cemetery where Sheehan and 45 others were arrested. Neither of the articles I've read gave details on the arrests. I am assuming it is a misdemeanor of some sort rather than something notable.

Sheehan continues to rant about how this Administration has "violated" the Constitution, yet she has never produced any facts to back up her assertions; her ravings about the war in Iraq and her personal tragedy are not sufficient reasons to impeach a president.

The hard-left wackos in this county continue to spout off about how much they care about the Constitution, yet every time they open their mouths and spew their vile about the war in Iraq, they prove their utter ignorance and contempt for the Constitution.

Still, the left-wingnuts have a right to say what they want. It would be helpful if they could back up their claims with something other than what comes out the backend of a bull.

Tags:

July 20, 2007

Strib Wrong (as usual) on National Intelligence Estimate

The Red Star Tribune editorial staff is off to their usual tricks of biased reporting and scare-mongering. This time in response to the National Intelligence Estimate released this week. The bigger question is: are they reading the same report I am? If so, how can they come to the conclusions that they do?

From the Strib editorial:

The headline finding in the two pages released this week is that Al-Qaida has rebuilt itself during the past two years and now represents perhaps as great a threat to the United States as it did six years ago.

What the NIE report states is:

Al-Qa'ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.

No where in the NIE report does it assert that al-Qaeda poses as great a threat as it did prior to 9/11.

Al-Qaeda has rebuilt its leadership structure and has established a safehaven in Pakistan, but it is a long way from rebuilding itself to pre-9/11 levels as the MSM claims that it has done.

The report also clearly states that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is the "most visible and capable" arm.of al-Qaeda, something that the politicians and the MSM seem to overlook in their ongoing quest to get us out of Iraq.

The NIE also states that al-Qaeda is leveraging contacts from AQI, as well as other terrorist organizations in order to enhance its own capabilities leading up to attacks on the U.S. This strategy makes sense and we should not be surprised by its being used by al-Qaeda.

The NIE also has a few bullet points that should not come as a surprised, and should be kept in the minds of our leadership, both military and legislative, so as to keep the m focused on the ball.

We assess that al-Qa'ida will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability.

This should also be used to emphasize the need to secure our borders (both North and South) to prevent terrorists from smuggling not only themselves, but the materials needed, but not readily available in the U.S., to construct these kinds of weapons. Specicifcally, we need to prevent them from obtaining or transporting into the U.S. U-235 and/or plutonium, either of which can be used to build small nuclear bombs. And both may soon be available to them courtesy of Iran.

The Strib seems to not get it:

Bush's homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, tried to turn that finding into the newest reason why Americans have to stay and fight it out in Iraq. But this is looking-glass logic taken to an absurd extreme. If Bush's misjudgments created the problem -- inviting Al-Qaida to take root in Iraq and putting American troops in its cross hairs -- why should voters trust his judgment to solve it?

Yes, we have to finish what we started in Iraq, and that includes leaving it as a secure and thriving democracy. To do less than that would result in AQI or Iran (or both) taking over Iraq and using it as a terrorist staging ground. It would also provide a protective barrier for Iran from U.S. and Coalition forces should hostilities erupt, as well as providing greater economic capabilities to the terrorist organizations.

Prior to 2003 and the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime, Iraq was already supporting terrorist groups by providing them safehavens for meetings and training grounds, as well as supplying funding and incentives to suicide bombers to attack Israel.

Although Iraq was not directly involved in the attacks of 9/11, it was in bed with al-Qaeda. Iraq was in violation of many U.N. resolutions concerning chemical weapons, and after the invasion over 500 such weapons have been recovered in addition to many tons of precursor materials needed to build more such weapons.

The editorial staff of the Star Tribune proves once again that THEY are the ones living in Wonderland.

Tags:

July 13, 2007

Harrop Just Doesn't Get America

Froma Harrop's column in the Red Star Tribune is not exactly full of surprises. She rants on about how bush will go down in "ignomy" for "trying to wage an unnecessary war on the cheap," referring to the war in Iraq, and how America is a nation of indebtedness (so, what else is new?).

