Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, also known as Abu Shahid. From AP:
BAGHDAD - The U.S. command said Wednesday the highest-ranking Iraqi in the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq has been arrested, adding that information from him indicates the group's foreign-based leadership wields considerable influence over the Iraqi chapter.Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, also known as Abu Shahid, was captured in Mosul on July 4, said Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a military spokesman.
"Al-Mashhadani is believed to be the most senior Iraqi in the al-Qaida in Iraq network," Bergner said. He said al-Mashhadani was a close associate of Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born head of al-Qaida in Iraq.
Bergner said al-Mashhadani served as an intermediary between al-Masri and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri.
"In fact, communication between the senior al-Qaida leadership and al-Masri frequently went through al-Mashhadani," Bergner said.
Those poor Dems. Just when they try to force us to withdraw because "the surge isn't working", this had to happen.
Totally screws up that sleepover last night.
Abu Shahid, was captured in Mosul on July 4, said Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner
Fitting symbolism to capture him on (American) Independence Day.
Nothing but praise for our guys for catching this thug. Soldier, sailor, marine, or airman- I love them all!
After Abu Shahid yields all the intel we can get from him, I hope he's sent on his way to get his quota of virgins in hell. He's earned everything he's got coming. It would be fitting to blast parts off his body with IED's for a while- the last part being his head.
....lets surge some more....
Robert:
Is there a problem with the comments page? Specifically the two most recent.
Bigfoot,
This "big catch" unfortunately will encourage the administration to stay the course in Iraq. Since our current infantry is limited and has been over-taxed to date what would you suggest going forward? Since we cannot ask the current infantry reserves to perform multiple tours of duty indefinately, we would need to re-institute the draft to maintain our current presence there. Is that something you support?
We cannot stay in Iraq forever, and once we leave, the radical presence will return, rest assured, as it has in Afghanistan. That is the problem of trying to democratize a country with a near-absolute incompatible religious ideology, as opposed to fighting and killing an enemy. The US has neither the resources or will to accomplish that, since the jihadists are not easily identifiable as soldiers in uniform are.
More lives lost. More monetary resources poured into those failed Islamic countries, with little to nothing to show for it. Here in the US, our borders are still wide open. Last time I checked, the incident which prompted the response to the 9/11 attacks, the catalyst for the whole "war on terror" endeavor, was committed by perpetrators already inside the US.
The ranks of the jihadists are readily replenishable from the unknown percentage pool of the world's 1.3+ billion Muslims. As Bush erroneously stated, "We are fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here", rings hollow at this point. The operation in Iraq did not prevent the recent attempted London bombings and Glasgow bombings. It is reasonable to assume that it won't offset future attacks by the jihadists on US soil either.
If the US polls are correct, that a noticable majority of Americans are against the continuation of this "war", then I fear it will only serve the interests of the Democratic left, all but assuring a Democratic president in 2008. That, in my opinion, is a disastrous proposition.
"a noticable majority of Americans are against the continuation of this "war".....
....too bad these same Americans do not speak out against the ongoing Muslim intrusion into their daily lives....soon, these same Americans will not be able to recognize America as they now know it....
Ban Muslim Immigration.....
Bigfoot,
Poor Dems? They have a comeback. They will say that this guy is in Iraq only because we are there and that we got there first. The invader is us, not al Qaeda. As so many of them say: how would Americans react if a foreign military invaded? Our invasion forced al Qaeda to inflict itself on Iraq.
This isn't my view, but it's what you'll hear from Democrats and their supporters.
I'm with you exsgtbrown. I live right in the middle of liberalville, where hardly anyone knows the truth about most anything. All they know is how to hate Bush. Bring up Islam, or terrorism, and these undereducated louts dont have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Their comments run from stupid to stupider. 'Christians do it too', is their best defense, which is about on par with their knowledge. If the local liberals here, who dominate, are an example of the rest of the USA, we are in deep trouble.
Maybe the capture of Abu Shahid will give them a clue, but I doubt it. They will just say, that the poor guy was probably abused as a child.
If everyone named 'Abu' were arrested, terrorism would be cut in half...
