Kowabunga

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:

Tsouli UK Terrorist Al-Qaeda

Posted by Sqotty at 8:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Congress Iraq Surrender

Posted by Sqotty at 9:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Clfford D. May Iraq Star Tribune Churchill War Election

Posted by Sqotty at 6:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

ANSWER United Families Gathering of Eagles Iraq al-Qaeda Sheehan protests

Posted by Sqotty at 6:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Obama bin-Ladin al-Qaeda Pakistan Iraq War on Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 7:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Iraq Blue Dog Congress War On Terror Lieberman

Posted by Sqotty at 6:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Iraq Afghanistan War On Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 6:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

China Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 9:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Cindy Sheehan Pelosi Impeach Bush Iraq Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

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:

al-Qaeda NIE Iraq War on Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 11:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Iraq America Froma Harrop

Posted by Sqotty at 6:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Franken Iraq War Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 4:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Al-Zawahiri al-Qaeda Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 8:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Iraq Iran Hezbollah

Posted by Sqotty at 6:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Jimmy Carter Iran Iraq War Terrorism al-Qaeda bin Ladin Khomeini

Posted by Sqotty at 6:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Iran Iraq Quds Force Terrorists

Posted by Sqotty at 6:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

al-Qaeda Boeing ACLU

Posted by Sqotty at 5:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

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:

al-Qaeda Gadahn War On Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 6:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

al-Qaeda Terrorism

Posted by Sqotty at 6:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Charsadda Pakistan Taliban

Posted by Sqotty at 6:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Pelosi Veto Congress Iraq War On Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 6:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

War On Terror Fort Dix

Posted by Sqotty at 7:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Iraq War On Terror Pelosi Veto

Posted by Sqotty at 6:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

al-Masri Iraq War On Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 6:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

According to this FoxNews article, the Democrats in Congress are pushing hard to make Oct. 1 "Terrorist Victory Day." Unlike previous victory days, like "Victory in Europe" where the U.S. and our allies were victorious over our enemies, "Terrorist Victory Day" will commemorate the date that al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as well as sectarian death squads operating in Iraq, will have achieved victory OVER the U.S. and our allies.

Oct. 1, 2007 is the date that the party of surrender has decided should be for the beginning of withdrawin troops from Iraq. The alternate date for "Terrorist Victory Day" will be, if the Dems have their way, April 1, 2008.

No doubt Bush will veto any legislation calling for our capitulation to terrorists, and I believe he has enough support in Congress to uphold his veto, so al-Qaeda shouldn't start making long term plans to expand their operations outside of Iraq, nor should Iran start to serious look at "adopting" its neighbor.

Any such legislation that would set a specific timetable to end military operations in Iraq is, in fact, giving the enemy a heads-up as to how long they have to hold out before they can safely reinstate a totalitarian regime in Iraq.

The bulk of the Democratic Party, as usual, is wrong on Iraq.

Tags:

War on Terror Iraq al-Qaeda Terorist Victory Day

Posted by Sqotty at 7:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

When a Globetrotting Leftist reaches out to a totalitarian dictator such as Assad of Syria, you have to wonder what their motivations are. When that Globetrotting Leftist is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and second in line of succession to the Presidency, those motivations become clear. It's all about subverting U.S. Policy in the Middle East, and bashing the current administration. From MyWay News:

Pelosi's visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war.

Bush has said Pelosi's trip signals that the Assad government is part of the international mainstream when it is not. The United States says Syria allows Iraqi Sunni insurgents to operate from its territory, backs the Hezbollah and Hamas militant groups and is trying to destabilize the Lebanese government. Syria denies the allegations.

By reaching out to Syria, it is being argued, and correctly so, that the U.S. has two different foreign policies, just as it is becoming clear that Pelosi and other Leftists in Congress, believe there should be more than one Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Syria is responsible for the ongoing violence in Lebanon between the various factions in that country, including the terrorist organization Hezbollah. Syria has supplied arms, training, money, and other support to Hezbollah and various terrorist groups in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Syria has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, and is in close alliance with Iran. Most of the suicide bombers operating in Iraq arrived in Baghdad from Syria. The list goes on.

By recognizing, and mainstreaming Syria, Pelosi not only undermines U.S. policy in that region, she endangers the lives of American troops operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Americans traveling abroad. Attempts to marginalize a sitting president are typical of the hard left that controls Congress, and therefore, it is not surprising. However, this blatant attempt at undermining U.S. policy jeopardizes the chances of stabilizing that region of the world.

Once again, the hard-left Democrats are showing their true colors and the Neville Chamberlain like tactics to appease dictators and terrorists will only beget more violence against the U.S. and our allies.

Tags:

Pelosi Assad Syria Hezbollah Hamas

Posted by Sqotty at 6:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Yesterday, The U.S. Senate joined the House of Representatives in setting a date for surrendering Iraq to terrorists and death squads. As President Bush has made it clear that this bill, which also loaded with pork barrel spending, will be vetoed. Fortunately for the people of Iraq, the leftist Democrats in Congress do not have the votes to over-ride the veto.

The only reason I can see that such a bill would be put forth by the Leftists is as a show, attempting to convince the anti-peace zealots that are pushing for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq in order to end the "occupation" (yet not from Germany, Japan, and other countries we "occupy"). Now they can claim they tried, and it's all Bush's fault for his "go it alone, cowboy" attitude.

From myway news:

Three months after Democrats took power in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the moment was at hand to "send a message to President Bush that the time has come to find a new way forward in this intractable war."

And that message is, "we surrender," just like the Democrats did to South Vietnam nearly 35 years ago.

John McCain, R-Ariz., a presidential hopeful, said that "we are starting to turn things around" in the Iraq war" and that a timeline for withdrawal would embolden the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.

The effect of the timeline would be to "snatch defeat from the jaws of progress in Iraq," agreed Lieberman, who won a new term last fall in a three-way race after losing the Democratic nomination to an anti-war insurgent.

I don't often agree with McCain or Lieberman, however where the liberation of Iraq and the War on Terror are concerned, I do. And this is one of those times. Since the Party of Defeat has taken the majority n Congress, it became only a matter of time before they would call for a Vietnam style surrender to totalitarian thugs.

Can it be that the Defeatocrats are so shortsighted in their hatred for Bush and Republicans in general that they will stop at nothing to push for failure in Iraq? Do they have no compassion for the people of Iraq who are grasping at the straws of Liberty after decades of oppression? Are they so stupid that they don't see that pulling out of Iraq prematurely will, when we are gone, Iraq will erupt in civil war and end up as a puppet state of the Ayatollahs that run Iran?

Apparently they will stop at nothing, don't care about freedom, and are willing to sacrifice millions of Iraqis to show political clout.

God forbid we get a Defeatocrat in the White House in the next election.

Tags:

Iraq Iran Defeatocrats Surrender

Posted by Sqotty at 6:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and many other acts of terrorism, as confessed to his role in these brutal assaults in a U.S. Military Tribunal. From FoxNews:

he gruesome attacks range from the suicide hijackings of Sept. 11, 2001 - which killed nearly 3,000 - to a 2002 shooting on an island off Kuwait that killed a U.S. Marine.

Many plots, including a previously undisclosed plan to kill several former U.S. presidents, were never carried out or were foiled by international counterterror authorities.

"I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z," Mohammed said in a statement read Saturday during a Combatant Status Review Tribunal at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mohammed's confession was read by a member of the U.S. military who is serving as his personal representative.

Whether or not this evil being will receive the just punish his crimes against humanity and the world remains to be seen. I have no doubt that the Liberal-Left will push hard to have any and all confessions and verdicts invalidated as they were handled by a military tribunal. It should be pointed out that he is an international terrorist who has operated outside the law and jurisdiction of any country. He was not captured on U.S. turf, and is not a citizen (or legal resident alien) of the United States, and therefore he is not subject to Constitutional protections.

The article on FoxNews, of course, bears my concerns out:

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, questioned the legality of the closed-door sessions and whether the confession was actually the result of torture.

"We won't know that unless there is an independent hearing," he said. "We need to know if this purported confession would be enough to convict him at a fair trial or would it have to be suppressed as the fruit of torture?"

As expected, the America hating Liberal-Left blame the U.S. for the world's troubles and think we're the bad guys while scum like KSM are heroes and/or victims.

KSM confessed to a multitude of crimes, including the brutal execution of journalist Daniel Pearl, in addition to the 9/11 plot and a previous attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. I seriously doubt that torture was used. Unless you can't having only Barbara Streisand CDs to listen to as torture.

Because of leftist organizations as Humans Rights Watch, it may be many years before KSM receives the punishment for his heinous crimes that he so richly deserves.

Tags:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed al-Qaeda KSM 9/11

Posted by Sqotty at 6:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I really hate picking on someone who is losing it, but it needs to be discussed. Off of Yahoo News:

A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday.

"I would like to see what (alien) technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation ... that could be a way to save our planet," Paul Hellyer, 83, told the Ottawa Citizen.

Alien spacecrafts would have traveled vast distances to reach Earth, and so must be equipped with advanced propulsion systems or used exceptional fuels, he told the newspaper.

Quite frankly, I doubt that aliens have been visiting our planet, top secret facilities and conspiracy theorists aside, the basic theory is that any race capable of interstellar travel would have fully populated the galaxy, including the Earth, by now.

For the sake of argument, though, let's suppose there have been such visitors, what could we learn that could forestall or halt the Earth's current climate warming trend? Zero! Why? Because the warming trend is part of the Earth's natural cycle and has been going on.

On the flipside, if there really are alien ships that have crashed here on Earth, then the technology, once it is deciphered, could be leveraged to improve energy development, most likely nuclear energy, as well as give insight on space travel. Admittedly, that would be cool.

Posted by Sqotty at 2:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Yesterday it was announced that a large weapons cache was discovered North of Baghdad in Iraq. From FoxNews:

U.S. and Iraqi forces have seized a large weapons cache that includes parts for sophisticated roadside bombs that are believed to originate in Iran, U.S. military investigators said.

...the arsenal is one of the biggest found north of the Iraqi capital and contains components for so-called EFPs - explosively formed projectiles that fire a slug of molten metal that can penetrate armored vehicles.

The U.S. military has said elite Iranian corps are funneling EFPs to Shiite militias in Iraq for use against American troops. The area where the cache was found is dominated by Sunni insurgents but also includes pockets of Shiites.

Also discovered were a two dozen mortars and 15 rockets, as well as parts for 150 of these EFPs. There was no mention of small arms being recovered in the cache. The origin of the weapons is under investigation, however, it is strongly believed that the EFPs originated in Iran. If true, that would still leave the question of where the other weapons are coming from, although Iran would head that list, followed by Syria.

There have been 63 such weapons caches found in the Baghdad region since security sweeps began on Feb. 14th. These caches also included a fake boulder that had been prepped for a roadside bombing.

Hopefully these security sweeps and the recovery of such a large amount of weapons will put a damper on the attacks while measures are taken to better secure the border to prevent such arms from being smuggled in country.

Meanwhile, a Taliban suicide bomber attacked a base in Afghanistan where V.P. Cheney was visiting. At least 14 people were reported killed as a result of the attack, and a dozen injured. Cheney was not injured.

A Taliban terrorist stated (from an undiclosed location) that the intent was for the bomber to reach Cheney's location.

Tags:

Iraq Iran War On Terror Cheney Afghanistan

Posted by Sqotty at 7:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Nancy Pelosi, Moonbat of the House, is whining about a statement V.P. Cheney made recently. From FoxNews:

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.

The quarrel began in Tokyo, where Cheney used an interview to criticize Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., over their plan to place restrictions on Bush's request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

I don't see how a strategy based on retreat and surrender to the enemy is considered patriotic or victorious. The armchair quarterbacks in Congress who are pushing to prevent not only the "surge," but also continued operations in Iraq, seem to believe that letting al-Qaeda and Iran gain control of Iraq as being a good thing. If they don't believe that the "surge" will help secure Baghdad, and then Iraq as a whole, they should let it take place, then they could at least say "told you so," instead of putting everything that our troops have done, including their sacrifices, at risk.

Patton once said that America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser. That was during WW2. Today, the mantra from the liberal-left is "America loves a loser, and will not tolerate a winner, unless it is an enemy of America."

Pelosi and the assorted Moonbats and Chicken Doves in Congress should not work to hamstring our Armed Forces in Iraq, and should do everything in its power to foster liberty and democracy in the Middle East, not abandon it because the job is tougher than they would like it to be.