She starts her piece (I had to search around to find out that Harrop is a woman, born in New York) about how people seem to think that anything can be fixed with a trip to Circuit City.

Alas, retail therapy will not cure what's depressing most people -- which is the growing sense that America is rapidly losing its national greatness. Up ahead, the public sees enormous challenges and huge threats, and a national leadership that doesn't care a fig about the communal big picture. They're witnessing this end-of-empire spectacle, where the powerful grab as much loot as they can before the bottom falls out -- all the while diverting the public's attention with flag-waving and noisy expressions of religiosity.

Actually, if there is such a growing sense that America is losing its greatness, it is because of the rantings of the Leftists here and in Europe who keep stating such is the case because they suffer a severe case of p***s envy. Americans, by and large, live far better than most Europeans. We have, on average, a higher standard of living than most of Europe, marked by larger homes.

As for "national leadership that doesn't care a fig about the communal big picture," she has a point. Many of our elected leaders refuse to address the growing need to reform our social security system via privatization; fix our tax code, especially the Alter native Tax Method which is catching more and more Americans; secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws; but pushing hard to destroy our health care system by socializing it.

But then, she must be referring to G.W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress, especially those who support fixing these problems (in all fairness, Bush is not exactly keen on securing our border or enforcing our immigration laws), and not to the Democrats who don't want Americans to be in control of their own destiny.

The last part of the paragraph really torques me off: It implies that many Americans are easily suckered in by patriotism and religious faith, and that the deceivers are people of wealth and power trying to clean up with ill-gotten riches. Oh, wait, that sounds like Hillary. But, again, that is not who she is referring to.

People are feeling conned as well as poorly led, which is not a pleasant sensation. Small wonder that 70 percent tell pollsters that the country is on the wrong track.

Sounds like she is mistaking Bush for Carter; and what polls is she referring to? What were the questions asked, and who was asked? I've never been the victim of any such polls. I don't think I know any one who has. What are the demographics behind these polls? Was it taken in Castro District of San Francisco? Okay, if it was, it wouldn't surprise me.

Has there ever been a time when 100% of the people believed this country was on the right track on 100% of the issues? Realistically, is such achievable? No!

She goes on to mention American volunteerism, and the willingness of Americans to put their lives on the line for others. At least she got that part right. But what about the rest of her diatribe?

Thus, they feel vaguely insulted when their political establishment hangs low prices and tax cuts so high on the national altar.

Hey, beats the heck out of high prices and even higher taxes, which is what the Lefties are pushing hard to get. They've already achieved higher prices by refusing to allow drilling in ANWR and the out continental shelf, making the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil than it was previously (especially as India's oil consumption as quadrupled in recent years, and even China is soaking up more go-juice than ever before). The Moonbats have also prevented the building of new domestic refinery capacity, further acerbating fuel prices when an existing refinery goes offline (like Kansas, currently).

To the Left, any and all tax cuts are only of benefit to the rich. I guess in their limited brain capacity, I and everyone I know is rich beyond their wildest dreams, rather than being just a bunch of hard working Americans trying to make ends meet.

she gets another point right when she says that Americans are heavily indebted, getting further behind, with the average household carrying $6,600 of credit card debt. The number is slightly surprising as I thought it would be higher.

This next point also gets my goat:

America grew strong on Yankee ingenuity and scientific progress. Yet three Republican candidates for president question the theory of evolution, a building block of modern biology. The Bush administration's hostility to embryonic stem cell research is disappointing, but its efforts to talk down its potential are a disgrace. Add to that its public doubting of the science on global warming, then half-hearted measures to address the threat. Something has changed since America put men on the moon.