Keep him singing.
It is the only useful function of a jihadi, death being the next most useful condition for a jihadi.
After the singing, wrap him in pigskin, at room temperature, and put him on display in Tehran, Riyadh, or Islamabad.
"a noticable majority of Americans are against the continuation of this "war".....
Many are opposed to the continuation of this war on the terms on which we are fighting it. Policing streets is not the job of our military. Handing out medical supplies and rebuilding neighborhoods isn't, either.
Teaching our military techniques to the enemy is an exercise in stupidity. They have been infiltrated and we are showing them how to fine tune their attack methods for greater efficiency.
Nothing beats the excuse given by so many supporters: it took the US thirteen years to form our current government, so how can we expect more from the Iraqis than we did from ourselves?
The holes in this argument are big enough to drive a truck through but that doesn't stop some Bush supporters from making it anyway.
"If everyone named 'Abu' were arrested, terrorism would be cut in half..."
If you wanted to stop the other half, simply round up everyone with 'Muhammad' or a variant thereof in their name :)
duh swami, I hear ya man! I live in the bay area and stupid runs rampant when it comes to the left wing loons knowing one iota about islam and its history - both past and current. They get their edumacation from the movies and we all know what kind of loons run hollywierd!
Libs know - Christians are bad, there are a lot of good, moderate, peaceful muslims, and islam must not be that bad because CNN said so. Oh, excuse me, of over 30 hotspots around this globe - all are wars/battles started by muslims. Did they forget the slaughter of the Armenians, Serbs, African Christians, Indian Hindus and Southeast ASian Buddhists?! Oh, but that is right - they only know that Milosevic was a bad guy and so were the Serbs - because that is what Clinton said. Never mind that the torture and slaughter of the Serbs had been going on for almost a century by muslims. Or did they even know that the Arab muslims and Hitler were in cahoots or that the guy who started the muslim brotherhood and Hitler were very cozy pals?!
No. And why is that. Because the word 'initiative' is unknown to the left wingers. Their mainstream media doesn't tell them anything so they don't look any further, except to maybe that movie that says Christians were the bad guys.
I guess you might be able to tell that I am sick of the left wing loons. It doesn't help that I work in an institution that is known for its left wingers - but I cannot say where I work. I did love bringing in a Bush button to work after I saw a bunch of them cry over Bush getting reelected. It made me laugh (at them).
Big deal.
All it means is another crazed muslim with a hyphenated name will take his place. Just look at all the "Top al-Qaida in Iraq figure captured" stories over the last few years. Until the Bush Corp. decides to do:
(1) Name the enemy (answer: Islam)
(2) Remove problem (answer: Islamic religious leaders, Islamic political parties, clerics, Imams, you know get Islam out of law making, etc etc...)
Then this is a big waste of time and it changes nothing in Iraq.
Good catch! If we were not there he would be causing havoc in Afghanistan! A combination of these pin pricks! Now lets hope we start to see them weaken! "NexxxxxxT!..............
As for the "sleepover" last night and Republicans preventing a pull-out of Iraq all I can say is ti is bad news for the GOP.
The dems have to be happy. The longer we keep up the "Bush Plan" in Iraq the better chance the dems have of winning the white house. They will do a few political stunts to look like they are trying to get out for their base and then let the Republicans kill it (loyality to Bush...very dumb). Then say..."See the evil republicans are againt the will of the people".
Sometimes in the game of life you have to fold a bad hand. Iraq is a very bad hand. If the GOP is depending on Iraqi muslims to become civilized before the next election.....good luck on that.
greatcometof1577,
Spot on with both of your posts on this issue, as usual. I could not possibly agree more.
Fine, complain all you want about this war. We could go 'round & 'round and not figure out the best solution, and never change the others' minds. And I don't care enough to try, so I won't...I respect too many here to get mired in that one.
MY POINTS WITH THIS POST?
1. The Dems ASKED for Petraeus to surge then report. NOW they want out before he can do what they asked. Last night, ergo, was a SMOKESCREEN.
and,
2. The replacement of one hyphenated crazed mawzlim with another does NOT mean we should give up. EVER. And I don't mean just removal from the U.S., which is the same kind of boat-overflowing-while-removing-water-with-a-teaspoon activity we place at the doorstep of this war.
