No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

[red states rule]

Antiwar Media Ignore Israel Related Consequences of Iraq War Retreat
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 19, 2007 - 08:51.
As NewsBusters reported about the March 11 installment of “Meet the Press,” former “Nightline” anchor Ted Koppel made some almost verboten observations concerning the dangers of a premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Amongst other things, Koppel claimed the battle between Sunnis and Shia currently taking place there would become a much larger religious conflict throughout the entire Persian Gulf region.

With that as pretext, another side of this issue ignored by the media is how Hizbullah and Iran are licking their respective chops at the thought of such a troop withdrawal and the opportunity it would present for the total annihilation of Israel.

Consider for example some recent comments made by Abdallah Safialdeen, Hizbullah’s representative in Iran. A few weeks ago, he gave an interview on Irani television, and made statements that if ever broadcast in America would radically change how U.S. citizens viewed the war (video available here courtesy of Memri TV):

Do you know what an American withdrawal from Iraq will mean? It will mean that Israel will lose its support. It will mean that the Lebanese Hizbullah will not need a large-scale war in order to enter Palestine. Hizbullah will be able to simply walk into Palestine. Rest assured that the day the American forces leave Iraq, the Israelis will leave the region along with them.

Scary stuff, yes? But Safialdeen wasn’t finished:

What was one of the reasons for Olmert’s recent visit to America? He went there in order to say to the Democrats: “Don’t say that the American army will leave Iraq, because this would mean the annihilation of the Zionist regime.” This is because the annihilation of the Zionist regime has begun. Like some of our friends say, Palestine is no longer a problem for us, because the Americans will be forced to leave Iraq. With or without a war against Iran, they will be forced to do so. The moment they leave Iraq, you, the Muslims of the world, can walk into Palestine, because Israel will no longer exist. It will be over and done with. Even with America’s [help], Israel could not do a thing. The Americans will be kicked out of the region, without accomplishing anything. The American forces will be kicked out of the region, in disgrace, humiliation, and defeat. Therefore, this victory was very important. It was a landmark in the history of the Islamic world and the entire region.

Any questions as to why such sentiments can never be shared with America’s citizens by our antiwar press?

What follows is a full transcript of this video.

ABDALLAH SAFIALDEEN (Hizbullah’s representative in Iran): The day that Hizbullah won the war shaped the future of the region. It led to what we are witnessing today: America’s actions, the domestic problems of the Zionist regime, the confusion of Europe… The Europeans are very confused now, and don’t know what to do. The horse that they put their money on – Israel – can no longer fulfill the role it played in the past. America has not had any success anywhere in the region. In our opinion, the harbinger of this lack of success was the victory of Hizbullah, the bitter defeat of the Zionist regime, and its incompetence in the region. You should know that… Do you know what an American withdrawal from Iraq will mean? It will mean that Israel will lose its support. It will mean that the Lebanese Hizbullah will not need a large-scale war in order to enter Palestine. Hizbullah will be able to simply walk into Palestine. Rest assured that the day the American forces leave Iraq, the Israelis will leave the region along with them. What was one of the reasons for Olmert’s recent visit to America? He went there in order to say to the Democrats: “Don’t say that the American army will leave Iraq, because this would mean the annihilation of the Zionist regime.” This is because the annihilation of the Zionist regime has begun. Like some of our friends say, Palestine is no longer a problem for us, because the Americans will be forced to leave Iraq. With or without a war against Iran, they will be forced to do so. The moment they leave Iraq, you, the Muslims of the world, can walk into Palestine, because Israel will no longer exist. It will be over and done with. Even with America’s [help], Israel could not do a thing. The Americans will be kicked out of the region, without accomplishing anything. The American forces will be kicked out of the region, in disgrace, humiliation, and defeat. Therefore, this victory was very important. It was a landmark in the history of the Islamic world and the entire region.


http://newsbusters.org/node/11502

 

[glockmail]

If that happens the ACLU will file papers to have him released because his Miranda rights were not read to him, the war was illegal, and the US has no cause to arrest him

Sen Kennedy, Kerry, and Clinton will lead a delagation to make sure he is givin a copy of the Koran, he is given a prayer mat, and his TV does not have Fox News as a channel selection (that is torture you know to libs)

I can't wait to see bin Stinkin's reaction when that fat lesbian Rosie O'Donell gives him a great big ol' bear hug.