First, she implies that the theory of evolution is in fact a scientific law. No one has ever proved that the theory is correct. She further implies that divine creation is bogus, and anyone who believes in creationism must be off of their nut. Admittedly, no one has ever proved that the theory of creationism is a scientific law either. People who accept creationism do so as a matter of faith. What's wrong with that? On the flip side of the coin, people also accept evolution as being fact based on a matter of faith, just not religious faith. Of course it is also possible that evolution is a part of God's plan, making both real, however believing such is also a matter of faith.

On the matter of stem cell research, there is nothing preventing the Left from putting their money where their mouths are and investing their own dollars into embryonic stem cell research. In their limited view, things are only good of government does it for you.

Finally, we get to Global Warming, one of my favorite topics. No one, and I do mean no one, in the political arena, or elsewhere, is denying that there is a current warming trend in the Earth's climate. What is under debate is what is causing the current warming trend. The rabid Moonbats on the left foam at the mouth about it being manmade carbon emissions, while many scientists, for decades now, have been providing research that indicates that it is changes in solar activity, combined with cosmic radiation, as well as variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt, that is causing Global Warming. The lefties trot out their computer models that "proves" their point that it is carbon causing climate change despite the existing body of scientific evidence that proves their models wrong, and ignores the fact that the models are flawed (even the engineers behind them say they are not accurate), can not recreate known historical climate variations, and can be programmed to provide any results that they would like to "prove" their point. These climate computer models are nothing but crystal balls used with a bunch a mumble-jumble to hoodwink Americans (and, indeed, the world) into believing it is man that is causing Global Warming.

Indeed, something has changed since we put men on the moon. The Democratic Party has let itself be taken over by hard-core Leftwing Moonbats bent on destroying all that is good about America. And Froma Harrop is on their side.

Tags:

July 11, 2007

Franken Works On anti-War Credentials

Al Franken is sharpening his anti-war credentials with an open letter to Senator Norm Coleman published in the Star Tribune on Tuesday:

"Since this war began, you have voted to support the president's policy of endless war and demonized those who stood up in opposition. Meanwhile, 3,600 of our men and women have died in Iraq, including 54 from Minnesota. Tens of thousands more American troops have been wounded. ... Several of your Republican colleagues have, in recent days, admitted that the president's current strategy is not working and called for a change of course. Unfortunately, you have not taken this step. It's time to do what's right for the country."

In Franken's mind, doing what is right for America is to let the terrorists win in Iraq, and allow that country to fall into total chaos and let it become a despotic tyranny once again.

The tragic loss of American lives should not be used as a benchmark on when and why we should end military operations. If it were, we would have surrendered to Japan before Christmas 1941. Perhaps if the likes of Franken were in control of Congress we would have.

To the hard-left, for which Franken is a drug-abusing poster child of, we are in an endless war. I guess if one were living in 1942, with 10s of thousands of dead, and even more wounded, one could call it an endless war and capitulate to the enemies of freedom. Again, if they were in charge, would we have given in to Germany and Japan?

For America, and the people of Iraq, to win, we must persevere and destroy the sectarian death squads, the terrorist groups and those who support them. For the terrorists and death squads to win, all they have to do is wait until America loses the will to win and elects more people like Al Franken.

If Al Franken wins, he will be one more member of the "We Surrender" Caucus in the U.S. Senate. This would be bad for America as well as for the people of Iraq who dream of living in peace and prosperity.

As for the current strategy, it didn't take long for the hard-left to condemn it as being a failure, even though it has only had a few weeks since being fully implemented. They waste no time at claiming failure, but are long on pushing for victory.

Tags:

July 5, 2007

New al-Qaeda Tape Released

Ayman Al-Zawahiri, second in command of the terrorist group al-Qaeda, has released a new video imploring all Muslims to support the "Islamic State of Iraq," a shadow Islamist "government being pushed by the terrorist groups to replace the fledgling democracy in Iraq.

Al-Zawahiri made it clear that implementing an Islamic government in Iraq is a first step to establishing a caliphate rule in the region.

He is also calling for a push against the more moderate Arab states, calling them "corrupt" as they are taking a stand (in some cases rather lamely) against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups bent on pushing Islamic rule across the globe.