Miss_Anthrope
"The replacement of one hyphenated crazed mawzlim with another does NOT mean we should give up. EVER"
You know the Japanese in WWII said the same thing before a Banzai charge...
How did that work out?
Americans should fight...but smart. Iraq is not where victory will be found in the overall war agianst Islamic aggression.
A word to the wise: Don't let hatred for the liberals blind you to the folly called Iraq.
Screw the Dems.
They are appeasers dissemblers "liberals" leftists liars wimps and basically losers.
The public recognizes and dislikes losers and wont vote for them.
All night bullcrap.
14% approval.
Let's vote the a-holes out.
awake
Not my ideas...see Fitzgerald, Hugh.
The sage of wisdom on such things.
CNN has reported that part of the intel gathered from this al-Qaeda dude was that (as part of an al-Qaeda media blitz for consumption by Iraqis) was the creation of a totally fictional character...the important "fact" with respect to the fictional character was that he was an Iraqi. For some reason, I find this hilarious...(isn't this the standard MO of Islam? -- when all else fails, make up the big whopper...a la Mo flew on the back of a buraq, footsteps left in rock, etc. It's Islam's strenuous adherence to "truth." not)
Now that we have another potential source of information, let's break out the panties and get down to some serious interrogation.
/sarc
Maybe some academic should compile an encyclopedia of Islamic fictional characters, starting with Mo...
greatcometof1577,
Understood, directly attributable to Hugh. That being said, not everyone here, or even remotely enough of us have subscribed to Hugh's well-documented irrefutable logic on this issue.
Regards,
awake
Greatcomet:
I think you're confusing my general comment about fighting with a specific instance. I would like to know when I ever commented about the folly or wisdom of being in Iraq or when I mentioned fighting stupidly.
I simply pointed out that I don't discuss Iraq here, and that our immigration solutions will mirror what we've laid at the Iraqi door - too little too late.
Although I understand the caution, said caution does not apply to me. Again, please inform me as to what I posted here that implied a HATRED towards Libs.
I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of last night's slumber party called by the Dems.
So anywho, what I want to know is this -- was the al-qaeda fictional character dressed up as a mouse or as a "killer" bee?
Miss_Anthrope
Hatred was used in the general sense and was perhaps strong. I am sorry if I offended or misread your quotes.
My point is I don't care anymore how we get out of Iraq. Just get the hell out. It is clear that neither party is ready to fight this war. Thus it is better to pull out so as to not waste resources and men in a pointless cause. The Dems are hypercritical...agreed but pulling out of Iraq is the correct move even if it is based on the wrong motives.
As long as we stay in Iraq it prevents us from getting to the real problem. As long as we hold onto the view that Islam is at its heart peaceful then there is no way to fight this war as it should be.
I am not a liberal or a hippie but I just want to win the overall war. Sometimes rushed pull-outs are the smart move...
Dunkirk comes to mind...
Plus sometime letting the Dems take the spot light is a good thing. Why?
They ain't pretty.
mistake above...
hypercritical = Hypocritical
Thank you, Bill Gates
waterboard the bastard..
Hey, no offense taken, GreatCommet!
I NEVER reply with the intent of extracting an apology...but I appreciate the retraction of hatred.
Just wanted to clarify my position wicha, that's all.
We are solid, my friend.
Just when you thought it was safe to close Gitmo.
Schucks.
The Communist wing of the Demoncratic Party have been calling the "Surge" a Failure sence befor a single extra Troop ever left the Country. If the Country really felt as these Defeatests claim, then they should get the Bills Passed they rant on about.
These Jokers wish to go back to the Clinton Policy which Proved beyond any shadow of doubt what an incredable failure it was.
Just because one side in a conflict says it is over, does not make it so.
How do the Demoncrats plan to confront our Enemys?
By all accounts they have no desire to shoot the enemy, Incarserate them, Investigate and track them, nor do anything at the border to prevent them from comming in.
