(updated)
Events in Iraq have reduced what's left of the pro-war Right to a state of almost total incoherence. Tony Blankley's latest trainwreck of a column illustrates this phenomenon perfectly. It's worth a read if only to see what happens when partisans run out of approved talking points and are forced to improvise.
Referring to the recent media coverage of the alleged crimes committed by U.S. soldiers at Haditha, Blankley writes:
The "Drive By Media" (Rush Limbaugh's scientificallyBlankley's point here, though misguided, is pretty clear: the media, by reporting what happened at Haditha, is causing lasting damage to America's image abroad and making it easier for terrorists to enlist new recruits. This makes winning the war harder. This argument is entirely ass backwards, of course, but I'll get to that in a minute. In the very next paragraph, Blankley shifts gears:
accurate description) has already started to report
this story in a manner that is likely to do vast damage
that may last for several years to the morale (and
possibly recruitment) of our military. It will create a
propaganda catastrophe of strategic proportions in
our mortal struggle with radical Islam and its
terrorist spear point.
And all this is being done by journalists who are
seemingly oblivious to the consequences of their acts.
President Bush noted the extraordinary damage
that reported events at Abu Ghraib caused and
continue to cause. One can only imagine what the
radical Islamist propagandists and recruiters will do
with the Haditha incident -- especially since they
will merely have to accurately quote from major
United States and European newspapers and
television news broadcasts. Is this any way to
fight a war?
It is particularly commendable of our AmericanDid you catch that last part? Blankley is implying that our policy of trying to discriminate between civilians and terrorists is too restrictive, that he'd prefer a policy where troops hands are less tied, where they're free to shoot first and ask questions later. Nevermind that such a policy, if actually embraced, would be infinitely more damaging to our interests than the press coverage of Haditha.
troops that they willingly go into battle under such
restrictive rules of engagement that they are
required to constantly risk their own lives in order
not to offend civilians/terrorists(?) until they are
almost sure they are really combatants.
No other military force in history has been so
tightly limited in its defensive actions. And
probably no other military force has been
sufficiently disciplined to maintain such
restrictive rules in the heat of combat. God bless
our troops -- if not necessarily the policy that so
restricts them.
Blankley's remark reminded me of the insane op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last month by Shelby Steele. After rereading that piece, I was struck by the parallels between the policy Steele advocated in his column and what appears to have happened at Haditha. Steele wrote:
But compassionate conservatism, whatever you
think of the concept domestically, clearly shouldn't
extend to war, and there are times when the
international equivalent of Sherman's march
through the South would, in the long run, save
American soldier's lives and foreshorten the conflict.
Which is why there are times when we really should
turn off the "smart" bombs and show our seriousness
by putting the world on notice that, when we believe
the situation calls for it, we are willing to ignore the
inevitable bad press and the howls of protest from
human rights groups, and exhibit a show of strength
and military professionalism that is politically
disinterested and tactically thorough and lethal.
Of course, no one wishes to see innocent civilians die
(only the unserious make the claim that those who
support what they consider to be a necessary war
somehow luxuriate in collateral deaths). But at the
same time, from a practical standpoint, there is
nothing wrong with fighting a war as if it is a war--
and sometimes the only way to disabuse the enemy
of the notion that we are constrained by a moral
calculus that makes little sense in urban combat
situations is to refuse to show the kind of restraint
they have come to anticipate and count on.
Well, I'm pretty sure the people of Haditha have been "disabused" of that notion. Now they know just how "serious" we are. Mission accomplished, right Shelby? Needless to say, the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians can't both help our cause and hurt it. Only one of these talking points can be true, and I think we all know which one it is.
Back to Blankley. He continues his meandering column with this sudden burst of unhinged lunacy:
But what further cuts is to listen to media peopleWhat the hell is he talking about? Exactly who is perpetrating "libel" against the armed services "generally"? I watch the news and I read the papers, and I haven't seen a single instance where a reporter or pundit has said anything even remotely negative about the armed services generally. That just doesn't happen, ever. And who is "happily cackling" about alleged atrocities? The only thing poisoning anyone's mind is garbage like this.
casually perpetrate libel against not just the still-
presumed-innocent Marines but against our
services more generally. To see the gleam in the
eyes of reporters happily cackling on about "other
possible incidents" -- about which they know not
whether they even exist -- is to be filled with a fury
that we have a system of journalism that permits
people with such mentalities to poison the minds of
the world with their malice.
Blankley ends his rant with an explicit call for media censorship:
[I]n time of war, there is no reason why military
censorship should not be enforced to shroud the
carrying out of justice from the eager eyes and ears
of enemy propagandists -- domestic and foreign.
Pending the implementation of such a policy,
journalists should sharply limit their reporting to the
bare established facts, preferably reported once on
page A36. (You know, the way they report
Democratic Party scandals.)
First of all, Democratic scandals on page A36? Did Blankley sleep through the 90s? Good lord, that's dumb. But back to the main issue. For Blankley and his ilk, the problem is never the events on the ground or the policies that precipitated those events. The problem is always the messenger. How muzzling the U.S. media would improve the situation on the ground or solve what is clearly an international image problem is never explained. Nor does it seem to occur to Blankley that transparency is a necessary prerequisite to functioning democracy.
I could go on and on, but what's the point? What Blankley's incoherent rant demonstrates is that the right-wing message machine, at least with respect to Iraq, has completely broken down. All that's left is a mix of pent-up anger and stale, inconsistent talking points.
UPDATE: The big news this morning is that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was apparently killed in an airstrike. That rare bit of good news (and it certainly is good news) comes just in time for people like Blankley, who have entirely run out of coherent things to say.
From the Los Angeles Times
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. can keep a secret
Maintaining national security and ensuring openness for more than 215 years.
By Geoffrey R. Stone
GEOFFREY R. STONE is a professor of law at the University of Chicago and the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism."
June 6, 2006
ATTY. GEN. Alberto R. Gonzales has said that the U.S. government is exploring the possibility of criminally prosecuting the New York Times for publishing classified information: revealing the existence of the National Security Agency surveillance program. Apparently taking its cue from Gonzales, the House Intelligence Committee has held hearings on whether Congress should enact legislation to address this "problem."
By raising the specter of such prosecutions, the Bush administration is threatening a confrontation unprecedented in American history. For more than 215 years, the United States has managed to flourish despite the absence of a single federal prosecution of the press for publishing government secrets. The absence is no accident. It fulfills the promise of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … of the press."
The 1st Amendment is not an absolute. The press may be held accountable for publishing libel, obscenity, false advertising and the like. As the Supreme Court observed more than 60 years ago, "such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
Government secrets are something else entirely. The publication of such information may be extraordinarily valuable to the proper functioning of a self-governing society.
Of course, there are secrets and there are secrets, so in exploring this issue, it is helpful to distinguish three different types.
First, there are "illegitimate" government secrets. In this category, government officials are attempting to shield from public scrutiny their misjudgments, incompetence, misconduct, venality, cupidity, corruption or criminality. In a self-governing society, it is vital that such secrets be exposed. What makes this difficult is that those attempting to cover up such conduct may invoke the claim of official secrecy. We know from historical experience that this happens all too often.
Second, there are "legitimate but newsworthy" secrets. The publication of such secrets may harm national security — and have substantial "value as a step to truth." For example, disclosure that our nuclear power plants are not secure against terrorist attack may have substantial national interest value even though it poses a danger.
Third, there are "legitimate and non-newsworthy" secrets. The public disclosure of such secrets may harm national security — and have only "slight" value. An example would be publication of the fact that the U.S. had broken an enemy's code, in circumstances that serve no appreciable public interest.
In principle, the government should never be able to punish the publication of "illegitimate" secrets, and it should be able to punish the publication of "legitimate and non-newsworthy" secrets. It is the "legitimate but newsworthy" category that is the most difficult to assess because there are both real costs and real benefits from disclosure.
To provide reasonable guidance to the press while limiting the dangers of unchecked prosecutorial discretion, we need clear and straightforward rules. Such rules, by definition, will be imperfect. They will inevitably protect either too much or too little expression and either too much or too little secrecy. To resolve this dilemma, we should look to the lessons of history.
As noted earlier, for more than two centuries the United States has never criminally prosecuted the press for publishing government secrets. Moreover, and equally important, the number of times the press has published non-newsworthy classified information in circumstances that seriously endangered the national interest is small — indeed, it approximates zero. (The one instance most often cited as an example of such a situation involved the publication of information by the Chicago Tribune after the Battle of Midway in 1942 that could have — but apparently did not — alert the Japanese to the fact that we had deciphered their code.)
ON REFLECTION, this should not be surprising. Although it is often said that the federal government "leaks like a sieve" and cannot keep classified information confidential, this is so only because the government classifies far too much information. No institution can keep everything secret. But the government prioritizes its secrets, and it is very good at keeping secret our most important ones.
Moreover, on the rare occasion when the press actually gets wind of such information, editors and publishers act responsibly. Not only do they not want to endanger national security, it would be very bad business for them to do so. If the press recklessly published non-newsworthy information that seriously harmed national security, heads would surely roll.