From Foxnews:

The move quickly met resistance. Some Islamic extremist clerics in the Arab world said it was too soon to declare an Islamic state because the Islamic law qualifications were not yet met and argued that a true Islamic state is not viable while there are still U.S. forces in Iraq.

That seems to be part of the plan. Once we pull our troops from the region, they will move out of the shadows and a full scale civil war will erupt with the intent of replacing the democratically elected government with Sharia law and Islamic Fundamentalist rule, similar to what is in place in Iran. No doubt, Iran will continue help any attempts to undermine and replace the legitimate government of Iraq.

Several large Iraqi Sunni insurgent groups publicly denounced Al Qaeda, saying its fighters were killing theirs and pressuring them to join the Islamic State. One group, the 1920 Revolution Brigades, has begun overtly cooperating with U.S. forces and Sunni tribal leaders to attack Al Qaeda.

At the same time, increased U.S. forces sent to Iraq this year are waging a number of offensives in suspected Al Qaeda strongholds north and south of Baghdad and in western Anbar province, claiming to have captured and killed a number of significant figures in the group.

The offensives have caused an increase in American casualties, but insurgent and militia attacks appear to have fallen in the past week. On Thursday, Baghdad was relatively quiet, with police reports of a policeman and a civilian killed in a shooting and bombing. A roadside bomb hit a police patrol in the northern city of Mosul, killing a civilian and wounding three police.

Although al-Qaeda is making overtures to the various Sunni groups, they don't seem to be buying it as there is a history of animosity between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. That and they fear reprisals by Shi'ites for years of oppression while Hussein (a Sunni) ruled Iraq.

What is interesting is the mention of the impact the "surge" is having in Iraq. That's the plan that Democrats are already denouncing as failure even before it had a chance to be fully implemented. The decrease in attacks may be a plan on the part of the terrorist groups to wait out the "surge" in anticipation that the chicken-doves in Congress will force a U.S. pullout from Iraq. It would not surprise me if that were the case. I'd prefer it if the surge is given an appropriate chance to work and see where we end up, hopefully victorious.

Meanwhile, the terrorist al-Zawahiri continues to call for Muslims to go to Iraq and raise "jihad" against U.S. forces and the legitimate government of Iraq.

One thing I would like to see, since al-Zawahiri and his ilk are so keen on "jihad," is to see a significant Muslim cleric (or a group of them) call for jihad against al-Qaeda and lay a fatwa on al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Ladin and all of the other terrorists that are bent on tearing the country of Iraq, and the Middle East as a whole, apart.

I know, dream on. It will never happen.

Tags:

July 2, 2007

Iran, Iraq, and Hezbollah

This is in From FoxNews:

Iran is using the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah as a "proxy" to arm Shiite militants in Iraq and Tehran's elite Quds force helped militants carry out a January attack in Karbala in which five Americans were killed, a U.S. general said Monday.

A senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative, Ali Mussa Dakdouk, was captured March 20 in southern Iraq, U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner said. Dakdouk served for 24 years in Hezbollah and was "working in Iraq as a surrogate for the Iranian Quds Force," Bergner said.

The general also said that Dakdouk was a liaison between the Iranians and a breakaway Shiite group led by Qais al-Kazaali, a former spokesman for cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Bergner said al-Kazaali's group carried out the January attack against a provincial government building in Karbala and that the Iranians assisted in preparations. Al-Khazaali and his brother Ali al-Khazaali were captured with Dakdouk.

We've known for sometime now that ran was involved with Hezbollah, supplying them with funding and arms, and their operations in Lebanon. We have also known for sometime that Iran was funneling funds, arms, and people into Iraq to help fuel the ongoing cycle of sectarian violence and destabilize the young government.

Now we have proof-positive that Iran is using Hezbollah to push their agenda of violence and terror in Iraq.

Why am I not surprised?