Tags:

Pelosi Moonbat Chicken Dove Cheney Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 6:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Ahmadinejad is sounding like the Soviet Union under Krushchev. From FoxNews:

"That ... we shut down our nuclear fuel cycle program to let talks begin. It's no problem. But justice demands that those who want to hold talks with us shut down their nuclear fuel cycle program too. Then, we can hold dialogue under a fair atmosphere," Ahmadinejad said.

Back in the late '50s, towards the end of the Eisenhower administration, Eisenhower struck a bargain with Krushchev where both countries would cease developing and testing nuclear weapons. Only one side in that agreement held up their end. Can you guess which one?

It is clear that by demanding that the West cease uranium enrichment before it would do the same and resume talks, Ahmadinejad is hoping to buy sufficient time to continue its nuclear programs. Further, why should we trust the untrustworthy? Doing so would be folly of the worst sort. It will also never happen.

If Iran fails to comply with U.N. demands to cease and desist from developing nuclear technology, it may impose economic sanctions. Basically, a "threat" that has no teeth in it as there are countries (like Russia, Syria and China) that will continue to trade with Iran despite any sanctions. Without a military blockade of their ports of entry, any sanctions against Iran will be meaningless, and a military blockade will not be put into place.

The end result will be business as usual as Iran continues on the path to nuclear weapons, and the supplier of weapons grade materials to al-Qaeda.

Tags:
Ahmadinejad Iran Nuclear Weapons War On Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 7:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Susan Estrich is proving, once again, that she is a clueless Moonbat. From Blue Streak on FoxNews:

What's the point of a non-binding resolution that the president has already said would not affect his decisions?

How do you send a message to a person who isn't listening?

It is pretty presumptuous of her to assume that because the President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, as already stated that the troop escalation in Iraq will take place, does not mean that he is not listening. More likely than not, he is listening to representatives from all points of view. He is, however, in the position where he has to make the decisions in regards to ongoing military operations, not just in Iraq, which is the primary focus of the anti-war crowd's angst, but also in Afghanistan, Kosovo (we still have military operations there), and other hot spots around the globe.

He has listened to the leadership, and has chosen a course of action. It is the President who makes the decisions of where our armed forces are deployed. Not Congress. And not the anti-war crowd, who are attempting to turn Iraq into a 21st century Vietnam.

The resolution affirming support for the troops and opposition to the surge won't really do anything, notwithstanding the heated debate about whether to pass it. It won't stop the war, save a life, or slow the surge. Nancy Pelosi says the president can't completely ignore "the voice of the American people," but my bet is he'll try.

The reason the resolution matters is not because of its impact on the president, but on Congress; not because it will goad the president into action, but because it will force Congress to face its own fears.

The resolution matters, certainly, but not in the context that Estrich would have us believe. Such resolutions send a signal to the terrorists of al-Qaeda that America is losing its will to persevere in Iraq. The ayatollahs and mullahs of Iran are also listening, and see such resolutions as a green light to continue arming terrorists and sectarian death squads in Iraq. Syria and Hezbollah see it as an opportunity to exploit in the ongoing war against Israel, as they can expect that one day America will lose its will to support Israel as well.

Pelosi claims that the president cannot ignore "the voice of the American people," yet the only voice she hears is that of the anti-war zealots who want to see Iraq laid waste as was the country of Cambodia, in 1975, after the fall of Vietnam.

Estrich claims that such resolutions won't stop the war, nor save lives. However, they do cost lives, as violence escalates, as with the car bombing in Baghdad over the weekend in which some 60+ people were killed and attacks on bases, such as the one in which to American soldiers died, and 17 others were injured.

If Congress is to be goaded into action, let it be on to the path of winning the war and establishing free and democratic societies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not abandon these fledgling allies to fall back into the hands of tyrants and murderers.

Many keep harping how this non-binding resolution in the House of Representatives will have no impact. They are wrong, and it is the people of Iraq, as well as our troops on the ground, who must pay the price of such folly.

Tags:

Susan Estrich Blue Streak Congress Resolution anti-war Iraq Afghanistan War on Terror al-Qaeda Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

It has been reported that the traitor Adam Gadahn is the narrator of the latest video from al-Qaeda. From FoxNews:

The narrator on the English version of a video posted on the Web that Al Qaeda says shows an attack on U.S. and Afghan forces in Afghanistan is believed to be American Adam Gadahn, a member of Usama bin Laden's terror network who is on the FBI's most wanted list, experts said Friday.

Gadahn has appeared as a spokesperson under the name Azzam the American in previous Al Qaeda videos.

SITE Institute, which tracks terrorist groups, claimed the narration on the video - which is clearly an American accent - was done by Gadahn. U.S. intelligence officials said they believed it was Gadahn's voice, but were waiting for further analysis of the video.

Gadahn has been known to be involved in the production of previous videos for al-Qaeda, so his involvement in this new video is not surprising. I no longer think of this terrorist as an American. He gave up his right to U.S. citizenship when he joined al-Qaeda.

The video is an apparent attempt to disparage American claims of winning the war against terrorists in Afghanistan. Its release came as the United States and Britain plan to deploy more troops to the country after the worst year of insurgency-related violence since the Taliban regime was overthrown in 2001.

The video contains footage of an alleged attack on an outpost used by American and Afghani forces. According to the report, the outpost in question, Arghandab, may not have even been hosting Allied tropps at the time Taliban forces claimed to have attacked it.

What is interesting about the video, is that masked gunmen describe the outpost as having two compounds; one for the Americans and one for the "apostates." What they are saying is that the Afghani forces allied with the Americans, and working to establish a free and Democratic Afghanistan, are no longer considered to be Muslim, and therefor may be killed with impunity.

Enemy forces in the video are routinely referred to as apostates. It is possible that the "troops" that were filmed are not the real McCoy, but Taliban operatives. It is hard to tell. A few pickup trucks and a couple of people filmed from a long distance.

The outpost itself looks to be deserted in the video.

The video is available courtesy of the SITE Institute.

It is clear that the video is an attempt to undermine U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, just as similar videos have been successful in regards to U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Tags:

al-Qaeda Afghanistan Taliban Video Gadahn

Posted by Sqotty at 7:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The House of Representatives voted on a non-binding resolution of surrender to terrorist and death squad militias operating in Iraq. From FoxNews:

House Democrats on Friday sent President Bush the clearest message to date on his Iraq policy by passing a resolution that opposes a plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to the war-ravaged country.

"Today, in a loud voice, the Congress of the United States said to the president: 'We need a new direction in Iraq,'" said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., after the 246-182 vote.

There were 17 White Flag Republicans siding with the anti-free Iraq Dems, while two Democrats stood tall on the side of liberty. The two maverick Democrats were Jim Marshall of Georgia and Gene Taylor of Mississippi. Kudos to them for standing up for what is right.

It is sad to see that one of the White Flag Republicans is Jim Ramstad of Minnesota. There is some hope that his district will field a real Republican and not one who is pandering to the "let's surrender to the enemy" crowd.

Tags:

Gene Taylor Jim Marshall Jim Ramstad Congress War On Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 10:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It is now being reported that Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the terrorist organization known as the Mahdi Army, has fled to Iran. From FoxNews:

The chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq insisted Wednesday that Muqtada al-Sadr has left the country and is believed to be in Iran, despite denials from the radical Shiite cleric's supporters.

The statement by Maj. Gen. William Caldwell came after a U.S. official said al-Sadr left the country some weeks ago and is believed to be in Tehran, where he has family. The official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss U.S. monitoring activities, said fractures in al-Sadr's political and militia operations may be part of the reason for his departure. The move is not believed to be permanent, the official said.

Of course, there are those in Iraq, both in the government as well as among al-Sadr’s loyalists, that claim otherwise and that the U.S. assertion that al-Sadr is in Iran is politically motivated. They could be right, however, their claims can also be construed as politically motivated. Personally, I suspect that Caldwell’s statement, that al-Sadr has fled to Iran, is correct.

Al-Sadr’s terrorist thugs have clashed with U.S. led coalition forces since it came into existence shortly after Hussein was deposed. It is also one of the main groups fueling ongoing sectarian violence that has escalated after the bombing of the Al-Askari Mosque. it is terrorist organizations, these so called private militia’s, that are causing the most havoc in Iraq and undermining efforts to establish a fully independent and democratic government in Iraq.

The proposed surge of U.S. troops could go a long way in eliminating these groups. This is why in the past weeks there have been many reports of "insurgent" leaders crossing the border into Iran.

Two key members of al-Sadr's political and military organization were gunned down last week, the latest of as many as seven key figures in the al-Sadr organization killed or captured in the past two months.

A close aide who meets regularly with al-Sadr said the cleric was not in Tehran, said the report probably stemmed from a campaign by al-Sadr's people to put out false information about his movements amid fears he will be detained by U.S.-led forces. The cleric also is sleeping in different places each night, the aide said.

Regardless of claims to the contrary and al-Sadr still is in Iraq, any man who lives in hiding in this fashion, sleeping in a different place every night, has got to be up to no good. Otherwise, they would not be in hiding. Al-Sadr has on numerous occasions incited violence in Iraq. With the impending increase in security patrols that are being planned to eliminate many of these terrorist militia organizations, it is no wonder that they are going to ground.

One thing is certain; it is well past time for the Iraqi government to crack down on these criminal militias. If Nouri al-Maliki is serious about leading his nation into the 21st century and establishing liberty and democracy, these militias have to be eliminated, either through disburdenment, incarceration, or militarily.

Tags:

Iraq Iran War On Terror Mugtada al-Sadr

Posted by Sqotty at 8:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The news is reporting about another "Jonnie bin Walker Lind" working with the enemy. From FoxNews:

An American citizen charged with receiving terrorist training at an Al Qaeda camp in Somalia - including classes in how to become a homicide bomber and "wage violent jihad" - was taken into custody by FBI agents and returned to the U.S. Monday night, Justice Department officials told FOX News.

An indictment unsealed Tuesday by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Houston charges Daniel Joseph Maldanado, 28, a.k.a Daniel Aljughaifi, whose last known address was in Houston, with receiving training from a foreign terrorist organization and conspiring to use an explosive device outside the United States.

The report goes on to state that Maldanado went to Somalia where he joined the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) in 2005. He was issued military gear, including an AK-47 and received weapons and explosives training. Members of al-Qaeda were present in the training camps as well.

What motivated Maldanado to take up arms against the U.S. in the name of radical Islam and Jihad is not as yet known. Nor do we know what he hoped to achieve by joining the terrorists.

If he is convicted, he could receive life in prison. What isn't mentioned is that he could (and should) be stripped of his U.S. citizenship for taking up arms against the U.S. That may be harder to prove as we don't know what his plans were, however, he joined al-Qaeda and that terrorist group of murdering thugs has made it clear that they want to destroy the U.S. and Western civilization.

Tags:

al-Qaeda Somalia Maldanado War On Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 7:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I admit it. I like YouTube. However, terrorists using YouTube to broadcast acts of violence is a problem. From FoxNews:

Anyone with an Internet connection can watch videos of bombings and sniper attacks against U.S. forces - shot and edited by Islamic militants and broadcast on YouTube, the world's largest video-sharing Web site.

With the global spread of high-speed Internet connections and the relative anonymity afforded by the world's biggest and busiest sites, extremists have found a new theater to display violence and anti-American propaganda.

I don't know if YouTube has staff going through and chucking these kinds of videos, at least the ones that are depicting acts of terrorism. I know that such can be flagged for the staff to review and junk. Hopefully they have enough common sense to not allow their servers to be used as a terrorist propaganda and recruiting tool. I don't believe waiting for complaints about any given video to roll in is sufficient. It is reactive, rather than proactive, and can take days before a given video is removed.

Tags:

War On Terror videos YouTube

Posted by Sqotty at 7:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

More Rhetoric from the totalitarian regime in Iran. From News 24:

A top Iranian cleric said on Friday the United States was within Iran's "firing range", a day after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed to hit back at US interests worldwide if attacked.

"Americans have surrounded us but it works to our advantage. They are within our firing range in the east, west and elsewhere," Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said in his Friday prayer sermon carried live on state radio.

He was referring to the US military presence in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in the Gulf waters off southern Iran.

It is amazing how much the leaders in Iran sound like Baghdad Bob before and during Operation: Liberate Iraq in 2003. I guess he must have opened a propaganda school or is consulting with Iran n how to bloviate with the best of them.

Currently, there are no plans from the U.S. to invade Iran. Okay, more likely there are some plans on how to do it if the need arose, however, there are no intentions of executing such plans.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to posture as the "wounded victim" of "American aggression," and push hard on developing nuclear technology, and getting closer to either developing a nuclear weapon, or being able to produce sufficient quantities to pass of to terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah who are more than willing to use it to attack Israel, the United States and other Western nations.