Not surprisingly, then, when the New York Times received the Pentagon Papers from Daniel Ellsberg in 1971, its editors and reporters spent months reviewing and redacting the material to make sure that what it published did not disserve the public interest. And, more recently, when the New York Times learned of the NSA surveillance program, it sat on the story for a year at the request of the Bush administration, even though it very likely involved unlawful conduct by the government.
I do not mean to suggest that the government has no legitimate interest in keeping certain things secret. Surely, it does — but not by threatening to prosecute the press.
The unimpeachable lesson of history is that the American solution to the secrecy dilemma works. That solution is to reconcile the irreconcilable values of government secrecy and government accountability by guaranteeing the press an expansive right to publish and by granting the government a broad power to prohibit leaks. This solution may be unruly, but it has served our nation well.
They want to win the Iraq war the old-fashioned way -- just drop an atomic bomb.
ReplyDeleteIt used to be so easy to win a war, back when men were men. So losing the war must be the media's fault -- if only they ran stories about the Democratic Party on page 3, that would win it. Oh, and those damned civilians. If they keep on trying to live in the middle of a battlefield, well, who can be blamed if they get hurt...
-- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted terrorist in Iraq,
ReplyDeleteis dead, according to an aide to Iraq's prime minister.
I would say that the right wing message machine is broken down on other issues as well. Did you hear some of the contorted and illogical rationalizations that were being used in the marriage amendment debate?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, any type of machine can only work with the input that it is given. Garbage In Garbage Out. It has gotten to the point where realities on the ground, in Iraq and public opinion is so far detached from right wing narratives that it is nearly impossible for them to craft a logical and concise rationale to argue their positions.
You are seeing the cracks around the edges with the marriage amendment debate and columns like Blankley's. Pretty soon you will see them start to crack up a bit more with hands shaking and random explicitives more commonly associated with Tourette Syndrome. Eventually they will drop the innuendo, and openly slander their critics while screaming their tripe at the top of their lungs. The endpoint will result in a new army of srieking harpies that will be known as the Coulter Clones.
Well, on a positive note, al-Zarqawi is dead.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, these commentators are just nuts. They really don't understand how the world works. They are narcissists living in a state of permanent victimhood.
One of the principal arguments of the warmongers to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussen was that he killed thousands of his own people. Now, the very same warmongers are advocating that the U.S. military use those same tactics -- which has Saddam in a war crimes trial.
ReplyDeleteThere must be some kind of genetic thing with a segment of the population that cannot detect their own hypocrisy. Sadly it's as old as the bible since Jesus noticed them back then as well. Matthew 7:5.
http://www.thankyoult.org
ReplyDelete"[I]n time of war, there is no reason why military
ReplyDeletecensorship should not be enforced to shroud the
carrying out of justice from the eager eyes and ears
of enemy propagandists -- domestic and foreign."
If it were just, and justice, why would we want to "shroud it" and if it were injust, or wrong, why would we be right to hide it? I don't see what "justice" there is in shooting civilians, but if there is any justice in this war then it should fear no daylight.
aimai
It seems strange to read Tony Blankley accuse the media of not understanding the seriousness of the war. The Iraq war defies statistical expectations in terms of the sheer number of journalists killed. I think journalists understand exactly what is going on. Perhaps that's the problem for Mr. Blankley.
ReplyDeleteFrom Haditha and Indian Country
ReplyDeleteNo, for inspiration we have to look to America’s other total war: the war against the Indian tribes.
That will, I am very certain, be regarded as a terrible thing to say. After all, today the wars against the Indians are regarded as one of America’s great national sins – not something to be proud of or to emulate. But they are something to be proud of. During the Indian Wars the United States, with a relatively minimal expenditure, accomplished a feat which has never been enduringly accomplished anywhere else in the world – they conquered and held most of a continent.
The Indians that America fought back then were savages – primitive tribes which were basically unworthy (whatever nonsense has now sprung about them) of even being known as a “civilization.” They were wasting some of the greatest lands on this Earth and assaulting those innocents who attempted to spread the blessings of civilization. They deserved the defeat they suffered.Our strategy for defeating the Islamist challenge ought to resemble that which we used for the conquest of this continent. The Moslem world is latter-day Indian country. Bit by bit we ought to retake the lands owned by Moslems from savagery, gradually spreading civilization as we move forward. A total war in this case is plodding and methodical – but also fiercely determined.
We are determined to assure our own security. We can best do this by – we can end the Indian raids on our lands – by gradually driving the Indians out. And when they kill some of ours, we should kill more of theirs.
That’s where Haditha comes back into this picture. In the early 1920’s, the British faced a full-scale national uprising in Iraq and put it down with fewer troops and in less time than it has taken the United States to deal with a much less serious “insurgency.” That’s because the British used real force. They used poison gas. They burned down villages. That’s war.
Because we’re waging a half war in Iraq – because American forces are forced to fight clean while our enemies fight dirty - what really happened at Haditha (seemingly the killing of men who stood by and thereby gave support to our enemies) is regarded as a great crime when, instead, it ought to be national policy.
We will never tame our enemies by kindness. We will never, no matter how long and hard we try, make them love us. So we should make them fear us. We should make them all fear us. Put the fear of God into them and, bit by bit, year by year, we will tame them.
They're only dumb if they don't get away with it. They want to transform the US completely into an authoritarian warfare state, and they want (finally) to redefine the Iraq War as simply America vs. all the Iraqis -- forgetting about liberation and nation-building and democracy export. Kill Iraqis until there's no more trouble.
ReplyDeleteThere have been many nations like that, and while they are unappealing to read about, some of them were successful on their own terms. So this kind of thing isn't silly, it's scary.
I still think that it's 50/50 that between now and the fall election we will have either a major terroist attack or a new war in Iran, and that the Bush-Rove people will try to use the new crisis to save the Bush regime, permanently marginalize the Democrats, and transform the American system into a fully authoritarian one. From the normal political point of view Bush is doomed, so why should he stay normal?
This is why the US must bring the war to al Qaeda's home countries in the Middle East. Whenever the al Qaeda leadership leaves its cave to fight, they will eventually die.
ReplyDeleteAbu Musab Al-Zarqawi Killed in Air Raid
Jun 8, 7:27 AM (ET)
By PATRICK QUINN
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida leader in Iraq who waged a bloody campaign of suicide bombings and beheadings of hostages, has been killed in a precision airstrike, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday. It was a long-sought victory in the war in Iraq.
Al-Zarqawi and seven aides were killed Wednesday evening in a remote area 30 miles northeast of
Baghdad in the volatile province of Diyala, just east of the provincial capital of Baqouba, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said.
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.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060608/D8I40JL00.html
Not to be outdone by Blankley, John at Powerline adds, “I disagree with Blankley in one respect. I don't think the journalists are oblivious to the consequences of their actions. I think they foresee, intend and welcome those consequences.”
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the non-Fox news media is our enemy, they are working hand in hand with the terrorists and have the very same goals.
Blankley’s call for press censorship is really nothing more than a wish and a hope that our media will be intimidated by his blather, and become a bunch “Baghdad Bobs” promoting the latest Bush talking point.
This is what they want. They want “freedom from the press” – freedom from accountability so they can do what they want with impunity.
Actually, I don’t think that the right-wing’s message machine is broken down – it’s still amazingly effective, getting the same coordinated talking points out fast and furiously to their innumerable outlets on TV, the internet and radio.
What’s broken is their “message” – it has become so far removed from reality that it has become a joke, just like Baghdad Bob. Their message is that Iraq has been an astounding success, that there’s been lots of progress, and that freedom and democracy are on the march.
That message is no longer credible to the majority of Americans, who now roll their eyes when they hear it.
Blankley and the right-wing are really angry at reality, which keeps rearing its ugly head into their bubble of fantasy. They insisted they could create their own reality, but it isn’t working out the way they planned.
And that’s why they want the press to be Baghdad Bobs telling the public wonderful fairytales about their “reality.” And, when the media doesn’t comply, doesn’t spin fairytales – they are viewed as traitors.
ABC News is reporting this morning that US airstrikes killed ALQ in Iraq's leader Al-Zarqawi.
ReplyDelete[Via Michelle Malkin]
The Right is inexorably being forced to explicate its true position, heretofore masked by allusion and spin. Ann Coulter's latest outburst is a good example, as is the ugliness generated by the recent immigration "debate."
ReplyDeleteTheir true position is, of course, repugnant: unchecked Executive authority, holding American citizens without charge, torture, elimination of a free press and civil liberties, the diminuation of the checking power of Congress, a partisan judiciary, racism, homophobia, the destruction of women's and worker's rights...you get the point.
We can expect more of this, as those who have so enjoyed their recent position (and who have contributed to a historically terrible time in our Republic) realize they are soon to be relegated to their true minority status. It's gonna get ugly.
Ok Shooter...
ReplyDeleteSuppose you're a reporter for a major US news outlet. How would you write these stories?
Also, your examples don't demonstrate your point at all (examples of reporters libeling the Marines).
Your example 1:
"Civilians in Haditha murdered by Marines"
I followed this link and the headline is: "
Lawmaker: Marines killed Iraqis ‘in cold blood’
The quote is clearly attributed to a "Lawmaker".