 

[red states rule]

I can't wait to see bin Stinkin's reaction when that fat lesbian Rosie O'Donell gives him a great big ol' bear hug.

As long as she pops some Tik Tacs in her big mouth before she walks up to him

The ACLU would charge the US with not protecting OBL enough

 

[glockmail]

As long as she pops some Tik Tacs in her big mouth before she walks up to him

The ACLU would charge the US with not protecting OBL enough

She's gonna need more than tic tacs. Imagine her big sagging titties covering his sorry ass face.

 

[Vintij]

I have interviewed several soldiers on leave from iraq, basically they dont care about civilian support because they are there to do a job not make people like them. All they want is for one of the following things to happend

either we

1. Pull every single last troop out and end the war due to lack of iraqi help and the guerilla "style" fighting tactics in which we dont know who our enemy is and get no help from the iraqi civilians.

2. Surge every last troop we got, put a soldier on every corner of every street in bagdahd. Put troops everywhere and create a military lockdown type environment so the iraqis and get to work with taking over.


Every single troop i spoke with told me we should either make a supersurge or get the hell out of iraq, because there is no point waiting around for the governemnt to show up if we are not going to slow the violence. An American troop told me - "We are shooting at people who might not be the enemy, getting blown up with no civilian iraqis seeing any bomb planting or any information at all when it just happend 20 yards from your house".

Why surge 20,000 troops? Will that make a difference, we had more troops over there post 9-11. It looks like bush is TRYING to prolong this war!?

Its not rocket science, either we get the hell out and give up on the hopless iraqis, or we put every single troop we got on every single corner of every city to allow iraqis breathing room for creating democracy.

Nobody would disagree with at least deciding between those two, rather than stick around iraq till the troops are old enough to retire and buy homes in kuwait. Ready to be on call incase another idiot takes office like chelsea bush. Thank god he didnt have a boy.

Please theodore roosevelt, come back. Too bad the republican party cant produce more presidents like teddy jr.

 

[T-Bor]

Umm there is no winning the WOT. You cannot defeat a state of mind. Its not like the nazis and they are all in Germany. Terrorists dont all exist in IRAQ. They are everywhere, and 20 years from now there will new terrorists and so on and so on. Its not winnable. Although idiots like you think it is, when really its just an excuse to establish an american presence in IRAQ for oil.

Even NBC's Brian Williams reported on the NBC News the surge is working and prgress is being made, even though the area is still dangerous

If the Dems get their way, how will handing Iarq over to the terroists make the US safer and help the US win the war on terror?

 

[GeeWhiz]

Increasing troops in Iraq won't do squat. The rivals have their minds made up.

The Sunnis have nothing to lose by continuing their bombing tactics. They are screwed and this current administration made sure of that. The only way the Sunnis can get a fair shake in this regime change if they have a say on the oil resources in Iraq.

Bush will not allow the Sunnis to have a say because Bush wants to privatize the oil resources. Privatized oil resources will do zero for the Sunnis in fact it will do zero for the People of Iraq.

Bush even created a law in Iraq that was kept a secret from the People of Iraq, so much for democracy. The law was designed by a law firm that Bush hired. The law puts into the hands of foriegners almost 90 percent of Iraq's oil resources and all the profits will go into the hands of the foriegners.

There is going to be some hopping mad Iraqis when they find out how screwed they are and they will not stop the bombing unless several condition are made such as USA get out and USA get your greedy grubby hands off the oil.

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

Incorrect. Saddam was supporting bin Laden.

I'm sure Saddam would support a man (Osama) who calls for his ouster from Iraq. LOL!!!!!!!!! More right wing fantasy.

 

[glockmail]

I'm sure Saddam would support a man (Osama) who calls for his ouster from Iraq. LOL!!!!!!!!! More right wing fantasy.

Fantasy supported by facts.