"In the worst situations we are able to turn the region into burning hell and take the possibility of using the Persian Gulf away from them forever," Rear Admiral Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani said, quoted by semi-official Mehr news agency.

Is this guy hinting that they plan on using newly developed nuclear weapons, or threatening the use of chemical and biological weapons, or merely posturing. It's hard to say, as well as dangerous to guess, especially to guess wrong.

We need to take the question of Iran's nuclear enrichment programs far more seriously than we are. Doing otherwise could be disastrous.

Tags:

Iran War on Terror al-Qaeda Hezbollah Nuclear Weapons

Posted by Sqotty at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Steve Chapman has a very weird analogy on the continued U.S. operations in Iraq. From the Red Star Tribune:

When police found Shawn Hornbeck living with his alleged abductor four years after he was kidnapped, the question arose: Why didn't the 15-year-old simply run away? But trapped and isolated, a hostage can be scared into thinking that the consequences of leaving -- for himself or his loved ones -- would be far worse than the consequences of staying. So he passes up opportunities to escape.

I really don't get what the kidnapping of Hornbeck and his failure to use "opportunities to escape" has to do with the establishment of a functioning Democracy in Iraq.

Chapman then gets into the thrust of his editorial:

That's roughly our plight in Iraq. Even one of President Bush's key allies, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says "the situation in Iraq can now best be described as dire and deteriorating" and "our window of opportunity to reverse momentum may be closing." Hard-core supporters of the war, no longer able to pretend that we are making progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq, have fallen back to their last line of defense -- insisting that no matter how bad things are with us in Iraq, things would be far worse with us out.

Well, no, we are not being held hostage in Iraq. On the flip side, he is right about the support for continued operations in Iraq is a bit lagging of late, mostly on the part of those who have announced plans to run for the presidency in '08. Like McCain.

Whether or not the "window of opportunity" is closing is true, there is no doubt that the right strategy in Iraq can succeed. The right strategy goes beyond the obvious "surge" in troop deployments in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. Even reaching out to the people of Iraq and the reconstruction of the nation's infrastructure may not be sufficient, as we have been doing since 2003. We need to make it such that Iraqi's feel secure enough that they can identify terrorists and sectarian death squad members without fear of reprisal against them and their families. As long as they live with that fear, that turning in a terrorist will result in the death of their entire family, it is difficult to make any real headway.

Pulling out, the argument goes, would destroy our credibility and embolden the terrorists. Neoconservative Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is among those confidently predicting a parade of horribles: ethnic slaughter, a regional war and a secure base for Al-Qaida to launch attacks on us and our allies.

If we withdraw, he wrote recently in the Washington Post, "the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous." And there is the old argument that if we don't fight the terrorists in Iraq, we will have to fight them at home.

These points, contrary to what Chapman would have us believe, are true. The sectarian violence will continue, fueled by Iran. Iran may even cease its covert operations and openly move to convert Iraq into a totalitarian theocracy like itself, making Iraq a satellite state. Possible? Probable!

Once that is done, al-Qaeda will have a new base of operations, having won the waiting game with the U.S. as Congress continues to show a lack of backbone to do the heavy lifting necessary to create a stable and democratic Iraq.

We know that al-Qaeda, and recently, Hezbollah, has cells operating in the U.S. Once the U.S. ends operations in Iraq, these terror groups will be able to focus on their operations in America and other Western nations. They will also have a fall back position in Iraq should things turn sour. They will also have a supplier of nuclear materials with which to build small nukes that can kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single attack.

There will also be the stockpiles of weaponry still in Iraq that have not been fully inventoried, from which over 500 chemical weapons have been identified, recovered, and destroyed since 2003. How many more chemical weapons remain in Iraq is unknown.

Winning in Iraq is not an option, nor is it a luxury we can't afford. It is a necessity. The enemy fears a democratic state in their midst, and that is why the road to success has grown more difficult.

It also has not helped that we brokered a deal with Muqtada al-Sadr and his gang of thugs in 2004.

It won't be cheap. Victory never is. Not in blood, nor in money. I care about the loss of life. As for the money, spend whatever it takes to get it done. The key, though, is making Iraq safe for the people of Iraq so that they will not live in fear for their lives. Once that is achieved, a free and stable Iraq can be achieved.

Tags:

Iraq War+on+Terror Nuclear Weapons Chemical Weapons Democracy al-Qaeda Hezbollah Iran

Posted by Sqotty at 7:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Speaking of Hezbollah and Iran, this is off of FoxNews:

Hezbollah is presently receiving a "constant stream of armaments" from Syria, Iran and other foreign sources, senior Israeli officials said Tuesday, and the terror group is "preparing for violence" in an increasingly radicalized Middle East.

"They are getting all kinds of rockets, advanced anti-tank missiles, command-and-control systems, training, finance," an Israeli official said. Asked if the group has fully reconstituted back to where it was before the war in terms of military capability, the official said: "They are certainly on their way."

This is a serious problem for Israel. There is no doubt that militarily, Hezbollah can’t stand up to the IDF in a toe-to-toe fight. That’s a trend I hope continues. However, the buildup is disturbing as it threatens to continue the destabilizing influence in Lebanon.

Enabling Hezbollah's rearmament, the official said, is the "open border" Lebanon shares with Syria, and the lack of "real teeth for enforcement" in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718, which established a ceasefire in the Israeli-Hezbollah war last August.

And, of course, the Liberal-Left’s darling, the United Nations, is a no show on enforcing its resolution that brought about the ceasefire last year.

I don’t know what it’s going to take to bring peace and stability to the Middle East, but it is obvious to me that the U.N. hasn’t got the answers. Maybe next time we should go ahead and let Israel finish the job. But I don’t think that will solve the problems over there, either.

There artivle continues with current activities in Gaza and internecine violence between Hamas and Fatah.

Tags:

Iran War on Terror Hezbollah Israel

Posted by Sqotty at 7:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It's been another bad day in Baghdad, as a suicide bomber driving a truck loaded with a ton of explosives. set off his bomb in a busy Shiite market place, killing an estimated 121 people. This attack took place in advance of impending U.S. lead security sweeps and increased military presence. From the Star Tribune:

Many of the injured from the market blast were driven to overwhelmed hospitals in pickup trucks and angry young men lifted bodies onto stretchers. The Kindi hospital, Baghdad's main emergency facility, quickly filled had to start refusing patients, asking ambulances to take them elsewhere.

"It was a strong blow. A car exploded. I fell on the ground," said one young man with a bandaged head, his face still streaked with blood.

Police and hospital officials said at least 121 people were killed and 226 wounded. The Health Ministry put the figure at 105 killed and 331 wounded.

This was a major attack, designed to prompt even more sectarian violence. It was followed up by a mortar attack on a Sunni neighborhood in which 2 people were killed, and about 20 more injured.

There is, however, some bit of good news out of Iraq as the ribbon was cut on a new school in Al Salamiyah. From Mutli-National Force Iraq:

Soldiers from the 4th Brigade, 2nd Iraqi Army Division partnered with civil affairs teams and Soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, in celebrating the completion of an $88,500 renovation project at Salamiyah Primary School on Jan. 31. Brig. Gen. Noraddeen, commander of 4-2 IA, and Ahmed Esad, mayor of Al Salamiyah, presided over the ribbon-cutting ceremony. Both men took a tour of the renovated school and spoke with students and teachers immediately after the event.

These kinds of activities continue to be ignored by the main stream media, however, they are just as important, if not more so, as it depicts the positive efforts going on to stabilize Iraq. There is regular reports similar to this on the Multi-National Force site. It is worth checking on a regular basis, as this kind of information rarely makes it into the major news outlets. Yet, it is important to know that the news from Iraq is not all doom and gloom.

It is possible to win in Iraq, and to establish a truly democratic society. It will be a long, hard road, and very expensive, not just in money, but in human life as well. I have no doubt, though, that the benefits, when they are realized, will outweigh the costs. Regardless of the outcome, it will be hard to justify to those who have lost loved ones in Iraq, and to those that have paid the price with their blood.

Tags:

War on Terror Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 2:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This is disturbing news out of Iraq. From FoxNews:

Several Iraqis have been detained for questioning in the ongoing investigation of at least two senior Iraqi generals suspected of involvement in an insurgent attack that killed five American soldiers on Jan. 20, U.S. officials told FOX News on Thursday.

The attack occurred at a provincial government security compound in Karbala where the Americans were meeting with local Iraqi security officers. Gunmen stormed the facility dressed like American soldiers and driving SUVs, military officials in Iraq said.

The Pentagon has called this a sophisticated and troubling assault and much more orchestrated than the usual attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces. Because of that, military officials say they have strong suspicions that the Iranian government or elements of it may have been involved. Four of the five American soldiers were abducted before being shot execution style.

The piece goes on to describe the attack in some detail. The murdering thugs were wearing new U.S. Army fatigues, and carrying American military weapons and equipment. They spoke English and the SUVs used were of a type typically used in convoys.

There is a probability that the two generals under investigation may have at least had advance word of the attack, possibly even directly involved as the attack showed a level of detail knowledge that neither al-Qaeda or the various death squads would otherwise have. One of the Iraqi generals under investigation is an intelligence office, and that makes the situation even more troubling.

If we can't rely on the Iraqi military leadership, then the situation in Iraq is in serious trouble.

Tags:

War on Terror Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 7:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

For those still poo-pooing "the surge," it is now apparent that the terrorists in Iraq are taking it seriously. From FoxNews:

Death squad leaders have fled Baghdad to evade capture or killing by U.S. and Iraqi forces before the start of the troop "surge" and security crackdown in the capital.

A former senior Iraqi minister said most of the leaders loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical anti-American cleric, had gone into hiding in Iran.

Among those said to have fled is Abu Deraa, theShiite militia leader whose appetite for sectarian savagery has been compared to that of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed last year.

I also seem to recall a blurb that al-Sadr is trying to make "peace" with the Iraqi government, as he now knows he isn't going to get the same second chance he received in 2004 if he continues with his death squad operations.

That many are now "hiding in Iran" further proves the point that Iran has been fueling much of the sectarian violence that has been going on in Iraq during the last few years.

Hopefully "the surge" (sounds like the name of a hockey team) will prove successful. We need victory in Iraq in order to bring stability to that country. We should not settle for anything less than that, nor should the people of Iraq.

Tags:

Muqtada al-Sadr Iraq War On Terror the Surge Iran

Posted by Sqotty at 7:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Michael "Double Chocolate Malt" Moore has hit on a plan to win in Iraq. As ludicrous as it sounds, it is a workable plan. There are, however, a few very serious drawbacks. First, is plan is meant as "satire," for whatever that's worth. But, since he is the darling of the Liberal-Left that has run amuck in the Democratic Party, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone, say Nancy Pelosi, take the idiot seriously. Here's what the DCM Moore recommends as a plan for victory in Iraq:

Listen, can I be frank? Sending in 20,000 more troops just ain't gonna do the job. That will only bring the troop level back up to what it was last year. And we were losing the war last year! We've already had over a million troops serve some time in Iraq since 2003. Another few thousand is simply not enough to find those weapons of mass destruction! Er, I mean... bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice! Um, scratch that. Try this -- BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE MIDDLE EAST! YES!!!

You've got to show some courage, dude! You've got to win this one! C'mon, you got Saddam! You hung 'im high! I loved watching the video of that -- just like the old wild west! The bad guy wore black! The hangmen were as crazy as the hangee! Lynch mobs rule!!!

Look, I have to admit I feel very sorry for the predicament you're in. As Ricky Bobby said, "If you're not first, you're last." And you being humiliated in front of the whole world does NONE of us Americans any good.

Sir, listen to me. You have to send in MILLIONS of troops to Iraq, not thousands! The only way to lick this thing now is to flood Iraq with millions of us! I know that you're out of combat-ready soldiers -- so you have to look elsewhere! The only way you are going to beat a nation of 27 million -- Iraq -- is to send in at least 28 million! Here's how it would work:

The first 27 million Americans go in and kill one Iraqi each. That will quickly take care of any insurgency. The other one million of us will stay and rebuild the country. Simple.

Now, I know you're saying, where will I find 28 million Americans to go to Iraq? Here are some suggestions:

1. More than 62,000,000 Americans voted for you in the last election (the one that took place a year and half into a war we already knew we were losing). I am confident that at least a third of them would want to put their body where their vote was and sign up to volunteer. I know many of these people and, while we may disagree politically, I know that they don't believe someone else should have to go and fight their fight for them -- while they hide here in America.