Your example 2:
"Marine Murder Probe Intensifies"
In fact it is a murder probe. No libel there.
Your example 3:
"Revealed: how US marines massacred 24"
The link is broken, but it's clearly not even a US paper.
I ask again, How would you write the story?
The problem is always the messenger. How muzzling the U.S. media would improve the situation on the ground or solve what is clearly an international image problem is never explained.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Blankely doesn't really care about our international image or the situation on the ground. His arguments make more sense from the standpoint of "how do we protect the Republican Party from domestic criticism".
Bart said...
ReplyDelete"This is why the US must bring the war to al Qaeda's home countries in the Middle East. Whenever the al Qaeda leadership leaves its cave to fight, they will eventually die.
Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi Killed in Air Raid"
We weren't fighting or looking for Al Zarqawi until after we invaded Iraq Bart. In fact I doubt we even knew he existed before that.
BTW, where is Osama bin Laden? The man actually responsible for the deaths of over three thousand Americans on 9/11. Oh yeah, that's right, he got away.
shooter242: "Do you see presumption of innocence anywhere in there? How about mitigating circumstances? Nope, it looks like those Marines are guilty, guilty, guilty. One hopes that somewhere on page 36 that possibility is entertained, but the Headlines show no such uncertainty. The first one is in red no less."
ReplyDeleteshooter242, we already presume that the accused are innocent until proven guilty. The press is discussing how terrible the crime could be if it were true. If there was no evidence of this occurring, there would only be a bunch of wild conspiracy theories being thrown around the Arab press. The reason this news has reached us is that there is evidence of something. We still don't know for sure what happened.
Do you understand that the accusations about Haditha describe a terrible event? That the death of innocent civilians is a bad thing for the United States and our current mission there? You conintue to say outrageous things that you know are not true (that the press is gleeful about these deaths or the charges against the Marines). Why do you say these things? As a joke? Or because you want to see the commenters here get riled up?
The press and the American people are concerned that this could have happened. We want to find out the truth and deal with it. Do you get that? The truth. What actually happened.
We are troubled by the accusations because we don't want them to be true.
It is great news that they got Zarqawi. Now watch Blankley and his ilk use that to further attack the media. Unless there is a full stop ticker tape parade and a day of headlines hailing Bush's fearlessness and the seismic, world-altering significance of nailing Zarqawi, the media will be portrayed as in the bag for terrorists.
ReplyDeleteSteve said: "They are narcissists living in a state of permanent victimhood."
I agree. But that is a part of their prot-fascism. Whenever someone points out the increasingly fascistic tone and substance of Bush cultists, someone on the center right hits their "pish-posh" macro.
What else can one say, though? We have open calls for censorship, an unprecendented executive power grab that has made the 4th Amendment near moot, a "long war" with a "shadowy," always changing enemy, and a loud chorus of hacks who get up in the morning to find internal enemies to demonize. This is fertile ground for fascism. How many times has Glenn, Digby, FDL, TPM, etc. pointed out the inconvenience of actual democracy to Bush cultists? They find Democracy a pain and want to keep it in name only for the propaganda but not for the governing. You know, like most dictatorships that throw the word democracy around as pretense.
The part that is especially perverse is that by doing so, this crowd has turned fighting back against the jihadists, the people who really attacked us nearly 5 years ago, into a political business. Instead of a constructive and effective foreign policy, we now have a fascist politics that needs terrorism to justify itself. Look at Blankley's argument. What would he do without terrorism to bludgeon those he disagrees with, without terrorism to give him cover to attack people he despises?
Bushco and his media apparatchiks have made terrorism necessary for their politics and "policy" (if you can call anything they do policy), rather than making jihadism something we want to bring to an end. If they did not have near eternal terrorism to give lip service to, they would have nothing left justify themselves except give aways to the wealthy, flag waiving, and cynical, purposely ineffectual yet divisive gay bashing.
There's no doubt that the women and children shot in the head, not killed by an IED as the Army stated in its cover-up, in Haditha were murdered. They were not enemy combatants. They were murdered.
ReplyDeleteNobody killed those murder victims except U.S. Marines.
Unfortunately, the headlines reflect the truth that U.S. Marines murdered Iraqi civilians in Haditha.
I do not "happily cackle" over the reporting of the event, but I cannot deny the truth of the matter as easily as Shooter242.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGris Lobo said...
ReplyDeleteBart said... "This is why the US must bring the war to al Qaeda's home countries in the Middle East. Whenever the al Qaeda leadership leaves its cave to fight, they will eventually die.
We weren't fighting or looking for Al Zarqawi until after we invaded Iraq Bart. In fact I doubt we even knew he existed before that.
We had been tracking him for years. Zarqawi was in Iraq a year before the liberation of Iraq recruiting Iraqi Sunni to fight our troops in Afghanistan.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598259/posts
He went to Afghanistan and then fled back to Iraq, where we have been fighting him ever since.
BTW, where is Osama bin Laden? The man actually responsible for the deaths of over three thousand Americans on 9/11. Oh yeah, that's right, he got away.
Running from one mud hit to another in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan and out of command of what's left of al Qaeda. He and Zawahiri are now the only pre 9/11 leaders left.
Wow!!
ReplyDeleteBart wrote: 'Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi Killed in Air Raid'
Excuse me if I don't get anymore excited than the chimp hitching a ride to an aircraft carrier with the 'Mission Accomplished' banner three years ago.
I guess this little bit of 'good news' will keep the war mongers fantasies going a little longer.
I suppose that, based upon their feeble grasp on reality, this will now allow democracy to race throughout the middle east ushering in the golden age of a Republican Utopia.
"We weren't fighting or looking for Al Zarqawi until after we invaded Iraq Bart. In fact I doubt we even knew he existed before that"
ReplyDeleteGris Lobo,
The US had been tracking Mr. Al-Zarqawi for years. Could you possibly be any more clueless if you tried?
CNN December, 2002:
"Salem Sa'ed (Salem) bin Suweid, a Libyan national, and Yasser Fathi Ibraheem, a Jordanian, have confessed to belonging to (al Qaeda), Jordanian authorities have announced.
"Suweid, authorities said, had trained at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan. They say (Suweid and Ibraheem) received directions from a top al Qaeda operative named Abu Musa'ab Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, authorities said."
"According to German authorities, Zarqawi -- a chemical weapons expert who is still at large -- is the head of al Qaeda operations in Europe." [...]
"During a speech delivered October 7 [2002] in Cincinnati, Ohio, Bush referred to 'one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.'"
"There is no other direct link between Iraq and Zarqawi that we know about, but that will be looked at very closely."
Since Bart knows where Osama is at, perhaps he could take advantage of this web page to rid the world of this scourge:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wheresosama.org/
Go get 'em Bart! Help your God Blessed President!
Blankley's suggestion that censorship of the media would "shroud the carrying out of justice from the eager eyes and ears
ReplyDeleteof enemy propagandists" deftly and conveniently ignores the fact that justice likely would not have been carried out at all with regard to Haditha if the media hadn't latched onto the story and brought it to light.
And what about William Jefferson? There's a Democratic Party scandal that certainly isn't being reported "on Page A36," as Blankley would have it.
What's it like inside the bubble, Tony?
You miss the whole point - the Iraq war is all about make BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars while bleeding the federal treasury dry. The fiscal disaster will dictate America's fiscal priority for generations to come.
ReplyDeleteThe wreckless spending and looting will enable the destruction of Social Security, prevent any solutions to US Healthcare crise, and eventually start wholesale "privatization" of publivc assets.
The rhetoric on EITHER side does not matter. The war was started wtih lies, so what the hell do you expect, intellectually honest rants?"
The architects and core support for this war has never been rational, but it has been a highly effective profit center for the military industrial complex.
When are you going to acknowledge the real isses that drive these policies. I, for one, am so tired of the mental masterbation from pundits like you that can key thousands of words without ever addressing the obscene profits of the military-industrial complex and the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars that provide the incentive to fight war.
You are spewing just as much BS as the chimperor.
There is far to much money to be made to proclaim that the pro war right is in its "last throes".
ReplyDeleteYou have successfully avoided all the important issues - congratulations, moron.
The FLY said...
ReplyDelete"We weren't fighting or looking for Al Zarqawi until after we invaded Iraq Bart. In fact I doubt we even knew he existed before that"
Gris Lobo,
The US had been tracking Mr. Al-Zarqawi for years. Could you possibly be any more clueless if you tried?"
For years huh? Have to wonder if that is the case as to why we didn't just ask the Jordanians for him in the nineties when they had him in jail for seven years.
The fact still stands that Al Zarqawi was not being hunted by us until after we invaded Iraq and he turned up running Al Qaida there after the fact.
But who knows mabe you would like to claim that the real reason Osama got away is because we had to go look for Zarqawi in Iraq.
bart said...
ReplyDeleteGris Lobo said...
Bart said... "This is why the US must bring the war to al Qaeda's home countries in the Middle East. Whenever the al Qaeda leadership leaves its cave to fight, they will eventually die.
We weren't fighting or looking for Al Zarqawi until after we invaded Iraq Bart. In fact I doubt we even knew he existed before that.