 

[red states rule]

Increasing troops in Iraq won't do squat. The rivals have their minds made up.

The Sunnis have nothing to lose by continuing their bombing tactics. They are screwed and this current administration made sure of that. The only way the Sunnis can get a fair shake in this regime change if they have a say on the oil resources in Iraq.

Bush will not allow the Sunnis to have a say because Bush wants to privatize the oil resources. Privatized oil resources will do zero for the Sunnis in fact it will do zero for the People of Iraq.

Bush even created a law in Iraq that was kept a secret from the People of Iraq, so much for democracy. The law was designed by a law firm that Bush hired. The law puts into the hands of foriegners almost 90 percent of Iraq's oil resources and all the profits will go into the hands of the foriegners.

There is going to be some hopping mad Iraqis when they find out how screwed they are and they will not stop the bombing unless several condition are made such as USA get out and USA get your greedy grubby hands off the oil.

So the people who live in Iraq say their lives are better, they want the US to stay and defeat the terrorists, and our troops want to fish the job - yet libs continue to say all is lost

Then libs whine when their patriotism is questioned

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Umm there is no winning the WOT. You cannot defeat a state of mind. Its not like the nazis and they are all in Germany. Terrorists dont all exist in IRAQ. They are everywhere, and 20 years from now there will new terrorists and so on and so on. Its not winnable. Although idiots like you think it is, when really its just an excuse to establish an american presence in IRAQ for oil.

You're a whack job if you think we went in for oil.
Another michael moore sixth grade mentality drone lemming statement.

And there is a winning of this war. Your words were spoken about communism also. Yet, it fell. Is there still communism, yes, is there still nazism, yes, but we won those wars. Of course terrorism will continue, but not in the way it is being waged upon us by the people who are waging it.

 

[red states rule]

On War Anniversary, Nets Stress Dire Views of Iraqis, Skip How Iraqis Don't See Civil War
Posted by Brent Baker on March 19, 2007 - 21:55.
ABC anchor Charles Gibson led on Monday night, the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, with the results of a door-to-door survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis conducted for ABC News (and USA Today). Gibson started the “sobering report” with how “fewer than half the Iraqis, just 42 percent, said life was better now than it was under Saddam Hussein.” Gibson, however, failed to explain that when asked, “compared to the time before the war in spring 2003, are things overall in your life much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse?”, fewer than 42 percent -- 36 percent -- said worse and 22 thought things are the same. A poll of 5,000 Iraqis reported in the Times of London discovered, as highlighted by FNC's Brit Hume, that “49 percent said life is better under the current Iraqi government” and “just 26 percent preferred life under Saddam Hussein.”

NBC anchor Brian Williams opened by emphasizing the length and cost of the war: “U.S. involvement in this war is now longer in duration than the Korean War, longer than World War I or World War II. And here are the numbers of great importance to all Americans. So far, at least 3,218 Americans have died. At least 24,000 have been wounded. Estimates of Iraqi dead are close to 60,000...” CBS's Katie Couric began with how “the war goes on, there is no end or victory in sight, thousands of Americans are dead, but the President says victory is still possible.” Reporter Allen Pizzey, who on The Early Show had insisted that “Iraqis have very little to be thankful for,” also delivered a dire assessment on the Evening News: “And so four weary and blood-soaked years on, the so-called coalition of the willing has become the coalition of those who are stuck with it.”

The ABC survey found that 56 percent of Iraqis don't believe there is a “civil war,” with 42 percent thinking there is, but ABC's World News skipped that finding. The British poll determined 61 percent don't believe they're in a civil war compared to 27 percent who think they are in a civil war, yet Couric asserted the nation is in the midst of one:


“There seems to be no end to the misery for Iraqi civilians caught in the middle of what even the Pentagon now calls a 'civil war.' From suicide bombings to murders by death squads, Iraqi civilians have paid a terrible price for four years of war. Estimates of the dead range from thirty thousand to as high as six-hundred thousand...”
The PDF with the full results of the ABC survey. Scroll down to page 14 for the better/worse question, to page 36 for the civil war one.