2. Start a "Kill an Iraqi" Meet-Up group in cities across the country. I know this idea is so early-21st century, but I once went to a Lou Dobbs Meet-Up and, I swear, some of the best ideas happen after the third mojito. I'm sure you'll get another five million or so enlistees from this effort.

3. Send over all members of the mainstream media. After all, they were your collaborators in bringing us this war -- and many of them are already trained from having been "embedded!" If that doesn't bring the total to 28 million, then draft all viewers of the FOX News channel.

Mr. Bush, do not give up! Now is not the time to pull your punch! Don't be a weenie by sending in a few over-tired troops. Get your people behind you and YOU lead them in like a true commander in chief! Leave no conservative behind! Full speed ahead!

What Michael Moron is proposing is the entire annihilation of the people of Iraq. Of course, in true chickendove fashion, Moore does not intend that he, or others that think like he does, should have to serve in the armed forces, or go do such dirty work as he has outlined.

Moore's rhetoric continues to be as offensive as ever, and shows what level of intellect he is capable of, which isn't saying very much. Of course, those who think he's great, like Jimmy Carter, aren't any better.

What is even more sickening about Moore's tirade is that he seems to believe it is the Bush policy (or perhaps he believes it SHOULD be the Bush policy) to kill every Iraqi. Moore seems to like the "kill 'em all" idea. I don't know why, but it sure doesn't sit well with me, and I don't think the people of Iraq would be too thrilled with it either.

Maybe, just maybe, one day I will learn why Moore and his kind are such a bunch of hate mongers.

Meanwhile, we should let his plan lie on a waste heap, 'cause that is where it belongs. Ever get the feeling he is still in mourning over Saddam's execution?

Tags:

Michael Moore Iraq War On Terror Bush

Posted by Sqotty at 2:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Looks like Iran is pushing towards nuclear weapons again. This is off of FoxNews:

Iran expects to start installing thousands of centrifuges in an underground facility next month, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Friday. The installation would pave the way to large-scale uranium enrichment, a potential way of making nuclear weapons.

Iran has yet to cease its pursuit of refining uranium to high levels of purity, despite calls from the International community to cease such operations. Diplomacy has not worked with Iran, which is not surprising, as they are intent on having things their way only. Diplomacy can only work when all parties involved are interested in reaching the same goals.

Emplacing the centrifuges underground, most probably deep underground, is a way to safeguard their operations from observation and from attack.

Iran has repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel, as well as threatened the U.S. Add to that its ongoing operations inside of Iraq, disrupting that fledgling democracy, should it complete its plans and develop nuclear weapons, the dynamics in the Middle East will shift dramatically, and not in a good direction.

Tags:

Iran Iraq War On Terror Nuclear Weapons

Posted by Sqotty at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It looks as though we are about to play a little more "hard ball" with Iranian agents operating in Iraq. From FoxNews:

The U.S. military have received the OK to kill or capture Iranian operatives found inside Iraq, the Washington Post reported Friday, as part of an effort to destabilize Tehran's influence in Iraq and the Middle East.

Citing government and counterterrorism officials, the Post reported the move by President Bush is also part of a strategy to compel Iran to give up its nuclear program.

It is common knowledge that Iran has been funneling money, arms and personnel into Iraq in support of Islamic Fundamentalist groups. The Media has reported on this on numerous occasions. Up until now, Iranian agents have been handled with kid gloves, released once they have been identified, and DNA/retina scans/fingerprints have been taken.

This change in policy will send a signal to the Ayatollahs in Iran that their continued interference in Iraq will not be tolerated.

Unless, of course, the Democrats have their way and pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, thus ending the Coalition, and jeopardizing everything that has been accomplished throughout that region. Such will send a signal to Iran that they will have a free hand in Iraq, and it will become a satellite state of the Ayatollahs, just as Lebanon is not much more than a surrogate of Syria.

Tags:

Iran Iraq War On Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

FoxNews is reporting that man in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia has been convicted for attempting to sell a small amount of weapons grade Uranium.

The Russian who tried to sell the uranium to an undercover agent was identified as Oleg Khinsagov, who appeared to have connections to organized crime, but leads to terrorist connections were still being investigated.

Khinsagov, who was arrested in a rundown apartment in the Georgian Capital of Tblisis, believed the undercover agent who was making the buy was an Islamic radical from Turkey.

Georgian officials said attempts to trace the nuclear material and investigate the man's claim that he had access to larger quantities have foundered from a lack of assistance from Russia.

The man arrested also asserted that he was able to obtain larger quantities of U-235. Although the amount Khinsagov was in possession of was stated as four ounces, this is serious, as it only takes about 12 pounds for a small nuke.

That he also believed he was selling it to a "Islamic radical from Turkey" also indicates that he would be willing to sell it al-Qaeda. Luckily, this cretin is now out of circulation, at least for the next 8-10 years.

Set aside all of the political carping going on around the attempted sale of weapons grade uranium, this may only be the tip of the iceberg. Has Khinsagov sold, or attempted to sell U-235 in the past? If so, who to and where is it now? Who are his suppliers? And, finally, how much of this stuff is there out there on the black market now?

Tags:

Nuclear Weapons Russia War On Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 6:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's mouthpiece, operating from a spider hole somewhere in the mountains of either Afghanistan or Pakistan, released another propaganda speech, this time in response to the Bush Adminstrations "Surge" plan, sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq (mainly to Baghdad). It consists of much of the same rhetoric as before. From FoxNews:

In the message, which includes English subtitles, al-Zawahiri calls on President Bush to send the entire American Army to Iraq, saying the Mujahadeen (warriors engaged in jihad) are capable of destroying the equivalent of 10 armies.

Al-Zawahiri warns that peace is impossible if Americans continue to follow Bush's policies.

"If we are secure, you might be secure; and if we are safe, you might be safe," al-Zawahiri says. "And if we are struck and killed, you will definitely -- with Allah's permission -- be struck and killed."

So far, the Mujahadeen have not even defeated, let alone destroyed, one U.S. Army, let alone 10, as Zawahiri boasts. And he is only half-right where peace is concerned. They started their war with the U.S. years before Bush was elected. It will not end when Bush leaves office two years from now, regardless of the electoral outcome. Al-Qaeda will continue its war with the west whether a Republican or a Democrat occupies the Oval Office. The only difference will be the intensity of the war, and where it will take root next.

Zawahiri continues with a claim that if they are secure, then America might be secure. In other words, they are keeping the path of terrorism open. If we pull out of the Middle East, leaving them to their own devices, we will still not be safe. Al-Qaeda and those who would flock to its banner would look at our leaving Iraq prematurely as a victory for their cause, and will be emboldened to pursue more attacks on America.

Leaving Iraq prematurely would seriously damage U.S. credibility throughout the world, and that is also the point. Either we have what it takes to get the job done and establish Liberty in Iraq, or we don't. One path leads to victory, the other to defeat and more terrorism.

Tags:

Zawahiri al-Qaeda Iraq War On Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Interesting editorial from the Red Star Tribune on how Democrats are now being blamed for the "mess" in Iraq.

A new, pernicious line of argument is taking hold in Washington that should be clunked in the head until it dies. It holds that the Democrats in Congress are to blame for the mess in Iraq because they have offered no alternative around which Americans can rally, and that this is because they and their friends in the antiwar community want the United States to fail.

I believe it is correct to say that Democrats and their Liberal, anti-war, puppeteers are to blame, at least in part, the reasoning to do so is not due to reasons outlined in the editorial, but due to their continuous calls for withdrawing from Iraq, references to Iraq as being "another Vietnam," and various types of rhetoric, such as "No war for oil" and "Bush lied, people died." Instead of supporting the mission of our troops in Iraq, they continue to thwart the administration's plans that may bring victory, choosing to use Iraq as a political hockey puck in order to achieve their own politcal gain (which, as shown in the 2006 elections, had some impact on the composition of the new Congress).

It also doesn't help that our involvement in Iraq, as during our operations in Vietnam, garnered anti-war protests, and liberal celebrities using their stardom to convey an anti-war message. This emboldens the terrorists and sectarian death squads operating in Iraq. It also sends a signal to Iraq's neighbors, Syria and Iran, giving them a "green light" to continue to supply arms, money, and manpower to the anti-government forces operating in Iraq.

This is not Vietnam, nor should this war be compared to that war. Except for the home ground, where the media, the leftist anti-war zealots, and Liberal Democrats push for abandoning the fledgling democracy in Iraq before it has a chance to set down roots and anchor itself deep enough to overcome the challenges that terrorists and sectarian death squads pose.

Here is another fine example of the real reason we are having such troubles achieving victory in Iraq:

Underlying this reasoning is a bleak recognition that Bush's latest gambit, built around the so-called surge, won't work, coupled with some magical thinking: that indeed a formula exists which could reverse American fortunes and bring the Iraq expedition to a successful conclusion. But, the argument goes, Democrats have failed to embrace it, so this mess is their fault.

Lots of small, inconvenient facts are jettisoned to make this argument -- such as the growing number of Republicans who are joining their Democratic colleagues in opposition to the war. But the central, painful truth that gets ignored is this: Nothing can reverse American fortunes in Iraq. The United States already has failed. Bush failed. It's over. All that remains is working through the best way to get American troops out of Iraq.

There is a plan which can accomplish that, put forward by the Iraq Study Group (ISG). It entails shifting from a military to a political and diplomatic emphasis, strengthening efforts to train Iraqi troops and beginning the withdrawal of American combat forces. We wish the Democrats would use the power of the purse to force Bush's acceptance of the ISG approach. The political risk is that they would then be accused of undermining the troops. But that's a risk worth taking, and the Democrats have a good retort: They weren't the ones who put the troops in Iraq in the first place, in inadequate numbers with inadequate resources (remember the missing armor?). It now falls to the Democrats to keep the troops safe by the only effective way possible: getting them out of Iraq.

The understanding I have (and I could be mistaken) is that the "surge" was part of the plan put forth by the ISG. With five brigades being added to the area surrounding Baghdad, the hottest spot in Iraq, effectively doubling the number of "boots on the ground," it may be possible to finally securing that part of the country. That is the key to achieving victory in Iraq. Secure the capital and its immediate surroundings, and you have the basis to secure the rest of the country, and send a message to Iraq's enemies, most notably Iran, that their continued interference with Iraq will not be tolerated.

It is also false to say that the Democrats were not "the ones to put troops in Iraq in the first place." They all (with maybe one or two exceptions) voted in favor of liberating Iraq. Liberating Iraq was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do today.

One thing the editorial does get right is that the bulk of Democrats never embraced the plan. The only reason for that is because it was put forth by President Bush, and not one of their own. I have no doubt that if it we had elected Gore in 2000 (and no, the election was not stolen from him), they (the Democrats in congress) would have rallied behind any plan he set forth. Of course, that would most likely be some superficial aerial bombing of Afghanistan with little or no effect on al-Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein would be alive and well, and continuing to butcher Iraq's that oppose him.

As for the "missing armor," that was the fault of Democrats voting against funding the necessary equipment for the troops in the field. Remember John Kerry's "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against." A sizable part of that was for body armor and other equipment for the troops serving in Iraq. It is Congress that controls the purse strings of government, and if the troops were in Iraq with insufficient equipment, it is because Congress failed to provide the funding necessary to assure that the troops were properly equipped.

Somehow, I am not surprised by the extreme bias presented by the Red Star Tribune. The Main Stream Media has been, for some time now, nothing more than the propaganda arm for the left-wing of the Democratic party. In their opinion, Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do nothing right. Yeesh!

Tags:

Iraq Study Group Iraq Vietnam War On Terror Kerry

Posted by Sqotty at 4:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This is off of Breitbart.com:

"We're not going to baby sit a civil war," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told NBC's "Today" Show. He said the Democratic-controlled Congress would not undercut troops already in Iraq but would explore ways to restrict the president from expanding the mission.

"Restrict the president from expanding the mission?!" How does he intend to do that without violating his oath of office. The Constitution made the president "Commander in Chief" of the military, not Senator Barack Obama. Congress controls the budget, the president commands the troops. The only way Obama and the other chickendoves in Congress can impact troop deployments is to cut the military budget. Are they prepared to do so?

Obama also called current operations as "babysitting a civil war." What the heck did he think we were doing in Somalia in '93?

Whether or not Iraq is in civil war, and it is at least on the brink of such, if we withfraw from Iraq, we will have another Cambodia, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, dead. Iran will invade and expand their Facist Theocracy into Iraq, while putting a stanglehold on oil exports from that region.

Is Obama and the rest of the chickendoves in Congress willing to have that on their hands? Do they really truly care?