We had been tracking him for years. Zarqawi was in Iraq a year before the liberation of Iraq recruiting Iraqi Sunni to fight our troops in Afghanistan.
http://www.freerepublic.com/
focus/f-news/1598259/po
Your link doesn't work
bart said:
ReplyDeleteThis is why the US must bring the war to al Qaeda's home countries in the Middle East. Whenever the al Qaeda leadership leaves its cave to fight, they will eventually die.
bart, was it worth it? Consider:
-$1-2 Trillion total cost of Iraq War
-15,000 American casualties
-anywhere from 40,000 to 100,000 Iraqi deaths
-diversion of resources away from eliminating Osama bin Laden
All for Zarqawi? Suppose we get Zawahiri too, does that make it worth it?
In looking back on the Iraq War, we have to define what we wanted (removal of WMD, retaliation for working with al Qaeda, removal of Saddam Hussein), and determine if the cost we paid is worth it.
Was the Iraq war worth it? Iraq did not have WMDs and was not an al Qaeda home country when we invaded, so we failed to achieve two of the three objectives. Removal of Saddam is ultimately good for the United States, but have we paid too high a price for such a small victory?
I could be wrong, but it seems to me you're willing to pay any price just to get Saddam and a few al Qaeda operatives. But that's wildly irrational to the point of dangerous, and I hope I'm wrong. So, assuming I'm wrong about how you think, please explain how the benefits of removing Saddam ultimately exceed the costs of removing him.
There is no doubt that Zarqawi’s death is a blow to Al Qaeda and is good news – he’s responsible for some of the worse attacks we’ve seen of late and the deaths of thousands.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, however, it is hardly justification for the triumphalism that we no doubt will see on the far right in this country. We went through these obscene “end-zone” dances before, only to have instead of the much ballyhooed “turning point” – an increase in violence and terrorism.
Remember when Saddam was captured? Strutting Chickenhawks were predicting that has the point where the insurgents would slowly collapse and whither away.
Right after they killed Zarqawi, there was another explosion and more deaths. And so it goes – and so it will continue to go. This capture doesn’t do much to stem the increasing sectarian violence between the factions that are descending into civil war, or bring a coherent government together that would facilitate an end to that.
It is a rare bit of good news, but let’s not pretend it is anything else.
I hope Zarqawi's death is good news. I'm afraid I suspect that it won't make any difference. From the reports that we're seeing, it looks like there isn't all that much coordination going on, and that the knowledge of how to construct and place IEDs is widespread.
ReplyDeleteIt's also never been clear the degree to which the people opposing US forces (and one has to add, the nascent Iraqi government) are pursuing al Qaeda's goals. Eliminating an al Qaeda leader may have very little impact on the insurgency, because they may well not be the key players in terms of either numbers or operational control.
If things don't change, it will further damage the President's credibility. By setting up Zarqawi as a bogeyman, they may find it hard to explain why his death, in the end, didn't make any difference.
Zarqawi's last words contest:
ReplyDelete"Hey where are my virgins, and when did Allah grow horns?"
"Its awfully hot here, Allah can't afford airconditioning?"
"Isn't that Hitler over there?"
"Hey Cousay, good to see you and Oday again!"
"But the New York Times said we were winning"
"Hey I never passed go?"
"Baghdad Bob has personally assured me there are no American Forces anywhere near this farm hou.....(silence)"
"John Kerry told me last week at a New York Coffee House Summit that the USA forces are demoralized and have no will left to fight!"
"But the Washington Post said the USA forces would never be able to stop me and the insurgency?"
"Yes I agree with the American Lefty moonbats, the USA invasion of Iraq will never succeed in stopping me ,,,, (hey what's that loud whistling noise coming this way)"
The Prime Minister of Iraq when asked how he liked Zarqawi replied "well done".
Says the "Dog"
The big news this morning is that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was apparently killed in an airstrike. That rare bit of good news (and it certainly is good news) comes just in time . . . .
ReplyDeleteI found this bit illustrative of a problem among the Left. A.L. -- why did you even feel the need to add the parenthetical, "and it certainly is good news?" Of course it's good news. Why would there be any doubt? Unless, of course, you recognize that many among your audience on the Left is not rooting for success in Iraq.
This website, and Glenn's writing, is often geared towards forcing people to face the truth when their entrenched beliefs and motives conflict with a reality they don't see. The target is almost exclusively the Right. I think many people on the Left would do well to face up to the fact that they are, on some level, rooting for our failure in Iraq.
Now this is unequivocally good news.
ReplyDeleteFrom John Burns in the NYTimes:
For Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, the killing of Mr. Zarqawi brought immediate political results in the form of parliamentary approval, immediately after the news conference, of Mr. Maliki's nominees for the vacant security posts in the cabinet, the ministers of defense, interior and national security. After the prime minister's repeated failures to win agreement of contending groups within the government on earlier nominees, he stood at the lectern in the Parliament chamber and presented the three men who emerged from weeks of overlapping vetoes by the main Sunni and Shiite political groups.
This event following so closely upon Zarqawi's death leads one to wonder whether that was a condition for the agreement. In any case, this is a much more hopeful sign than the elimination of one foreign leader, no matter how demonized by the administration.
It's very distressing to hear right-wingers speak of Naziism on the left because that's exactly what they're promoting on the right.
ReplyDeleteBack during World War I, the German authorities did exactly what Blankely suggests US authorities do today. It was all "happy-news" all the time. When the Allies came into Germany and started walking around German cities as though they had won the war, it was a great shock to the German people. "But our newspapers told we were winning!" they cried.
This shock was part of the reason for the later rise of Naziism.
Later, Americans in 1966-67 were also fed a steady diet of "happy-news" as the situation in Vietnam just kept getting better and better. Tet happened and again, the people cried out in helpless despair "But we thought we were winning!" and again there arose a "stab-in-the-back" theory, this time with the media playing the part of the Jews.
Right-wingers seem to want this history loop to stay on endless "repeat".
Wait. Wasnt' Al Queda's presence in Iraq widely reported as "immaterial" and "insignificant"? Didn't the Iraqis themselves hate having Al Queda there?
ReplyDeleteAs the Pentagon has claimed, the insurgency is mainly Iraqi Sunni, not foreign jihadists. So spare me the flypaper strategy (yet another ipso facto 'reason' for this insanity) and its winning success.
And anyway, and I don't know how the rightwingers who bemoan the Islamic Death Cult whenever there's a suicide bombing can dispute this, won't there just be another ultrarelgious asshole to take this asshole's place? Isn't martyrdom their goal (as the rightwing has whined on and on about)? So wouldn't it stand to reason there'll be more would-be gloryboy martyrs waiting in the wings? Or do you think this wraps things up?
On the other hand, trying to eliminate Al Queda by attacking a third party country where they had a marginal presence seems to be the ultimate in fucking lunacy to begin with.
The target is almost exclusively the Right. I think many people on the Left would do well to face up to the fact that they are, on some level, rooting for our failure in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteOf course! That's why I opposed the war to begin with -- so when it inevitably went bad, killed Americans, Iraqis and made the world a more dangerous place, I could root for the failure of the completely indefined and/or fradulent American mission.
Makes perfect sense from some rightwing douchebag whose very fake name makes obvious that his support of the war has less to do with the merits of Iraqi democracy than it does with bloodlust and fear of an abstract notion and paranoid fear of the spread of Islam.
This story aptly demonstrates how wrong Murtha and Kerry are. It would be a huge tactical mistake for the US to withdraw from Iraq too soon, because the Iraqi police or military obviously do not have this kind of fast precision strike capability.
ReplyDeleteNote also that even with all of the unfavorable reports of civilian casualties in the MSM, it was local residents that provided intelligence leading to the US air strikes.
Jay Ackroyd,
Great point. No doubt fear and intimidation had stalled the political process. What the US needs to do now is press the fight even harder, insurgents should be allowed no quarter.
Gris Lobo,
You still have it wrong. Mr. Al-Zarqwai first made US wanted posters in 2001 or 2002. That would be before the liberation of Iraq.
In 2002 the US government knew, for example, that Zarqawi was involved in killing a US diplomat in Jordan, and that he then went on to set up shop in northern Iraq.
Colin Powell at the UN:
"But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder."
"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Mud’ab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama Bin Ladin and his Al-Qaida lieutenants. Zarqawi, Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp."
"One of his specialties, and one of the specialties of this camp, is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp, and this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. You see a picture of this camp."
gris lobo:
ReplyDeleteWe weren't fighting or looking for Al Zarqawi until after we invaded Iraq Bart....
Actually, I think we did know about him. IIRC, he was part of Ansar al-Islam (and was one of the alleged "al Qaeda" folks that Saddam was supposedly harbouring). But pre-war, Ansar al-Islam was holed up in the north, in the U.S. "no-fly" zone. We had a chance to take out the Ansar al-Islam base, btu passed on it (I think, in part, because that would have taken away one of the excuses for going after Saddam).
Google it; here's some stuff, but there's lots more.
Cheers,
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI guess this little bit of 'good news' will keep the war mongers fantasies going a little longer.
Yep, isn't that about the seventh "#3 al Qaeda" guy? At least that was how he got billed the last time he was "killed"....
When the sectarian violence continues, they'll have to invent a new bogey-man rather than face the fact that there's a civil war going on there.
Cheers,
You still have it wrong. Mr. Al-Zarqwai first made US wanted posters in 2001 or 2002. That would be before the liberation of Iraq.
ReplyDeleteBush had several chances to kill Zarqawi before the war, but didn’t want to do it because it might ruin his attempts to form a coalition to overthrow Saddam.
He wanted a war so he could be a “war president” and build political capital, get his buddies in the oil industry access to Iraqi oil fields that would otherwise go to European companies under Saddam, and start a “permanent war” as an excuse to subvert democracy and impose authoritarian government with Republicans permanently in control.
Kill a terrorist and save lives (he was producing deadly ricin and cyanide)?
Nah, he might not get to play dress up commander on the U.S. Liberty under a “Mission Accomplished” banner.
And we are paying the very high price for that idiotic decision today.
Great post AL. I am always chillingly struck by the "lack of imagination" tact that these Stepford Village hacks demonstrate when they wake up in the morning and the talking points memo hasn't arrived yet. Talk about living in a bubble of insanity, over and over and over again we see this mentality on the pages of our media, this reminds me of the dripping water torture the Chinese use.
ReplyDeleteThe wingnuts and chickenhawks understand, in some dim way, that they profit (politically, at least) from the ever-increasing pile of bodies that began on 9/11. Fear and war everlasting are the only tools they have to maintain minority rule and continue their assault on the institutions of our Republic--a system which they do not, and never have, believed in.
ReplyDeleteBring on the high-fiving and ball spiking. One mosquito swatted, out of thousands born in the stagnant swamp they made. War porn addicted bedwetters.
It's easy for someone like Blankley to call for censorship, since he is not a journalist, nor does he seem to have any idea what journalists do.
ReplyDeleteI heard him rant about this subject at the end of last week, and he never gave any justification on why it's ok to censor this type of information - I guess that we're always supposed to take the word of the administration, no matter what (as long as it's a Republican adminsitration).
The idea that journalists take any pleasure in reporting stories like this is despicable - and totally in character for this former Newt Gingrich operative.
Also - I know that I'm being picky, but as a professional "writer," shouldn't Blankley watch the split infinitives?
You still have it wrong. Mr. Al-Zarqwai first made US wanted posters in 2001 or 2002. That would be before the liberation of Iraq.
ReplyDeleteAnd Bush rejected two operations that would have eliminated Zarqawi before the war began, according to NBC News.
In the White House cult, it was more important that he be able to claim an al Qaeda presence in Iraq for political purposes than it was to eliminate him.
Someone toggled the "site feed" to abstracts, can we get a full site feed back please?
ReplyDeleteHere's the link to the NBC story reporting on the president's refusal to attack Zarqawi, in order,apparently,to keep that section in Powell's speech that is quoted upthread.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Zarqawi was in Iraq in opposition to the secular Saddam Hussein regime. That particular lie--that al Qaeda was working with Saddam's government was one of the more transparent of the pre-war lies.
It's certainly great that we killed al-Zarqawi, but to think that this somehow will break the back of the insurgency is pure wishful thinking. It would be the same with Osama bin Laden, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteThe nature of this enemy is such that any two-bit street thug can step into the role of "criminal mastermind" at a moment's notice. Zarqawi basically became the bin Laden of Iraq in no time flat, and there's no reason to think some other clown won't step up the violence and become the next al-Zarqawi.
It's good to notch a bit of vengeance for Nick Berg and the countless others Zarqawi murdered, but's let's be careful of getting complacent. Zarqawi was no genius; he was simply an opportunist of the first order. Any jackass who can spew platitudes and put together bombs could be the next guy, and that's as scary as anything in this "war."
"Iraq is not a war, it is a military occupation of a (partly) hostile citizenry"
ReplyDeleteShargash,
I have no trouble grasping your point.
I only disagree with you to the extent that some of the insurgent attacks consist of foreign terrorists using unusually potent explosives. That is the sticky part.
At what point can one decide that only native insurgents are left in the fight, i.e. carrying on the same low level civil war thats been going on for decades.
Zack, Jay Ackroyd,
Certainly a valid observation. At the time I also wondered why the US didn't attack the site in northern Iraq. I don't think oil or war mongering played a part in the decision.
Noting that the US could have just used a few dozen cruise missiles in Afghanistan once again, but instead opted for a major military campaign, it could simply be that the President has a distaste for half measures.
After all in the 1990's we used cruise missile strikes against ALQ in Afghanistan with very little to show for it.
"Zarqawi was in Iraq in opposition to the secular Saddam Hussein regime"
Doubtful, post a few links to back that one up.
shooter:
ReplyDeleteThe media is reporting on what OTHER PEOPLE are saying. They are not treating the assertions as fact. When they write,
"John Q. Smith of the National Council for Human Writes says, '........'"
it is not the same thing as writing,
"'............'"
The latter asserts something as fact; the former CLEARLY places it in context of the opinion of a given source, the reliability of whom can be judged by the reader.
I swear to God, you guys wouldn't be happy unless every news article in the media were a de facto editorial praising the Great Leader's personal bravery and the astronomical success of the Great Mission in Iraq.
Shooter,
ReplyDeleteHow exactly do any of the articles you've cited support Blankley's characterization or contradict mine? There's no "glee" or happy "cackling" in those articles, and there are no negative comments about the armed services "generally." The idea that the press corps is attacking the military generally or happily reporting the murder of civilians is pure right-wing agitprop, and you know it.
Libertarian David Weigel at Reason’s Hit ‘n Run puts it well, a quote:
ReplyDeleteWith a real victory to celebrate, why would a Iraq War stalwart's first reaction be to mock skepticism about the war that has, so far, proven correct? Nothing better underscores the difficulty of predicting the aftershocks of events in Iraq.
AL to shooter: The idea that the press corps is attacking the military generally or happily reporting the murder of civilians is pure right-wing agitprop, and you know it.
ReplyDeleteActually, AL, the sad truth is that shooter probably does not know it.
David Byron wrote:
ReplyDeleteYour contradictory quote from that fascist nutcase Sessions was about actual killing not reporting killing. The two are NOT exclusive. Send one message to the locals, but maintain PR image to the rest of the world. Classic imperial tactic.
First of all, the locals are the people for whom the PR image is the most important. Remember, we're supposed to be winning their hearts and minds. Killing them tends to have the opposite effect.
Second, with what magical powers are you going to stifle the flow of information to the "rest of the world"? It would be hard enough to censor our own media, but there's no way that the international media can be censored. And the international media is where all the people that matter, at least from a terrorism perspective, are getting their info.
Please.
"The Dog" is the dumbest commenter on this blog, and one of the dumbest commenters ever. Nice work, "The Dog."
ReplyDeleteSo the only argument left for the right is that we can't talk about their failures because such talk will lead to failure?
ReplyDeleteWeak.
It's never their fault, is it? The failure of conservatism will have to be blamed on the people who were never dumb enough to support it in the first place.
.
In a perfect world, nobody would have to be concerned about false MSM depictions of the incident in Haditha:
ReplyDelete"Massacre Marines blinded by hate"
"[Note: This story originally appeared with a picture of slain Iraqis whose caption erroneously described the scene as being related to the alleged incidents in al-Haditha. The image was in fact from a separate incident in the area in which Iraqi insurgents are believed to have massacred local fishermen. We apologise for the mistake.]"
But then again, we don't live in a perfect world now do we?
shooter:
ReplyDeleteHere are three HEADLINES pulled from page one of googling "Civilians in Haditha murdered by Marines".
"Civilians in Haditha murdered by Marines"
I can't believe no one has called shooter on this.
A search engine spits back what you ask it. If there's an exact match, it's going to appear at the top of the returned hits. The only reason shooter phrased his search the way he did was to produce results that would fuel his outrage. And further, to demonstrate to all the unthinking people here reading his single-minded crap that he actually has a case.
There are an infinite number of ways a more objective search could have been conducted...but shooter had a point to make. Everyone here is sputtering in defense of the reporting of those links, when the fact is that reporting of the incident has been all over the map depending on who you choose to read.
Shooter, next, why don't you Google "Bush is a dumbass" and then get back to us with the evidence that there are actually people on this planet who think Bush is a dumbass? It'll make for a very compelling case that poor, well-meaning George is unjustifiably being slandered and that that's the source of every single problem we face today.
Or you could, once, just once, actually admit that you're willing to turn yourself into a frickin' pretzel in order to make the case that Bush is a benevolent visionary, that all the killing makes your sex life possible and that you're one of the Golden Ones who will never be touched by the last stages of the destruction of the Constitution for which you so enthusiastically applaud.
shooter:
ReplyDeleteHere are three HEADLINES pulled from page one of googling "Civilians in Haditha murdered by Marines".
"Civilians in Haditha murdered by Marines"
I can't believe no one has called shooter on this.
A search engine spits back what you ask it. If there's an exact match, it's going to appear at the top of the returned hits. The only reason shooter phrased his search the way he did was to produce results that would fuel his outrage. And further, to demonstrate to all the unthinking people here reading his single-minded crap that he actually has a case.