Hume's March 19 “Grapevine” item on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume:


“On this fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war a new survey, based on an unusually large sample of Iraqis, indicates that contrary to many Western analysts most Iraqis do not believe their country is embroiled in a civil war. The poll of more than 5,000 Iraqi adults was conducted by the British market research firm Opinion Research Business and reported in our sister publication, the Times of London. 61 percent of the respondents did not think the situation qualifies as a civil war there. 49 percent said life is better under the current Iraqi government. Just 26 percent preferred life under Saddam Hussein. And 64 percent want to see a united Iraq under a central national government.”
The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better."
The same paper's March 18 article about the civil war question: “Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?”

A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.”

Noel Sheppard's earlier NewsBusters take on the poll.

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth helped gather transcripts of how the broadcast networks led their March 19 evening newscasts:

ABC's World News. Charles Gibson led:


"Good evening. Four years ago, on this day, the war in Iraq began. In four years, so much has changed. And we believe that if you watch World News this evening and through the week, you will come to have a better understanding of where things stand in Iraq, the good and the bad from the Iraq perspective. There is a popular belief that you cannot talk to Iraqis, that you can't get around the country because of the danger, and there is truth to that.

“But ABC's Terry McCarthy traveled throughout Iraq for a series of reports you will see this week. And ABC News has conducted a poll, more than 2,000 interviews of Iraqis in more than 400 towns and cities. It is a sobering report of a nation. Fewer than half the Iraqis, just 42 percent, said life was better now than it was under Saddam Hussein. Why? The answer is the violence -- 80 percent of Iraqis tell us they have experienced attacks nearby. In November 2005 when last we polled, 63 percent of Iraqis said they felt safe in their neighborhoods. Today, that is 26 percent. In November 2005, 71 percent said their own lives were going well. Today, that is down to 39 percent. And perhaps the most chilling questions for Americans and the American military, we asked Iraqis if it is acceptable, in their minds, to attack Americans. In early 2004, 17 percent said yes. Now, more than half, 51 percent, say it is acceptable to attack Americans. And among Sunni Muslims, the number is 94 percent."


CBS Evening News. Katie Couric teased:

"I'm Katie Couric. Tonight, the United States enters a fifth year of war in Iraq. And the President insists it can still be won."

George W. Bush: "It will be won if we have the courage and resolve to see it through."

Couric: "We'll look tonight at the costs, the accomplishments and the search for a way out after four years of war."

Couric began the newscast:

"Hello, everyone. Four years ago tonight, this broadcast began with the news that the United States was about to invade Iraq. The White House was telling Americans to prepare for what it hoped would be a short conflict, but also for loss of life. The President said, quote, 'We will accept no outcome but victory.' Tonight, the war goes on, there is no end or victory in sight, thousands of Americans are dead, but the President says victory is still possible. Jim Axelrod begins our coverage of Iraq: Four Years of War."
Allen Pizzey later ended a piece from Iraq:

“And so four weary and blood-soaked years on, the so-called coalition of the willing has become the coalition of those who are stuck with it: American troops who can't go home yet and Iraqi forces who have to learn to take their place. The shock and awe invasion has become slow surge and even the White House admits there's no end in sight.”

NBC Nightly News. Brian Williams, in opening teaser:

"On the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War, President Bush says more time and patience are needed as Democrats protest the war without end."
Williams led:

"Good evening. The war that started with the sharp, blinding impact of precision-guided weapons hitting their targets in Baghdad in the middle of the night has now gone on for four years. The fifth year of combat in Iraq starts now. U.S. involvement in this war is now longer in duration than the Korean War, longer than World War I or World War II. And here are the numbers of great importance to all Americans. So far, at least 3,218 Americans have died. At least 24,000 have been wounded. Estimates of Iraqi dead are close to 60,000. And so far, over 2 million Americans have cycled through Iraq at least once. Earlier, on this anniversary day, before a live national television audience, the President talked about the fight so far and the stakes ahead. We begin here tonight with NBC's David Gregory at the White House. David, good evening."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11521

 

[red states rule]

Umm there is no winning the WOT. You cannot defeat a state of mind. Its not like the nazis and they are all in Germany. Terrorists dont all exist in IRAQ. They are everywhere, and 20 years from now there will new terrorists and so on and so on. Its not winnable. Although idiots like you think it is, when really its just an excuse to establish an american presence in IRAQ for oil.

Veteran resolve
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
March 20, 2007


Over the weekend, several thousand military veterans and their supporters who back President Bush's war effort in Iraq turned out from around the country for the "Gathering of Eagles," so named by its organizers. They waved flags. They bore "spit shields." They carried banners of support for Iraq's fledgling government. In the current domestic political climate, that's a story. It's a countercultural story -- counter-media narrative, counter-opinion poll and certainly counter-climate for much of today's debate in Washington.
We can't know the crowd numbers for certain, and the conflicting numbers and reports show it. Private police estimates obtained by this newspaper figured on 10,000 to 20,000 anti-war protesters answered by counterprotesters numbering in the thousands -- "a large group of war supporters and military veterans waving American flags," wrote our reporter. The Washington Post counted "several thousand vets" in car caravans and buses. The New York Times called them "an unusually large contingent" -- although "large" for the NYT is "several hundred," sourced to anti-war regulars. The counterprotesters claim that they numbered 30,000. And, as is the norm, the National Park Service won't touch this one with a ten-foot pole. "The National Park Service never gives any estimate. It cannot be attributed to us. It is made up," said spokesman Bill Line. Into the numbers do protesters of every stripe pour their hopes and desires.
Forget the numbers game for a moment. Consider the substance. These military-vet counterprotesters are now swimming directly against the tides of public opinion and against the Democratic congressional leadership. Convinced of withdrawal's wrongness, they don't care that the latest CNN poll numbers show that only 35 percent of respondents support the Iraq war. Their banners bore messages like these: "Peace Through Superior Firepower" and "Marked for Death if We Cut and Run Now," over the once-famous, now-neglected photo of a purple-fingered Iraqi voter. Or the familiar and harder-edged statement: "Vietnam Vets Against Kerry." These messages were wildly popular four years ago. Today they are decidedly countercultural.
If a man's or woman's political measure is to be taken by constancy and resolve in service of heartfelt conviction (and we certainly think so), then the actions of these veterans and their supporters -- and countless others like them -- speak for themselves.


http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070319-092046-3236r.htm

 

[red states rule]

Incorrect. Saddam was supporting bin Laden.

Libs will be in mourning today as another victim of Bush's war in Iraq claimed another innocent bystander



Saddam's Former Deputy Hanged in Iraq
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer
1 hour ago


Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan listens to a ...
BAGHDAD - Saddam Hussein's former deputy was hanged before dawn Tuesday, the fourth man to be executed in the killings of 148 Shiites following a 1982 assassination attempt against the former leader in the town of Dujail.

Taha Yassin Ramadan, who was Saddam's vice president when the regime was ousted, went to the gallows on the fourth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq.

Bassam al-Hassani, an adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said the execution went smoothly, although Ramadan appeared frightened and recited the two shahadahs _ a declaration of faith repeated by Muslims _ "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet."

Al-Hassani said precautions were taken to prevent a repeat of what happened to Saddam's half brother and co-defendant Barzan Ibrahim, who was inadvertently decapitated on the gallows during his January execution.

Ramadan, who was nearly 70, was weighed before the hanging and the rope was chosen accordingly, al-Hassani said.

The execution took place at 3:05 a.m. at a prison at an Iraqi army and police base, which had been the headquarters of Saddam's military intelligence, in a predominantly Shiite district in northern Baghdad. Ramadan had been in U.S. custody but was handed over to the Iraqis about an hour before the hanging, according to al-Hassani, who witnessed the hanging.

Al-Maliki has not attended any of the executions, but representatives from his office, a judge and a prosecutor attended the hanging, along with members of the justice and interior ministries and a physician.

The prosecutor read out the court verdict upholding the death sentence and al-Maliki's decision to carry it out, the adviser said, adding that a defense lawyer who attended the execution received Ramadan's written will.

The contents were not revealed, although a Sunni cleric later said Ramadan had asked to be buried near Saddam.

Yahya Ibrahim, a member of the Association of Muslim Scholars, said Ramadan's body will be received by members of Saddam's tribe later Tuesday and will be buried near co-defendants Ibrahim and Awad Hamed al-Bandar in Ouja, on the outskirts of Tikrit.

The graves, along with those of Saddam's sons Odai and Qusai and a grandson Mustafa, are in the courtyard of the building in which the former leader is buried. Ibrahim also said three days of mourning would be held for Ramadan.

His sister, Khadija Ramadan, a professor at San'a University, was reached by The Associated Press in Yemen and said their 85-year-old mother was in deep mourning for her son.

In violence Tuesday, a parked car bomb exploded near a main bus station in central Baghdad, killing five civilians and wounding 18, police said.

A suicide car bomber drove his vehicle into an Iraq army checkpoint in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood in western Baghdad, killing one soldier and wounding another, police said. A roadside bomb struck the area about five minutes later but caused no casualties.

At noon, a car bomb exploded in a tunnel in downtown Baghdad, killing three civilians and wounding seven others, police said.

Seven civilians also were wounded in two separate attacks in southeastern Baghdad as the war entered its fifth year. The U.S.-led invasion began in the early morning in Baghdad, when it was still March 19 in the United States.

Late Monday, U.S. and Iraqi troops also engaged in a major operation as part of a security crackdown in the volatile Hurriyah neighborhood in northern Baghdad, state television said. Witnesses said many people were reported holed up in two Shiite mosques, surrounded by U.S. forces.

The state-run Iraqiya network said six civilians had been killed. The U.S. military did not comment on the reports.

Badee Izzat Aref, a lawyer representing several former regime members, told The Associated Press by telephone that he was with Ramadan's lawyer when the condemned man called to report that he would be hanged.

"He told the lawyer that he was not afraid and asked him to not to appeal to anybody to stop the execution," Aref said.

Ramadan also called family members living abroad to tell them he was to be hanged and ask for their prayers, Aref said. "He told his family that he is going to face death with courage."

Ramadan was convicted in November of murder, forced deportation and torture and sentenced to life in prison, but an appeals court ruled that was too lenient and he was sentenced to death. Besides the four executed, three other defendants were sentenced to 15 years in jail in the case, while one was acquitted.

One of the highest-profile figures remaining to be tried for Saddam-era atrocities is Ali Hassan al-Majid, one of six defendants facing charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity stemming from Baghdad's military campaign in which more than 100,000 Kurds were killed. Al-Majid, who is Saddam's cousin, also is known as "Chemical Ali" for allegedly ordering poison gas attacks.

Ramadan, who became vice president in March 1991 and was a Revolutionary Command Council member _ Iraq's highest political body under Saddam _ maintained his innocence, saying his duties were limited to economic affairs, not security issues.

Human Rights Watch and the International Center for Transitional Justice have said the evidence against him was insufficient for the death penalty. U.N. human rights chief Louise Arbour also filed an unprecedented legal challenge last month with the Iraqi High Tribunal against imposing the death sentence on Ramadan, saying she recognized "the desire for justice of victims" but the trial had "failed to meet the standards of due process."

Saddam was executed on Dec. 30 for his role in the killings. Two of his co-defendants in the Dujail case _ his half brother Ibrahim who was former intelligence chief, and al-Bandar, former head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court _ were executed in January.

Ibrahim plunged through the trap door and was beheaded by the jerk of the thick rope at the end of his fall, causing a furor; the Iraqi government said the decapitation was an accident.

Saddam's Dec. 30 execution drew international outrage after a clandestine video showed the former president being taunted on the gallows. Another leaked video showed Saddam's corpse with a gaping neck wound.

Saddam's regime was predominantly Sunni and many members of the sect have protested the executions on the grounds they were politically motivated by the newly empowered Shiite majority in Iraq.

Ramadan was No. 20 on the U.S. most-wanted list issued shortly after the invasion began. He was captured on Aug. 20, 2003.

Born in 1938 in the northern city of Mosul, Ramadan joined the underground Baath Party in 1956 and became close to Saddam. After the 1968 coup by the party, he held several ministerial posts and became a member of the regional command in 1969.

During the 1980s, he was deputy prime minister and was for a time considered the second-most powerful man in Iraq after Saddam.

He was said to have presided over many purges carried out by Saddam to eliminate rivals and strengthen his political control.

He once described the U.S. Congress as little more than an extension of Israel's Knesset, or parliament.

At the height of the standoff leading up to the war, Ramadan also suggested in 2002 that Saddam and President Bush fight a duel to settle their differences and spare their people the ravages of war.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.js...itn_saddamaide

 

[glockmail]

Can't wait to hear how the hanging was inhumane.

 

[red states rule]

Can't wait to hear how the hanging was inhumane.

That is exactly what the moonbats said when Saddam was hanged. Libs whined how it a rush to judgement and a mockery of justice

No wonder the terrorists are hoping for Dems to win the debate in DC

 

[red states rule]

Can't wait to hear how the hanging was inhumane.

The libs are already defending the admitted terrorist Khalid Sheik Mohammed


Tortured Credibility

By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, March 20, 2007; Page A19

Back in 2003, when U.S. forces first took custody of the notorious al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, there was much speculation about what his capture might signify. Some thought he might possess information about other planned operations, some predicted his loss would fatally damage al-Qaeda, some guessed his arrest would lead to additional arrests. Others, among them Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, used his capture to float interesting theories about torture: when and how it might legitimately be used, for example, given a candidate who might seem so clearly deserving of it.

Here is one thing nobody predicted back in 2003: that when the notorious Mohammed eventually stood before a Guantanamo Bay military tribunal and took responsibility not only for the Sept. 11 attacks, the deadliest crime ever carried out on American soil, but also for the horrific death of the journalist Daniel Pearl and some two dozen other operations, the world would greet the confessions with skepticism and indifference.

The Daily Telegraph, normally the most pro-American newspaper in Britain, wrote that it hardly mattered whether Mohammed was guilty, since whatever conclusion is drawn by the military tribunal that will try him, "the world will condemn the procedures by which the verdicts were reached." Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung concluded that "the Bush administration has nobody but itself to blame for the fact that the actions and motives of the perpetrator are now playing second fiddle to the practices used by the Americans in fighting terrorism." In many places, the confessions, which took place nearly a week ago, still have hardly attracted attention.

A small part of this international indifference perhaps derives from the transcript of the confessions, which seem boastful and exaggerated. (What else will he confess to? The murder of JFK?) Most of it, though, surely comes from the widespread, indeed practically universal, assumption that Mohammed was tortured, not in theory but in practice.

Certainly during his hearing at Guantanamo Bay, there are references to "certain treatment [he] claimed to have received," though the relevant parts of the official transcript remain classified. But the assumption that Mohammed was tortured comes from the fact that, as we all now know, the White House, the Pentagon and the Justice Department were also debating the merits of torture about the time of Mohammed's capture. Alberto Gonzales, then White House counsel, now better known for his disastrous performance as attorney general, had advised the president as early as 2002 that torture might be permissible under certain circumstances. And all of us have seen the pictures from Abu Ghraib.

It is true that the administration has now stated clearly that torture, at least by the administration's definition, was not used in Mohammed's interrogation. ("We don't do torture" is how the White House press secretary cavalierly put it.) But even if we were to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, which hardly anyone will, the circumstances of Mohammed's detention have been unacceptable by American standards. Even if he was not tortured, he was held in secret, extralegal and completely unregulated conditions, possibly in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, certainly under nothing resembling what we in the United States normally consider the rule of law, either international or domestic. The mystery surrounding his interrogation -- when it was carried out, how and by whom -- renders any confession he makes completely null, either in a court of law or in the court of international public opinion.

This is concrete proof, as if more were needed, that it is not merely immoral to operate outside the rule of law; it is also ineffective and in fact profoundly counterproductive: There is no proof that it produces better information but plenty of evidence that it has discredited the United States. Indeed, there could be no more eloquent condemnation of the Bush administration's torture and detention policies than the deafening silence that followed Mohammed's confession: Who could have imagined, in September of 2001, that one of the deadliest terrorists in history would admit to the destruction of the World Trade Center -- and that the world would shrug its shoulders?