Tags:
Barack Obama Chickendoves Congress Iraq Civil War

Posted by Sqotty at 6:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

President Bush addressed the nation this evening, presenting a new plan for victory in Iraq. The new plan is a welcome change in our policy in Iraq.

In his speech, President Bush acknowledged one of the greatest successes of the Islamic Terrorists operating there, and that was the bombing of the Golden Mosque of Samara, which resulted in the Shia population forming death squads to retaliate against the Sunni population. It further escalated into a vicious cycle of sectarian violence.

Part of the new plan for Iraq includes increasing troop deployments there by 20,000 soldiers, something the Democrats who now control Congress will, no doubt, do their utmost to prevent, as they would rather implement a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. All I can say is, it's about time. This should have occurred within the first months following the bombing of the Golden Mosque.

Five additional brigades to be deployed to Baghdad, where they have been desperately as most of the violence is occurring within some 30 miles of Baghdad.

Here's a part of the transcript of the speech (FoxNews):

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people - and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group - a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

Yep, he's right. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would give the Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists the green light to take over Iraq, and install a fascist theocracy similar to that which currently rules Iran. It would also send a signal to Iran that the U.S. would not come to Iraq's aid should they invade once U.S. forces are withdrawn. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis would die. Any redeployment of U.S. forces would come too late for many Iraqis if (and when) such events should (and would) occur.

Another 4,000 troops are to be deployed to the Anbar province, an area that al-Qaeda has made the most dangerous area outside of Baghdad. That's about a brigade in strength. It's a large region, so it will most likely have to be heavily integrated with Iraqi forces to be fully effective.

I don't know it these plans are sufficient to bring peace to Iraq. It is, however, a good start. A step in what I believe is the right direction. It is also the message I've been waiting to hear for some time now. It is time to take off the gloves and let the military do what they have been trained to do: win the war in Iraq.

Tags:

President Bush Iraq Military al-Qaeda Baghdad Dubya

Posted by Sqotty at 9:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Sun Online has this report on the possibility of Prince Harry being deployed to Iraq:

PRINCE Harry's lover Chelsy Davy is to travel the world after telling pals: "Haz is off to war."

Her remark is the strongest hint yet that the 22-year-old Royal WILL see action in Iraq.

Chelsy, 21, hopes her trip will keep her mind off her fears while cavalryman Harry joins comrades for a dangerous tour of duty.

There are two interesting angles to this article. First: Prince Harry going to war in a combat zone filled with terrorists who have no qualms about using suicide bombers to attack Iraqi and Coalition Forces. What will happen, if Prince harry is deployed, is that he will act as a magnate, attracting regular attacks, especially the aforementioned suicide bombers. This will increase the likelihood that large numbers of his comrades in arms will be killed or wounded at what would be an abnormally high rate. Especially since it is being broadcasted far and wide that the Royal may end up in their sights. Not good.

A sub-angle to this is the frequent calls here in the U.S. by such "brilliant" people as Matt Damon, who recently called for, among other things, sending President Bush's daughters to Iraq as part of a military deployment. Of course Matt Damon has still not enlisted into the Army and volunteered for service in Iraq. many other Moonbats on the left have used the same argument: send the Bush daughters to war in Iraq.

The possibility of Prince Harry going to war adds a sharp counter-point to the demand that the children of our leaders should serve in Iraq. Their doing so, whether it is the British Royals or our own Presidential offspring, will garner unwanted attention on their units by the bad guys still operating over in Iraq. The number of attacks would escalate, with a focus on units that contain such high profile targets, and the casualty rate for those units would be far higher.

The second angle of interest on this article is that Prince Harry's girlfriend feels the need to go travelling while he is off in Iraq (assuming he is deployed) as being the only means by which she can cope with his being in harm's way on a daily basis during his (proposed) tour of duty. Must be nice to be able to travel to Reno as part of a proposed long term vacation while the person you love is getting shot at by terrorists.

Some girlfriend Prince Harry has. He can do better. And if he is deployed to Iraq, I hope he finds himself someone who is of better character who will put thinking of his safety ahead of her having to get away from it all in order to deal with her fears. I have no doubt that many spouses would like to be able to get away for a long vacation during such a trying time, however, there is a big difference between thinking about it, then biting the bullet and dealing with the reality and going off to have fun for how ever long the deployment lasts.

If Prince Harry is deployed, I wish him and his comrades well. Bottom line though, is if he (or other high profile warriors) is deployed, it should be kept secret for the safety of all who serve.

Posted by Sqotty at 7:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

FoxNews has a good piece on the holiday cards that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are receiving.

How do you say "Season's Greetings" to an enemy combatant being held at Guantanamo Bay? It's only a guess, but maybe the cheerful holiday cards go like this: Dear Avowed Enemy of America: Merry Christmas.

Dear I Yearn to Be a Martyr and Hook Up With 72 Virgins in Heaven: Happy Hanukkah.

It's a well-established tradition for Americans at home to deliver Christmas cheer to U.S. soldiers stationed around the world, but it turns out that prisoners held in the War on Terror are getting good tidings of their own, too.

I have no idea who thought this one up, but I like it.

My greeting to them would be something along the line: "Christ is born. Merry Christmas. Jesus Loves you!"

Posted by Sqotty at 4:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This is off of FoxNews:

Mohammed Yusef Mullawala wanted a license to transport hazardous materials and to learn how to drive commercial tractor trailers. There was nothing unusual about that, until he told his teacher that he only wanted to learn how to drive forward, and he wanted to learn fast.

Sound familiar? Like a bunch of guys who wanted to learn how to fly a jet airliner, but not learn how to land it? Why would anyone want to learn how to drive a tracto trailer (big rig) in only the forward direction? That doesn't make sense. Combined with insistance of getting a license to transport hazardous material, and you've got some serious questions coming your way.

Mullawala, who has Indian citizenship, and of Pakistani descent, was living in New York, yet obtained a Rhode Island driver's license and attending commercial trucking classes in Rhode Island.

Still think he's not up to something? Read on:

Investigators learned that when Mullawala obtained his driver's license from the Rhode Island Registry of Motor Vehicles, he gave a false statement indicating he was a Rhode Island resident. ICE then determined he was a citizen of India and in the United States on an expired temporary student visa.

Anybody recall how many of the 9/11 terrorists were in the U.S. on expired visas? At least one of them was.

Tags:

War on Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 6:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Here’s a good one off of FoxNews:

A man was arrested at Detroit Metropolitan Airport after officials say they found him carrying $78,883 in cash and a laptop computer containing information about nuclear materials and cyanide.

According to reports, a dog (assuming a narcotics dog) found the scent of drugs on cash that Sisayehiticha Dinssa was carrying. He was traveling from Nigeria to Phoenix, via Amsterdam and Detroit. He declared that he was carrying only $18,000 in cash. An additional $60,000 in cash was found in his luggage. That’s a heckuva a lot of dough for someone who is unemployed to be carrying around.

When agents scrolled through his laptop and discovered files containing information related to nuclear materials and cyanide, one has to ask, "who is this guy and what is he up to?"

Let’s see, a large amount of drug tainted cash, data on nuclear materials and cyanide, traveling from Nigeria, which mines uranium. Failed to declare the full amount of cash traveling with. Stopped in Amsterdam, the land of "recreational drug use." Gotta wonder, how much cash did he leave there?

I guess it was lucky that this duffis had cash with another drug taint to alert the dogs. Otherwise, he probably would have slipped through the port of entry unchallenged, and be on his way to carry out whatever plans he had.

Tags:

Sisayehiticha Dinssa
War on Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 7:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

New tape from al-Qaeda states that there will be no peace until they have destroyed the White House. From FoxNews:

"We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have destroyed the dirty black house -- which is called the White House," al-Muhajir said.

The "olive trees of Rumieh" appeared to be a reference to the Mount of Olive in Jerusalem, or Christendom in general as a continuation of the Roman empire.

For those who believe that we can negotiate a peace with the jihadists, or that pulling out of Iraq will make things better, think again. Ain't going to happen.

There is no doubt that they will continue their jihad against the West until they are eliminated, or we are subjugated under their heel.

What is laughable is this guy's reference to Bush as being the "stupidest president" in U.S. History. I think that moniker belongs to Jimmy Carter, who screwed over Iran and brokered the deal that allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons. Thanks again, Jimmy!

Still reading The Looming Tower. It's a brilliant book, and should be required reading.

Tags:

al-Qaeda
War on Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Zawahiri, the Egyptian terrorist and No. 2 man in al Qaeda, is spewing out venom again.

"Bush, oh failure and liar, why don't you be courageous for once and confront your people and tell them the truth about your losses in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I am unaware of any time in which the Bush Administration has attempted to deceive America in believing our casualty rate is worse than has been documented. for one reason, the press would figure it out.

Zawahiri is just frothing at the mouth, as usual.

BBC News

Tags:

Zawahiri
Al Qaeda
War on Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 3:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Egads, what an editorial in the Red Star Tribune. Colleen Rowley, the extreme Leftist and anti-liberate Iraq candidate for the Minnesota 2nd Congressional District, and Jerald Albrecht, a former officer of the Army Reserve, are attacking Bush policy on Iraq and the GOP in general.

It starts off simply enough, stating the obvious on the dedication of the members of the Armed Forces in doing their duty, but then they go way off base with:

Bush first failed the troops when he put them in harm's way despite knowing that the threat from Iraq was practically nonexistent. He then failed to provide them with the tools to succeed: no plan to secure the peace, insufficient body armor, questionable support from Dick Cheney's Halliburton cronies and one-third the number of troops necessary to get the job done. But most shameful of all has been the willingness of Bush and the GOP leadership to use our troops as a tool for political gain.

Our armed forces went into Iraq, along with forces from the coalition partners, to LIBERATE Iraq from a mass-murdering dictator, who, during his reign, killed some 500,000 of his own people, including using chemical weapons on the Kurdish population; mutilating others; torturing many more. His sons maintained rape rooms where they took women AGAINST their will, then raped and murdered them.

They also claim that Iraq, under Hussein, had far more access to electricity, water and other vital necessities than they do today. Admitted, the war and ongoing terrorism have hindered the re-establishment of vital infrastructure, however, that infrastructure is being rebuilt with great improvements.

They also claim that the troops have not had the tools necessary to accomplish the mission, and blames the Bush Administration for that, even though it is CONGRESS that controls the purse strings, not the president.

Then there is also the claim that Bush and the Republican party are using the troops as a tool for military game. If anything, it is Rowley and her ilk in the Democratic Party and the left-wing zealots of the “hate Bush” crowd that are attempting to use the troops as apolitical tool.

They castigate the use by Republicans of "cut and run" when we refer to Democratic operatives and candidates, and that any one who does not believe in "staying the course" is accused of Neville Chamberlain like appeasement. News flash for Rowley: you are supporting a “cut and run” policy and course of appeasement, which will only embolden the terrorists to carry out even more attacks, and killing more Americans, British, French, and peoples of other nations.

I find it highly disturbing that these two Moonbats believe the people of Iraq were better off under Hussein than they are in pursuing Democracy.

I am further offended by their reference to those of us who have served or currently serving as being part of a "military machine." Our volunteer military is anything BUT a machine.

They continue:

Since the occupation began, Iraq has been on a slow, inexorable slide toward civil war; our two top generals in the region recently testified that the current situation in Iraq is the worst it's ever been.

And if we leave Iraq before the job is done and people of Iraq have had a chance to secure their nation and their liberty, then it will slide into civil war.

Sure, there are bad things happening in Iraq, like the recent dumping of 65 Iraqi bodies by death squads that are still operating in that country.

The only thing preventing the civil war are the Coalition troops currently operating with the Iraqi Army. Pull out prematurely, al Qaeda and Iran will view it as a victory for their side. Then the terrorists operating in Iraq, once they overthrow the new Iraqi government and install a new totalitarian regime, will move on to other countries to continue their jihad against the West.

Despite overwhelming evidence that Iraq's stability has been steadily eroding, Bush has made his intentions clear: He expects our troops to "stay the course" until he leaves office -- nearly three more years.

As a resident of Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District, the district Rowley is running in, I am particularly interested in what she says, and look forward to her going down in defeat this November.

Tags:

Coleen Rowley
Iraq
Military
War on Terror
Congress
cut and run

Posted by Sqotty at 8:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

FoxNews has a short article quoting Dunsel Kofi Annan that most Middle East leaders believe that the liberation of Iraq is a disaster.

Annan said many leaders believed the United States should stay until Iraq improves, while others, such as Iran, said the United States should leave immediately. That means that the United States has found itself in the difficult position where "it cannot stay and it cannot leave."