Tags:

June 20, 2007

Jimmy Carter: Father of the Iranian Revolution

That is the name of the opinion piece in which Michael Evans writes about Jimmy Carter and the disastrous policies he implemented that wrought the problems in the Middle East of today. It seems we have a lot to thank former president Jimmy Carter for, and Evans scores his points accurately and concisely. This is a must read piece.

We just don't get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess.

The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter's ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." Carter's Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."

The shah was terrified of Carter. He told his personal confidant, "Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?"

It was Carter who pressured the Shah of Iran to release political dissidents and ease censorship, which in less troubled times would make since, but not at that time for Iran. And not those particular dissidents. As Evans points out, "Khomeini could never have succeeded without Carter." He is right about that.

Evans outlines a lot of issues we still have to deal with thanks to Carter.

The Iranian revolution that replaced the pro-Western Shah of Iran with the totalitarian Islamo-Facist Ayatollah Khomeini was only the beginning. It was also during Carter's administration that the Iran-Iraq War broke out, resulting in millions of dead and wounded. It was also at this time that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and marked the rise of Osama bin Ladin and the foundation for al-Qaeda was laid.

Carter's response to crisis? He made an ineffectual attempt at obtaining the release of our embassy people held hostage by Iranian terrorists in the name of Khomeini. He boycotted the Moscow Olympics in response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. He believed that every crisis can be resolved by diplomacy alone. Such a mindset is what resulted in World War II and the murder of some six million Jews in the holocaust. It is this mindset, instilled throughout the Democratic Party, that resulted in two aircraft being driven into the World Trade Center, killing thousands of people, while a third was crashed into the Pentagon and a fourth slammed into a farm field. That day could have been far worse if it had not been for the courage of the passengers on that fourth airliner.

Thanks a lot Jimmy.

Tags:

June 12, 2007

Iran Whines About Terrorist Trainers Held By U.S.

Iran, despite what the hard-left liberals think, is a terrorist regime. No doubt about it. They have been funneling weapons and bombs to sectarian death squads and terrorist groups operating in Iraq as well as supporting the terrorist group Hezbollah. Now five of their "diplomats" are being held by the u.S. in Iraq for their participation in running arms across the border.

From FoxNews:

Iran will make the United States "regret" its detention of five Iranian officials in Iraq, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tuesday.

Mottaki was referring to five Iranian officials detained in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil by U.S. troops in January, who still remain in U.S. custody. The U.S. military has said they are suspected of links to a network supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents - an accusation that Iran has denied.

"We will make the Americans regret their ugly and illegal act," Mottaki was quoted by the official IRNA news agency as saying. He didn't elaborate on how Iran will make Washington regret the action.

If Iran wishes to talk about ugly and illegal acts, let's talk about their border crossings to kidnap troops on the ground and the kidnapping of British Sailors and Marines that were operating in international waters. How about the Iranian-Americans who went to Iran to visit family now being held prisoner?

It has been reported that several of the Iranian "diplomats" being held are members of Iran's Quds Force, which has been supplying Iraqi militants (leftie speak for terrorists) with arms and training. There is a high probability that this report is accurate.

If this is what Iran is like now, just wait until they have nukes.

Tags:

June 2, 2007

ACLU Helps al-Qaeda Terrorists Sue Boeing

The ACLU has come out on the side of al-Qaeda. From the World Tribune:

Boeing has been sued by suspected Al Qaida operatives transported by the CIA to Arab countries for interrogation and torture.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan on behalf of three Al Qaida suspects transported by the CIA under the so-called "extraordinary rendition program."

Why am I not surprised.

Clearly this is an attempt by the hard-left organization to force companies to not provide aid to the U.S. Government in the War on Terror. I guess they will sue any common carrier moving troops and materials to Iraq for similar reasons.

Tags:


May 30, 2007

Terrorist Gadahn Calls For Immediate Withdrawal

American al-Qaeda Gadahn is in the news again, delivering threats and ultimatums to the U.S. From FoxNews:

"Your failure to heed our demands ... means that you and your people will ... experience things which will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11th, Afghanistan and Iraq and Virginia Tech," he said in the seven-minute video.