There are an infinite number of ways a more objective search could have been conducted...but shooter had a point to make. Everyone here is sputtering in defense of the reporting of those links, when the fact is that reporting of the incident has been all over the map depending on who you choose to read.
Shooter, next, why don't you Google "Bush is a dumbass" and then get back to us with the evidence that there are actually people on this planet who think Bush is a dumbass? It'll make for a very compelling case that poor, well-meaning George is unjustifiably being slandered and that that's the source of every single problem we face today.
Or you could, once, just once, actually admit that you're willing to turn yourself into a frickin' pretzel in order to make the case that Bush is a benevolent visionary, that all the killing makes your sex life possible and that you're one of the Golden Ones who will never be touched by the last stages of the destruction of the Constitution for which you so enthusiastically applaud.
RothBard,
ReplyDeleteTry this: marines haditha innocent, which still results in this "Lawmaker: Marines deliberately killed Iraqis - Conflict in Iraq ..." right at the top of the pile.
Nice try though.
Oscar Leviathan said...
ReplyDelete"The Dog" is the dumbest commenter on this blog, and one of the dumbest commenters ever. Nice work, "The Dog."
How can you say that. It's too difficult to pick one. Even a genius with partisan brain syndrome would come off like a delusional idiot. And it's a toss up between the dog shit and the flies it attracts...
The FLY said...
This story aptly demonstrates how wrong Murtha and Kerry are. It would be a huge tactical mistake for the US to withdraw from Iraq too soon, because the Iraqi police or military obviously do not have this kind of fast precision strike capability.
Nobody has it on a global scale except the U.S., dumbass. And the withdrawal of the major portion ground troops from Iraq wouldn't impact that ability to any great degree.
Given the record of lies and misinformation that Bushco and the military flacks spew about everything in Iraq, why is everyone so ready to believe that Zarqawi is dead? Wasn't the line for quite some time that he only had one leg? Then he showed up sporting those neato track shoes, and the "one-legged" claim was no longer operative.
ReplyDeleteI know I don't believe anything these people say and until someone with actual credibility identifies the body (Can we find his mother and bring her over to Iraq? A tearful mom crying over a body is a sure ratings-grabber.), I'm going to keep an open mind.
Assuming he turns out to be dead, any bets on which No. 2 will become the "Evildoer-of-the-Month"?
ummm, the media in the old soviet union never once reported on any soviet atrocities in afghanistan. in fact, they ONLY reported the "good news" of that war, 24/7. is that the kind of coverage these people are calling for? because it will be every bit as effective for us as it was for the soviets, i'm sure.
ReplyDeleteMr FLY
ReplyDeleteThere was no exact match for your search. What happened in this case is that words in the article were matched and the article that most closely matched and was most linked to came up on top.
Shooter's search DID have an exact match. And I suspect he knew it would.
Nice try in attempting to demonstrate that a biased search won't provide biased results.
To Oscar and Anonymous (you know who you are)
ReplyDeleteTo add to the laughs from my previous post, doesn't anybody here have something funny to add to the top ten list of things Zarqawi were last known to say? Are all of you really that sad and distressed over the bringing to justice of this illiterate cold blooded murderer?
Can't one of you come up with the wording for the right Hallmark Card celebrating the death penalty being carried out on this evil monster who liked to behead innocent civilians with a dull knife on video tape?
Are you two just that anti-american that you can't bring yourselves to celebrate victory over this evil monster and waste of human skin?
Says the "Dog"
Anonymous 4:11 PM,
ReplyDelete"And the withdrawal of the major portion ground troops from Iraq wouldn't impact that ability to any great degree."
That's a very compelling comment you posted there Anonymous 4:11 PM. So what is your point, you want us to withdraw right now?
Anonymous 4:45 PM,
Oh good, the Gump siblings, Anonymous, Anonymous and Anonymous are back.
Well, Ms. / Mr. Gump, if you are looking for negative reports on the war effort, off hand I think the MSM has you covered.
RothBard,
Isn't that just further establishing my point? No exact match for haditha+ "innocent until proven guilty" either.
Hey Dog,
How about: "YEEEEARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!"
cfaller96 said...
ReplyDeletebart, was it worth it? Consider:
-$1-2 Trillion total cost of Iraq War
Try less than 1% of GDP during the years of the war for better perspective. Then compare that to allowing Iraq to follow NK's lead to develop nuclear weapons and other WMD once the sanctions inevitably were lifted.
-15,000 American casualties
Compare the Iraq casualty figures to any previous war of the same length. They are miniscule and amount to what we suffered in the first couple hours of D-Day.
-anywhere from 40,000 to 100,000 Iraqi deaths
The current reliable figures are around 40,000 to 50,000 and the vast majority are enemy combatants, who are mixed with the civilians in the reports. This is a useful comparison to the 2000 US KIA.
In contrast, the UN was estimating that 10,000 Iraqis were dying each year under sanctions because Saddam was starving and denying medical attention to the Shia while using his Oil For Food money to rearm and to bribe France, Germany and Russia.
-diversion of resources away from eliminating Osama bin Laden
What diversion?
1) The only substantial group of al Qaeda fighters in the field are in Iraq. We are engaging and decimating them.
2) None of the regular troops in Iraq would be in Afghanistan. Indeed, we are withdrawing some of our troops currently in Afghanistan.
All for Zarqawi? Suppose we get Zawahiri too, does that make it worth it?
The strategy was to engage al Qaeda where they live and al Qaeda wanted the same thing. We obliged and are slaughtering them in Iraq. Should be abandon that fight and cut and run as Murtha suggests?
Was the Iraq war worth it? Iraq did not have WMDs...
Really? Where is the evidence they ever destroyed their WMD?
Based on the word of Saddam's son in law in charge of WMD, Duelfer speculated that Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991 and 1992. However, ABC recently played portions of a captured audio tape of a 1995 staff meeting where this same son-in-law is heard informing Saddam that Iraq lied to the UN about the amount of WMD, WMD materials and WMD programs it possessed. When asked by ABC to comment, all Duelfer could say was that this did not prove that Saddam had WMD in 2003. However, that begs the question of what happened to these WMD discussed in 1995?
A definite possibility discussed by both Kay and Duelfer was that some or all of the WMD were moved to Syria just before the war the way Iraq shipped its air force to Iran before the Persian Gulf War.
Let's say that there were no WMD. Saddam was still found to have several active WMD programs and intended to proceed with full WMD development once the UN got tired of killing 10,000 Iraqis per year with their sanctions.
and was not an al Qaeda home country when we invaded
At least 1500 al Qaeda were found in Iraq in the days immediately following entry into Iraq. They have about the same number or less there now.
Iraq appeared to have the second largest number of al Qaeda after Afghanistan.
the fly said:
ReplyDeleteThis story aptly demonstrates how wrong Murtha and Kerry are. It would be a huge tactical mistake for the US to withdraw from Iraq too soon, because the Iraqi police or military obviously do not have this kind of fast precision strike capability.
Fast precision strike capability to do what, exactly? Kill Zarqawi? Wow f--king wee. 130,000 troops and countless air assets to kill a handful of al Qaeda operatives in Iraq? Does that really sound practical to you?
Murtha and Kerry understand that our military is the target of the insurgents every damn day. The insurgents don't care about Zarqawi- they care about getting US forces out of Iraq.
Killing an al Qaeda operative every six months or so isn't worth paying during the same time period the price of:
-hundreds of soldiers dead or wounded
-thousands of Iraqis dead or wounded
-tens of billions spent
-Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and God knows what else
So, if it's not worth the price, then we may as well pull our forces over the horizon so they can live to fight another day, with the capability to quickly respond to a severe crisis in Iraq (or a hot tip on the location of Zawahiri or Bin Laden). Zarqawi's death won't fundamentally change anything on the ground in Iraq, but Murtha's plan will.
Shooter, if the press were liberal Bush would never have been re-elected.
ReplyDeleteThere's so much shit on the little fool that wasn't reported or relegated to the back page.
Get real.
DavidByron said...
ReplyDeleteBart joins those who are making up death toll figures.
Bart: The current reliable figures are around 40,000 to 50,000
Bzzzzzt.
No big surprise that dickless gets this one wrong.
OK hero, I have about had enough of your anti-American lies and slander.
Brookings' Iraq Index summarizes a half dozen independent actual counts of either press reports (which are usually exaggerated) and other sources like morgue reports. Their latest estimates are between 38,000 to 42,000 dead Iraqi civilians.
I rounded that up, not down, out of caution.
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
Giving a base death toll of about 385,000 since the invasion. Then we take the Lancet figure of 200,000 and adjusted it up for the months since the research was undertaken (18 months before the research, 38.5 months total = multiply by --- oh let's just double it). Total both figures: over 750,000 casualties.
This is junk "science" at its worst.
The Lancet never counted a single body nor did they like Brookings get second hand hearsay reports from allegedly independent sources who allegedly counted bodies.
Instead, the Lancet allegedly "interviewed" enemy Sunni how many people in their family had died and extrapolated that to come up with these utter fantasy numbers which no one can substantiate.
Of course, the Lancet's first "study" (sic) was released just before the 2004 elections. This lie is as bogus as the Dan Rather forged NG documents and was published at the same time for the same reason - a partisan hatchet job.
Of course, this isn't the only figure which you have fabricated. For most of this thread, you have been claiming that the US murdered 500,000 Iraqi civilians...
Honey might catch more flies than vinegar but it's a bit hard to convince someone you're the good guy while murdering 500,000 of his neighbours don't you think?
Time to put up your proof or admit that you are a low down liar bent on slandering US soldiers.
Bart: ...because Saddam was starving and denying medical attention to the Shia
Well let's just say the UN head of the food for oil system called the US embargo (it was nothing to do with the UN) "genocide" while saying that Saddam's food distribution network was exemplary.
That is another reprehensible lie.
Try checking out UN SC Resolution 661
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s90/15
HWSNBN:
ReplyDeleteLet's say that there were no WMD.
Yeah, let's say it. Because it's the truth.
Another truth is 2489 (today) and counting. And a half trillion or so (which HWSNBN just pooh-poohs in a Dirkesenian "a trillion here, a trillion there, and sooner or later you're talking real money" ... only Dirksen was saying "million" -- and being ironic).
Cheers,
Basharov said...
ReplyDelete"Given the record of lies and misinformation that Bushco and the military flacks spew about everything in Iraq, why is everyone so ready to believe that Zarqawi is dead?"
I saw a picture of him on the news today. It looked like previous pictures published of him other than the fact that in this one he obviously looks dead. Remarkedly well preserved though for having been in a house that was completely destroyed by two five hundred pounders.
"Assuming he turns out to be dead, any bets on which No. 2 will become the "Evildoer-of-the-Month"?"
His replacement has already been announced. An Egyptian. Don't recall the name or if it was given.
RothBard said...
ReplyDeleteDouble posting? Normally wouldn't say anything but since you called me on my spelling the other night........
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeletegris lobo:
We weren't fighting or looking for Al Zarqawi until after we invaded Iraq Bart....
"Actually, I think we did know about him. IIRC, he was part of Ansar al-Islam (and was one of the alleged "al Qaeda" folks that Saddam was supposedly harbouring). But pre-war, Ansar al-Islam was holed up in the north, in the U.S. "no-fly" zone. We had a chance to take out the Ansar al-Islam base, btu passed on it (I think, in part, because that would have taken away one of the excuses for going after Saddam)."
You are correct about us knowing about him. In fact we supported him along with Osama during Afghanistan's war with the Soviets.
Gris Lobo,
ReplyDelete"You still have it wrong. Mr. Al-Zarqwai first made US wanted posters in 2001 or 2002. That would be before the liberation of Iraq.
In 2002 the US government knew, for example, that Zarqawi was involved in killing a US diplomat in Jordan, and that he then went on to set up shop in northern Iraq."
True enough but we still weren't actively pursuing him like we were Osama bin Laden until after we went into Iraq and he turned up as the Al Qaida leader there.
DavidByron said...
ReplyDelete"How could anyone possibly slander US soldiers? They are beyond slander. What could you make up that they haven't done in reality? Maybe I should say they bugger little boys up the ass. Oh right --- they do that in reality don't they? According to multiple sources. Rape, torture, murder, genocide, buggery of little kids."
I would like to see your sources for these accusations. Links please.
"DavidByron said...
ReplyDelete"Ok then another reply to bart.
"Hope this isn't habit forming."
Actually, it would be excellent if you two would go off in a corner and talk at each other while the grownups have a conversation.
DavidByron said...
ReplyDelete"How could anyone possibly slander US soldiers? They are beyond slander. What could you make up that they haven't done in reality? Maybe I should say they bugger little boys up the ass. Oh right --- they do that in reality don't they? According to multiple sources. Rape, torture, murder, genocide, buggery of little kids."
Just as I thought, another American hating al Qaeda propagandist wannabe using slander to get attention for his pathetic excuse for a life...
Just ignore him.
"Murtha and Kerry understand that our military is the target of the insurgents every damn day. The insurgents don't care about Zarqawi- they care about getting US forces out of Iraq"
ReplyDeleteSo what you are saying is that the insurgents, Murtha, Kerry and you share the same goal for our armed forces: "cut and run"
Hitler wanted US forces out of Europe too, and we lost 400,000 people before defeating him. Presidents Roovesvelt and Truman no doubt had similar fools at the time calling for "getting US forces out of Europe [or the Pacific]"
I notice how you guys keep insisting that the death toll is a valid reason to pull out of Iraq. However unlike WWII, the numbers for Iraq are no more alarming than US work related deaths in general.
cdc.gov:
"During 1980--1997, 103,945 civilian workers died in the United States from occupational injuries, an average of 16 work-related deaths per day"
For some occupations, being a soldier in Iraq is probably safer than going back home to work as a civilian...
If you guys are sincerely interested in bringing our troops home, you should support the Iraq effort so we can get the Iraqi government, police and military ready to take over security for themselves.
[Do you understand] that the death of innocent civilians is a bad thing for the United States and our current mission there?
ReplyDeleteshooter242 said:
I think you mean the execution of innocent civilians as retribution. Yes, that would be a very bad thing.
I can't speak for the original questioner, but all of a sudden I'm very curious about shooter242's distinction between "the death of innocent civilians" and "the execution of innocent civilians as retribution". Shooter242, did you really intend to make that distinction? Do you understand that it means you think that there are certain situations where the death of innocent civilians is NOT a bad thing?
Wow.
the fly said:
ReplyDeleteDuring 1980--1997, 103,945 civilian workers died in the United States from occupational injuries, an average of 16 work-related deaths per day.
For some occupations, being a soldier in Iraq is probably safer than going back home to work as a civilian...
Wow, are you really that stupid?
Aside from the death rate for a soldier in Iraq being 160x the death rate for a civilian just on a population basis (noted above), let's also note you're comparing total deaths for 18 years in the United States versus 3 1/2 years in Iraq. You should really ask for better statistics from Rush. That, or start using your own brain.
And with regards to the "cut and run" smear, fuck you chickenhawk. The Iraq War is a failure, and smearing me won't change that. Acknowledge and accept the fact that you were wrong, and figure out what's the best thing to do now.
The US military can't force the Iraqi (or any) population to create and sustain a democracy, period. The US military can't force the Iraqi (or any) population to police itself, period.
Drop the smears, cut the bullshit, deal with those realities, and try listening to somebody for a change. Asshole.
cfaller96,
ReplyDelete"figure out what's the best thing to do now [...] The US military can't force the Iraqi (or any) population to create and sustain a democracy, period. The US military can't force the Iraqi (or any) population to police itself, period."
Wow, you really are a fool.
Aren't the insurgents trying to force the Iraqi people to abandon all hope of freedom and self government?
What do you think the Iraqis want for themselves, another dictatorship?
Do you really view the US military as trying to "force" the Iraqis to govern and police themselves?
the fly said:
ReplyDeleteAren't the insurgents trying to force the Iraqi people to abandon all hope of freedom and self government?
No, they're resisting the occupation of a foreign army. The insurgents are trying to eject that foreign army.
the fly said:
What do you think the Iraqis want for themselves, another dictatorship?
They want the US military out of Iraq, which by the way is what everybody wants.
the fly said:
Do you really view the US military as trying to "force" the Iraqis to govern and police themselves?
How would you describe doing something, anything, while a gun is pointed at your head? You seem to embrace the idea that democracy (and self-governance and self-policing) can only be implemented with the presence of a large United States military force. That's absurd.
The Iraqis want their own government, their own military, their own police force, their own democracy, that much is sure. However there can be no compromising between rival political factions when one faction (the shiite majority) is seen as collaborating with the foreign occupying force.
Without political compromises, there can be no stable, democratic government, and there can be no peace. Thus, with the US military in Iraq, there will be no stable government, and there will be no peace.
The situation is more complicated than the bulls--t that is spoonfed to you on FAUX news, fly.
Hey fly, do you stand by your statement that some soldiers in Iraq are safer than some civilians working in the US? You responded to some things I said, but I noticed that you dropped the whole commentary about death rates in the workplace in the US. If you've realized that you're wrong about that, you should at least have the decency to admit it.
ReplyDeletecfaller96,
ReplyDelete"The situation is more complicated than the bulls--t that is spoonfed to you on FAUX news, fly [...]
Hey fly, do you stand by your statement that some soldiers in Iraq are safer than some civilians working in the US?"
I don't watch Fox news, and yes, I stand by my comment that some civilian jobs here in the US are more dangerous than being a soldier in Iraq. I fully understand your point of view, but some things are worth fighting for no matter what the cost.
As JFK said: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Unfortunately Democrats these days have no clue, and seem to be getting even more lame as time goes by.
"Aside from the death rate for a soldier in Iraq being 160x the death rate for a civilian"
I don't think the math you are using adds up, but that's beside my point which is that civilian job related deaths averaging 16 per day are no more alarming than an average of 1 death per day for the military serving in Iraq, not that civilian jobs in the US are generally more dangerous. Some may be more dangerous, others not.