Interesting to note that Iran is identified as a country that believes the United States should abandon Iraq immediately. Just a guess, but I bet Syria is on that list as well.

I can understand why Iran wants the U.S. out of the region: with the U.S. out of the region, it will be easier to continue refining Uranium as well as continued border harassment of the Iraqi military, such as what was reported a couple of days ago in the World Tribune, where seven Iraqi soldiers were kidnapped Iranian soldiers and taken into Iran.

On Sept. 7, officials said, an Iraqi border patrol spotted an Iranian outpost in Iraqi territory. A clash ensued and the seven Iraqi soldiers were captured and taken into Iran, they said.

With the U.S. and coalition forces out of the way, how long before these "border incidents" turn into an all out war between Iraq and Iran?

Back to Dunsel Annan:

"Most of the leaders I spoke to felt the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath has been a real disaster for them," Annan said. "They believe it has destabilized the region."

Like, the region was stable BEFORE the liberation of Iraq? Hussein and his regime murdered some 500,000 Iraqis…and that's stability?

Meanwhile, at the Multi-Nation Force Iraq website, there is more good news from Iraq, including a piece on the carpture of a terrorist weapons cache.

Tags:

Kofi Annan
Iraq
Iran
Middle East

Posted by Sqotty at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Today is a solemn day: it is September 11th, 2006, the Fifth Anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Along with the gallant heroes of UA Flight 93, who sacrificed their lives in an attempt to regain control of that aircraft rather than see it slammed into yet another building, over 3,000 people of different nationalities were murdered by Al Qaeda terrorists. Today is a day to remember and honor those who sacrificed their lives trying to save thousands of people who were in the Twin Towers of the WTC; firefighters, police and other first responders, who went into those burning buildings knowing there was a high probability that they, themselves, may well not get out alive.

It is a time to remember the cheers that rang out through the Muslim world, from the Palestinian Territories to Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan; the terrorists and their supporters who celebrated these brutal attacks and the murder of thousands of people in the name of their god. They celebrated in the streets, firing guns into the air, and honoring the murdering thugs that carried out the attacks, calling them heroes and martyrs.

The real heroes were on the ground in New York and Washington D.C. and the real martyrs the passengers on United 93 who attempted to wrest control of that aircraft away from the terrorists.

9/11 was one more attack on America in the jihad that Islamic terrorists have been carrying on for decades; it does not matter whether it was the bombing of airliners over Scotland or a restaurant near Madrid carried out by Libyan terrorists, or the bombing of a German disco; the string of suicide bombings in Israel; or the ’93 bombing of the WTC which marked the rise of Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda and lead to the bombings of U.S. embassies and the U.S.S. Cole, and culminating in the attacks on 9/11. It is all the same to them; war on the West, war on America.

Tags:

9/11
Al Qaeda
World Trade Center
United Flight 93

Posted by Sqotty at 9:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

There seem to be a few Republicans that are joining the Party of Cut and Run…this off of FoxNews:

Perhaps no other Republican exemplifies this subtle position shift more than Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., who surprised everyone recently by calling for a "timeframe" for U.S withdrawal from Iraq.

"I believe that our troops cannot be there indefinitely. I believe we need to have a sense of when our troops can withdraw," Shays told reporters.

This was considered quite a shift, as Shays - recognized widely as an independent moderate unafraid of bucking the party line - had gone to Iraq 14 times and, until the last time, had always returned with a sense of progress and an insistence that timetables were inappropriate.

I call this pandering to the Left in order to win votes. When Shays claims we cannot keep troops there indefinitely, what about the troops we have kept in Germany, Japan and other countries since 1945? Are we going to withdraw from those countries as well?

The difference between the maintaining troops in Iraq and Germany is that Iraq is unpopular with a part of the electorate who don't get that we in Iraq to eliminate terrorists operating in Iraq (a regrettable attitude is that it is better to fight them over there than over here), and preventing the country from sliding into a civil war and reverting back to a totalitarian regime, possibly even a Muslim Fundamentalist regime such as that which rules Iran. With Iran pouring "insurgents" and arms across the border, and more coming from Syria, ask yourself, is abandoning Iraq a good idea?

What would a premature withdrawal from Iraq tell the enemies of liberty? That the United States does not have the will carry out its promises. That the United States cannot be relied upon to help those in need. Pull out too early, and Iraq may fall back into tyranny. And the terrorists will focus their efforts on attacking America directly again, having regained one of their training grounds and supporters.

The kind of rhetoric that Shays is spouting is the same as one expects to come from Murtha, Pelosi and other members of the Party of Neville Chamberlain, not the GOP.

Okay, Shays, Murtha and others, calling for a withdrawal from Iraq…how about setting a timetable for when we withdrawal from Germany first?

Tags:

Iraq
War on Terror
Germany
Military Occupation
Chris Shays
Cut and Run

Posted by Sqotty at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

FoxNews is running a piece on an “American” who has changed his allegiance to Al Qaeda and taken sides against his former nation in the Global War on Terror.

An American who allegedly joined Al Qaeda appeared in a videotape along with the terror group's deputy leader on Saturday, calling on Americans to covert to Islam and for U.S. soldiers to switch sides in the Iraq and Afghan wars.

The 48-minute video, posted on an Islamic militant Web site, had footage of Al Qaeda's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri and of Adam Yehiye Gadahn, a 28-year-old American who the FBI believes attended Al Qaeda training camps in Pakistan and served as an Al Qaeda translator.

It was the second time Gadahn has appeared in the same video with al-Zawahiri. In a July 7 video marking the one-year anniversary of bombings against the London transit system, Gadahn appeared briefly, saying no Muslim should "shed tears" for Westerners killed by Al Qaeda attacks.

Saturday's message came days before the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States.

Gadahn spoke for nearly the entire video, wearing white robes and a white turban, sitting in front of a desk with a computer and Islamic religious books in a room with a white wall. He delivered a lecture on Islam and "errors" in Christianity and Judaism, and the video included no direct threats of terror attacks.

He said the United States was losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and addressed U.S. soldiers who he said were fighting President George W. Bush's "crusades."

"Instead of killing yourself for Bush ... why not surrender to the truth (of Islam), escape from the unbelieving army and join the winning side. Time is running out so make the right choice before it's too late," he said.

Al-Zawahiri opened the video with a call to Americans to covert to Islam, giving up our true faith (be it Christian, Judaism, Buddhist, or whatever) in exchange for a “faith” that is the faith of darkness and death as personified by the Islamo-facists that has usurped control of Islam.

As for Gadahn, he defected to the forces of evil that is Al Qaeda shortly after the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sought after by the FBI concerning possible terrorist threats against the United States.

Gadahn, having taken sides with the enemy has in effect lost his citizen ship (taking up arms against the United States) and should be treated accordingly (enemy combatant, terrorist thug, or what ever other name is appropriate, including traitor).

Gadahn is considered to be someone who can talk to Americans using our own language. Here’s an example:

"You know that if you die as an unbeliever in battle against the Muslims you're going straight to Hell without passing 'Go,"' Gadahn said, addressing American soldiers. "You know you're considered by Bush and his bunch of warmongers as nothing more than expendable cannon fodder ... You know they couldn't care less about your safety and well-being."

He is wrong in is assertion that Americans who are not Muslims will go to Hell. Nor does the Bush administration consider our troops to be “cannonfodder.” If anything, the “foot soldiers,” those foolish enough to be convinced that throwing away their lives in suicide attacks, or combating the Coalition forces are the REAL cannonfodder.

The leadership of al-Qaeda, whether we are talking about Osama bin Ladin, al-Zawahiri, or the traitor Gadahn, are murdering, warmongering butchers that consider their followers to be cannonfodder at worst, and pawns in their own personal campaign against Western Civilization.

I end this with a question: has the State Department terminated Gadahn’s citizenship? Gadahn’s siding with the enemy warrants such action.

Tags:

Al Qaeda
War on Terror
Osama bin Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri
Adam Yehiye Gadahn
Iraq
Traitor
Islamo-Facist

Posted by Sqotty at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

More of the things you won't see in the Main Stream Media. Off of the Multi-National Force - Iraq site:

CAMP AL ASAD, Iraq (Aug. 30, 2006) - U.S. Marines detained 16 confirmed insurgents and 24 suspected insurgents yesterday throughout the Haditha Triad region in western Al Anbar Province, Iraq.

Marines from the Hawaii-based 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, known as "America's Battalion," captured the known and suspected insurgents during both routine and pre-planned counterinsurgency operations in the "Triad" region.

Some of the insurgents captured are known for intimidating the local populace, attacking Coalition and Iraqi forces, and providing logistical support to local insurgents. In one captured insurgent's home, a Marine patrol discovered various materials used to construct improvised explosive devices (IEDs), an AK-47 assault rifle with multiple round cartridges and binoculars.

Furthermore, a U.S scout sniper team fired upon anti-Iraqi forces, which were firing upon a Marine M1A1 tank on a road in Haditha. Two of the insurgents were killed; one was critically wounded and medically evacuated to a U.S. military medical facility for treatment. This follows a day after a separate scout sniper engagement which resulted in one insurgent being killed while digging a hole in a spot where numerous IEDs have recently been discovered or detonated.

"The Battalion's successes over the last several days are really the result of the anti-Iraqi forces conducting attacks out of desperation. They see the growing capability of the Iraqi Army and recent fielding of the Iraqi Police as the clear beginning to the end of their influence in the Triad," said Lt. Col. Norm Cooling, commanding officer of 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment.

Okay, the reason we won't see this is that the MSM only wants to print the BAD News, like the death of American soldiers, or the car bombings that kill and injure scores of innocent Iraqis.

The Multi-Nation Force - Iraq site is a good source of up to date happenings in Iraq.

Other news reported there include an update on the Iraqi military readying to take on more command and control responsibility for their country and the Army Corps of Engineers has completed a project in Diyala providing electricity to the 63,000 residents there. Good stuff to read.

Tags:

Main Stream Media
Iraq
War on Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 7:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Yesterday, the guys at the Anti-Strib posted a piece about a Minnesota soldier who was recently killed while serving in Iraq. Unfortunately, the link to the Red Star Tribune article on this soldier is no longer active.

Today, the Red Star Tribune reports that Staff Sergeant Joshua R. Hanson, a Minnesota National Guardsman out of Detroit Lakes. He was killed while on patrol on Wednesday, Sept. 30th.

According to the report, he was killed while on patrol assisting Marines on an anti-terrorist mission, when an explosive device, a roadside bomb of some sort, as the article is not very specific. Several of his team mates were injured attempting to rescue him from the humvee he was in when blast occurred. Hanson was seated in the position closest to where the explosive device went off.

It is sad to read of the deaths of our men and women who serve. Having served in the Armed Forces, these short articles always hit home.

Yet, we are bombarded nearly every day by the "Army of Hate" led by Cindy Sheehan and others as the grab hold of the media lime light, and refuse to respect and honor those who have given their lives, not only for our country, but for liberating the poeple of Iraq and Afghanistan from cruel totalitarian regimes.

My heart goes out to the Hanson family for your loss.

Tags:

Iraq
Military
War on Terror
National Guard

Posted by Sqotty at 5:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Red Star Tribune is at it again, yet another attack on the Bush Administration and Republicans in Genera, this time over the threat of Nuclear Weapons in the hands of the Ayatollahs running the totalitarian government of Iran.

Stop us if you've heard this one: The Bush administration and Republicans in Congress believe, or want to believe, that a serious nuclear threat to the United States is developing in the Middle East. To make that case, they need help from U.S. intelligence agencies. And those agencies' analysts don't believe the threat is nearly as worrisome as the Bush clan does. So the Republicans begin beating up on the intelligence types, trying to force them to change their view. Over at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld sets up his own separate group to produce independent analysis of the threat. The race is on to document a dire nuclear threat that probably doesn't exist.

Stop, you say; we're talking about events leading to the war in Iraq.

Well, we could be, but we're not. This time it's Iran. The administration wants proof that its tough-guy approach to the Persian state is justified, but the pros in intelligence analysis aren't having any of it. Iran, they say, doesn't have the capability to produce nuclear weapons now and probably won't have for another five to 10 years.

That's not very convenient for the Bush administration, because today Iran will run out the clock on a U.N. Security Council resolution requiring that it stop its nuclear weapons programs -- mainly uranium enrichment. Not only did Iran not comply, it went out of its way to defy symbolically the Security Council: It began a new enrichment effort -- of a small amount of uranium to a low-enrichment level not suitable for weapons.