The demands include removing all troops and spies from Islamic nations, the release of all Muslims currently held in prisons (I am assuming that includes those convicted of crimes other than terror related acts) and abandoning Israel.

Gadahn is the first person to be charged with treason in over 50 years. Assuming he is ever captured, he will face the death penalty.

Since he has taken up arms against the U.S., is he still considered a citizen?

Tags:


May 23, 2007

U.S. Muslim Youth Okay with Terrorism

FoxNews has a disturbing report about the attitude of U.S. Muslims and terrorism:

While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say homicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.

That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.

Although the overall majority is against homicide bombings, there is a disturbing trend amongst those under 30 that believe such terrorist attacks are legitimate.

The terrorist groups always purport that their attacks are in "defense" of Islam, yet the truth does not bear this out. Whether looking at the attacks against the U.S. and its allies, or attacks in Israel, it all comes down to the same thing, and it ain't "defense" of Islam. It's about power and destroying those they, the terrorist organizations, perceive as a threat to their being able to re-establish a Caliphate.

That there is such a large segment of Muslim youth within the U.S. that think terrorism is okay, and homicide bombings are terrorism, is not surprising. This matches similar trends in other Western counties where tolerance and freedom of religion is the law of the land (funny that many Muslim countries do not reciprocate on that score), and the growing use of technology by terrorist groups to disseminate their propaganda and messages of hate.

The growing threat of homegrown terrorism is real, just as the British learned with the London transit bombings of 2005. It must be taken seriously, or we may not catch the next Fort Dix plot in time to avert a murderous attack.

With such a pool of radicalized youth available in country, it won't take much for al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups to incorporate such young radicals into their plots.

Tags:

May 17, 2007

Terrorists Threaten o Bomb Churches In Pakistan

For those who still believe that these radical Islamo-Fascists hate and attack us because we are "over there," time to think again. From FoxNews:

Christians in a Pakistani town beset by pro-Taliban militants sought government protection Wednesday, the eve of a deadline for them to convert to Islam or face violence.

About 500 Pakistani Christians in Charsadda, a town in the North West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan, received letters earlier this month telling them to close their churches and convert by Thursday or be the target of "bomb explosions."

Several Christians, a tiny minority in the predominantly Muslim country, have fled town and others are living in fear, community leaders said.

We all know that not all Muslims are radicalized like the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Jamas, the Islamic Brotherhood, and so on.

According to the report, local police seem to think that these threats are only a joke (some joke!) and not to worry about. They have, however, dispatched a couple of officers to stand vigil over the targetted churches. We'll see if it does any good.

It also reports that the Taliban has been growing in strength in Northwestern Pakistan, bombing shops that sell western films, among other threats.

As for the churches in Charsadda, I guess we'll see what happens there over the next few days.

Tags:

May 9, 2007

San Fran Nan Wants To Sue The President

San Fran Nan is at it again, this time looking at suing the president should he use a signing statement on proposed legislation that would provide needed funding for the troops.

According to a report on the Hill:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.

Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, "We can take the president to court" if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi's remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.

"The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching," a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. "Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president's non-enforcement of the laws."

It is a scenario for which few lawmakers have planned. Indicating that he may consider attaching a signing statement to a future supplemental spending measure, Bush last week wrote in his veto message, "This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency."

The legislation that Bush vetoed last week was definitely unconstitutional as it put Congress in charge of the military, circumventing the President's ability to function as Commander in Chief, by requiring a withdrawal from Iraq if Congress decides they don't like how things are going. Bush, by communicating the fact that the bill was unconstitutional via a signing statement, was the correct way to communicate to Congress the reason the veto should be sustained.

The President is the only thing standing between the Democrats in Congress, who continue to extend their grab for power.