By comparison consider 400,000 deaths over 4 years during WWII, that works out to well over 250 deaths per day, not to mention the fact that we entered the war just ten years after the great depression with most of our navy ships and many of our fighter aircraft destroyed, and needing to be replaced. Some people no doubt wanted us to stay within our own borders then, instead of joining the fight.
"They want the US military out of Iraq, which by the way is what everybody wants"
BTW, you are incorrect in stating that the Iraqis want us out. The insurgents are not representative of most of the population of 25 million that is not interested in fighting with anyone. The civilians obviously need our help to keep the peace until the newly formed government can fend for itself.
the fly said:
ReplyDeleteBTW, you are incorrect in stating that the Iraqis want us out. The insurgents are not representative of most of the population of 25 million that is not interested in fighting with anyone. The civilians obviously need our help to keep the peace until the newly formed government can fend for itself.
Your assertion that insurgents "are not representative" of the Iraqi population is meaningless without facts. Please cite the poll that says a majority of Iraqis want the US military to remain in Iraq forever. Please cite the poll that says a majority of military personnel want to remain in Iraq forever. Please cite the poll that says a majority of Americans want the US military to remain in Iraq forever. I could go on and on, but instead I'll reiterate- everybody wants the US out of Iraq.
It's not "obvious" to me that the civilians need us- please explain why Iraq needs a foreign army in order to implement a democracy. Democracies are not formed with cooperation of foreign guns. I've explained how the US military is actually hurting the democratic process in Iraq, and you've said nothing about it. Is the reality too complicated for you? Or do you concede the reality that the Shiite and Sunnis will not cooperate as long as the Shiites are collaborating with the US military?
cfaller96,
ReplyDelete"Please cite the poll that says a majority of Iraqis want the US military to remain in Iraq forever"
You seem to be presenting yourself here as an Iraq expert, other than Democrats such as Murtha and Kerry, where are you getting your information from?
"I've explained how the US military is actually hurting the democratic process in Iraq, and you've said nothing about it"
That's your opinion. I disagree.
"It's not "obvious" to me that the civilians need us- please explain why Iraq needs a foreign army in order to implement a democracy"
Because the new government has only recently formed, I don't think the Iraqi police or military are fully prepared to handle security. To demonstrate my point, there is this news article:
"Iraqi Official Says Most Foreign Troops to Leave by End of 2007"
"Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, also said last month that Iraqis would be able in 18 months to secure the country without significant U.S. assistance."
As I have tried to point out to you, it is the Iraqis themselves that need to discuss their security needs through their government in talks with the US. It is not like the Pentagon alone is calling the shots as you seem to imply in your comments.
"Or do you concede the reality that the Shiite and Sunnis will not cooperate as long as the Shiites are collaborating with the US military?"
No, I don't concede that at all. The government is made up of representatives from the basic ethnic groups, based on the results of the parliamentary elections. Anyone, including you, can speculate on what groups don't like other groups, and what that means, etc.
the fly said:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be presenting yourself here as an Iraq expert, other than Democrats such as Murtha and Kerry, where are you getting your information from?
You seem to want to change the subject. I have presented complex realities and I've never pretended to be an expert. Perhaps simply acknowledging a complex situation makes me an expert in your book, but that's more of a reflection on you, not me.
Since you asked, I get my news from a lot of different sites on the internet, but when it comes to understanding the political situation in Iraq, I pay attention to Juan Cole. Now go ahead and attack him and attack me, and by doing so attempt to ignore the realities of the world.
I find it funny that you want to argue with me about the idea that everybody wants the US out of Iraq, only to then cite the freakin' Prime Minister of Iraq setting a deadline for withdrawal of US troops. What, you think al-Maliki expects US troops to leave by the end of 2007, but doesn't want them to leave?
Hilarious.
cfaller96,
ReplyDelete"Now go ahead and attack him and attack me"
I'm not familiar with Juan Cole.
"I find it funny that you want to argue with me about the idea that everybody wants the US out of Iraq, only to then cite the freakin' Prime Minister of Iraq setting a deadline for withdrawal of US troops"
The PM is talking about the Iraqi military replacing most US forces within 18 months, not a complete withdrawal as you imply.
the fly said:
ReplyDeleteThe PM is talking about the Iraqi military replacing most US forces within 18 months, not a complete withdrawal as you imply.
You're trying to run away from your original argument against my point- that everybody wants the US out of Iraq. I can't believe you still want to argue that some people want the US military to stay in Iraq forever. You haven't cited any evidence to support that assertion, despite my request for that. All you could do was point to a news article that called for a "conditions-based timetable for withdrawal". That doesn't sound like an endorsement for a permanent military presence in Iraq to me, but then again I'm not a chickenhawk dittohead. Again I ask for evidence, but this time try not to change the subject.
al-Maliki's statement about the Iraqi military's capabilities does not mean he wants the US military in Iraq forever, which I pointed out previously. If anything, it implies that he wants US forces out by the end of 2007. Again I ask you, because you didn't answer before- do you honestly believe that al-Maliki expects US forces to withdraw, but doesn't want them to?
Quit distracting and provide some evidence.
"Again I ask you, because you didn't answer before- do you honestly believe that al-Maliki expects US forces to withdraw, but doesn't want them to?"
ReplyDeleteI already responded to that, the Iraqi officials are quoted in the article I linked to as saying "By the end of next year [2007] most of the multinational forces will have gone home". Note that would be most, not all, meaning that 20,000-30,000 will still be there. Hence, the Iraqi government is planning on [some] US troops still being in Iraq in 2008.
I don't think I can make it any clearer than that...
You seem to be anticipating some massive and immediate fall of Saigon style airlift, which is ridiculous. As I understand it, the decision on how many troops withdraw, and when, is going to be made based on conditions in Iraq and in consultation with the Iraqi government.
I don't get your point, actually. When you say "everyone" wants the US out of Iraq, you seem to be implying that would include not only mother moonbat Cindy Sheehan, and Representative John Murtha, but also every other living soul on the planet.
Iraq is no longer a dictatorship, so maybe you should find out for yourself whether or not your characterization of what "everyone" in Iraq wants is in fact true, before you carry on putting words in other peoples mouths.
Try Iraq The Model, or search for other bloggers actually in Iraq if you are really interested in what the Iraqis themselves have to say about what they want.
Again I ask you, because you didn't answer before- do you honestly believe that al-Maliki expects US forces to withdraw, but doesn't want them to?"
ReplyDeletethe fly said:
I already responded to that, the Iraqi officials are quoted in the article I linked to as saying "By the end of next year [2007] most of the multinational forces will have gone home". Note that would be most, not all, meaning that 20,000-30,000 will still be there. Hence, the Iraqi government is planning on [some] US troops still being in Iraq in 2008.
I don't think I can make it any clearer than that...
I don't think you understand that planning for something to happen is not necessarily the same thing as wanting that same thing to happen. Am I going too fast for you?
I said everybody wants the US out of Iraq. Did you notice that I didn't put a deadline on that statement? Based on the things you've said, probably not. In any case, I felt very comfortable claiming that everybody wants the US out of Iraq eventually, and I didn't think there was any controversy to that statement.
Then you came along and argued the point. I have repeatedly asked for evidence that Iraqis want the US to remain in Iraq forever, which is the opposite of wanting the US to leave Iraq eventually. Am I going too fast for you?
You first declined to provide any evidence, then you gave me the article, then you gave me the above statement, which says a lot about the plan that US forces will remain in Iraq through the end of 2007. But where in that article does it say that Iraqis want the US to remain in Iraq forever? Where does it say that even though al-Maliki plans for significant withdrawals, he doesn't want significant withdrawals?
It's clear that you don't understand the difference between planning and wanting. al-Maliki can plan on rain this afternoon, but that doesn't necessarily mean he wants it to rain this afternoon. Similarly, al-Maliki can plan on US forces to remain in Iraq through 2007, but that doesn't mean he wants US forces to remain in Iraq forever. Am I going too fast for you?
It's as if Rush has gradually taken away your ability to grasp the subtleties of the english language, and thus the ability to derive meaning from other people's statements. God help us all.
"Where does it say that even though al-Maliki plans for significant withdrawals, he doesn't want significant withdrawals? [...] the ability to derive meaning from other people's statements"
ReplyDeleteThe Iraq officials are talking about the "majority" of foreign troops leaving by the end of 2007, but not "all" foreign troops leaving. You write in terms of absolutes such as what "everybody" thinks or whatever, when in fact there is no way for any of us to know what "everybody" indeed thinks. How can you expect someone else to agree with you on questions like that?
If you are asking me to tell you what al-Maliki wants, talking a guess based on the article I would say yes, he evidently wants the "majority" of foreign troops to leave, but he also appears to want some foreign troops to remain.
Again, it's not a question of who is right or wrong here, but what the Iraqi people themselves want. Based on the above, it would seem reasonable to presume that they want at least some US troops to remain into 2008.
BTW, you keep referring to stereotypical conservative media or commentators [Rush, as in Rush Limbaugh?] as if you know what news outlets I read, watch or listen to. It's like me assuming that because you are commenting here, you must be a huge fan of George Clooney.