We know that Iran is enriching Uranium, the process to separate Uranium 235 from Uranium 238. Iran has stated on numerous occasions that it wishes to obliterate Israel from the face of the Earth. This will take nuclear weapons. The zealots running Iran, Syria and the Palestinian Authority, as well as their supporters and the various terrorist organizations they have fostered, do not care what this will cost in regards to human life, including their own lives. We know that al-Qaeda in particular wishes to get its hands on nuclear weapons.

How long will it be before they can acquire what they need to carry out an attack on New York or Tel-Aviv with nuclear bombs? Less than five years, probably, less than ten years, certainly.

And we know that they have willing zealots fully prepared to die carrying out such missions.

And it isn't that hard to do, especially since numerous articles are floating around in books, magazines and the Internet on just how to do it.

The editorial also ignores the fact that North Korea, thanks to former President Jimmy Carter and the Clinton Administration now has several nuclear weapons. What is preventing them from brokering a deal with al-Qaeda, supplying them with sufficient quantities of U-235 or, assuming they are moving in that direction, Pu-239, so that al-Qaeda can carry out their mission of hate.

When you look at the thousands of tons of illegal drugs that are smuggled across our borders every year, not mention the 10s of thousands of illegal aliens, how easy will it be to smuggle a few softball sized packages into the United States and nuke San Francisco?

It could happen. And in less than the five to ten years the Red Star Tribune's editorial staff seems to think it will take.

All this from an organization that has now switched from the cry of "There were no WMDs in Iraq" to "Iraq had no nuclear ambitions," both of which have been proven wrong, from the recovery of over 500 chemical weapons, the discovery of botulinumtoxins in 2003, tons of precursor chemicals posed to restart chemical weapons programs, and nuclear waste left in a fashion to poison our troops in the field, all of which has been reported in the Main Stream Mediaand then ignored.

Tags:

Star Tribune
Red Star Tribune
al-Qaeda
Iraq
Iran

Posted by Sqotty at 7:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It's been a while since I have visited the Multi-National Force Iraq site, a site I need to spend more time at. Here's the latest:

During a press conference Aug. 23, Iraqi and Coalition leaders discussed a recent combined operation in Baghdad’s Shulla, Nur and Ghazaliyah neighborhoods that resulted in a sharp decrease in levels of violence in the area and paved the way for improved essential services.

Brig. Gen. Jaleel, commander, 1st Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division, and Col. Michael Shields, commander, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, highlighted the joint nature of the 10-day operation - in support of Operation Together Forward - as well as the relationship between Iraqi and Coalition forces and the people of Ghazaliyah.

Shields discussed the teamwork necessary to complete a mission that involved the clearing of more than 20,000 buildings, the capture of several individuals, and the discovery of 15 weapons caches.

The article continues to point that while the recent operation was being carried out, there was a dramatic drop in violence. Worth the read.

More news on the site includes a story of a Marine using soccer balls to reach out to the Iraqis in the area where he patrols and the training of the Iraqi Air Force. More items of interest neglected by the MSM.

Tags

Iraq
Marines
Main Stream Media

Posted by Sqotty at 9:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Thomas Sowell tells it like it is in this column on Real Clear Politics.

A key point on terrorists gaining nuclear weapons:

This is not just another in the long history of military threats. The Soviet Union, despite its massive nuclear arsenal, could be deterred by our own nuclear arsenal. But suicide bombers cannot be deterred.

With the suicidal fervor that al-Qaeda terrorists have shown the world, their willingness to spend their lives to murder anywhere from a few to thousands of people in a single stroke, once they are able to lay their hands on sufficient quantities of Uranium 235, it is only a matter of time before they use it to strike Tel Aviv, New York, London, or Los Angeles, to name a few likely targets.

Many years ago, I ran across an article in a magazine, and no, I am not going to disclose what magazine and when, that went into details how it could be done. Back then, it was thought implausible as it meant breaking into a reactor facility. Now, with North Korea having shown the world its own arsenal, and Iran nearing that point, it is only a matter of time before al-Qaeda, or some terrorist affiliate will acquire all it needs to build small yield bombs that will kill tens of thousands in a single stroke.

These murdering brutes, and the regimes that sponsor them (Iran, Syria, and others) can not be dealt with as we would other nations. They are hell bent on destruction, pure and simple, and do not care if it costs them their own lives.

Tags

al-Qaeda
War on Terror
Nuclear Weapons
Thomas Sowell

Posted by Sqotty at 7:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This is from FoxNews:

A phone call made from Pakistan to Britain played a vital role in foiling the plot to destroy U.S.-bound aircraft during flight, Pakistani officials said Saturday, as brothers arrested in Pakistan and England emerged as key figures.

I wonder how many people on the left will be screaming invasion of privacy and complain about "wire-tapping" over this.

Tags:
al-Qaeda
War on Terror
wire tapping

Posted by Sqotty at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

British anti-terrorist police foiled a plot to simultaneously bomb multiple aircraft bound for the United States. According to the report, the terrorists were planning on using liquid explosives that could be missed by technology currently in use to detect explosives.

Here's a link to the article on FoxNews.

Tags:

terrorism
al Qaeda

Posted by Sqotty at 7:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Anti-Strib is running a long excerpt from the
Globe and Mail out of Canada. Here's a clip:

When it came time to write up the premarital agreement between Zakaria Amara and Nada Farooq, Ms. Farooq briefly considered adding a clause that would allow her to ask for a divorce.

She said that Mr. Amara (now accused of being a leader of the alleged terror plot that led to the arrests of 17 Muslim men early this month) had to aspire to take part in jihad.

"[And] if he ever refuses a clear opportunity to leave for jihad, then i want the choice of divorce," she wrote in one of more than 6,000 Internet postings uncovered by The Globe and Mail.

Wives of four of the central figures arrested last month were among the most active on the website, sharing, among other things, their passion for holy war, disgust at virtually every aspect of non-Muslim society and a hatred of Canada. The posts were made on personal blogs belonging to both Mr. Amara and Ms. Farooq, as well as a semi-private forum founded by Ms. Farooq where dozens of teens in the Meadowvale Secondary School area chatted. The vast majority of the posts were made over a period of about 20 months, mostly in 2004, and the majority of those were made by the group's female members.

The tightly knit group of women who chatted with each other includes Mariya (the wife of alleged leader Fahim Ahmad), Nada (the wife of Mr. Amara, the alleged right-hand man) Nada's sister Rana (wife of suspect Ahmad Ghany), as well as Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal (the Muslim convert from Cape Breton, N.S. who married the oldest suspect, 43-year-old Qayyum Abdul Jamal). The women's husbands are part of a core group of seven charged with the most severe crimes -- plotting to detonate truck bombs against the Toronto Stock Exchange, a Canadian Forces target, and the Toronto offices of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

I cannot fathom what thought processes go on in the mind of someone who would want to include a clause allowing for her to sue for divorce if her husband to be does not follow the path of "jihad." It is very disturbing, to say the least.

In the case of what this article reports, and it is long and detailed piece, I don't know who is more warped; the men who were arrested, or their wives, especially this Nada Farooq, who "prays" that even the son she hopes to have will follow the path of the "jihad."

I know that all Muslims are not like those portrayed in this article; but very few of them seem to be speaking out against the terrorists and their supporters.

Tags:
Iraq
War on Terror
Canada

Posted by Sqotty at 9:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

At the time of writing this piece, there is yet to be any mention of the declassified portion of a report detailing out the discovery of some 500 chemical weapons that have been found in Iraq since 2003 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The St. Paul Pioneer Press has this headline: "New report offers no evidence that Iraq stockpiled WMD"

Now wait a minute…500 chemical munitions does not constitute evidence that Saddam Hussein was not stockpiling WMDs?

It gets better:

But the intelligence officials said the munitions dated from before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and were for the most part badly deteriorated. "They are not in a condition where they could be used as designed," one intelligence official said.

This is contrary to what the report states…from the actual report (point 5 from the report):

While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.

Last I checked, if they were not in a "condition where they could be used as designed" implies that the chemical agents are completely inert, in other words, HARMLESS.

The actual report states exactly the opposite, the darned things are dangerous.

Here’s another interesting tidbit:

They (intelligence officials) said the old munitions had been found in groups of one and two, indicating that they'd been discarded, not that they were part of an organized program to stockpile banned weapons.

The declassified portion of the document gives no such details. Either these so-called intelligence officials are passing out classified information and thus violating the law, not to mention National Security, or they are liars.

And it gets better:

One of the declassified key points says the munitions - apparently dating from Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran - could be sold on the black market.

But one intelligence official said there was "no evidence that any element of the insurgency in Iraq is in possession of these kinds of munitions."

The terrorists haven’t been in possession of WMDs? Time for some history lessons:

May 18, 2004, the Washington Post ran a piece detailing out how terrorists used an artillery shell filled with sarin nerve gas. Fortunately, it failed to trigger as needed to mix the chemical agents so as to create a lethal mix. It was believed that the terrorists that planted the bomb did not know exactly what they had, or did not know how to effectively use it.

There was also an artillery shell filled with mustard gas around the same time.

So much for the intelligence of the unidentified "intelligence official."

There is no doubt that the terrorists are attempting (and inadvertently, succeeding) at acquiring such munitions. Let’s hope they (the murdering terrorist thugs) continue to fail to realize what they’ve got when they do get 'em, or fail to figure out how to correct use them.

I suspect that the writer of the piece has not been following the War in Iraq, and the case of WMDs, as indicated by his failure to recognize a load of horse hockey when it is dropped on his lap.

Either way, this particular piece is an extremely biased piece; sounds to me like the leftwing controlled MSM is finding numerous ways to spin the declassified data on WMDs recovered in Iraq.

Tags:
Iraq
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Chemical Weapons

Posted by Sqotty at 7:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This is BIG!

Today, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) announced the declassification of a document that states some 500 chemical weapons have been found in Iraq since 2003. From Senator Santorum's website:

SANTORUM: Good afternoon. Senator Rick Santorum. With me, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra. Today we are here to make public a document, an unclassified version of a document that Congressman Hoekstra and I have been working on, trying to uncover, I guess, or find out about with respect to weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical weapons recovered in Iraq.

On the floor of the Senate today we are debating the issue of the war in Iraq, and three of my colleagues just today said the following things.

Jack Reed, quote: We've heard the initial defenses of the approach to Iraq as we were going after weapons of mass destruction. There were none. They were not there.

Chris Dodd: Mr. President, that if I had known then what I know now, namely that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction, I would not have given the president my vote.

Patty Murray: We looked for weapons of mass destruction and we found none.

Congressman Hoekstra and I are here today to say that we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons. It's a document that was developed by our intelligence community which for the last two and a half months I have been pursuing.

And thanks to the help of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, ultimately he was able to get it in his hands and I was able to look for and look at.

And I think both of us feel very strongly that this is vitally important information that the American public needs to know. And so I will read the portions of the unclassified version and then I'll turn it over to Peter to make his comments about the significance of that, and then we'll be happy to answer questions.

The unclassified version of this report states as follows. Quote: Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.

Now, let me go off the quote. That means that in addition to the 500 there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country.

This also points out that all those years of U.N. Weapons Inspectors crawling through Iraq was a complete and utter failure, and that the Bush Administration was right all along where WMDs are concerned.

There's more:

Back on statement.

Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out. The most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles.

And I underscored filled. The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.

It has been reported in the open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.

This is an incredibly -- in my mind -- significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false.

We have found over 500 weapons of mass destruction. And in fact have found that there are additional weapons of mass -- chemical weapons, still in the country, that need to be recovered.

What we now know is that 500 such weapons have been recovered, delivery systems (missles and rockets capable of deliering chemical or biological weapons) have been found since 2003, and that part is well documented, although largely ignored despite the fact that those weapons systems were in direct violation of the Gulf War Truce and U.N. sanctions (a lot of goof the U.N. is).

We also know that terrorists are attempting t oacquire such munitions for use either in Iraq or abroad.

This revelation is not surprising when one loks back to the early reports that there were some 110 munitions dumps in Iraq, some of them as alrge as 50 square miles, or about the size of Manhatten. It takes a great deal of time to inventory such sites.

I have no doubt that the Deaniacs and their representatives in Congress will attempt to spin this as a Republican attempt to steer the election in the GOP favor.

Tags:
Iraq
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Chemical Weapons
United Nations

Posted by Sqotty at 7:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Another key al-Qaeda in Iraq leader bites the dust. Off of BBS News:

Gen Caldwell said on Tuesday US forces had killed Zarqawi's "right-hand man" in a raid in Yusifiya on Friday, near where the US troops were abducted.