Just how is anyone expected to feel safe knowing this to be their policy?
Are we all expected to take Prosac and Valium so our heads can more easily be re-planted.
Just when you thought it was safe to close Gitmo.
Schucks.
The Communist wing of the Demoncratic Party have been calling the "Surge" a Failure sence befor a single extra Troop ever left the Country. If the Country really felt as these Defeatests claim, then they should get the Bills Passed they rant on about.
These Jokers wish to go back to the Clinton Policy which Proved beyond any shadow of doubt what an incredable failure it was.
Just because one side in a conflict says it is over, does not make it so.
How do the Demoncrats plan to confront our Enemys?
By all accounts they have no desire to shoot the enemy, Incarserate them, Investigate and track them, nor do anything at the border to prevent them from comming in.
Just how is anyone expected to feel safe knowing this to be their policy?
Are we all expected to take Prosac and Valium so our heads can more easily be re-planted.
"How do the Demoncrats plan to confront our Enemys?" It'll be Nancy Pelosi (think at the Gate -- Baab al-Salaam) wearing a hijab and bowing to Mecca. Just the thought of that should be sufficient to scare off most folk. (but not the democrats of course -- that's their plan for "confrontation").
l am for waterboarding this bastard and any ACLU lawyer complaing for his damm rights! and let the surge surge!
Man, this is so absurd...this can be ended in 5 MINUTES flat...no, not shooting, either...
take the scumbag, dip a rope in pigs blood, hang his ass (like saddams brother who got his head ripped off) with same rope, and leave it there 3 days...not letting anyone tough it, lest they face the same...
...let that serve as a warning, and it will have reverberations throughout the islamofascist ignoramuses that "oh, my, infidels aren't pissing around anymore! yikes!".
Works every time it's been tried...so does bombing the entire block of terrorist-infested areas.
It's the only way they'll get the message...sheer brute force firepower.
Anything less is window dressing.
flowerknife us wrote:
"If the Country really felt as these Defeatests claim, then they should get the Bills Passed they rant on about."
I believe the country is well over 50% against the continued occupation of Iraq at this point. The Dems are right on this one, even if they don't know why they are right. The pass the bills, Bush vetoes them, and then they cannot get the 2/3 majority needed to override the veto.
Republican stalwarts are still defending Bush's Iraq policy to a fault and either are not feeling enough pressure from their constituents or just don't care.
Neither is good in the long run for the GOP in 2008 in my opinion. Maybe things will change after the surge progress report due in September.
The Dhimmicrats failed (yet again) to get a bill passed -- one they knew would be defeated. But, of course, that didn't stop the political posturing and theatrics and wild gestures. How mature and "progressive." Maybe next time they should bring along their prayer mats.
CNN is reporting that after bringing in all the bed cots, only 4 Dhimmicrats actually slept on them. But, of course, those 4 Dhimmicrats don't want their names to be made public...All right -- now that's showing 'em!! Temerity Dhimmi-style.
How do the Demoncrats plan to confront our Enemys?
Why with kisses and flowers, of course. An enemy is just a friend whom we don't understand and who doesn't yet understand us. Once we talk a little we'll come to the realization that we all love one another and this 1400 year jihad has all been one big misunderstanding. We'll all let bygones be bygones.
The Dhemmi Slogan: Love conquers all.
We'll be casting our votes for the Lover-in-chief.
Look for it on 2008 campaign posters.
Let me ask anyone what has G.W. done that Kerry or Gore would not have? Think hard on this and look at the archives on Jihadwatch for clues.
As of today....
(1) We have no borders
(2) We still have muslim immigration that is not checked as it should be
(3) We are trying to make muslims like us in Iraq and around the world
(4) We are wasting billions of tax payers dollars on muslim countries
(5) We are losing thousands of American lives for muslim countries
(6) We are still dependent for our energy needs from muslim countries
(7) We still are using PC language and PC policies when it comes to the muslims
(8) We still have yet to name the enemy
(9) WE still don't demand equal treatement for minorities in muslim countries like Christians
(10) The President of the U.S. still kisses Arabian leaders on the mouth and prances around mosques saying ROP.