Currently, a number of Democrats running for the presidency, have made it clear that they would like to rescind the authorization for war in Iraq, a tactic that is gaining popularity with the Dems in Congress as a whole. How this would, or could, work is beyond me. So long as Bush is in the White House, such legislation would be vetoed, rightfully so, and the veto would be sustained as the Dems do not have enough support to override the veto. This tactic, even if it were to gain enough momentum in Congress now, would not have any chance of getting through before 2009. Hopefully, by then, we'll have been able to stabilize Iraq and it will become a moot point. But don't hold your breath.

The biggest thorn in Iraq continues to be al-Qaeda terrorists and the armed militias of such thugs as Muqtada al-Sadr. These militias act as death squads, inciting more violence. Iran is also a serious problem as it continues to funnel funding and materials to the terrorists and murderers. Syria is also a problem as it continues to serve as a gateway for terrorist recruits heading into Iraq.

As long as al-Qaeda continues to operate, and thugs like al-Sadr are allowed to maintain armed miltias, there will be problems in establishing a free and democratic Iraq. Eliminating these threats is the key to success, and closing the avenues of funding and materials is tantamount to continued success.

Tags:

May 8, 2007

Fort Dix Terror Plot Foiled

A terrorist ring operating in New Jersey has been arrested; their plan to attack Fort Dix, posing as pizza delivery guys in order to kill as many soldiers as possible has been thwarted. This was a good day for America, and a bad day for the terrorists.

All six of the terrorists that were arrested are Muslim extremists. Their group had previously been infiltrated by an FBI agent based on a tip received by a clerk who converted a video tape to DVD format for the terrorists.

From Philly.com:

The investigation began more than a year ago, according to an affidavit from FBI agent John J. Ryan.

The tipster called the FBI on Jan. 31, 2006, and said that someone had brought a "disturbing" video to have duplicated.

"The DVD depicted 10 young men who appeared to be in their early-20s shooting assault weapons at a firing range in a militia-like style while calling for jihad and shouting in Arabic, 'Allah Akbar,' or 'God is Great.'"

My hat's off to the guy who tipped off the FBI. Thanks, Dude, whoever you are. I wish more people were like you.

Tags:

May 2, 2007

Bush Vetoes Democrats Surrender To Terrorists Plan

Looks like the Party of Surrender is having difficulty getting it's plan for "Terrorist Victory Day" set into motion. President Bush rightfully vetoed the bill calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq beginning Oct. 1, 2007. The Democrats also lack sufficient support to override the veto.

The end result is that the Liberal-Left has to wait before they can hand victory in Iraq over to the terrorists. Worse still, at least from the viewpoint of the Move On crowd, House Democrats will actually have to work with Republicans to draft legislation to provide troop funding in a bipartisan fashion, a foreign concept to the Liberal-Left.

It is probable that the next round of legislation for troop funding will incorporate a plan for the Liberal-Left, I mean Congress, to micro-manage military operations in Iraq in an attempt to both undermine the Commander In Chief and force a withdrawal if they don't get their way.

I think Nancy Pelosi and her crowd need to be reminded that there is only ONE Commander in Chief, not 536. And any plan that allows Congress to micro-manage military operations are not only a bad idea, it is constitutionally wrong!

Tags:

May 1, 2007

al-Masri May Have Been Killed In Iraq

In spite of all of the violence that has been transpiring in Iraq as of late, there may be one bit of good news as it is being reported that Zarqawi's successor, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, has been killed by a competing Sunni faction. According to the piece on FoxNews, al-Masri's demise has yet to be confirmed by DNA testing.

Personally I hope it is true. However I am not going to hold my breath waiting for confirmation. It may be a couple of days.

"Preliminary reports said he was killed yesterday in Taji area in a battle involving a couple of insurgent groups, possibly some tribal people who have problems with Al Qaeda. These reports have to be confirmed."

Tribesmen in the western Anbar province have been fighting Al Qaeda for weeks and claim to have killed dozens of them.

On the other side of the coin, I am not sure how I feel about armed militia's running around shooting each other up. If they are serious about routing out the terrorists, as it seems that they are, why not join the Iraqi Army and wear the uniform of their country?

Tags: