It's almost unbelieveable that one could hate their country and the military so much that they would diminish the killing of a notorious terrorist.

Killing Zarqawi was a STUNT??

I suppose catching Bin Laden would be a STUNT.

Just like catching Sadaam was, evidently, a STUNT.

At least they can no longer deny that they view every American victory as being bad for them. It's an odd position to take, especially so publicly, but they seem very comfortable there, and there are certainly a few bizzaros who will join them.

They clearly see themselves as the center of the universe as everything that happens is really about THEM. News flash, Stark and Kucinich---you are not even at the center of your own party. If you were to look up the meaning of the word "insignificant" you would find it illustrated with your pictures.

And "We Don't Need No Steenkin' Jury" Murtha is an embarassment to everyone. The old saying of "once a Marine always a Marine" is probably being withdrawn and rewritten as we speak.

These people are so wrapped up in their own self-importance they simply have no idea of what is going on around them. In Starkland, making such a stupid statement is profound, but only there, in that teeny tiny little country of one. On Planet Kucinich, the High Poobah, Dennis, is quite the embodiment of intellect and leadership, but outside his limited galaxy he is a buffoon. And Murtha is a poster boy for what happens when a family doesn't take swift action once dementia sets in.

Pulling their heads out of their liberal butts would be a stunt.

Anyone else notice how relatively quiet the nutbags have been on this board today? They are steering clear for the most part.

LOL

Prediction...the NY Times tomorrow uses the word "but" by the 50th word. They just won't be able to write an article about what a great success it was taking this guy out without their diahrea diatribe.

Almiranta, you crack me up!

It is so divisive to call this a 'stunt'. Although he was as most experts admit, not running much lately, it is cause for celebration. During celebration much can be done and hopefully this is 'the straw the broke the camel's back' to get Iraqi Defenses organized.

Cheers to our military. It should be a time of celebration for all and not just Bushies.

I say this as a liberal.

Kucinich is flaming idot and and enemy of the Republic. He should be encouraged to go to Iraq and join his terrorist friends. This bum hates his native land and if he had any physical or moral courage he'd back up his mouth with actions.

Thank God we're rid of Zarqawi and can now focus entirely on re-introducing a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.

The problem with getting out of Iraq right now is, if we did so, this would likley hand a victory to Al Qaeda and elements of the former regime. If this happened we would be in worse shape than we were before 911. It is unknown how this will turn out right now. If the Democrats want to have credibility on national security, I would suggest they purge the defeatist element from their midst. American national security depends on winning.

What, eight explosions today. Forty plus killed on the streets. Somebody didn't get the memo that the insurgents have given up.

Many are predicting that the intensity of attacks will pick up. And that we are at risk for acts of retribution.

And don't think we will forget Haditha.

Thank God we're rid of Zarqawi and can now focus entirely on re-introducing a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.

That's a joke. Right?

You consider protecting American families to be a joke, Ash? Despicable.

Remember, it is for the children.

You consider protecting American families to be a joke, Ash? Despicable.

Remember, it is for the children.

conservative to the core appears to be liberal posing as a conservative. It is kind of funny.

Well,

Its good to see him dead, unfortunately, the US can't really claim the full credit for his demise as he was apparently "given up" by those from within Al Queda. An anonymouse tip so to speak.

But that organization is like a sharks mouth, one tooth falls out and there are plenty more there to take its place. Anyone thinking that this is going to have a major effect of the insurgency is kidding themselves.

The driving forcebehind the insurgency is the hate and animosity derived from the ongoing American occupation of Iraq. Pull out and replace the troops with peacekeepers and you will have a chance at stability.

It is impossible for anything possible to happen in the War on Terror or the rebuilding of Iraq in the mind of the Democrat. Positive things happening go completely against their mindset, thus anything that at first must seem positive really have their negative downside.

Doesn't anyone remember the alleged "October Surprise" of 2004 that the Democrats were harping about all Election Year? Theory was that we had already caught bin Laden, but we would just "happen" to catch him in October right before election time to give Bush a boost. Because you know this is how election politics work.

Democrats are full of it, Iraq, the Coalition and America should be proud of their accomplishments today, Democrats be damned.

Hooray, he's dead. Let's redeploy now. Or is there REALLY no intention of ever pulling out?

Your analogy of comparing the reaction of Zarqawi's death to the reaction of Hussein's capture is wholly appropriate. I recall one Dean blogger that wrote about how she was crying when Hussein was captured because it would hurt Dean's political chances. It's impossible not to read those kind of sentiments and not just have your blood boil...much in the same way some on the left have reacted to Zarqawi's death.

Uh oh, hide your children. Con to the Core is pulling another Michael Jackson...

Wait. Now I get it. Michael Jackson is supplying Republican talking points. Banning gay marriage is "for the children," killing Zarqawi is "for the children," amnesty for illegals is "for the children." Michael Jackson is in the Middle East because Katherine Harris bought up all his makeup. The UAE is running our port security... Michael Jackson is an anagram for A CAMEL-SICK JOHN, John Bolton is threatening to bomb Iran. Iran is attempting a nuclear "lone hijack scam" which is also an anagram for Michael Jackson...

It all makes sense now.

Convulsive & Ghost Mann

What the Hell are you boys smoking?

michael Jackson is a liberal pedofile gay and likely in support of gay marriage because that is the way his sick mind works, same as all you liberals.

Mock me if you will for fighting for the children of this nation, but it doesn't take away from my message: this is for the children!

The democrats shamefully play politics with every issue. They can't even have a funeral without playing politics. They started playing politics with hurricane katrina even before it made landfall. The democrats are pathetic. They have no heart and no soul. I am glad I left that party a long time ago.

"You consider protecting American families to be a joke, Ash? Despicable.

Remember, it is for the children."

Maybe we should focus on finding a solution to the 60% (straight) divorce rate, rather than worrying about gays' "attack on marriage."

Oh, and good luck passing your beloved amendment. Seeing as how it came so close this time and all.

You guys crack me up.

Thanks for the laughs everyone. You really are a riot...And for Con to the Core: If you really want to do something "for the children", consider a vasectomy, please!

Totally and utterly U N B E L I E V E A L B E ! ! !

A stunt? I didn't think even Democrats could stoop that low!

Al-Zarqawi has personally chopped off the heads of many innocent people, including Americans. He was personally responsible for the suicide bombings, insurgency, and IED's that have killed hundreds and hundreds of American soldiers -- American citizens! He has lead the efforts to kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children -- children blown to bits while they reached for candy from our troops. And, torture... Al-Zarqawi was a real pro at torture -- real torture! And, the list goes on and on and on.

How many American troops lives have been lost in the effort to catch or kill Al-Zarqawi? How many tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars have we spent trying to stop his murderous and barbaric reign of terror? How much has Al-Zarqawi hindered America's redevelopment efforts in Iraq? The entire civilized world recognized Al-Zarqawi one of, if not THE leading terrorist -- more barbaric even than Osama bin Laden. But not the liberal Democrats... No... Not the liberal Democrats... They call his capture a "stunt"!

I can imagine how our troops feel after putting their lives on the line to catch this murderous barbarian -- only to have their efforts called a "stunt" by Democrats. Is there nothing Democrats have good to say about America or our troops?

You liberal Democrats still claim you support America's troops. Not in your wildest dreams! Your words and actions clearly demonstrate that!

Yes, America has enemies...

AAR

Well,

Its good to see him dead, unfortunately, the US can't really claim the full credit for his demise as he was apparently "given up" by those from within Al Queda. An anonymouse tip so to speak.

Oh my God Axis, you are a peice of work!!! It will never be good enough for you, or the right time for you, or the right situation for you! YOU HATE AMERICA!!! Not G.B.(symbol), not conservatives(symbol), not the military(symbol), You HATE America!!!

By the way, how the hell did you think our guys would get Zarqawi, sure is conveinent that the very people you say HATE us, gave up Zarqawi, then celebrated in the streets! Uh huh, sounds like your foot inserted to mouth once again!!!

But that organization is like a sharks mouth, one tooth falls out and there are plenty more there to take its place. Anyone thinking that this is going to have a major effect of the insurgency is kidding themselves.

One major flaw in your twisted liberal intelligence or lack thereof. IF......IF the terrorist had a bunch of Zarqawi's waiting in the wings, THEY WOULDN"T BE GETTING THEIR ASSES HANDED TO THEM, DUH!!!!!! Lot's of top Al-Quaeda have lost their lives and their souls in the last year! But like I said, It is never enough for you or right for you! Your a hopeless head in the sand liberal!!!

The driving forcebehind the insurgency is the hate and animosity derived from the ongoing American occupation of Iraq. Pull out and replace the troops with peacekeepers and you will have a chance at stability.

Posted by: axis at June 8, 2006 11:01 PM

Forget Haditha? Of course you won't Ash...you've been celebrating it daily. You want American troops in jail. You've convicted them before a trial.

I have no doubt you won't forget Haditha...you and the left never have supported the troops and that transparency has been seen for anyone old enough to remember Vietnam.

Trust me, we know you won't forget it. You guys are what you are and you can't help yourselves. You have a disease called liberalism.

PS No one said killing Zarqawi would end the insurgency.

It is impossible for anything possible to happen in the War on Terror or the rebuilding of Iraq in the mind of the Democrat.

-- What rebuilding???? There is very little rebuilding going on aside from the $600 million worlds largest Embassy that the US is building on stolen Iraqi land and the 14 or so permanent military bases. Iraqi cities are still in shambles and getting 3 hours of electricity a day, as opposed to 20-24 before the invasion

War on Terror? - Thats going really well isn't it. We can all see the progress. More soldiers die then the month before. More Iraqis die than the month before. Wheres Bin Laden? How about Afganistan where you cut and ran from and where the warlords and Taliban now control 3/4 of Afganistan again.

Positive things happening go completely against their mindset, thus anything that at first must seem positive really have their negative downside.

-- Yeah, we see lots of positives coming from the Republicans. This is the first positive in about 2 months. Torture, Rendition, Illegal wars, spying, murder, nullifying the first and third ammendment, taking away civil rights, taking away due process. Lots of positives alright.

Oh my God Axis, you are a peice of work!!! It will never be good enough for you, or the right time for you, or the right situation for you! YOU HATE AMERICA!!! Not G.B.(symbol), not conservatives(symbol), not the military(symbol), You HATE America!!!

-- Please try to jumpstart your brain bootcamp boy, its still in "yes sir, right away sir" mode.

My point is that he would still be out and about if not for betrayal from within. A tip came in, you dropped a bomb and then try to claim it as a sign that Republicans are doing a good job over there. Obviously, his higher ups in Al Queda felt he was expendable and gave him up to you so they could replace him with someone else.

Funny how the word "stunt" was made up out of whole cloth -- no Democrat was quoted in the piece. Another case of the MSM making stuff up again.

axis,

Keep rooting for the terrorists with your liberal friends.

Keep rooting for the terrorists to kill more American troops.

Keep rooting for the terrorists to kill more Iraqi men, women, and children.

Keep rooting for the terrorists... for enough deaths tomorrow to satisfy your liberal propaganda mill for another day.

Sleep well -- dreaming of those suicide bombers -- and what you will say!

AAR

axis,

RE: "... A tip came in, you dropped a bomb and then try to claim it as a sign that Republicans are doing a good job over there. Obviously, his higher ups in Al Queda felt he was expendable and gave him up to you so they could replace him with someone else."

Glad to know how simple you believe things to be!

Yep, his friends just walked right into those "hated and despised" Americans and handed over their number one killing machine so they could replace him someone else.

Do you really expect anyone other than your liberal readers to buy a line like that?

And who is it that had him replaced? Who do you believe were the "higher ups"? Bin Laden? Why? He didn't like the competition? I don't think so!

AAR

Axis, I'd choose bootcamp boy over DUMBASS intellect(supposed) anyday of the week! You are really one stupidMF! You have no clue the time and effort our men in intelligence and S.F. put in to get this kind of information. What, do you think Zarqawi had a little spat with one of his boyfriends who outed him......Dumb ass!

AAR,

Nice try but it is not as easy to turn things around on one of our statements as it is with your flimsy ones.

Where exactly am I rooting for the terrorists? I said that he was ousted from within, so you just took the tip and dropped the bomb.

Terrorists are over there mostly because of the occupation. Insurgents are fighting because of the occupation. US Troops are dying because of the occupation.

You are the ones that want to have more soldiers die by prolonging this illegal war that will have no effect on America. If the democracy stablized, or if it falls and another dictator moves in, it will have no effect on America, and the US had no business going there in the first place.

Troops are dying because of Republican especially Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld stupidity. They are dying because of their niavity and shortsightedness.

We find out today that even George Bush Sr has been trying since January to have Rumsfeld kicked to the curb in a last ditch effort to save his son, his country and his family name. Alas, he is destined to have the son who was named the worst and most stupid president in history. If theres ever been a reason to cut one from a will, George Bush Jr is it.

Axis, I'd choose bootcamp boy over DUMBASS intellect(supposed) anyday of the week! You are really one stupidMF! You have no clue the time and effort our men in intelligence and S.F. put in to get this kind of information. What, do you think Zarqawi had a little spat with one of his boyfriends who outed him......Dumb ass!

-- Bootcamp-mind,

I know exactly about the time and effort required for accurate intelligence. Unfortunately, your dumb president tends to ignore these and listen to the voices in his empty head instead. This is why he has screwed up again and again and again.

He can't get anything right, never could. Failed in every venture he has been involved in. Couldn't even find any oil in Texas and had to go bankrupt.

If you had any smarts, you would be advocating to kick out this dumb chimp in the oval office as he is an embarassment to the Republican party.

Quotes from liberals and democrats on the whacko blogs....you just cannot make this stuff up.

See for yourself

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1646064/posts?page=15

No building going on? Hey Axis, would you like me to personally email you photos on some of the things my relatives in the services are helping to rebuild over there right now as we speak.

Or are you calling my relatives who are doing this work liars now too. Send me your email address or I'm happy to provide a link. Don't be a complete a-hole and disparage the fine work that Iraqis, Americans and others are doing to rebuild that country. Schools, hospitals, highways, electrical grid, etc, etc.

Axis...thousands of people went belly up in the Texas oil dry up at that time. It was an oil bust. You may want to educate yourself and read about it.

The Great Texas Oil Bust - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland,_Texas

As for your claim he has never done anything...I believe he has beaten four Democrats straight in races as well as increased the seats in the Senate and House while President.

Man are you a bitter pussy.

Axis, you never fail to produce more dumbass remarks! You know, I thought Dave Roberts(porn star) aka awangatang took the cake, but you got him beat by a long shot!

Christopher Hitchens, at Slate.com makes a good point-

"Most fascinating of all is the suggestion that Zarqawi was all along receiving help from the mullahs in Iran. He certainly seems to have been able to transit their territory (Herat is on the Iranian border with Afghanistan) and to replenish his forces by the same route. If this suggestive connection is proved, as Weaver suggests it will be, then we have the Shiite fundamentalists in Iran directly sponsoring the murderer of their co-religionists in Iraq. This in turn would mean that the Iranian mullahs stood convicted of the most brutish and cynical irresponsibility, in front of their own people, even as they try to distract attention from their covert nuclear ambitions." "A Good Day's Work: Why Zarqawi's death matters"

Oh, also

The Revival of Cultural Life in Iraq

MEMRI.org: "The revival of the Iraqi cultural scene reveals a strong current in support of indigenous Iraqi culture, secularism, women’s rights, and opposition to terrorism and violence.

As in the past under Saddam, a large number of Iraqi writers, artists and poets receive monthly salaries from the Ministry of Culture. For the moment, at least, these salaries appear to be granted with no conditions regarding the creative work of the recipients. How long this will continue is not known, and very much depends on the nature of the government that will eventually gain the upper hand in the country."

Cool.

I work with a liberal - she is the most miserable, dry, negative human I have met in my life. I'm not surprised the Dimwits would try and make anything good into evil, or twist it; they don't know anything else, because they are twisters and liars, they can't believe someone else wouldn't be. I really do feel sorry for them. My glass is half full; theirs is just flat empty.

I work with a liberal - she is the most miserable, dry, negative human I have met in my life. I'm not surprised the Dimwits would try and make anything good into evil, or twist it; they don't know anything else, because they are twisters and liars, they can't believe someone else wouldn't be. I really do feel sorry for them. My glass is half full; theirs is just flat empty.

-- thats all you conservatives have... HOPE. Hope for amiracle to happen and make all your boo boos all better.

axis,

Deny what you will... Say what you choose.

Your words speak for themselves.

We just have to translate their meaning for your liberal readers.

AAR

FYI - Democrats sure know how to debate like adults....

http://www .breitbart.com/news/2006/06/08/D8I4E19G0.html

yes, AAR

I think thats one of the defining differences.

Conservatives look under Iraqi prayer rugs, hope and wait for things to happen.

Liberals make things happen.

Have any of you folks actually stopped patting yourselves on the back long enough to realize this isn't going to change much of anything? This was an icon, everyone, including Zarqawi knew he wan't going to last very long, that is why he had his replacements already named.

I suppose that the republican party needs some sort of good news after the monster of a disaster they have been feeding our military and Iraqi civilians to, wholesale.

No one on y'alls side wants to talk about anything resembling an exit strategy, that is why our perpetual strategy has been "wait for the iraqi government to take control" , well what happens if they don't? Should we expect 20, 30, 40 years of occupation before we can cobble together a government that is relevant outside of the greenzone? What happens if the country degenerates into 3 seperate zones and continued fighting by Sunnis to claim oil fields from historically Shi'ite lands? How do we mitigate the 95% of the insurgency who isn't foreign fighters, but guys with Ak-47s who are residents of neighborhoods who may be fighting with or against the police? Do any of you ditto-heads know how to speak Arabic? Can anyone tell me the intricate powerplay being waged by democratically elected warlords who continue to smuggle weapons in to stoke the fires of discontent?

But, I won't take away the victory from our men and women on the ground, they are performing a job they aren't meant to do, but i will not play cheerleader for people who think that this is the breaking of some camel's back. When we start discussing the REAl problems that military intellectuals on the ground are talking about, then i'll grab my pom-poms.

P.S. Has anyone thought that maybe the reason we keep turning so many corners is that we are stuck in a box?

Have any of you folks actually stopped patting yourselves on the back long enough to realize this isn't going to change much of anything? This was an icon, everyone, including Zarqawi knew he wan't going to last very long, that is why he had his replacements already named.

I suppose that the republican party needs some sort of good news after the monster of a disaster they have been feeding our military and Iraqi civilians to, wholesale.

No one on y'alls side wants to talk about anything resembling an exit strategy, that is why our perpetual strategy has been "wait for the iraqi government to take control" , well what happens if they don't? Should we expect 20, 30, 40 years of occupation before we can cobble together a government that is relevant outside of the greenzone? What happens if the country degenerates into 3 seperate zones and continued fighting by Sunnis to claim oil fields from historically Shi'ite lands? How do we mitigate the 95% of the insurgency who isn't foreign fighters, but guys with Ak-47s who are residents of neighborhoods who may be fighting with or against the police? Do any of you ditto-heads know how to speak Arabic? Can anyone tell me the intricate powerplay being waged by democratically elected warlords who continue to smuggle weapons in to stoke the fires of discontent?

But, I won't take away the victory from our men and women on the ground, they are performing a job they aren't meant to do, but i will not play cheerleader for people who think that this is the breaking of some camel's back. When we start discussing the REAL problems that military intellectuals on the ground are talking about, then i'll grab my pom-poms.

P.S. Has anyone thought that maybe the reason we keep turning so many corners is that we are stuck in a box?

Whilst I think that the death of this evil man is of itself more of a symbol, if all of you could stop your petty bickering you'd realize the bigger picture and that is the intelligence gleaned from him and his associates. There was 17 other sorties that were coordinated by both the Iraqi and US troops which should glean even more intelligence. Every bit helps. No one, liberal or conservatives have said that this was going to be easy or accomplished in a short time. Petty bickering is just much more fun.