(11) We have yet to avenge 9-11...
The list goes on and on....
Tell me how are we better off? It sounds like we have a democrat in the White House now.
Shit you could have fooled me...
It's a flawed comparison. The one is "what's happening/happened since 9/11" the other is "golly let's think about a non-existent, fantasy what-if the Dems were in total power scenario." Well, you've got Nancy Pelosi waltzing over to "discuss" foreign policy with Syrian Dictator Assad...along with donning a hijab. Right now you've got the Dems attempting to sneak through an illegal immigration amnesty "dream" bill (the Dems are attaching items as if they were "amendments" to legislative bills -- but really it's to push through and win their fight for the illegals (and as far as anyone knows the Dems' would grant OBL American citizenship) -- oh, and these "patriotic" Dems want to provide the illegals with a college tuition break/advantage which legal, American (out of state) citizens would be denied...Yeah, that's "red white and blue" Dhimmi-style. All around, just looking at what the Dems say and do -- they are far, far "off-the-mark" in terms of the most basic (elementary) understanding of the nature of the enemy we face, Islamic supremacy, etc., when compared with the Republicans. (and yes, even the Republicans aren't that great either -- but at least they're better than Dems). (I don't trust the Dhimmicrats any further than they can be kicked.)
CNN's Paula Zahn just featured a Zogby Poll (yeah, the Arab) discussing the falling reputation of America. And the Dhimmicrats were all shakin' and shiverin' at the thought that Arabs don't like America...the next portion of the program was focused on how Dhimmicrats could appease Arabs/Muslims and make them like America (as if they ever did). Talk about kissing a--s, talk about suck-ups...(enough to make ya gag.) Frankly, I don't give a hoot what Muslim/Arabs "think" -- 'plug 'em and plant 'em' (that's my motto for all the ones who are the eager, rapacious, would-be murderers of Americans.) Don't molly-coddle them.
J.S.
I agree about some of the republicans being closer then dems (but they don't have any power in the GOP right now). However that does not change the fact the most of the things you said in the first post Bush has also done. Lets face Nancy did not kiss the Syrian leader on the lips and hold his hand (although women kissing muslim men is not allowed I suppose in public). G.W. did one better he invited Lord Saud to the White House and kissed and held hands as they smelled the flowers together. He is giving tax payer money to Saudi Arabia (even the dems want that stopped) and he keeps refering to the House of Saud as "moderates muslims"...In fact he wants them to join him in helping Fatah in a new palestine where muslims and jews and christians sing around the alter of "Faith" (what ever the hell that means)....
Is he even in the rational world anymore? Even Gore as dumb as he is would have had the self awarness to get a room before getting wild with Master Saud and lied after the deed...Noooo not Bush he is proud of his love affair with Arabia!
Good God...It really is all over...
One at a time.
The dominant minority in any culture is 5%. They spur on the good or the bad.
Getting rid of a top henchmen is important.
Not just like mowing down a banzai wave of brainwashed conscripts, but pulling out a crucial gear in the infernal device of the local Jihad.
Good work by brave men during a near-thankless task in an almost-impossible conflict ...because their leaders lacked an understanding of the enemy's ideology before they committed to this shape-shifting war.
Fight them now as we can, and fight them later as we must.
Every dead or captured jihadi is a good thing.
Even if the battleground is a mess.
I just think the Dems have a far, far more of an appeasement mind than do the Republicans. (About the smoochin' -- it's called "the bis" -- it's done around the world -- especially with the Fwench...they'd get all insulted like and irritably moody if you didn't peck 'em on the cheek...keeps 'em happy...I was watched a program -- was it the BBC? yeah, I think so, the BEEB was really really interested in doing the tally -- doing a "count of the number of kisses" -- remember that fat-lipped, slobberin' and droolin' Arafat? they're claiming now that he died of AIDs...liked little boys...anyhow, it's just what the Arabs/Fwench/Saudis do...)
J.S,
How does the realization that the utter futility in action of the current Democratic lead Congress, coupled with liberalist, leftist, Democratic thinking in general, have any bearing on the outcome when weighed against the continued wasteful and ultimately, USELESS exercise in Iraq, with regards to the 2008 election?
Bush will undoubtably use this empty example, empty because the 40th or so # 2 al Qaeda opeartive that we have now captured or killed has already been replaced, to continue this present course, which in absolutely no way will be resolved by the 2008 presidential election.
Continuing to advocate this administration's ignorant will to proceed blindly forward, which is exactly what Bush has been doing, by use of his presidential veto, will most likely bring about exactly what it seems you detest the most...a Democrat as the President....probably Hillary. I agree that this would be most detrimental.
If any part of what Bush portrayed himself as was sincere, ignoring his multitude of shortcomings, he owes it to the GOP to get out now. We can't afford to allow the likes of "Lady Macbeth" assume control in 2008, not for the sole reason that Bush is and continues to be a selfish, short-sighted, ignorant, arrogant asshole.
It will be a knee-jerk, relex asction in 2008, going against the Republicans, regardless of whether it is an intelligent decision or not. The majority of American voters are ill or uninformed dolts, at best.
Be advised, you will probably take no solace in that fact as Hillary is being sworn in.
Bigfoot"Those poor Dems. Just when they try to force us to withdraw because "the surge isn't working", this had to happen"
The strategy is a joke, so any tactical success is essentially irrelevant.
And getting the strategy right means a thorough understanding of who and what we're up against.
Let's see how are noble leaders are on recognising the threat.
Recently we had a US general who said that by reading excerpts of the Koran to the MB is a winning strategy.
We had T Bone Blair speaking of reading the Koran and finding inspiration from it.
And that's not all. George Bush holds hands with the Saudis in the White house. He was unaware of the shiite/sunni schism just prior to the Operation Iraqi Freedom crappofest. And he really thinks by giving them the vote he'll turn them into Wisconsin Lutherans.
So, with that in mind, we shouldn't be too surprised that "Operation-let's-go-bankrupt-so-a-Secular-regime-can-be-replaced-by-a-hardline-Islamist-regime" is a dog's dinner of a pig's ear.
It's the strategy stupid
Anything else is just window dressing to fool the suckers back home.
awake - 6th post down - great post.
and your posting a couple of posts up ain't too bad either.
Give the lad a cigar;-)
jcom"take the scumbag, dip a rope in pigs blood, hang his ass with same rope, and leave it there 3 days"
But, JCOM, under Saddam, any member of the MB, any Jihadist, would have had a waaaaaaaaaaay worse death.
Soooooooooooooooooooooo , why the effin' invasion?
You do see the problem don't you? It's only post invasion that guys like Al Sadr, this number 2 Al Qaeda boss, and the Iranians have had any influence in the affairs of Iraq. Pre invasion and Al Sadr was hiding, the MB were nowhere, same with Iran.
You do see this don't you? The US invasion have given the MB, Al Sadr, the Iranians et al more than they could've dreamed of.
The "Bumper Sticker" That Blows Up
By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 19, 2007
For six years, the Bush administration has kept America safe from another terrorist attack, allowing the Democrats to claim that the war on terrorism is a fraud, a "bumper sticker," a sneaky ploy by a power-mad president to create an apocryphal enemy so he could spy on innocent librarians in Wisconsin. And that's the view of the moderate Democrats. The rest of them think Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.
But now with the U.S. government – as well as the British and German governments – warning of major terrorist attacks this summer, the Treason Lobby is facing the possibility that the "bumper sticker" could blow up in their faces.
The Democrats' entire national security calculus is based on the premise that "we have no important enemies," as stated by former Sen. Mike Gravel. He's one of the Democratic presidential candidates who doesn't know he's supposed to lie when speaking to the American people.
Ironically, the Democrats' ability to sneer at President Bush hinges on Bush's successful prosecution of the war on terrorism, despite the Democrats. It's going to be harder to persuade Americans that the "war on terrorism" is George Bush's imaginary enemy – the Reichstag fire, to quote our first openly Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison – if there is another terrorist attack.
So naturally, they are blaming any future terrorist attacks on the war in Iraq.