[email protected]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031901637.html

 

[glockmail]

....it is not merely immoral to operate outside the rule of law...

What law girl? This is war!

 

[red states rule]

What law girl? This is war!

Libs want to to fight a war the John kerry way - a more sensitive war

 

[red states rule]

Umm there is no winning the WOT. You cannot defeat a state of mind. Its not like the nazis and they are all in Germany. Terrorists dont all exist in IRAQ. They are everywhere, and 20 years from now there will new terrorists and so on and so on. Its not winnable. Although idiots like you think it is, when really its just an excuse to establish an american presence in IRAQ for oil.

U.S. Action in Iraq Matters
By Rich Lowry

When President Bush announced a surge of troops into Baghdad in January, Democrats pounded him for the folly of putting U.S. troops in the “middle of a civil war.” Two months later, the question is, What happens to a civil war if only one side shows up to fight it?

The Shia militias that had become the main driver of violence in Baghdad are ducking and covering. Mlitia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, perhaps in Iran. His fighters aren’t resisting U.S. troops who have begun conducting patrols in his stronghold of Sadr City. According to Gen. Dave Petraeus, 700 members of Sadr’s Mahdi Army have been detained in recent months.

This hardly means that peace and harmony reign in Baghdad, but it has reduced the killing significantly. If at the beginning of the year anyone had predicted such progress from the addition of just two U.S. combat brigades in Bagdad (six brigades eventually will be part of the surge), he would have been derided as a delusional optimist.

This progress might be transitory, but it illustrates the falsity of a key assumption of Democrats. They prefer to talk of Iraq in terms of a civil war because it suggests that nothing can be done about the violence, that it is running its own hermetic course. Well, it clearly isn’t. What the U.S. does matters. If we hadn’t surged, Baghdad already might have descended into the genocidal fury toward which it was headed earlier in the year.

The other side of the Iraqi civil war — the car-bombing Sunni terrorists — hasn’t stood down, of course. But these are the people that Democrats express a notional interest in fighting. In a January letter to President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said “counterterror” should be one of the “principal” missions of U.S. troops. Sen. Carl Levin wants to restrict U.S. troops to “an anti-terrorist mission to go after al-Qaida in Iraq.”

According to a U.S. intelligence report quoted by the New York Times, captured materials from al Qaeda in Iraq say that the group sees “the sectarian war for Baghdad as the necessary main focus of its operations.” So the Democrats profess to want to fight terrorists in Iraq, and al Qaeda in Iraq is making Baghdad its focus. It would stand to reason, then, that the Democrats wouldn’t want to undermine our effort to control Baghdad. Our counterinsurgency mission there is a counterterrorism mission. It aims to squeeze out terrorists, neighborhood by neighborhood.

Nonetheless, Democrats in the House and Senate are attempting to force our troops from Baghdad, exactly as al Qaeda in Iraq wants. There is an essential symmetry to the goals of Sunni militants and Democrats here at home with regard to the disposition of our forces — the fewer, the farther away from Baghdad, the better (needless to say, for vastly different reasons). In reporting on al Qaeda in Iraq’s strategy, the New York Times notes, “American forces, instead of withdrawing from the capital as the Sunni insurgents had hoped, prepared plans to reinforce their troops there.” Over the strenuous objections of Democrats.

Each side of the domestic debate concerning the Iraq War tends to get stuck in its own self-reinforcing narratives. For Bush and supporters of the war, it was a narrative of success. Negative developments were chalked up as the inevitable difficulties of any war, amplified by the liberal media. Bush broke out of that narrative to order the change of strategy that is the surge.

For Democrats, it is the narrative of defeat. Even as the civil war has deescalated somewhat in Iraq —weakening the force of the Democrats’ favorite “middle of a civil war” sound bite — and even as the surge has elevated the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq — the enemy that Democrats say they want to defeat — Democratic opposition to the surge has only intensified. Will they oppose it even more if it continues to work?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...q_matters.html