Fox news is broadcasting a live briefing by U.S. military on the death of Al-Zarqawi.

It's not enough that the guy is dead. The liberal media and press are STILL INTENT on making Al-Zarqawi out to be a VICTIM.

They are asking questions intended to imply that U.S. forces may have "helped" expedite his departure for heaven and those 70 virgins!

The news media want to know if the guy was shot in addition to the life-ending injuries he suffered from being hit with two 500 pound bombs.

They want an independent autopsy performed to make sure no one did anything else to Al-Zarqawi... like perhaps shot him when he rolled off the stretcher trying to escape!

Maybe they should ask for an investigation to make sure that no one involved in the operation had any friends or family who had been killed in any of his blasts.

The press wants to know if our military "cleaned his face" before taking the pictures. They want to know if the photos were enhanced. They want to know if someone digitally enhanced the photos.

The press wants to know just how he could have survived the hit by two 500 pound bombs?

Looks like the liberals are working on their conspiracy theories so they can blame the American soldiers for his death!

Apparently they think our troops should have gone in with troops and tried to capture him rather than blowing him to bits like he has done to thousands and thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi men, women, and children!

We all know where that goes. The "poor" defenseless guy deserved to be captured alive. He deserved to have a fair trial. He deserved to have a team of ACLU lawyers to get him off with a reprimand. He probably was raised in a bad home or bad neighborhood and his actions are not his fault!

No liberals, Al-Zarqawi did not deserve a trial.

No liberals, Al-Zarqawi did not deserve a team of ACLU lawyers.

No liberals, Al-Zarqawi did not deserve the loss of even one more American or Iraqi life!

The guy's dead. Get over it. There will be others to provide the daily piles of bodies to feed your propaganda.

Get your pens and keyboards ready. The press is already predicting an increase in revenge killings. In fact, start writing your stories and comments now, just leave the numbers of dead and injured blank until those figures come out!

Typical Liberal Mentality!!!

AAR

Yes, axis,

Liberal do make things happen... ALL BAD!

AAR

Yes, axis,

Liberal do make things happen... ALL BAD!

AAR

No doubt politics reared its ugly head again with the negative comments. However if you read the article, the only person actually using the word “stunt” was Amy Fagan, the staff writer. There are no quotes from any Reps. using that term. As a matter of fact there were many positive statements made:

"This is a good day for the Iraqi people, the U.S. military and our intelligence community," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

"That is good news; he was a dreadful, vicious person," said Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat. Mr. Conrad added that he hopes the military can get Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, another top al Qaeda leader.

Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Michigan Democrat, said it was good news but added, "I think we have a long way to go."

No, I’m not a Democrat and I don’t subscribe to all of the gloom and doom scenarios. But reading the whole article that this thread is based on clearly paints a more balanced picture than you are lead to believe here.

Liberal do make things happen... ALL BAD!

-- It would literally be impossible to do anything to make things worse then you already have.

Listening to reports from Fox News, it sounds like the liberal press is very concerned about Al-Zarqawi's replacement.

You'd think they are more concerned about whether or not his replacement is adequately trained to take over from Al-Zarqawi and hit the ground bombing than they are about Al-Zarqawi's death. After all, Al-Zarqawi's death is old news now -- except for the conspiracy theories!!!

Are they are worried about a break or lapse in the bombings and killings which would hurt their propaganda campaign?

Where would the liberal press be without bombings, killings, and bad news to report? How about where they belong -- out of business!

Typical Liberal Mentality!

AAR

"My point is that he would still be out and about if not for betrayal from within. A tip came in, you dropped a bomb and then try to claim it as a sign that Republicans are doing a good job over there. Obviously, his higher ups in Al Queda felt he was expendable and gave him up to you so they could replace him with someone else." Axis

You and the left witng media would like to minimize the efectiveness of our troops, our intelligence gathering and the growing cooperation of the Iraqi people by claiming the Al Queda leadership gave him up. Sorry to disappoint you.

Contrary to your supposition that "someone gave him up" the latest reports indicate that not just one single piece of information was used. The Commanding General in charge reports that it was more like a multi-pieced jigsaw puzzle. A piece from here a piece from there, and finaly it all came together.

In addtion to the strike on Zarquawi, 17 other raids were carried out AT THE SAME TIME. Intellignece gathered during these raids LED TO AN ADDITIONAL 36 RAIDS being conducted during the subsequent hours following the successful strike on Zarquawi. The combined effect of these 54 missions will definitely have a positive effect of reducing the effectiveness of the terrorists, much to the chagrin of terrorist apologists such as yourself, 3 eyes, Maf, Blarney and the Cunuck Observer. and the teenage mutant.

The General also reported that Zarquawi was alive when the American troops got there. So we now know that shortly before he died, he was fully conscious of the fact that we took him down. He rolled off a gurnie in an futile effort to escape. Ouch! that must have hurt (bonus points). He died shortly thereafter from his wounds.

I'm sure the next thing you will do is claim that he was tortured, or that we didn't do enough to save his life.

Actually, there's a big reason why some of us aren't so excited about zarqamwi: His role in iraq was blown out of proportion by the US. They want us to think we're fighting al-qaeda, but the vast majority of violence is homegrown shiite-sunni struggle that has little to do with GWOT. Trotting out zarqawi as our biggest enemy in iraq was done to make people think that al-quaeda is the biggest problem over there. So when I hear zarqawi's dead, i think "great!", but also know it means very little in terms of actually fixing things over there, and gives a lot of "rah rah rah USAUSAUSA" jingoists a false impression that they are "vindicated" or something

Listen up, wingnuts:
For the last time Americans can love their country, support the war on terror, celebrate when a murderer like Zarqawi is killed, support the troops, AND believe that the Iraq War was a mistaken undertaking, which used up valuable resources that were needed to protect U.S. ports, our borders, to fulfill the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission (for which Congress recently got an F from the Commissioners),find Bin Laden, and keep the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Iraq was a war of choice, that has isolated us from the rest of the world, destroying the international goodwill and support that we had after 9/11.
But having said that, I'm as glad as anyone that the dirtbag bit the dust after the beheading of Nick Berg, and countless other atrocities!

Freedom1: I believe it is more than just a suggestion that Iran is funding the insurgency. Iran’s terrorist regime seeks to transform Iraq into a medieval Islamist state —one free of any and all Western influence. Their worst nightmare is a democratic Iraq.

We need to assist the people in both Iran and Syria in their desired quest to overtake their oppressive governments. Democratic countries in the ME = disaster for Islamic terrorists

Gee and hating Clinton and everything that happened during his administration didn't mean you hate America??? How is this possible. You all are the biggest bunch of hypocrites ever. In Vietnam we had a saying "don't mean nothing." The death of Hussein's son, death of Zarqawi, and capture of Saddam Hussein "don't mean nothing." Get over yourselves.

TEO: I don't recall you answering Almiranta's question: "Can you name one war that had an exit strategy?" I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on a viable exit strategy in Iraq.

The inclusion of a Sunni Arab as Defense Minister is a step in the right direction. The new government needs to continue to include all groups in their political system.

"Some" Democrats. The article only mentions 2. Thats a bit fewer then some.

"Pull out and replace the troops with peacekeepers and you will have a chance at stability."

Thanks, General Axis. LOL.

And some more change in your pocket for posting.

they could have killed this guy before the war started, but didn't because they thought it would hurt their case for war...and now you are accusing the dems of playing politics. the hypocrisy of the bush cult is f'ing amazing.

Dig deeper. I didn't claim it a stunt. At first I questioned if it happened, but no longer.

I also credit Bushco when they are right headed.

We progressives mostly aren't monsters. We're just critical of Bush and his administration. But getting al-Zarqawi was good news.

However, I do wish we had captured him instead of blowing him up. We could have learned much from him about terrorism.

Kimberly,

"Plans only exist until the first contact with your enemy"

I've heard that thrown about by Rummy and the generals, and all matter of talking head, and that is absolutely true, but that doesn't alleviate the government from putting up solid goals, if you don't know what you're working towards, then how do you know if you've won...wait for a letter of surrender from OBL? Kill every man of fighting age in the ME? What is the goal we are attempting to accomplish? You can't tell me that we are waiting for the "Iraqi government to stand on its own" because that is something that may take decades, or what happens if a takeover of radical elements gains democratic status like in Palestine?

We held that a goal for us was to train and equip a functional army and police apparatus, we attained the latter, but unfortunately they were all members of the existing militias, so now we have armed sectarian groups who may or may not be helping or complicit in the civil war that is currently underway. We put a lot of weight on the ideal of building a functioning Iraqi army, but they have yet to step up in any signifigant role, infact as the recent debacle of troops throwing down their uniforms when told they were being deployed outside of their hometown, you can see people want to protect their neighborhoods and families, not fight insurgents or other members of their religious sects in other cities. Maliki, as soon as he was ok'd for the PM position began the task of integrating the militias into the regular army, so you're going to have a bunch of thugs and goons running around with American supplied guns and trucks...how long before we see our first coup attempt?

So as you can, we are short on expectations for our little jaunt through the sand-box...we have only jingo-istic banners to fly, but no real plan on how we can extricate ourselves.

You askeed about my plan, but I already addressed that in an earlier post, basically, we need to eat some crow, ask for international help, put muslim faces on the ground, and start using our forces for what they are good at, small, precise attacks on positions we are gathering from our ever extending intelligence networks around iraq, and leave the police duties to boys who can speak the language and the religion.

Axis: Your suggestion of replacing troops with peacekeepers as a chance for stability is ridiculous. UN peacekeeping troops have been involved in numerous crimes and scandals across the globe, including torture and murder.

Because Conservatives haven't been playing politics with the terrorist issue?

Kimberly,

"Plans only exist until the first contact with your enemy"

I've heard that thrown about by Rummy and the generals, and all matter of talking head, and that is absolutely true, but that doesn't alleviate the government from putting up solid goals, if you don't know what you're working towards, then how do you know if you've won...wait for a letter of surrender from OBL? Kill every man of fighting age in the ME? What is the goal we are attempting to accomplish? You can't tell me that we are waiting for the "Iraqi government to stand on its own" because that is something that may take decades, or what happens if a takeover of radical elements gains democratic status like in Palestine?

We held that a goal for us was to train and equip a functional army and police apparatus, we attained the latter, but unfortunately they were all members of the existing militias, so now we have armed sectarian groups who may or may not be helping or complicit in the civil war that is currently underway. We put a lot of weight on the ideal of building a functioning Iraqi army, but they have yet to step up in any signifigant role, infact as the recent debacle of troops throwing down their uniforms when told they were being deployed outside of their hometown, you can see people want to protect their neighborhoods and families, not fight insurgents or other members of their religious sects in other cities. Maliki, as soon as he was ok'd for the PM position began the task of integrating the militias into the regular army, so you're going to have a bunch of thugs and goons running around with American supplied guns and trucks...how long before we see our first coup attempt?

So as you can, we are short on expectations for our little jaunt through the sand-box...we have only jingo-istic banners to fly, but no real plan on how we can extricate ourselves.

You askeed about my plan, but I already addressed that in an earlier post, basically, we need to eat some crow, ask for international help, put muslim faces on the ground, and start using our forces for what they are good at, small, precise attacks on positions we are gathering from our ever extending intelligence networks around iraq, and leave the police duties to boys who can speak the language and the religion.

Axis... you're Canadian remember. You don't mean anything to anyone!!

That's not even the right Democratic talking point. Calling it a stunt is overboard. I don't think most Democrats agree with that position, which is why there has been no liberal defense of it posted here (even though this blog post was linked from Salon).

The somewhat cynical response is that the U.S. could have taken Zarqawi out before the war in Iraq if they'd wanted to, because his camps were outside of Saddam's control and were, in fact, in the US-controlled No-Fly zone. Bush opted not to take him out before the war because Zarqawi's presence was essential to his "Saddam is in league with terrorists" argument. War in Iraq was Bush's goal, not stopping terrorism.

Me personally, I'm glad we got him. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the death of a truly evil man like Zarqawi.

But if you think it's only the left playing politics with Zarqawi, you are dead wrong. Bush has been playing politics with him for over 3 years, ever since he decided not to dispatch him because he needed him alive for political reasons.

LaMano,

I heard a story on Fox News this morning about a U.N. pull out!

They were talking about having the U.N. pull out of New York so they can turn their headquarters' building into something useful. They were talking about turning it into condominiums!

Perhaps it's time that America asks countries around the world to make a decision. Either you are with us... or you are against us. Those who are with us, come join the NEW United Nations. The rest of you, stay with the OLD ineffective U.N.! (I was going to say something like useless, or worthless U.N., but I didn't want to "offend" axis, Eyes Closed, and their associates!)

Oh, and figure out how you will get the money to carry on with your anti-Americanism!

Axis, replacing our American troops with U.N. peace keepers? How much did they pay you for that comment?

You mean the same U.N. that depends on the United States to provide the military strength for their "peace keepers"? You mean the same U.N. that packs their bags and runs when a terrorist bomb hits their headquarters? You mean the same U.N. that has done very little to help the United States in Iraq?

That U.N.? We might just as well turn Iraq directly over to the terrorists! You would like that, wouldn't you?

AAR

Kimberly said "UN peacekeeping troops have been involved in numerous crimes and scandals across the globe, including torture and murder."

And this makes them worse than the US forces? How exactly? I would suggest trying to get a force from the Arab league in there.

AAR wonders "Are they are (the liberal press) worried about a break or lapse in the bombings and killings which would hurt their propaganda campaign?"

This is so ridiculous it's breathtaking. Nobody wants more killing, except the extremists on both sides.

Democrats haven't learned that national security is not a political issue

Unless it's the centerpiece issue for Bush's political campaign. Whoops....

Times has already changed their article. No democrats called it stunt. That part was made up by the Times writer. Sorry.

AAR,

We were responsible for the UN security, and we failed...infact we have pretty much failed at securing anything in iraq short of the oil fields and our own greenzone...unless ofcourse you think the way to secure a town is to raze it and displace half its residents.

The U.N. isn't doing anything for us because we went against their better judgement and decided to invade a sovereign country with little more than excuses held together by "best-estimates" and bubble-gum. Or how about the constant vitriol Bolton keep spewing at the UN? Don't be stupid the reason the UN isn't in there is because we told them in no uncertain term we didn't need them there.

Hey TEO: My bad! I do remember your "plan", which I thought sounded pretty good.

How about providing a set timetable to the Iraqis?
An opinion poll in Iraq showed that a majority of Iraqis wants the US to set a timetable for withdrawl. And, I think we should do so. Why? Most Iraqis are fighting the US because they don't believe we will ever leave. Some people have suggested, and I totally agree, we don't completely withdraw, we redeploy. We leave some of our Special Forces in Iraq to work with the Iraqi military, and keep our military in Kuwait, and Marines and Navy in the area, just in case Iran decides to intervene (which, of course, is their ultimate plan).

As we begin the withdraw from Iraq, we can bring our National Guard home to help secure our borders and assist in national disasters and also send troops back to South Korea. A set timetable (perhaps by the end of 2007) would not only defuse a large part of the insurgency, but also give the Iraqis incentive to make compromises with all groups involved and start building their country.

And, a hopeful future for Iraqis?
We need to continue with our reconstruction efforts (and pressure the nations who promised to provide billions to pony up). Most of Iraq is stable because of economic progress. The five provinces, in which there is continued unrest, need to be made aware of that progress so they can visualize a future for themselves. Has AQ offered any type of future? Has the insurgency offered any type of future? Nope.

BTW, I think there is a very good possiblity Iraq will break up into three different areas. And it might not be a bad thing, if the Sunnis are given a share of the oil revenue, and/or even some of the oil fields.

Hey TEO: Oops. I do remember your "plan", which I thought sounded pretty good. Although, I'm not sure other nations will get involved if they can't even keep their promise of donating money to the reconstruction process.

How about a set timetable?
An opinion poll in Iraq showed that a majority of Iraqis wants the US to set a timetable for withdrawl. And, I think we should do so. Why? Most Iraqis are fighting the US because they don't believe we will ever leave. Some people have suggested, and I totally agree, we don't completely withdraw, we redeploy. We leave some of our Special Forces in Iraq to work with the Iraqi military, and keep our military in Kuwait, and Marines and Navy in the area, just in case Iran decides to intervene (which, of course, is their ultimate plan).

As we begin the withdraw from Iraq, we can bring our National Guard home to help secure our borders and assist in national disasters and also send troops back to South Korea. A set timetable (perhaps by the end of 2007) would not only defuse a large part of the insurgency, but also give the Iraqis incentive to make compromises with all groups involved and start building their country.

And, a hopeful future for Iraqis?
We need to continue with our reconstruction efforts (and pressure the nations who promised to provide billions to pony up). Most of Iraq is stable because of economic progress. The five provinces, where there is continued unrest, needs to be made aware of that progress so they can see there is a future for them too. Has AQ offered any type of future? Has the insurgency offered any type of future? Nope.

BTW, I think there is a very good possiblity Iraq will break up into three different areas. And it might not be a bad thing, if the Sunnis are given a share of the oil revenue, or even some oil fields.

AAR,
If we form a United Nations of our own and ask other countried to join us. For a moment stop to think what if China says no to that.
We would go bankrupt.

Eyes Closed,

Baloney!

AAR

Kimberly,

Personally, I want us out of the wider ME all together, but until we solve the Israel/Palestine issue, and get off our oil-dependancy, I will have to live with falling back to reaction-force levels in friendly countries.

A time-table is the only option we can have to prove we mean what we say. Everyone complains that a timetable just allows for the insurgency to wait until (x+1 day), but as soon as you show that we are leaving them they won't be able to use us as an unwilling patsy for their political wrangling, until then they will just use our prescence as an excuse to not have to do something that might make them a target for political/physical execution. Al Sistani is gonna have to round up Sadr and his boys quick-fast or we are going to find ourselves in a mini-war with the south, and THAT isn't going to go over well in the poor ranks of the wider ME.

Reconstruction is a joke, my dad works for DoD in Anbar, and while being a staunch supporter of the war, even he admits the people aren't getting anything for the billions we are spending; I don't know why an escrow account hasn't been setup so the money we provided for the reconstruction can be saved from raiding by our lawmakers. We would get a lot more support from the Sunnis from smaller advances, like pre-war levels of electricity and potable water.

As far as Iraq breaking into 3 regions, it sounds really easy to do, but our own interests lay in the eventual pumping of oil, and if the sunni's are gonna get shafted from oil revenues then there is no point for them to allow the Kurds and Shi'ites to walk away from the table without a fight; I think the problem with 3 autonomous zones really comes down to how much revenue gets shared, and who holds the purse strings of that escrow account. No one will trust any of the other groups, and the Kurds will want to keep their own reserves and forget about everyone to the south.

The key to me of this whole debate comes down to what is it that will make the run of the mill Iraqi see an investment in themselves? You have to find a torque point they will buy into so that they make their rabble-rousers go back to driving taxis instead of planting IEDs...the problem is what that torque point is, obviously it isn't appealing to them its in their best interest and the best interest of their kids, I think you need to start talking the universal language of humanity...money. You start attaching the money we are providing to set, verifiable goals, and I bet the government starts real quick making sure that everyone is staying in line, and that the Clerics are making sure their followers know that their actions have monetary consequences.

AAR said:
"Eyes Closed,
Baloney!"

HAHAHAH! That's the best you can come up with? At least you spelled 'baloney' correctly.

A lot of what Third Eye says makes sense, which is presumably why you were incapable of understanding or responding to it.

Here's some advice from Mark Twain:
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

"Democrats Play Politics With Zarqawi Killing" ???

Please. There is always some politics being played on both sides when these things occur, but Bushian Republicans do it at a whole other level. In fact, the Bushians have made an art of politicizng national security. While Democrats have almost entirely agreed that killing an evil man is a good thing, their "politicizing" of this issue has pretty much been limited to voicing skepticism that this will really change the situation on the ground in Iraq. What's so unreasonable about that? Given the history of these "corner turning" events (corner turn number 617 by my count), some skepticism seems warranted.

Contrast that reasoned stance to stuff like this coming from the NJ Republican State Chairman Tom Wilson:

"...This moment also provides a clear and compelling reminder of why Bob Menendez should not be sitting in the United States Senate. If Bob Menendez had his way, Zarqawi would still be leading a campaign of car bombings, assassinations, suicide attacks, kidnapping and beheadings in order to make Iraq a safe haven from which al Qaeda could continue its war against freedom and the American way of life. If Bob Menendez had his way, Mr. Zarqawi would be alive and plotting the next attack on America, Great Britain, Canada or who knows where."

So our armed forces killing of Zarqawi is just another opportunity for the RNC to take cheap shots at dems. Yawn. Clearly, there are quite a few in the military who are getting sick of constantly being used as a political prop in the RNC's quest for perpetual power.

Thats right! It is all our fault. We may be the pathetic, powerless minority, in the peanut gallery talking trash, but it is OUR fault the war in Iraq has such rare good news.

AAR,

if you think im blowin' smoke up your skirt, then tell me who was responsible for UN security in baghdad after the fall?

Do you think we are making friends in the UN with Bolton playing G-man?

and lastly, please, i'd love to hear your explaination for what Colin Powell was presenting the the Sec Council? wasn't it our "best-estimates" and faith in curveballs and dissidents.

Let me explain to you the liberal outlook on things.

We are very happy that Zarqawi has been taken out.

We just honestly are very skeptical that this is going to make a difference. For me, this is because a great deal of the violence in Iraq right now is due to 3-way power struggle of Sunnis vs. Shiites vs. Kurds.

Al Qaeda is happy to make things worse to further their own ends...but I don't think these power struggles won't end even if we get **all** of Al Qaeda. The power struggles will need their own solution.

Do I care that we aren't making friends with the corrupt UN 3rd eye? How about they get their crap in order first.

You guys are on the war path (pun intended) on Haditha yet there is not one single scream from you guys about the raping under UN forces. Why not?

How about Oil for Food corruption...nothing.

The hypocrisy is in full swing today libs.

Warriornation,

I don't think I was making any excuses for the UN, they have learned well from American politics and has become a swamp of money and favors. The oversight within the UN is contemptable at best, and I think Mr. Annan is a toothless tiger ... but it's all we got, so what is the point in sending a guy there who is just going to go off on non-coherant tyrades while the rest of the world doesn't listen...

People on the right don't respect the UN, so what makes you think the rest of the world should respect us? Maybe we could have spent a little time to present new ideas in rehabilitating the institution instead of just scrapping the idea because they wouldn't give us what we wanted ... sounds like a toddler throwing a temper-tantrum to me.

I don't quite understand why the right hates it UN so much, we had veto power over just about every panel we were on, including the security council, but I guess when you have the executive, legislative, and are working on the judicial branch, anything less than complete control is disheartening. huh?

Eyes Closed,

As I recall, the U.N. didn't want our help with security until they blamed our military after the terrorist attack.

I'll have to see who actually made that statement, so I am not stating it as fact just yet.

Another thing, our troops were just a little busy with other things. They are really, really good, but they can't be everywhere and do everything for everybody!

Regardless... can't the U.N. do anything to provide their own security? Do they depend on the United States for everything... peace keepers, troops, military protection, money, etc.?

AAR

Good theory about the Left wanting us to lose the War on Terror.

Now, how about some proof.

AAR,

As an invading nation, we carry the responsibility for security; that's like saying the Jews should have been responsible for security in Jerusalem, not the Romans.

Yeah, our troops were busy securing the interests of the US.

Ofcourse the UN relies on us for protection and troops, we are the Hyper-Power...you don't go about building a super-power and claim providence to re-make the world in your image without having to bear the lion's share of responsibility for it.

Eyes Closed,

Here's an excerpt regarding the panel investigating the security of the U.N. headquarters in Iraq following the bombing:

"22 October 2003 – An independent panel investigating the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad said today that the UN's security systems were 'dysfunctional,' providing little guarantee for personnel safety, and needing to be reformed."
"In the view of the Panel, the UN security management system failed in its mission to provide adequate security to UN staff in Iraq."

"The failure of UN management and staff to comply with standard security regulations and directives left the UN open and vulnerable" to the attack..."

"In particular, the UN security system failed adequately to analyze and utilize information made available to the system on threats against UN staff and premises. The security awareness within the country team did not match the hostile environment. The observance and implementation of security regulations and procedures were sloppy and non-compliance with security rules commonplace."

"The main conclusion…is that the current security management system is dysfunctional. It provides little guarantee of security to UN staff in Iraq or other high-risk environments and needs to be reformed," the panel said.

You can find more details on the Net if you would like.

I haven't had a chance to find out what security they had requested from the United States -- if any -- but I'm sure the U.S. gave them all they "thought" they needed.

Perhaps you can help research that one.

AAR

Robert,

Some things are obvious.

Where have you been for the past three or so years? Haven't you been reading and watching the news and listening to the comments from Democrats.

They may not state it that way, but the desire is there and obvious to those who look.

Maybe not all, but a great many!

AAR

AAR,

You're right, the UN did'nt ask for the security, mainly because they saw it as inviting an attack (catch-22 in hindsight, huh?).

Personally I think the UN was a bit too pie-in-the-sky about the realities on the ground. They wanted to show that while the US was in the business of war, they were in the business of peace, I guess stupid assumptions lead to stupid decisions.

The US had said that they were controlling the central area of baghdad, I surmise this is why the UN felt it could be so cavalier with what it was doing, but I suppose everyone has learned since then that the place is not secure, no matter if you are wearing a blue helmet or not.

Core: You consider protecting American families to be a joke, Ash? Despicable.

Well I believe in protecting all families. American, Asian, Latino, Muslim, gay, straight. I find it despicable that you don't join me in protecting ALL families.

TEO,

Thanks for checking. That was what I remembered, but that's been awhile. There's just too much to remember these days and it's all too easy to miss a key fact. I didn't remember exactly where I had heard it, but I thought it was from more than one source.

Again, if I recall correctly, and your comments lead me to believe I'm correct, I think the U.S. military actually did in fact offer to provide more physical security around the U.N. headquarters, not just "air superiority", but the U.N. would not accept the offer.

If you go back to the panel's report on the U.N. security, it appears the U.N. didn't have much real security in place and what they did have wasn't effective. I suspect they didn't believe that anyone would actually attack the U.N. itself. Most people would not likely have expected that either, especially considering the negative effects it would have on public and world opinion of the terrorists and their actions. I suspect too, there was a little arrogance involved also.

The police are in control of our streets, cities, and towns, but that does not stop all of the crime. Our troops, our police, and others make their decisions on the best information they have and allocate their resources accordingly. Obviously, that doesn't always work out as we would want or expect. Sometimes we are just too complacent or too sure of ourselves. Sometimes we just don't see the threat.

Virtually no one, at least not the average American, would ever have expected terrorists to fly those planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, but they did, and now we try to guard against that or a similar event in the future. Hopefully we will be right the vast majority of the time, but logic and history says we will also be wrong occasionally. Logic and reason says that the terrorists are working even now on other threats that will be equally unimagined or un-envisioned. Even if we could anticipate every possible threat, however, we do not have the money, personnel, or other resources to protect against any and all possibilities. That is physically impossible. We make our best guess and history tells us if we were correct.

Anyone can sit back and use history to second guess and judge the actions, decisions, accomplishments, and failures of others, but even with the 20/20 hindsight of history, many still don't get it right all of the time.

It's very easy for one to critique and judge something once it is written. It's much more difficult, however, when the paper is still blank!

AAR

(Still getting B4B server errors when trying to post. This may or may not cause a duplicate even though I've waited between attempts.)

TEO,

Thanks for checking. That was what I remembered, but that's been awhile. There's just too much to remember these days and it's all too easy to miss a key fact. I didn't remember exactly where I had heard it, but I thought it was from more than one source.

Again, if I recall correctly, and your comments lead me to believe I'm correct, I think the U.S. military actually did in fact offer to provide more physical security around the U.N. headquarters, not just "air superiority", but the U.N. would not accept the offer.

If you go back to the panel's report on the U.N. security, it appears the U.N. didn't have much real security in place and what they did have wasn't effective. I suspect they didn't believe that anyone would actually attack the U.N. itself. Most people would not likely have expected that either, especially considering the negative effects it would have on public and world opinion of the terrorists and their actions. I suspect too, there was a little arrogance involved also.

The police are in control of our streets, cities, and towns, but that does not stop all of the crime. Our troops, our police, and others make their decisions on the best information they have and allocate their resources accordingly. Obviously, that doesn't always work out as we would want or expect. Sometimes we are just too complacent or too sure of ourselves. Sometimes we just don't see the threat.

Virtually no one, at least not the average American, would ever have expected terrorists to fly those planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, but they did, and now we try to guard against that or a similar event in the future. Hopefully we will be right the vast majority of the time, but logic and history says we will also be wrong occasionally. Logic and reason says that the terrorists are working even now on other threats that will be equally unimagined or un-envisioned. Even if we could anticipate every possible threat, however, we do not have the money, personnel, or other resources to protect against any and all possibilities. That is physically impossible. We make our best guess and history tells us if we were correct.

Anyone can sit back and use history to second guess and judge the actions, decisions, accomplishments, and failures of others, but even with the 20/20 hindsight of history, many still don't get it right all of the time.

It's very easy for one to critique and judge something once it is written. It's much more difficult, however, when the paper is still blank!

AAR

Maverick,

I'm not exactly sure what you meant by your comment, especially concerning China. If you mean because they hold many billions and billions of dollars in our treasury notes... I could make some flip suggestions, but not today, or at least not right now.

I was half jesting, but only half when I made that statement. It wouldn't be a United Nations, but rather some other security or economic alliance, possibly like NATO but on a global basis and expanded beyond just security and military cooperation. I haven't thought too much on the specific details, the desirability, or the feasibility. I do think it warrants consideration and thought though. Why belong to an organization that works and votes against us much of the time? Yes, there are valid reasons to remain in the U.N., but there are other reasons to change. I don't really have a strong opinion on it yet, but I've been unhappy with the U.N. for many years and it is getting no better!

The same with NATO. If countries like France and others are going to treat us as their enemies, why should we continue to support and guarantee their security? No, I'm not saying we should leave NATO yet, just thinking out loud. The Soviet threat is not what it was, but it could also re-develop. I'll have to leave that to our planners who have access to more experts and information than I do for now.

AAR

Colin,

[Salami, salami,] baloney! Sorry... the best I could on the spur of the moment!

I could have spent a great deal of time and effort writing comments back to TEO, but experience in dealing with and responding to comments like that one has shown it to be a wasted exercise -- more particularly, with someone like axis.

I can only reply to so many liberals here, and I'm sure most would rather I reply or comment to far fewer.

Having said that, I think TEO and I had a reasonable exchange later. I'm sure I didn't change his mind, but at least it was a somewhat civil exchange where we agreed on a few facts.

Yes, I like Mark Twain.

AAR

What I see:

This blog politicizing Zarqawi for a partisan attack against democrats.

That's how hate and partisan blindness works: no doubt the author doesn't understand he's doing it.

He has such hate as a partisan he needs an enemy, so he spends the post on why democrats are bad; he's more interested in being able to hate the democrats than the truth of whether the democrats are doing this.

It's like a guy I knew once. He didn't think he was racist, but he told me that if he saw a mixed couple, he had to stop and count to 10 breathing deeply to keep control of his emotions.

It gets downright ironic when the right attacks the democrats as 'partisan' in a partisan attack.

You quote the online version in which there is no quote from any Democrat saying it was a stunt.

Now go read the same opening in the print version.

I wondered how long it would take for a conspiracy theory to rear its ugly head, and jay k showed that it was about a day. Nice hat, jay! Reynolds does make a nice product, don't they?

jay k says:
"they could have killed this guy before the war started, but didn't because they thought it would hurt their case for war"

Who is in charge of keeping the list of all the people we could have killed before the war? Hell, we had the ability to kill Zarqawi's mother before he was conceived---who blew that opportunity?

And who is in charge of inventing the reasons for everything done and not done? Do you have a big staff or is it just Ranty Rhodes and a few acolytes? Anyway, you need to get together, because the other conspiracy theory on this post was that Al-Queda was tired of Zarqawi anyway and wanted to get rid of him so they had someone turn him in.

So Conspiracy No. 1 is that killing him this week is not a victory, it is just a long-delayed chore that we coulda/woulda/shoulda done years ago but for some typical underhanded sneaky neocon warmonger blood for oil plot.

Conspiracy No. 2 is that killing him this week is not a victory because we didn't kill a leader, we just killed a has-been and did Al-Queda a favor, kinda like taking out their garbage for them.

Al-Queda says killing him this week was not a victory because they don't see the death of a leader as a defeat, but that it is "life" to them.

So I guess we just played into their hands by killing the guy, silly us---but it don't mean nothin' nohow and what's the big deal....

And BTW, no one said that the insurgency would stop with his death.

What WAS said was that there would probably be a spate of new attacks as the result of his death, but that in the long run it would take Al-Queda a while to rebuld to anything like their strongest level of strength because we had taken out so many of their leaders.

I think maybe Maverick is one of those people who think that buying bonds constitutes taking on a secured interest in the investment.

I have heard the same kind of comment from lefty friends of mine, who are convinced (after listening to economic guru Ranty Rhodes, et Al) that China is going to end up owning America.

That's like saying if I invest in San Diego municipal bonds, because they are highly rated, and then they default, I get to go to the zoo and pick out a couple of penguins.

What would happen would be that the San Diego bonds would be less highly rated, meaning that fewer people would buy them. I'm simplifying this, but that is the basic idea.

China bought U.S. bonds because they were highly rated and pay a good interest rate. "Highly rated" means it is a relatively safe investment, and China expects a certain rate of return. If we fail to provide that rate of return, or they lose their money, they do not get a piece of the country instead. They paid their money, and they took their chances.

We might suffer a future shortfall as others became hesitant to invest in our bonds, based on our default. It's not like there would be no negative consequences. But China would not be taking over the White House (though they did try to buy it when Clinton lived there). We would not be bankrupt, and we would not be owned by a foreign country.

With reactions like this, I am feeling much more at ease about November.

axis, with his typical grasp of world affairs, says:
"The driving force behind the insurgency is the hate and animosity derived from the ongoing American occupation of Iraq."

One, we are now in Iraq at the invitation and request of the democratically elected government of Iraq. You might try to figure out what "occupation" means.

Two, if the terrorists (opps..'insurgents') want us to leave, all they have to do is quit killing people. We've said over and over again that we are only going to be there till the situation calms down and the populace is relatively safe, and the Iraqi army and police force can deal with incidents. So if the terrorists (ooops..'insurgents') really wanted us to leave, they would make it happen by stopping their terrorism (ooops...'insurgency'). The ones with the most control over the situation are the ones planting the bombs and killing Iraqis. So why don't they do what clearly needs to be done to get the Americans out of the country?

Hmmmmm. Could it be that their real enemy is the burgeoning Iraqi passion for elective representative government? Could it be that their real fear is of a democratic and secular Iraq, one which they can't control?

You know, that works even for libs---because that could be argued to be All Bush's Fault, too. The damned SOB introduced democracy and freedom and just look at the problems it/he has caused. Why, if he had just left well enough alone, Iraq would still be the peaceful and idyllic place it was under Uncle Sadaam, that benign and kindly old chap who had been rendered "impotent" by the Gulf War and just wanted to live out his years in peace and harmony, nurturing his country and reveling in the love and adulation of his admiring populace.

It's a biased article. Check the quote, nobody called it a 'stunt', and if you look at all the ellipsis and fillins on the money quote, there's more journalistic interpretation than quote! You're being played by the biased Washington Times.

"jay k says:
"they could have killed this guy before the war started, but didn't because they thought it would hurt their case for war"

Who is in charge of keeping the list of all the people we could have killed before the war? Hell, we had the ability to kill Zarqawi's mother before he was conceived---who blew that opportunity?

And who is in charge of inventing the reasons for everything done and not done? Do you have a big staff or is it just Ranty Rhodes and a few acolytes? Anyway, you need to get together, because the other conspiracy theory on this post was that Al-Queda was tired of Zarqawi anyway and wanted to get rid of him so they had someone turn him in."

There's not a list of such people, but that doesn't change the facts you are ignorant of.

The military was well of al-Zarqawi, and his camp in Northern Iraq (which Saddam had no presence in, rather we had more control there with our no-fly zones), they knew he was running ricin labs, and the military requested permission to attack his camps and kill him at least three times.

Those are facts you can't make disappear with questions about lists.

The White House denied the permission every time. People who were involved said that the reason given was that the administration wanted Zarqawi there so they could refer to 'Saddam allowing terrorist camps' as part of their war justification.

This information is from sources interviewed by 'mainstream media'. It's not 'inventing reasons'.

Your adopting a dismissive position doesn't change the facts. Do you want the truth? Apparently not.

Tossing in a competing theory, based on pretty much nothing but speculation, may be an attempt to discredit the first one based on knowledgable sources, but it doesn't prove anything; it's simply an attempt to lie by misleading.

"What WAS said was that there would probably be a spate of new attacks as the result of his death, but that in the long run it would take Al-Queda a while to rebuld to anything like their strongest level of strength because we had taken out so many of their leaders."

That is more true when total war exists. In WWII, pretty much anything we did to take out any resources of Germany weakened their ability to win the war, because they were using all their resources.

Things change when there's an overwhelming preponderance of a population not at war with us.

There are over a billion muslims. Most are not involvedin any war with us. But in this case, our actions which take out part of their forces can actually increase the 'enemy strength' by creating more resources. Think Viet Nam, and our too little too late attempts to win hearts and minds.

But that's not really the argument here. There are things we do wrong which create more enemies for the US (one US Colonel commented that if he were treated the way the people were, he'd be a terrorist too). Killing Zarqawi isn't really one of them, though.

The argument the left has with Zarqawi isn't that it was wrong, but rather to point out the fact that the Bush administration prevented killing him to play politics with terrorism so they could use him in their case for war, and by doing so, allowed many more victims for years.

And you can do nothing but make fallacious, sarcastic, wrong arguments in response.

"jay k says:
"they could have killed this guy before the war started, but didn't because they thought it would hurt their case for war"

Who is in charge of keeping the list of all the people we could have killed before the war? Hell, we had the ability to kill Zarqawi's mother before he was conceived---who blew that opportunity?

And who is in charge of inventing the reasons for everything done and not done? Do you have a big staff or is it just Ranty Rhodes and a few acolytes? Anyway, you need to get together, because the other conspiracy theory on this post was that Al-Queda was tired of Zarqawi anyway and wanted to get rid of him so they had someone turn him in."

There's not a list of such people, but that doesn't change the facts you are ignorant of.

The military was well of al-Zarqawi, and his camp in Northern Iraq (which Saddam had no presence in, rather we had more control there with our no-fly zones), they knew he was running ricin labs, and the military requested permission to attack his camps and kill him at least three times.

Those are facts you can't make disappear with questions about lists.

The White House denied the permission every time. People who were involved said that the reason given was that the administration wanted Zarqawi there so they could refer to 'Saddam allowing terrorist camps' as part of their war justification.

This information is from sources interviewed by 'mainstream media'. It's not 'inventing reasons'.

Your adopting a dismissive position doesn't change the facts. Do you want the truth? Apparently not.

Tossing in a competing theory, based on pretty much nothing but speculation, may be an attempt to discredit the first one based on knowledgable sources, but it doesn't prove anything; it's simply an attempt to lie by misleading.

"What WAS said was that there would probably be a spate of new attacks as the result of his death, but that in the long run it would take Al-Queda a while to rebuld to anything like their strongest level of strength because we had taken out so many of their leaders."

That is more true when total war exists. In WWII, pretty much anything we did to take out any resources of Germany weakened their ability to win the war, because they were using all their resources.

Things change when there's an overwhelming preponderance of a population not at war with us.

There are over a billion muslims. Most are not involvedin any war with us. But in this case, our actions which take out part of their forces can actually increase the 'enemy strength' by creating more resources. Think Viet Nam, and our too little too late attempts to win hearts and minds.

But that's not really the argument here. There are things we do wrong which create more enemies for the US (one US Colonel commented that if he were treated the way the people were, he'd be a terrorist too). Killing Zarqawi isn't really one of them, though.

The argument the left has with Zarqawi isn't that it was wrong, but rather to point out the fact that the Bush administration prevented killing him to play politics with terrorism so they could use him in their case for war, and by doing so, allowed many more victims for years.

And you can do nothing but make fallacious, sarcastic, wrong arguments in response.

3 eyes,

You seem to have forgotten that the UN wthdrew from Iraq in the fall of 2003 after their offices were bombed (BY ZARQUAWI) and the envoy Sergio Viera de Mello was killed. As a side note they had refused US Military protection.

This is the same UN that withdrew from Burundi and the Central African Republic earlier in the year after they were threatend with violence from local forces.

Give me a break.

Yeah..who you gonna call...ghostbusters??

BTW Randy, the difference between our forces and the UN (besides their running and hiding at the least action) is that when we find abuse we punish those responsible. The UN 'peacekeepers" are noted child molesters and rapist, and are never held responsible for the actions. Just ask any young girls where they have been stationed in Africa you pathetic slimeball.

"The military was well of al-Zarqawi, and his camp in Northern Iraq (which Saddam had no presence in, rather we had more control there with our no-fly zones), they knew he was running ricin labs, and the military requested permission to attack his camps and kill him at least three times.

The argument the left has with Zarqawi isn't that it was wrong, but rather to point out the fact that the Bush administration prevented killing him to play politics with terrorism so they could use him in their case for war, and by doing so, allowed many more victims for years." Craig

Ahhhh a wonderful argument. Let's take it from the top.

1. The dems claim that Al Queda only came into Iraq only after the US invaded. But here we have Craig refuting that claim, quite rightly by pointing our that Al Queda was there in the presence of Zarquawi, prior to the invasion. In fact he arrived in Iraq after the Taliban was toppled, seeking medical care for injuries. He was feted by Udai Hussein, remember him? And after his wounds healed he was allowed to set up camp in the northern areas where he made contact with Ansar Al Islam, another terrorist group. Thank you Craig for debunking the Al Queda not in Iraq mantra, while at the same time debunking the no connection between Al Queda and Saddam.

2. The Dems said that there were no WMDs in Iraq, choosing to ignore the fact that they were used to surpress the Kurds. The proof of which is irrefutible, except if you are a moonbat. But here we have Craig, pointing out that Zarquawi was in IRAQ making WMDs, and since he was the guest of Udai, it must have been with Saddam's knowldge. Thank you again Craig for debunking another Moonbat myth.

3. Finally Craig accuses the Bush administration of failing to take out Zarquawi who they knew was there. Quite true. They saw just how successful (not) the Clinton Cruise missle attacks were on the terrorist camps in Afganistan. They killed no one and destoyed a bunch of mud huts. So rather than risking that, the administration chose to wait and take him out during the invasion. A mistake, perhaps, but that has now been rectified.

In the meantime, OBL still walks free after the Clinton administration had three opprotunities to take him down but didn't. A point Craig fails to mention.

But thanks anyway Craig for clarifying all of this for us.

Re Pete Stark (D Calif):

Pete Stark did not use the word, "stunt," however, it's quite clear, from any reasonable reading of Stark's comment that he was suggesting this was a stunt, ploy, or otherwise an attempt to disatract attention from something else.

The message was clear, or as Mc Cain said, "call it a banana if you want", we all know what he meant.

To me there is no choice about taking out Zarqawi, regardless of any consequences. I can't imagine leaving him alive would be better than killing him no matter who it pisses off even more. The real mistake came four years ago when we should have taken him out while we had the world on our side post 9/11 and before the 'decider' pulled the trigger to mire us in Iraq. We have way bigger problems on our hands now than who gets upset about this thug getting killed.

Phnxbmed,

The UN is a toothless tiger who relies on US money and might to handle its obligations, it is riddled with waste and favors, and in desperate need of some serious oversight-overhauls, but when you're the only world hyper-power and insist on remaking it [world] in your image, you should be expected to bear the lion's share of responsibility.

For God's sake, we had veto power over just about every panel we sat on, including the Security Council, we are the big-cheese, what more do you want?

A pot calling its cousin the kettle black doesn't mean a whole lot, what responsibility have we owned up to in our entire jaunt in Iraq?

-Fallujah
-lack of water and electricity
-lack of security
-countless deaths of innocent civilians by our actions.

The UN was and still reamins a great ideal, maybe we should spend more time trying to fix it, as opposed to calling it 'useless'

The UN serves NO useful purpose. It is a corrupt organization with a bloated bureaucracy that can never be fixed. This organization long ago lost credibility and appointing such models of human rights as China, Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Zimbawe, to the Human Rights commission adds nothing to their credibility.

The solution is for us to establish an organization of DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED STATES, and withdraw from the UN, and kick their collective arses out of the USA.

RE: "'This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer' for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat."

Call it whatever you chose. The statement may not use the word "stunt", but the implication is the same!

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

AAR

Phnxbmed,

You're gonna go a long way in getting reform from the rest of the world while you attempt to kick out nations.

What a boys-club attitude about things. No wonder the rest of the world is wondering what the hell we are teaching our children.

Did we kick out the representatives from the south during Jim Crow laws? No, we engaged them, and made them fix their problems, it's people like you who throw temper-tantrums cuase you don't get your way, then blame the rest of the world when stuff starts falling apart.

TEO,

Elimination equals reform!

It is clear to the rest of the world what the liberal education system is teaching our children -- liberalism supported by the inability to think compounded by the lack of an education in real history, civics, current events, English, effective writing and oral communications, math, science, and moral values -- to name just a few!

And what does the South and Jim Crow laws have to do with a failed U.N.?

Absolutely NOTHING! Just your attempt to demean the character and opinions of those who oppose your liberal views and agenda!!!

AAR

Just to clarify another misquote from the original post: Murtha did not say "we cannot win this." He said "we cannot win this militarily. There's a huge difference.

TEO,

Elimination equals reform!

It is clear to the rest of the world what the liberal education system is teaching our children -- liberalism supported by the inability to think compounded by the lack of an education in real history, civics, current events, English, effective writing and oral communications, math, science, and moral values -- to name just a few!

And what does the South and Jim Crow laws have to do with a failed U.N.?

Absolutely NOTHING! Just your attempt to demean the character and opinions of those who oppose your liberal views and agenda!!!

AAR

Mark, Matt,

I'm still having all sorts of problems trying to post.

Most, but not all of the time, the "preview" works. Then I hit "post" and get that B4B server error screen. I normally wait 5 or 10 minutes to see if the prior post did in fact take before trying to re-post again.

Sometimes the post show up, and others it doesn't. If it didn't show up, I repeat the steps again with varying degrees of success.

The last time I tried, my initial post didn't show up (on my computer at least), so I re-entered the same post again several minutes later. At that time, BOTH posts were THERE -- another double post, right?

Not necessarily... maybe, maybe not. Several minutes later, I checked back to read other comments, and BOTH posts were GONE!

I'll wait awhile before I try again, but I have no idea what or how many I'll finally end up with (if anything)!

AAR

[AAR, I have contacted the web host about the problem and we're trying to resolve it. Some for whatever reasons there's a significant amount of server load which is causing these errors to occur, as well as problems with rebuilding... in the meantime, don't worry about double posts, we will try our best to delete them when we can. -Matt]

(Another B4B Server Error... making a second attempt!)

Mark, Matt,

Now BOTH posts are BACK -- along with my message about posting problems.

You can see from the times that my attempts were 53 minutes apart, but it wasn't until after my last post at 1:29 P.M. that both returned to view (on my computer at least)!

I cleared all cookies and temp files between the attempts, so that shouldn't be the problem.

?????

AAR

Killing Zarqawi doesn't change the facts on the ground one bit.

We are losing the occupation of Iraq, because things are getting worse not better there.
FACT: that is the current assessment of both the Pentagon and our ambassador there.

President Bush chose to invade a country that had no WMDs, that had no connection to 9/11, that had no collaboration with Al Qaeda, and that posed us no threat.

Why are we spending $9 BILLION a month on Iraq? We could use that money at home? Our soldiers have achieved everything they can do there, and are now just targets for insurgents.

Declare "victory" and bring them home now.

Matt,

Thanks for the update.

AAR

Throughout our human history, there have been strong ideological beliefs that drive society.

Often, these are utterly wrong, it's found later, but they're sure convincing at the time.

That's the sort of thing we see today with the right wing, passionately arguing 'the UN does NO GOOD'.

It's not a different opinion, it's not slightly wrong, it's not a well-reasoned mistake.

It's a lie they believe. We are really, firmly in the days of cult-like ideology yet again.

Of course the UN is imperfect, both by design in making it politically feasible, and by accident.

But there is zero doubt to any rational, honest person that there is much good it does.

It is affected when its dominant member is led by someone who has virtually no insight into its purpose and undermines it, as opposed to when that member has leadership like FDR who saw the usefulness, but that doesn't remove all its usefulness.

What we really have is an era of people who are just indocrinated by a radical ideology.

It's very dangerous; we've had wars, and nearly nuclear wars, over this issue. We've lost huge opportuniies in recent decades to spread prosperity and democracy throughout the world and to lead the world to a much greater position for the US as a leader while wrong policies are done.

And it sure gets old. The thing is, it's not as if you can really get these cult members to read anything that might inform them and broaden their understanding; the most they'll do is say 'moonbat' hundreds of times on message boards, instead just reading the propaganda made for them.

One good example? Look at David Brock, who 'escaped' the cult. He was a leading right-wing author who was rationalizing putting out 'hit pieces' against the left, not seeing how indoctrinated he was as he did it.

The way he broke out was simply because he was gay and the ideology happened to be anti-gay, and finally, after he was 'outed', the anti-gay lies and hate made him question the ideology, and the rest is history (documented in 'Blinded by the Right').

Our nation's theory assumes a citizenry that's somewht well-informed.

As the industry for propagandizing is at unprecedented heights in this country, that assumption is no longer a reflection of the state of our right-wing citizens.

Hopefully, things such as the internet can help some of them get more informed.

History has and should continue to prove them wrong, and hopefully some will notice.

It was the right saying 'stay out of WWII', they were wrong. It was the right saying 'go to nuclear war with China' in 1950, they were wrong. It was the right saying go to war in Viet Nam or allof Asia will fall to the communists, they were wrong. It was the right saying to install brutal dictatorships in Iran, in Chile, in Venezuela, in many other countries; they were wrong. It was the right who said that Reagan's tax cuts wouldn't increase our debt, they were wrong. It was the right who said that Clinton's increase on the top 2% would greatly harm the economy and increase the debt, and they were wrong. It was the right who said that invading Iraq would simply give the people freedom from a dictator, and the nation would quickly move to a democracy at low cost to the US at one point saying no more than $1.7 was expected to be spent. They were wrong, while we will see what they can salvage.

They said Yalta was an error, they were wrong. They said JFK's supporting independance rather than European colonization of developing countries was a mistake, they were wrong. They said LBJ's war on poverty, that FDR's social security, were bad policies. A permanent end to most elder poverty - the norm before social security - and a perment large reduction in the percent of Americans below the poverty line from the norm before LBJ show they were wrong.

The no-nothing ideologues who vote as they are told by the cult leaders so often paid for by narrow interests who are not the friend of the average citizen is a threat to our nation and to the world.

If America hadn't invaded Iraq Zarqawi would quite probably have lived out his life as nothing more than a street thug. (Bin Laden didn't even "embrace" Zarqawi until 2005.) How many others, I wonder, have become full-time full-fledged terrorists because of this ill-conceived war. No way of knowing, of course, but America will be paying the price for decades to come.

With all of the chest-thumping going on over dropping two 500-pound bombs on a house just to kill one man (a man it took us over 3 years to find), it seems to me it's the Republicans who are politicizing national security. Our troops will continue to be killed or injured and scores of innocent Iraqis will continue to die every day. Instead of looking for every excuse under the sun to lob some of your hate towards your fellow Americans (yes, despite what you may say or think, Democrats are Americans TOO), why don't you spend a few minutes thinking about what life must be like for all of the Iraqis who now spend every day of their life hearing gunfire and explosions, wondering if someone they love just got blown to bits. They're losing more people in a MONTH than we lost on 9/11 and every day since. If George Bush is so damned concerned about national security why isn't he doing more to secure our ports instead of trying to hand them over to the UAE, and why isn't he doing a thing about checking the cargo loaded onto our airplanes instead of taking nail clippers away from passengers, and why is he pouring billions and billions of dollars of our money (and our childrens' money) into Iraq instead of doing what needs to be done here at home to make this country more secure. How many more Zarqawis are still left out there and how many are dreaming of exacting their revenge on America for what George Bush is doing in Iraq? Oh, but wait, when the next terrorist attack comes I'm sure you'll all be blaming the Democrats because that's a lot easier than placing the blame squarely where it belongs.

"Under the last two, Reagan and Bush, the United States became the world's only superpower, winning the Cold War from the old Soviet Union and releasing millions from Communist oppression."

"If America hadn't invaded Iraq Zarqawi would quite probably have lived out his life as nothing more than a street thug." 3reddogs

I suppose that WMD lab that he set up in Northern iraw was just for muggings.

And he must have made a mistake when he assassinated an American Envoy in Jordan in 2002.

What a complete idiot you are.

TEO,

I never said throw any body out of the UN. I sais we should get out and establish a new organization of Democratically elected states.

Without the democratically elected states, or even some key ones, like the US, Germany, the UK, Italy and australia, the UN would fall like a deck of cards.

Please explain how the UN has contributed at all to the spread of Democracy in the world. It hasn't, in fact it perpetuates dictatorships. what action have they taken against Zimbawe for all of the government sponsored racial clensing being carried out against whites. Nothing.

What have the done in the Sudan to stop the ethnic cleansing going on there? very little.

What about Burundi, Republic of the Congo or the Ivory Coast?

They serve no useful purpose.

Craig,

I notice that you conventiently did not answer my post to you, because you had no answer. So I will not bother repsonding to your presposterous revision of history, except to remind you that JFK was the one who got us involved in Vietnam, or didn't you study that?

I'm a Democrat. I voted for Gore in 2000, campaigned and voted for Kerry in 2004. I have voted for Dems in every election since I was 18. But I have to say it sickens me to see the barely concealed disappointment of many Dems in the killing of Zarqawi. The post about "defeatest dems" was right on the money. It seems as if most Dems (and all "liberals") see ANYTHING that benefits Bush as being a loss for them, forgetting that what is sometimes good for Bush is also good for the country. I can't imagine any circumstances under which the death of this monster doesn't make us (and our soldiers) more safe. Comments like those of Kucinich and Stark besmirch the memory of great Dems like Truman and Roosevelt.

Care to name what you're quoting there Jeremiah?

It's BS anyway. The Bush administration was surprised by the fall of the USSR.

It wasn't something they did so much, though they have created a lie to tell to say otherwise.

To the extent that the arms race had any impact, that goes back to Truman. But the Gorbachev government has said that they saw Reagan's ploy very transparently and ignored it, that it was not the thing that caused the change.

And to rub salt (no pun intended to the US-USSR SALT II talks) in your wound, Jimmy Carter is the president who secretly approved the aid that drew the soviets in Afghanistan which actually did have an effect on the USSR's falling.

Stop being a revisionist.

"The dems claim that Al Queda only came into Iraq only after the US invaded."

I've never seen this claim - I have seen that Al Queda greatly increased their presence, instead of operating only in the norther area out of Saddam's control, after the invasion.

"Thank you Craig for debunking the Al Queda not in Iraq mantra, while at the same time debunking the no connection between Al Queda and Saddam."

Interesting, then, how the experts say that Saddam, the secular dictator, and Al Queda were natural enemies; any cooperation between them would have been only because of our activites, 'enemy of an enemy is a friend' sort of thing.

But even that doesn't hold up, as the secret notes we've found show Saddam discussing arresting him.

"The Dems said that there were no WMDs in Iraq, choosing to ignore the fact that they were used to surpress the Kurds. The proof of which is irrefutible, except if you are a moonbat."

In what time frame?

Let's not forget our giving some of the WMD items to Saddam, and after he used them on innocent people, the administration *strengthening* diplomatic relations, sending Rumsfeld over to shake his hand.

"But here we have Craig, pointing out that Zarquawi was in IRAQ making WMDs, and since he was the guest of Udai, it must have been with Saddam's knowldge. Thank you again Craig for debunking another Moonbat myth."

Bull - there was a reason he was operating up in the north in the land of Saddam's enemies.

You will have to do a lot more to make your case either that Zarqawi's Ricin labs had anything available to Saddam, or that Saddam had WMD at all; he didn't, as the Bush admnistration's own investigators have concluded.

"Finally Craig accuses the Bush administration of failing to take out Zarquawi who they knew was there. Quite true. They saw just how successful (not) the Clinton Cruise missle attacks were on the terrorist camps in Afganistan. They killed no one and destoyed a bunch of mud huts. So rather than risking that, the administration chose to wait and take him out during the invasion. A mistake, perhaps, but that has now been rectified."

Um, ya, except the military put very high odds on the requests. Why not try?

And they hardly 'got him in the invasion', now did they - you make no excuse for them.

Their reason had nothing to do with the Clinton attempts, and everything to do with politics of wanting him as an excuse for the war they lied and said they were trying to avoid.

As for their reluctance to launch questionable missile strikes - they made *50* bombings of suspected Saddam locations, all of them missing him, while killing many innocent people.

"In the meantime, OBL still walks free after the Clinton administration had three opprotunities to take him down but didn't. A point Craig fails to mention."

I didn't mention the sky is blue either - this isn't the history of everything that has happened in Iraq ever. If you have an issue with Clinton bring it up. Clinton took the time confirming the level of threat that OBL posed - after confirming he was behind the Cole attack, he made a war plan.

That war plan was not implemented to be forced on Bush, but handed to, and shelved.

As for Kennedy and Viet Nam - Kennedy did not get us into Viet Nam. Eisenhower did. Kennedy did escalate some assistance, but he drew a hard line against combat troops, and he refused the constant demands from the military for far more escalation.

Kennedy planned a withdrawal by 1965.

I think had he done so, he'd have been crucifed by the right as a weakling for letting the good people of South Viet Nam fall to communist aggression needlessly, with comparisons to 'losing China' in 1948. The country *thought* Viet Nam would have been an easy war to win at the time.

But Kennedy was finally committed to exiting Viet Nam after being re-elected. He knew he'd get the heavy criticism, and told his confidants that he was ready; he'd ordered the first 1,000 of 16,000 advisors removed in October, 1963, to send the message that he was serious.

You can find numerous sources for this, from his Secretary of Defense McNamara, to the majority leader in the Senate, his trusted friend Mike Mansfield, who JFK sent to Viet Nam to get a real assessment. Mansfield told him it was unwinnable, and JFK told him he reluctantly agreed, and would.

Unfortunately, Democrats haven't learned that national security is not a political issue--no matter how much they pretend it is or try to make it one.

This is the funniest thing I've ever read.

Maybe someone should have told Bush that during the campaign of 2004. Because (9/11) you know (9/11) Republicans (9/11) would never (9/11) use National (9/11) security as a (9/11) political issue (9/11)(9/11)(9/11)(9/11)(9/11)(9/11)(9/11)(9/11).