The Democrats blame everything on Iraq, but their insane argument that we are merely annoying the enemy by fighting back has been neurotically repeated since the failed terrorist bombing in London a few weeks ago. The venue of the terrorists' latest attempt, a hot London nightclub, might even shake up the young progressive crowd. Apparently, their soirees are not off-limits, notwithstanding their dutiful anti-imperialism.
In anticipation of their surrender strategy becoming substantially less popular in the wake of another terrorist attack, the Democrats are all claiming that the threat of terrorism was nonexistent – notwithstanding 9/11, the Cole bombing, the bombing of our embassies, the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Achille Lauro, etc. etc. – until George Bush invaded Iraq.
In the past week, B. Hussein Obama said the war in Iraq has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Americans are "more at risk," he said, "and less safe than we should have been at this point." We would be safer with "better polices" – such as, presumably, Bill Clinton's policy of pretending Islamic terrorists don't exist and leaving the problem for the next president.
Hillary Clinton said we need to start "reversing our priorities. Let's stop sending troops to Iraq and let's start insuring every single child." Yes, that should put a good healthy scare into the insurgents. "Run for your life, Ahmed! All American children are getting regular checkups!"
Sen. Chris Dodd miraculously straddled both arguments – that the threat of terrorism is a fraud and that the Iraq war had increased its danger. He said "al-Qaida is insurgent again" because we've "turned Iraq into an incubator" for jihadists. But simultaneously with warning of a terrorist attack, Dodd also said he was "more skeptical than I'd like to be" of the Bush administration's warning of a terrorist attack. Damn that Bush! He's inflamed an imaginary enemy!
As with the Democrats' claim that the greatest military in the world is "losing" a war with camel-riding nomads, the claim that the war in Iraq is what created our terrorist problem – a terrorist problem that began about 30 years ago – has entered the media and is now stated as fact by the entire Treason Lobby.
CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux matter-of-factly reported this week: "President Bush says the central front in the war on terror is Iraq. But when the U.S. first invaded the country almost five years ago, al-Qaida had very little presence. But the intelligence report says that has changed. Al-Qaida not only has become a dangerous threat, the intelligence community expects the terrorist group will use its contacts and capabilities there to mount an attack on U.S. soil."
Say, wasn't the attack of 9/11 an "attack on U.S. soil"? How could that have happened since we hadn't invaded Iraq yet? What a weird aberration. How about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? The taking of our embassy in Tehran?
Another CNN correspondent, Ed Henry, followed up Malveaux's report with the somber news that "the president was warned before the war in Iraq that if you go in and invade Iraq, you're going to give al-Qaida more opportunities to expand its influence."
Similarly, Hitler and Goebbels never had much to say about the United States – not, that is, until we started fighting them!
But as soon as we entered the war – taking the bait of Hitler's declaration of war against us, which Democrats are urging us to avoid falling for in the case of al-Qaida – Hitler began portraying FDR as a pawn of the Jews. Soon posters started appearing in Germany showing the United States as a country run by Jews and Negroes. Fake dollar bills with the Star of David were air-dropped over Paris.
According to the Democrats' logic, FDR's policies made the United States less safe. Had Germany attacked us at Pearl Harbor? No. Was Hitler able to use America entering the war as a recruiting tool? Yes. Fighting the enemy always seems to make them mad. It's as plain as the nose on your face.
Democrats think they have concocted a brilliant argument by saying that jihadists have been able to recruit based on the war in Iraq. Yes, I assume so. Everything the United States has done since 9/11 has galvanized the evil people of the world to fight the U.S. In World War II, some Frenchmen joined the Waffen SS, too. And the good people of the world have been galvanized to fight on the side of the U.S. The question is: Which side are the Democrats on?
Back to original topic...
seems this "leader" appears to be singing like a canary...(developing)...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070719/NATION/107190080/1001
Ah! An article from that military genuis , Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=20
In 2004 the wise sage posted this.
"The Americanization of Iraq proceeds at an astonishing pace, the Iraqis are taking to freedom like fish to water, and the possibilities for this nation are endless.
Priceless.
NeoCons. Always good for a laugh.