Abu Musab Al-zarqawi Killed In Iraq

[Hobbit]

whining and whining about the quality of reporting from Iraq.

That's a nice way to distract yourselves from the all-too-obvious fact that our Iraqi adventure is not turning out exactly as planned.

Everybody I've ever talked to who has been in Iraq since the initial invasion says the reporting on Iraq is atrocious. The Iraq on TV may as well have been Mars for all the differences between it and the actual Iraq. The whole thing's going a lot better than WWII did.

 

[red states rule]

Everybody I've ever talked to who has been in Iraq since the initial invasion says the reporting on Iraq is atrocious. The Iraq on TV may as well have been Mars for all the differences between it and the actual Iraq. The whole thing's going a lot better than WWII did.

Look what happened when Judy Woodruff (Clinton News Network) went to Walter Reed and conducted interviews with the wounded troops

She was begging for one of them to say something bad about the war, Pres Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, anything.

They were all positive, upbeat, said how things are going good in Iraq, and how they want to go back

She was on the verge of tears by the end of her report

 

[Gunny]

any way to spin this news negatively, unless you're a follower of "Z-man." Even OBL is probably glad to see him gone.

When Democrats point out that this was not OBL, however, they are not "spinning." What they're doing is trying to undo the vast spin which got us into this war--President Bush's bizarre decision to react to a bombing by Saudi Wahhabis by attacking a former ally, Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Bush spent months conflating the two--to the point that he once slipped and said "Saddam Hussein" when he meant to say "OBL." In other words, in his own mind, they became one and the same.

Bit by bit, inch by inch, despite massive stonewalling, the evidence has surfaced that every SINGLE piece of "evidence" Bush used to support this misdirection was false, almost every piece was known false at the time, and Bush's team purposefully removed fudge factors to make their case to Congress stronger. Bush admitted that the uranium from Niger story was false. An investigation showed that the centrifuge tube evidence was known false. And the German gov't told us that Curveball was an unreliable drunk.

Here on USMB you have people advocating the torture of relatives of terrorists. Yet, when OBL committed 9/11, we assisted his relatives in leaving the country, rather than arresting them for questioning or torture. Why? Because we have an extremely dysfunctional relationship with the Saudis. We're the addict, and they're the dealer. They have the oil we need, and, because we pay for it, they have the $$ we need to keep our deficit-based economy going.

Instead of invading Iraq, we should have been forcing Saudi Arabia to destroy the roots of Wahhabi fundamentalism, the branch of Islam that created Al Qaeda. Remember, 15 hijackers were Saudi, and 0 were Iraqi. But we can't "force" the Saudis to do anything--we need them more than they need us. Our massive deficit spending under Republicans in the past 6 years has done more harm to our independent strength than any other action. Asia and the Middle East each own around $1 trillion in our debt--if they call in even a tenth of that, the dollar will plunge, and the U.S. will enter a Greater Depression than 1929, instantly--and everyone knows this. Hence, we make nice with our real enemies, and kick around the weak kid on the block who makes an easy target: Saddam.

So is the MSM spinning, or is it trying to return us to the reality that the "enemy" we chose was not the enemy who attacked us? If the MSM had done their job better in the first place, instead of being cowed by Bush's aggressive cowboy stance (which even he's now apologized for), they woudl have uncovered the lack of "secret" evidence to justify the war, and we could have avoided this bloodbath.

Now that we are there, however, we have to win, and no one, no matter how liberal or Democratic or anti-war or anti-Bush should be questioning that. I certainly do not.

Mariner.

Speaking of spin .... don't you get dizzy?

Bush's justification for invading Iraq has hardly unravelled. For the half-dozen reasons given, y'all lefties choose one that lacks evidence and spin your whole crapola story around it. Anyone who thinks Saddam did not possess, use, and was pursuing more WMDs is either a complete moron, or refuses to accept it to suit his/her political agenda.

WHO exactly has advocated the torture of terrorists' relatives? "People" doesn't quite cut it when you make such an accusation.

The birthplace/country of residence of terrorists is irrelevant in light of the fact they belonged to an international terrorist organization. Another attempted deflection from the fact that they were one and ALL militant Islamic fundamentalists who use murderering noncombatants in attempts to force their jacked-up religion on the rest of the world.

History refresher: Saddam agreed to follow UN mandates as a condition of a cease fire. Not, treaty, alliance, nor anything else you wish to call it ...cease fire. Had Clinton enforced the conditions of the cease fire when he should have -- like the hundredth time Saddam violated them by 1995 -- Saddam wouldn't have been around for Bush to deal with.

And really, the only justification required for the US to resume hostilities was Saddam breaching the conditions of the ceasefire ONCE, much less 13 years worth.

 

[Gunny]

whining and whining about the quality of reporting from Iraq.

Stating fact is not whining. Iwould think a college grad teacher such as yourself wouldn't go for the "mine's a reason - yours an exucse" type of insults.

That's a nice way to distract yourselves from the all-too-obvious fact that our Iraqi adventure is not turning out exactly as planned.

Really? Let's recap: Saddam is out of power. The Iraqi people have formed their own government. WHAT isn't going as planned?
In the meantime, we're ignoring all the most important things we ought to be doing to make this country safer:

--inspecting containers arriving in our ports (Congress just canned a proposed $684 million measure to increase inspections--why?)

--securing loose nuclear material around the world (Bush's plan is to finish this by 2020. Nuclear experts say it could be done in two years for just a few billion dollars. What are we waiting for??)

--eliminating the U.S. budget deficit. The fact that we depend on Asia and the middle East to finance our deficits is our single greatest weakness. It means we can't go after Saudi Wahhabism that created Al Qaeda. It means we can't go after China's human rights issues. It means we've handed many countries the capacity to incapacitate us, simply by selling off a few of their dollars. Our savings rate has now gone negative--for the first time since the Great Depression. And all because this gov't is committed to cutting taxes while expanding its size and fighting a war. Why are Republicans doing this?

Republicans are running this gov't, folks. So instead of wasting all your breath on the media and on the party out of power, how about noticing just how badly your own team is doing... ?

How come you guys won't talk about the obvious fact that, in retrospect, it was one of the worst decisions ever made to invade Iraq? A trillion dollars is buying us... what?

Mariner.

Actually, Iraq should have been invaded during your gutless boy wonder's two-term monarchy. Just how long is it that you feel babysitting Saddam's entire border would be justified? How does the cost of operations and maintenance and manpower for 13 years compare to your "trillion" dollars?

Until Saddam died and one of his psychotic whelps took his place? THEN what?

I'll never understand the lefty mindset that ignoring a problem will make it go away.

 

[red states rule]

This is nothing new for liberals. They have a long history of not confronting evil

Reagan brought down the Soviet Union with no help from the left. The left ranted how he would start WWIII and felt we had to sit and talk to them

During Clinton, they treated 5 terrorist attacks as a legal issue - not a military issue or act of war

 

[Mariner]

something's going "a whole lot better than WW2" isn't saying a lot.

Let's see, is it the MSM's fault that:

--Bush fired Admiral Shinseki rather than accept his advice that 2-3 times as many troops would be needed to secure the country as Bush wanted to send?

--that the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman stories were first reported by the military in completely false and self-glorifying terms? (making it perfectly reasonable to question every single glowing report from this administration.)

--that there was zero contingency planning to prevent looting and secure Baghdad after we took it?

--that the opinion of the U.S.--the "hearts and minds" war at its core--fell in Indonesia (the largest Muslim country) from 76% after 9/11 to less than 20% after our botched invasion?

--that poorly supervised and trained troops committed the atrocities of Abu Ghraib?

--that rather than showing the world transparently that we are morally superior in our treatment of prisoners, Bush chose to set up a gulag of secret prisons, to hold combatants without charges for as long as he wished, etc.--in other words to look more like a dictator than the leader of a free country?

--that we count our own troop deaths but refuse to count Iraqi deaths, which sends a rather blatant message to the rest of the world about our relative valuation of non-Americans' lives?

--that the war's still going on three years after Bush was clueless enough to declare "Mission Accomplished"?

--that more insurgent groups are appearing regularly a year after Cheney was clueless enough to declare the insurgency "in its last throes"?

--that Bush dragged us into this war on the basis of "secret evidence" that turned out to be nothing more than already-discredited intelligence?

Yup, all these things are the MSM's fault, "Dems"' fault, "libs"" fault, etc. None of them are in any way Bush's fault, or Republicans' fault. At least that how it is on USMB.

Mariner.

 

[Abbey Normal]

something's going "a whole lot better than WW2" isn't saying a lot.

Let's see, is it the MSM's fault that:

...
--that the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman stories were first reported by the military in completely false and self-glorifying terms? (making it perfectly reasonable to question every single glowing report from this administration.)
...

Mariner.

So you don't believe the "glowing" reports, but you do believe the negative ones? How convenient for you.

 

[red states rule]

So you don't believe the "glowing" reports, but you do believe the negative ones? How convenient for you.

Of course. Being a liberal demands you ignore anything positive. Being a liberal you are against American involvement in Vietnam, thought the Gulf war was unnecessary but believe 25,000 U.S. troops in Bosnia are vital to our national interests

 

[Gunny]

something's going "a whole lot better than WW2" isn't saying a lot.

Let's see, is it the MSM's fault that:

--Bush fired Admiral Shinseki rather than accept his advice that 2-3 times as many troops would be needed to secure the country as Bush wanted to send?

And? What exactly do you think more troops would accomplish? Provide more targets for terrorists?

--that the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman stories were first reported by the military in completely false and self-glorifying terms? (making it perfectly reasonable to question every single glowing report from this administration.)

Self-glorifying, or glorifying Lynch and Tillman?

--that there was zero contingency planning to prevent looting and secure Baghdad after we took it?

Irrelevant. There has NEVER been a contingency plan that actually stopped looters when they were determined to do so, not even in the US. This is just one of those "Monday morning QB, unreasonable expectations from you libs.

--that the opinion of the U.S.--the "hearts and minds" war at its core--fell in Indonesia (the largest Muslim country) from 76% after 9/11 to less than 20% after our botched invasion?

What invasion was botched? Who cares what Indonesia thinks?

--that poorly supervised and trained troops committed the atrocities of Abu Ghraib?

There are plenty of threads on this board debunking the liberal myth of Abu Ghraib. Six to seven people abused their power and were punished for it. Nowhere near worthy of the overly-sensationalized attention you lefties and the media gave the incident.

--that rather than showing the world transparently that we are morally superior in our treatment of prisoners, Bush chose to set up a gulag of secret prisons, to hold combatants without charges for as long as he wished, etc.--in other words to look more like a dictator than the leader of a free country?

But of course it would be far wiser to just leave enemy combatants/suspected terrorists running loose until they PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt they're going to murder someone. Maybe we should just issue them all AK-47's now and set them free.

--that we count our own troop deaths but refuse to count Iraqi deaths, which sends a rather blatant message to the rest of the world about our relative valuation of non-Americans' lives?

REALLY reaching into left field with this one.

--that the war's still going on three years after Bush was clueless enough to declare "Mission Accomplished"?

Bush declared "mission accomplished" when the military mission and ouster of Saddam was (you guessed it) accomplished. It was in tha tcontext his statement was made, and in that context you lefties REFUSE to accept it. Spinning it into something else works better for you, right?

--that more insurgent groups are appearing regularly a year after Cheney was clueless enough to declare the insurgency "in its last throes"?

Please provide evidence that on a historical and global scale that refute's Cheney's statement.

--that Bush dragged us into this war on the basis of "secret evidence" that turned out to be nothing more than already-discredited intelligence?

Be specific as to what evidence you are claiming was discreditted. If you mean WMDs; which, btw was only ONE of a half dozen reasons given for deposing Saddam, most of the international community had the same evidence and believed Saddam still possessed WMDs. He possessed them and used them in the past and could not account for them -- a term of the cease fire agreement. If you don't honor the terms of your agreement, you get your car repo'd. Saddam was not above the law.

Yup, all these things are the MSM's fault, "Dems"' fault, "libs"" fault, etc. None of them are in any way Bush's fault, or Republicans' fault. At least that how it is on USMB.

Mariner.

The spin you lefties put on "all these things" and the media's reporting, exaggerating and over-sensationalizing and/or otherwise one-sided reporting IS the MSM's and the left-wing's faults. Your posts above are perfect evidence to back up the assertion.

 

[mattskramer]

Oh shut the hell up already.

No. I like being a nitpicky gadfly pointing out the technical errors and fallacious arguments made by popinjays so consumed in political rhetoric.

By the way, Rico, if the definition is incorrect, perhaps you should contact Dictionary.com and complain. Also, read the definition again. Technically, “Harmed or killed” does not suggest nor deny a non-combatant circumstance. It does not mean that the “victim” should or should not have met his demise. “Harmed or killed" means only “harmed or killed”. The reporter may have tried to imply that the bombing was not warranted (or that this was a non-combative circumstance) or not, but you can only infer such, in conjunction with your own biases and prejudices. Basically, you may read whatever you like into people’s comments. I choose to take the question objectively at face value.

 

[red states rule]

Our troops do not like collateral damage, but would help if the civilians would stay the @#$% of of the way

 

[Gunny]

No. I like being a nitpicky gadfly pointing out the technical errors and fallacious arguments made by popinjays so consumed in political rhetoric.

By the way, Rico, if the definition is incorrect, perhaps you should contact Dictionary.com and complain. Also, read the definition again. Technically, “Harmed or killed” does not suggest nor deny a non-combatant circumstance. It does not mean that the “victim” should or should not have met his demise. “Harmed or killed" means only “harmed or killed”. The reporter may have tried to imply that the bombing was not warranted (or that this was a non-combative circumstance) or not, but you can only infer such, in conjunction with your own biases and prejudices. Basically, you may read whatever you like into people’s comments. I choose to take the question objectively at face value.

Why do you insist on playing this little game? It's obvious what the reporter implied. Your literalist, context removal and dictionary definitions of individual words doesn't change it a bit. It just makes your arguments fallacious rhetoric.

 

[red states rule]

The reporters in the liberal media go out of there way to smear our troops. They are happy and positivly giddy to report failures and any deaths sufeered by our troops.
At the same time, they are sad and PO'd when they have to report a successful operation, like the one that killed Zarqawi.

 

[Gunny]

The reporters in the liberal media go out of there way to smear our troops. They are happy and positivly giddy to report failures and any deaths sufeered by our troops.
At the same time, they are sad and PO'd when they have to report a successful operation, like the one that killed Zarqawi.

Yeah, seems it's mostly done now. I guess we couldn't expect a success to get the Abu Ghraib over-hype.

 

[red states rule]

Of course not. Now the liberal media is saying we have made the terrorists even madder at us.

How lame!

 

[CSM]

something's going "a whole lot better than WW2" isn't saying a lot.

Let's see, is it the MSM's fault that:

--Bush fired Admiral Shinseki rather than accept his advice that 2-3 times as many troops would be needed to secure the country as Bush wanted to send?
Shinseki will be awfully ambarassed to find out he is an Admiral and has been wearing the wrong uniform through out his career! By the way, Bush did not fire Shinseki. If you know something I don't please provide a link

--that the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman stories were first reported by the military in completely false and self-glorifying terms? (making it perfectly reasonable to question every single glowing report from this administration.)

Libs have told a few "stories" as has the MSM which makes it perfectly reasonable to question everything they say too...I seem to remember a few fabricated news stories for example

--that there was zero contingency planning to prevent looting and secure Baghdad after we took it?

Can you prove that too? I happen to know that there was contingency planning to secure Baghdad. As for the looting, I guess the Iraqiis are just more criminal minded than we thought; it wasn't the conquering army that did the looting was it?

--that the opinion of the U.S.--the "hearts and minds" war at its core--fell in Indonesia (the largest Muslim country) from 76% after 9/11 to less than 20% after our botched invasion?

Who cares what Indonesia thinks? I am beginning to suspect that Muslims not liking the US is a good thing because I sure dont want a bunch of them coming here.By the way, if you grab a man by his balls, his heart and mind will follow.

--that poorly supervised and trained troops committed the atrocities of Abu Ghraib?

"atrocities" my ass. That was no more an atrocitiy than a college frat prank is an atrocity. The fact that the libs and MSM have managed to skew that whole thing out of perspective is an atrocity.

--that rather than showing the world transparently that we are morally superior in our treatment of prisoners, Bush chose to set up a gulag of secret prisons, to hold combatants without charges for as long as he wished, etc.--in other words to look more like a dictator than the leader of a free country?

Morality be damned. This is not about morality. Care to take a look at how the rest of the world treats their prisoners? Which country would you like to explore in that regard? Which country do you think is morally superior? I bet you already know the answer to that but wont admit it!

--that we count our own troop deaths but refuse to count Iraqi deaths, which sends a rather blatant message to the rest of the world about our relative valuation of non-Americans' lives?

Absolutely. Just remember that Muslims have been busy blowing up more Iraqiis than we ever thought of killing. What do you think is the value the terrorists place on non-American lives?

--that the war's still going on three years after Bush was clueless enough to declare "Mission Accomplished"?

Twisted and disingenuous and you know it. That carrier's mission was accomplished. You libs extended the statement to cover the whole war on terror...liars and deceivers that you are.

--that more insurgent groups are appearing regularly a year after Cheney was clueless enough to declare the insurgency "in its last throes"?

Really? Please send the inside information you have to the CIA...they are running out of targets.

--that Bush dragged us into this war on the basis of "secret evidence" that turned out to be nothing more than already-discredited intelligence?

This has been hashed to death. You are wrong. By the way, most people wouldn't recognize a "secret" if it was crawling up their ass.

Yup, all these things are the MSM's fault, "Dems"' fault, "libs"" fault, etc. None of them are in any way Bush's fault, or Republicans' fault. At least that how it is on USMB.

True enough...about the only thing you have gotten right.
Mariner.

I guess you will be renouncing your US citizenship...

 

[mattskramer]

Why do you insist on playing this little game? It's obvious what the reporter implied. Your literalist, context removal and dictionary definitions of individual words doesn't change it a bit. It just makes your arguments fallacious rhetoric.

Why do you insist on playing this political game? What did the reporter literally, actually, say? Stop reading messages that do not exist. I do not use fallacious rhetoric. I am not seeing comments that do not exist.

It really seems quite funny. People hear what they want to hear and practically ignore what is said. They play this game to suit their own biases and prejudices. There is supposedly a powerful liberal media that wants us to lose this “war on terror”. Therefore, whatever a reporter says, conservatives say that the reporter meant that the war should end. Instead of taking things at face value, they try to distort the statement in order to keep it consistent with their own anti-media bias. I don’t have a political agenda or strong bias. I take messages as I receive them. I don’t play these games.

 

[red states rule]

Why do you insist on playing this political game? What did the reporter literally, actually, say? Stop reading messages that do not exist. I do not use fallacious rhetoric. I am not seeing comments that do not exist.

The liberal media would have been something on the beaches of Normandy. Can you think for one moment the reporters saying Ike did not have a plan, was the US military mistreating the Nazis, did we give all copies of Mein Kampf, did we provide a lawyer for all the captives, or how the war was taking to long?

 

[mattskramer]

The liberal media would have been something on the beaches of Normandy. Can you think for one moment the reporters saying Ike did not have a plan, was the US military mistreating the Nazis, did we give all copies of Mein Kampf, did we provide a lawyer for all the captives, or how the war was taking to long?

I somewhat expected such a reply. You speak of a different era, a different war, and a different nation. Yes, years ago, it was understood that we were not to question the establishment. Before Vietnam and Watergate we were to simply nod and believe that our leaders knew what they were doing and that they were telling us the complete truth.

It would have been good to have had people ask if Japanese internment camps were really necessary and, if they were necessary, if we could treat the inhabitants better.

See http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/

Now, we understand that it is good to question and not blindly accept what we are told.

 

[red states rule]

I somewhat expected such a reply. You speak of a different era, a different war, and a different nation. Yes, years ago, it was understood that we were not to question the establishment. Before Vietnam and Watergate we were to simply nod and believe that our leaders knew what they were doing and that they were telling us the complete truth.

It would have been good to have had people ask if Japanese internment camps were really necessary and, if they were necessary, if we could treat the inhabitants better.

See http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/

Now, we understand that it is good to question and not blindly accept what we are told.

The nations second worst attack the people were united to defeat a common enemy

But, with the nations worst attack, libs foresake national security in order to regain their political power