The general said Iraqi Mansur Suleiman al-Mashhadani was "a key leader in al-Qaeda" and could have succeeded Zarqawi.

Hopefully this will send a signal to would be terrorsits aspiring to the leadership role previously filled by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Don't expect to live long.

At least there is some good news coming out of Iraq today.

Tags:
Iraq
Armed Forces

Posted by Sqotty at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Just off of the wire:

"The bodies were found last night in the vicinity of Yusufiya. Coalition forces have recovered what we believe are the remains of the soldiers," Major General William Caldwell told a news conference.

This is expected, but very sad, news.

Tags:
Iraq
Armed Forces

Posted by Sqotty at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The deatils are incomplete, and the U.S. Army has not identified the bodies as yet. Here are links to the initial reports:

Yahoo News

Star Tribune

The Iraqi Governemnt believes that the bodies found are indeed those of the two missing soldiers. It's now a matter of waiting for a confirmation by U.S. officials.

It is not surprising that the Uncle of one of the soldiers is criticizing our military for not reacting fast enough to the situation.

"The news is going to be heartbreaking for my family,'' Ken MacKenzie, Menchaca's uncle, told NBC's "Today'' show.

He said the United States should have paid a ransom from money seized from Saddam Hussein.

"I think the U.S. was too slow to react to this. Because the U.S. did not have a plan in place, my nephew has paid with his life.''

It is regretttable that these two soldiers were not rescued despite the efforts of 8,000 troops sent into the area to find them. I respect the uncle's bitterness at the loss of a nephew.

Tags:
Iraq
Armed Forces

Posted by Sqotty at 6:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

There is some very good news out of Iraq, carried on FoxNews

Iraq's national security adviser said Thursday a "huge treasure" of documents and computer records was seized after the raid on terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's hideout, giving the Iraqi government the upper hand in its fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq.

National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie also said he believed the security situation in the country would improve enough to allow a large number of U.S.-led forces to leave Iraq by the end of this year, and a majority to depart by the end of next year. "And maybe the last soldier will leave Iraq by mid-2008," he said.

I have no doubt that the leftists in the Democratic party will attempt to spin this as some great plot by the GOP and Bush to win the mid-term elections in November. Any excuse they can find to explain why they lost.

On the flip side, this will be a significant achievement for Iraq IF a troop reduction does become possible. I hope that it is. Our Armed Forces have worked hard at training up an Iraqi security force capable of dealing with Iraq's security challenges, and the reward for their effort will be leaving Iraq knowing that they have not only accomplished thier mission, but have performed a job well done.

The intelligence gathered in the aftermath of last week's raid will hopefully provide enough information to eliminate the terrorist who is atempting to fill Zarqawi's shoes. Let us hope that it won't be long before a pair of 500 pound bombs ruins his day.

Tags:
Iraq
Zarqawi

Posted by Sqotty at 7:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

There has been a great deal of speculation written in the brief time since it was announced that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi met his past due end on Wednesday. Ranging from calls to withdrawal our troops from Iraq, leaving the Iraqi people to manage their own national security, to his most likely successor of Zarqawi, Egyptian-born Abu al-Masri.

I am a far cry from fluent on many of these issues; we have military experts in Iraq, working hard to bring the Iraqi military up to snuff so that they can secure their nation. From what I have read, and based on the terrorist attacks that plague Iraq, it doesn’t sound like they are ready to be abandoned by the U.S.

Should America draw down our forces there, the terrorist thugs running amuck in Iraq will claim it a great victory, and will be emboldened to escalate the violence. The perception that an American withdrawal will convey is that the U.S. is weak, and lacks the will to win. America and the Coalition of the Willing needs to stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only through victory can peace be achieved.

The only thing the terrorist thugs understand, and respect, is the use of strength. Only through the use of military might can we defeat the terrorists. Pulling out of Iraq will only result in the collapse of all that has been achieved in the Middle East since the jihadists declared war on Western Civilization on September 11, 2001.

The combined armed forces of the Coalition of the Willing, our many allies, have liberated both Afghanistan and Iraq, and are actively helping them form new governments based on democracy and individual rights; and are training their military and police forces in preparation to secure their nations, and serve their people.

Since the fall, and subsequent capture of Saddam Hussein, the jihadists in Iraq have staged many attacks against police stations and recruitment facilities. Ironically, despite the risks of being killed in one of these attacks, patriotic Iraqis continue to sign up and serve their country.

Zarqawi is dead; this is, like the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the capture of Hussein, or the death of Hussein’s sons, one more victory in the Global War on Terror. It is a significant victory as Zarqawi had contacts, recourses, and charisma, that will be hard to be replaced. And any who should vie to replace him now know what fate awaits them: an F16 air strike dropping a 500-pound bomb on their heads. Let us hope that such a fate does not take overlong to be delivered up.

It is not just the internal jihadist terrorist groups that the developing Iraqi security forces must be trained to deal with before they can stand on their own; there is also the threat of the fascistic-theocratic neighbor, Iran, which is moving closer to achieving nuclear arms, despite their claims they have no interest in developing such weapons. It wasn’t long ago that North Korea had also claimed they were only interested in nuclear energy, and not developing weapons. We have since learned the folly of listening to totalitarian dictators such as Kim Jong Il, and their leftist lapdogs here in America (like former President Jimmy Carter).

Abandoning Iraq would have grave consequences, not just for the people of Iraq, but also for the entire region. Staying the course in both Iraq and Afghanistan is the only path toward victory and stabilizing that part of the world.

Tags:
Zarqawi
War on Terror
Military

Posted by Sqotty at 6:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

FoxNews reports that the terrorist leader operating in Iraq has been killed:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Al Qaeda in Iraq leader who led a brutal insurgency that included homicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings, was killed in an airstrike on a building north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials announced Thursday.

Officials said the terror leader's identity was confirmed by fingerprints, facial recognition, and known scars.

The bombing raid was ordered after local residents provided intelligence as to Zarqawi's whereabouts. Killed with this murdering slime were seven of his aides.

There are no expectations that the terrorist acts being perpetrated in Iraq will cease, but one can hope they will stop. Just don't hold your breath.

UPDATE 1: BBC News Has the following:

The leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq died in a strike against an isolated safe house about 8km (five miles) north of Baquba, the US said.

US President George W Bush said the death was a severe blow to al-Qaeda.

Agreed, this is a severe blow, and well worth celebrating.

And this:

"We have eliminated Zarqawi," Prime Minister Nouri Maliki told a news conference in Baghdad, sparking sustained applause.

The head of US-led forces in Iraq, General George Casey, said the strike took place at 1815 (1415 GMT) on Wednesday.

It was a co-ordinated attack involving US and Iraqi air and ground forces, a US military spokesman told the BBC News website.

My thanks and congratulations go out to the Amred Forces participating in this raid. You have performed a great service, not just to your repsective countries and the people of Iraq, but to the world at large. Thank you!

A second report on BBC News

The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is obviously a major success for the new Iraqi government and the US, but it remains to be seen if this marks the beginning of the end of the insurgency.

If it significantly weakens the al-Qaeda structure in Iraq, it could open the way for easier contacts between the government and other insurgents, who are more Iraqi nationalists than Islamists seeking to set up an Islamic state not only in Iraq but across the region.

It might also lead to a lessening of tension between Sunnis and Shias, whom Zarqawi targeted.

The new government, the first constitutional one, will have to seize this opportunity if it is not to suffer the fate of its predecessor administrations, which came to office with hope and left with disappointment.

However, the death of one man does not necessarily bring a breakthrough.

One can hope that it does end the terrorism in Iraq, however, as the article points out, there could be a sever backlash before things begin to abate. There is also the possiblitly that there is another zealot that will attempt to take Zarqawi's place as the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. If so, let us hope the same fate awaits such a person, and will be swift in its arrival.

Not everyone is celebrating, though...I found the following on the aljazeera website:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's older brother says the family had anticipated the death of the al-Qaeda in Iraq leader for some time.

"We anticipated that he would be killed for a very long time," Sayil al-Khalayla told The Associated Press on Thursday in a telephone interview from al-Zarqa, the poor industrial town that al-Zarqawi called home and from which he derived his name.

"We expected that he would be martyred," he said, in a low voice, signalling his grief over the death of his brother, whose real name is Ahmad Fadhil Nazzal al-Khalayla.

"We hope that he will join other martyrs in heaven."

Personnaly, I believe he went the other direction, with all the other murdering thugs.

There is no doubt that the news of Zarqawi's death is spreading around the blogosphere, even at this early hour. ( I hit it at 6:30AM).

This goes to show that at times good news does travle fast!

UPDATE 2: Stars and Stripes is running the following:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most-wanted terrorist in Iraq who waged a bloody campaign of beheadings and suicide bombings, was killed when U.S. warplanes dropped 500-pound bombs on his isolated safehouse, officials said Thursday. His death was a long-sought victory in the war in Iraq.

Al-Zarqawi and several aides, including spiritual adviser Sheik Abdul Rahman, were killed Wednesday evening in a remote area 30 miles from Baghdad in the volatile province of Diyala, just east of the provincial capital of Baqouba, officials said.

"Al-Zarqawi was eliminated," Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said.

At the White House, President Bush hailed the killing as "a severe blow to al-Qaida and it is a significant victory in the war on terror."

But he cautioned: "We have tough days ahead of us in Iraq that will require the continuing patience of the American people."

The news came amid more reports of violence in Iraq, with two bombs striking a market and a police patrol in Baghdad, killing at least 19 people and wounding more than 40.

Al-Qaida in Iraq confirmed al-Zarqawi's death and vowed to continue its "holy war," according to a statement posted on a Web site.

"We want to give you the joyous news of the martyrdom of the mujahed sheik Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"The death of our leaders is life for us. It will only increase our persistence in continuing holy war so that the word of God will be supreme."

There is no doubt in my mind that the death of this murdering thug is a good thing for Iraq, America, the Coalition of the Willing and the world as a whole.

The rhetoric being spewed out by Zarqawi’s supporters that he has been martyred is nonsense. Murdering thugs are not martyrs.

The spooky part is their continued call to "holy war," and that they will escalate the terrorism in Iraq.

Let us hope and pray that these thugs calling for the continuation of terror in Iraq will meet the same end as Zarqawi. And soon.

A separate article has the following to say:

"Now Zarqawi has met his end, and this violent man will never murder again," Bush said in the Rose Garden as he announced the U.S. airstrike on the militant whom Osama bin Laden had dubbed the "emir," or prince, of al-Qaida in Iraq.

"Over the past several years no single person on this planet has had the blood of more innocent men, women and children on his hands," Rumsfeld said at a meeting of NATO ministers in Brussels. But he cautioned al-Zarqawi's death "will not mean the end of all violence in that country."

May Zarqawi rest in pieces. Dubya and Rumsfeld have it right.

And then there is the discourse on Daily Kos, leftwingnut blog supreme. One commentor on the site had this to say to the news of Zarqawi's death:

Zarqawi was quite probably a psy ops job in the first place, so what does that make his "death"?

Moonbatism at its most reliable best. In fairness, not all of the commentor's there are loony and seeing black helicopters everywhere they go.

Back on FoxNews

Thamir Abdulhussein, a college student in Baghdad, said he hopes the killing of Zarqawi will promote reconciliation between Iraq's fractured ethnic and sectarian groups.

"If it's true Zarqawi was killed, that will be a big happiness for all the Iraqis," he said. "He was behind all the killings of Sunni and Shiites. Iraqis should now move toward reconciliation. They should stop the violence."

Fox News has also posted before and after pictures, as well as shots form the scene of the air raid.

It's definitelay a good day in and for Iraq.

Meanwhile, back at the lefty blog of choice:

OK, so we got the bad guy (riiiiight). Iraq will be fine now (riiiiight). Mission Really Accomplished. We mean it this time (riiiiight). This is the turning point we'll all been waiting for! (riiiiight).

Sounds like the perfect time to declare sweet victory, hold a parade, and bring the troops home. Time to kiss the girls in Times Square, boys!

Really, I'm not kidding. Iraq will never be stable as long as we're there, and soner or later, when some adults finally prevail in DC, we are going to be looking for some figleaf to cover our privates (and our lance corporals) as we bugger outta there. What better time to stand up, say "OK, we're done - now we're heading home, victorious"? It'll make a much better exit strategy than clinging to the last helicopter skids off the roof of the US embassy as some decidely unfriendly guys really crash the gates.

As always, the moonbats on the left just don't get the significance of Zarqawi's death, or the fact that our job there isn't done. Not yet, anyrate.

Tags
Zarqawi
al-Qaeda
Terrorism
Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 7:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions