Should There Be Any Doubt...

...perhaps this will shed some light on the subject.

Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap.... -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's diminutive president, on Iraq's future

Any questions? Yes/ No?

"The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly," Ahmadinejad said at a press conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. "Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation."

Is it any wonder why the enemies of the United States just adore our Democrat Leaders?

Need more?

The Machiavellian read would be that he doesn’t want the U.S. to leave, at least not until he can bleed us some more, and this is his way of trying to buy Bush more time. Hard to believe that Iran digs having 160,000 American troops across the border, though, however easier it makes them to target. Maybe it’s just smoke he’s blowing back towards the west after Sarkozy’s saber-rattling yesterday and the U.S. going after the Revolutionary Guard last week? I’m at a loss. Theories are welcome.

More? To those people with their heads in the sand or so far up another's hinder parts they have been deprived of oxygen, let us spell it out for you. The United States has accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq and soon Iran what countless others have tried to do and failed...bring a taste of FREEDOM to the area. All others tried the Oppression thing and failed. Iran wants Iraq and it wants Saudi Arabia. The ONLY reason Saudi Arabia are our "friends" is they fear an Iranian Conquest more than they "don't like" us.

Persia has always wanted the entire Middle East. That is why Persia changed its name to Iran...in the tongue of Persia, Iran translates to the Land of the Aryan.

Ring any bells?

A friend states:

In the past couple of months we have seen some major progress in Iraq, thanks to the new leadership of General Petraeus and his counter insurgency strategies, news that has been reluctantly reported on by the MSM and as more gets out there to the American people the support for the war which had been on a steady decline for the past 3 years has suddenly started to rise, slowly but surely in poll after poll. It still is not at the levels we would like to see but given that this is a two month trend turning around from a three year declining trend, the numbers are actually not bad and getting better with each and every poll.

How blind can our politicos be and the trolls they cater and pander to?

U.S. has accused Iran of being behind attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq — a claim the Iraqi government has only partially backed, saying Iran could have a role in the attacks. Iran has denied the accusations.

Iran can deny the facts all they want to and emulate our own Democratic Party leaders and spin this any way they want to but the facts remain. There are Iranian made weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US is holding Iranian "operatives" captured in Iraq.

Jihad Watch says: Thug-In-Chief licks his chops

It is indeed a sad state of affairs when politics trumps National Security at the expense of our military.

Some buzzings over here

Michael Totten says:

MUSHADAH, IRAQ – “Al Qaeda terrifies locals,” said Major Mike Garcia from Canyon, Texas, before he put me in a convoy of Humvees with 18 American Military Police on their way to the small town of Mushadah just north of Baghdad. “The only people Iraqis may be more afraid of is their mothers. When we arrest or detain people and threaten to call up their mom, they completely freak out. Please, no, don’t tell my mother they say. Women are quiet outside the house, but they severely smack down their bad kids inside the house. When your Iraqi mother tells you to knock something off, you knock it off.”

This is your brain on Liberalism


This is your brain on Patriotism




Any questions?

Iraq ‘IS’ The War On Terror

Cross posted from Right In A Left World

August 26, 2007

In their crafty endeavor at embarrassing the Bush Administration and causing defeat in the Iraqi Theater of the War on Terror, the leftists have been portraying the ongoing battle in Iraq as a separate war from the War on Terror. We hear that we dropped the ball by leaving Afghanistan, where terrorists are and invading Iraq, where they claim no terrorists were.

Nothing can be further from the truth, not that truth has ever been important to the anti-war left.

Given the events of September 11, 2001, which also revealed our total vulnerability to radical Jihadist and acknowledging that virtually every Intelligence agency in the world believed there was a massive stockpile of banned Weapons of Mass Destruction under Saddam Hussein’s control inside of Iraq, who would be willing to take the chance that those WMD’s would not fall into the hands of radical Jihadists such as Usama Bin Laden? Surely not me.

What leader worth anything wouldn’t take every step possible to safeguard the citizens that elected him to office? Given what was known and assumed, it would have been totally irresponsible to allow Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to remain as it was prior to 9/11.

However, Saddam’s refusal to abide by 17 United Nations Resolutions over the 12 years between the cease-fire he agreed to in 1991 and our invasion in 2003 was but one reason behind the invasion to depose Saddam and his brutal Baathist regime. Although no evidence has been found yet as to an operational link between Saddam’s regime and the horrific events of 9/11, links between Al Qaeda and the regime have been established and confirmed. During the Clinton administration links were established and I sincerely doubt they evaporated once the 2000 elections were finished. Even the vaunted 911 Commission Report stated there were ties, although not operational towards the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

After all the lies and obfuscation of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his CIA Analyst Wife, Valerie Plame, a declassified CIA Document on the debriefing of Joseph Wilson shows that Saddam’s regime was indeed seeking purchases of Yellowcake Uranium for nuclear purposes. In addition, we also now have proof that Wilson’s wife did indeed recommend him for the trip to Niger, revealing the lie’s of both of these people to the American Public.

Don’t hold your breath waiting to see either one of these two ‘darlings of the left’ prosecuted for ‘perjury’ as was L. ‘Scooter’ Libby.

A report produced by the Hudson Institute entitled "Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror," lists known terror groups as Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Front, Ansar al-Islam and the Arab Liberation Front as having ties to Saddam’s regime. Additionally, known and suspected terrorists as Khala Khadar al Salahat (captured in Baghdad in April or 2003), Abu Nidal (who committed suicide in Baghdad in 2002), Ramzi Yousef (planner of the first WTC bombing of 1993), Abdul Rahman Yasin (conspirator in the first WTC bombing), Abu Abbas (captured just outside Baghdad in April of 2003) and Abu Musab al Zarqawi are listed as having been in Iraq, some for many years.

The report also mentions one of Hussein's diplomats at Iraq's Manila embassy was expelled from the Philippines for communicating via telephone with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Abu Sayyaf terrorist group as well as Saddam’s regime paying families of Palestinian suicide bombers upwards of $25,000 upon completion of a successful suicide attack against Israelis.

Clearly, when the anti-war left tells us there were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded it in 2003, they are very wrong. Having now established there was just reason for invading Iraq, let’s move on to today and the calls to abandon Iraq and focus elsewhere to fight terror.

President Bush, vice-president Cheney, General Petraeus and others maintain that Iraq is the Central Front in the War on Terror. Leftist kooks, many Democrats, News commentators and RINO’s maintain that Iraq is NOT the Central Front in the War on Terror. Who is correct?

While we have Democrat candidates currently crisscrossing the nation pontificating such things as, "This is not our fight. Iraq is at war with itself and American troops are caught in the middle," (Hillary Clinton), "We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we're on the wrong battlefield," (Barack Obama), "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam," (John Edwards and his War on Terror is only a Bumper Sticker Slogan comment), “Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time,” (John ‘F’in Kerry in his failed 2004 campaign), I think it important to see what our enemies have said about it.

Al Qaeda’s number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri released one of his video’s urging Muslim youth to hurry to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Palestinian areas to fight for their religion. In an earlier letter to Abu Mus’aab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, Zawahiri expressed Al Qaeda’s four step plan to, expel American forces from Iraq, establish a caliphate over much of Iraq, extend the Jihad to neighboring countries, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon and war against Israel.

Additionally, we have a report of bin Laden’s men breaking some bad news to Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan’s Taliban. The message, “Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.” The reason, “Because bin Laden and his lieutenants see a great opportunity for killing Americans and their allies in Iraq,” effectively turning Iraq into the “Central Front in the War on Terror!”

If our enemies see Iraq as the “Central Front,” we would be foolhardy to abandon the Iraqi People to their fate while we focus our main effort elsewhere that we have been able to enlist the aid of Allies to stand with us against the radical Jihadists there.

When you hear those denying Iraq as part of the War on Terror, don’t let them get away with it. They are wrong. They are in denial. They are completely misled. They are fools.

Just as the battles throughout the Pacific were half a globe away from the D-Day invasion in World War Two, yet were all part of the same war, so are Iraq and the Global War on Terror.

Iraq is but one battlefield in the Global War on Terror and one that we must win, if Western Civilization is to survive.

Lew

THIS JUST IN...Americans Support The War!!

Well, it looks like the Lame Stream Media is getting the word that WE have KNOWN since the beginning!!

Thanks to Spree for this post!!

Monday, July 23, 2007

American Support for War Inches Up

If you are a far lef Democrat that has been trying to force America to surrender in Iraq, you MAY want to get yourself a drink right quick before seeing the latest poll, shown by the New York Times.

American support for the war in Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until General David Petraeus files his report in the fall.

In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq.

Support had been at all time low in May, when only 35 percent of Americans said the United States’ involvement in Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out.

Those numbers need to rise more and I believe that as long as we keep seeing the successes that the last couple of months have brought us, the numbers WILL rise considerably more.

As I said earlier:

We have shown, via multiple sources, that the Iraqi Army is stepping up to the point that our commanders are announcing that they may be able to step down in those parts of Iraq, that the 50 Tribal leaders have decided to help the U.S and Coalition forces, we have also shown you that the everyday Iraqi's, sickened by al-Qaeda's methods have been working with our forces and providing tips that have led to some major progress, and this is just a small sample of the news we bring you every week from Iraq.

Every day now, we are getting good news coming from Iraq, one success at a time, and the American people are beginning to understand that Harry "Baghdad" Reid was wrong, we have NOT lost Iraq and we WILL NOT lose in Iraq.

The bad news stories still are coming out, as they should, but for the first time in YEARS, it is being balanced now, by a reluctant media by the good news that they can no longer ignore and sweep under the rug.

Alot of credit for that needs to go to some of the fine independent journalists that have risked their lives to embed with our troops and bring us the truth.

People like Michael Yon, Bill Roggio just to name two, and the Miliblogs that speak to us from the frontline, but there are many more and they have my and many others THANKS for doing it.

Day after day we bring you good news from Iraq, now, week after week, it has become "the trend" instead of the exception.

GOOD JOB TROOPS.

Of course, the LEFT will definitely try to spin it.

[UPDATE] STAY FIRM MR. PRESIDENT.

[UPDATE #2] From Amy Proctor...

GEN David Petraeus is a hands-on kind of guy. He doesn’t sit in the FOB (Forward Operating Base) and rely on briefings from troops on the beat. Instead, he drives and walks through the streets of Baghdad and sees “astonishing signs of normalcy” in half, perhaps two-thirds of Baghdad. Petraeus said today:

Iraq: Reid's Political Opportunism Is Showing

Really? No way? Political opportunism? Surely the worse Senate Leader in history wouldn't stoop to such a low point as all that now would he?

Excerpts from this article at CNS News:

If you needed any more proof that Democrat leaders in Congress are playing politics with the war against Islamofascism, all you had to do was listen to a recent Capitol Hill press conference where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was fielding questions.

When asked repeatedly whether the Iraqi people would be safer as a result of the anti-war/troops-out-now lobby getting its beloved US retreat, Reid responded by asking if there were any more questions.

So afraid he is of a victory in Iraq. it doesn't bode well for the genre of Reid to avoid those "hard questions", does it?

Maybe it wasn't a debate but it was certainly a press conference. In press conferences reporters ask questions and those holding the press conferences provide answers. Reid failed at providing an answer to a very simple question. He seems to be failing a lot lately, although you wouldn't know for his arrogance.

Reid...a man's worse nightmare...Mr Milquetoast. Pathetic. Coward. Chicken. Liar. Fraud. Reid.

Go read the rest of the article.

Al Gore Is A Liar

And I will prove it. I found the following video over at RCP. It is called; "Gore: Why Bush attacked Iraq". "Gore says the Iraq War was based on raw power and ideology, not facts." Really, Al?

Here is the video from RCP:



And here is another video of Al Gore. I guess one or the other Al Gore is the impostor.



Which "IS" it, Al?

Recap of the Senate All Nighter: The Next Day:UPDATED with Reax

Cross Posted from Wake up America

First I want to give Snooper, from Take Our Country Back and huge THANK YOU for live blogging the pathetic Senate All Nighter for Wake up America.

We started with Fighting fire with Fire, then yesterday afternoon, had the Senate All Nighter Part #1 and Snooper finished it off with the Senate All Nighter Part #2.

The news is full of articles about it and after having spent two days watching it, I came away with a sense of two separate types of politicians in Washington, one set that wishes for no more than failure on the behalf of our military and is willing to ignore all the progress that General Petraeus and our troops and coalition members have been achieving over the last month and has but one true desire: To surrender to our enemies so that they can pick up a few votes for themselves.

It was pathetic watching them beg to be allowed to encourage the enemy and demoralize our troops as well as to send a message to the whole world that they are weak.

The other side of what I saw were men and women that are willing to fight, here at home, for the only thing our troops ask of us, the people of America: Time to finish what they have started and acknowledgment of the progress and successes they have been seeing.

One group would sell America down the river for a vote or because a "poll" tells them to and the other group willing to forgo votes in their next election to do what they believe is right.

The Democrats as well as 3 Republicans that joined them to commit political suicide have proved time after time that they are more interested in furthering their own careers than helping our country be safe and fight the Global War on Terror, yesterday they proved that by completely ignoring a group of individuals that we told you would be going to the Capitol yesterday to speak with the leadership.

Who are these people that the Democratic leadership deliberately ignored yesterday?

VETERANS FROM THE IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WARS.

Vets for Freedom Continues Marching On The Hill

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Adriel Domenech 501-412-1224

Vets for Freedom expresses disappointment that veterans were not able to meet with Congressional leadership from both sides of the aisle in Congress today. While many Republican Senators, including leadership, made themselves available for questions and input, interaction from Democratic leadership was noticeably absent. In spite of that, Vets for Freedom members remain committed to speaking with elected leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Republican leadership (and some Democrats, although not leadership) made room in their busy schedules—on very short notice—to speak with veterans. These veterans flew in on their own dime to ask Congress to give General David Petraeus the time he needs to fully implement the surge of American forces in Iraq. Veterans are very grateful and thankful for the time that these Senators took to spend with them.

Five days in advance of today's events, Vets for Freedom meeting requests—for 5 minutes—were submitted to the Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House. Repeated attempts were made to contact and meet with the Democratic leadership. "In the end, they made a disappointing decision to decline meeting with veterans who have first-hand knowledge of the situation on the ground" said Pete Hegseth, an Iraq War veteran and executive director of Vets for Freedom. "It is especially disappointing because Democratic leadership's misguided policy—a declaration of defeat—will lead to a national security disaster for the United States."

Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics—namely "the surge" in Iraq. Vets for Freedom is the leading voice representing troops and veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. For more information, please visit www.vetsforfreedom.org.

The Democratic leaders had plenty of time to visit with others for a publicity stunt of a candlelight "vigil" with a group like MoveOn.org, but could not be bothered to give 5 minutes to the men and women that actually went to Iraq and Afghanistan and fought valiantly for our country.

Says quite a bit doesn't it?

Just as they continue to ignore Generals Petraeus, Lynch and Pace, they deliberately snubbed our fighting men and women.

Think about that the next time you even think of defending one of those pathetic lowlifes.

So, Reid, in his typical fashion of throwing a temper tantrum has decided that since his little stunt didn't work, he will pull the whole Defense Authorization bill off the floor until he gets his way on ONE amendment, the Levin/Reed amendment that would set time lines on our military in Iraq.



Fat chance. Just another publicity stunt that won't work, just as last nights didn't.

Funny thing is, just like with the Emergency Supplemental back in May, even if he has managed to get this amendment in the Defense Authorization bill, the President would have vetoed it.

They learn nothing and they have once again proven, without a doubt, to the whole world that they are, have been and will continue to be: Weak on National Security and not prepared to do what has to be done to win the War On Terror.

So, while the Democratic majority leader played his little game and lost, again, our brave troops, coalition members and the Iraqi security forces were busy fighting to WIN, and, indeed, are doing a wonderful job of it as we witnessed with last nights news that they captured Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, also known as Abu Shahid, back on July 4th.

BAGHDAD - The U.S. command said Wednesday the highest-ranking Iraqi in the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq has been arrested, adding that information from him indicates the group's foreign-based leadership wields considerable influence over the Iraqi chapter.

Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, also known as Abu Shahid, was captured in Mosul on July 4, said Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a military spokesman.

"Al-Mashhadani is believed to be the most senior Iraqi in the al-Qaida in Iraq network," Bergner said. He said al-Mashhadani was a close associate of Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born head of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Bergner said al-Mashhadani served as an intermediary between al-Masri and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri.

"In fact, communication between the senior al-Qaida leadership and al-Masri frequently went through al-Mashhadani," Bergner said.

"Along with al-Masri, al-Mashhadani co-founded a virtual organization in cyberspace called the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006," Bergner said. "The Islamic State of Iraq is the latest efforts by al-Qaida to market itself and its goal of imposing a Taliban-like state on the Iraqi people."

The Fourth Rail tells us more about this man and his role as an al-Qaeda front in Iraq:

Mashadani has a long pedigree in Iraq’s Salafist terror networks, and had direct contact with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. “Mashadani was a leader in the Ansar Al Sunna terrorist group before joining AQI two and half years ago,” Brig. Gen Kevin Bergner said in a press briefing. “ He served as the al-Qaeda Media Emir for Baghdad and then was appointed the Media Emir for all of Iraq, serving as an intermediary between AQI leader al-Masri, Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. In fact, communication between senior al-Qaeda leadership and al-Masri went through Mashadani.”

During interrogations, Mashadani admitted that the Islamic State of Iraq was merely a puppet front group established by al Qaeda in order to put an Iraqi face on the insurgency. Mashadani cofounded the Islamic State of Iraq with al-Masri in 2006. “The Islamic State of Iraq is a ‘front’ organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within AQI in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of AQI,” said Brig. Gen Bergner.

The headlines tell us exactly how the Democratic leadership is being and will be portrayed in the MSM, in the weeks to come, or maybe for the years to come.

The NYT- "Democrats Fail to Force Vote on Iraq Pullout"

Another NYT Article headline- "Democrats Lack Support to Force Vote on Pullout"

Wapo Headline- "Senate Rejects Troop Withdrawal Measure"

Those are just a few and make a good example. The Democrats are known as "failures" that stage "political stunts" while ignoring our Veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Talk Left has been continuously touting that the only way to force us into surrendering Iraq to al-Qaeda is by using the power of the purse, I have seen them make this argument over and over and over again.

One simple question here: If the Democrats cannot manage to pass an amendment, what on EARTH makes Talk Left think, for a moment, that they would have enough votes (60 to bypass a filibuster) to defund anything?

Simply another strawman argument although I truly believe the writer believes what he is saying.

Lets say this simply so everyone can understand it: THEY. DON'T. HAVE. THE. VOTES

One specific speech made last night, out of so many, should be seen by all and is brought to us from Captain's Quarters, and that is McCain's, I am not his greatest fan but have always maintained that I respect the hell out of McCain. He would rather lose an election that sell out our troops.

His last speech last night:

Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single member of this body. And to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last twenty-four hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday; the consequences of an American defeat are just as grave; the costs of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy will have been captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our soundbites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved are remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else will have changed.

In Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us, and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox, which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.

During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating “staying the course,” which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed – a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military – are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.

Yes, we have heard quite a lot about the folly of “staying the course,” though the real outcome should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced, and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people.

I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely, we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office, and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many, many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything – seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life. I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona, and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, Mr. President, or try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others – and that is to do everything in my power, to use whatever meager talents I posses, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, Mr. President, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. And it is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.

(Emphasis mine)

Well said Senator McCain and I am proud to have you as my Senator, here in AZ.

I have no doubt that Baghdad Reid and his merry band of surrender monkeys will continue to try to see America down the river, surrender to our enemies as well as do everything in their power to demoralize our troops in the field, but for today, after last nights pathetic attempt to do so, they have been shown, once again, for the worthless, spineless and weak politicians that they truly are.

Not only are they the party OF defeat, they are the party that keeps getting defeated and I must admit, it is fun to see the GOP make a mockery of Baghdad Reid in such a public way.

Later I will be bringing you the Good News From Iraq, the news that the Democratic party wishes to ignore.

REMINDER FROM CASSY: Remember to vote today and once every day for the Wounded Warriors Project... they deserve the money.

[Update] Yesterday I did promise you reactions from around the blogosphere and in the news, so lets get to keeping that promise:

Let me start with one of my favorite bloggers/journalists, Don Surber:

Our American troops are risking their lives in a war to fight al-Qaeda — a war they are winning — a war that Harry Reid voted to authorize and a war that Reid wants to give up on. For 2 years he has been crying “change the course.” Here’s the proof.

When will he change his course? When will this senator from Nevada open his mind, review the facts and change his course from the cut-and-run whining he has made for 2 years now?

So the Senate stayed up last night? Thousands of troops stay up every night. They put in 12-hour days. They are beating an enemy that wants to kill us.

Reid’s stunt — his word — showed the American people what pampered babies senators are — and how incompetent the Democratic Party’s leaders are.

Bush’s approval is 29%? So what? That is still double the 14% confidence rate of the Democratic-controlled Congress. Bush may be nearing Carter levels on job approval, but Congressional Democrats have already bested the 19% record low they set a 14 years ago.

How dare Reid complain about the Iraqi government? He cannot even pass a budget. The immigration bill went poof on him. The sole bill that he’s passed was a minimum-wage amendment tacked onto an Iraqi funding bill.

Read it all.

Jules Crittenden:

That doesn’t appear to have worked too well. The voters who have been the most upset are the ones who expected more of their narrow majority of Democrats in Congress than impotent flailing, half-measures and making futile gestures. Of course they, like the Democratic leadership they voted in, think the lawful exercise of constitutional checks and balances and congressional rules is an outrage.

Captain's Quarters:

So what did this accomplish? Nothing. After midnight, most of the Senate disappeared. It turned into nothing more than a huge bluff, and Reid lost.

Here's what Reid wanted. He knew that he didn't have enough votes for a quorum; he only has 49 Democrats available, with Tim Johnson's disability. Reid counted on Republicans forcing an end to the session by having a single member present to challenge for a quorum. No votes could take place without one, including the instruction motion to the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest recalcitrant members and drag them back to the chamber. That would have allowed Reid and the Democrats to accuse Republicans of dodging the debate, calling them cowards to take the spotlight off of their insistence on retreat.

Many expected the Republicans to do just that, but it turns out that Mitch McConnell is a little smarter than Harry Reid. Instead of denying Reid a quorum, the Republicans showed up for the debate, perhaps charged up by John McCain's earlier speech on the floor. Once Reid figured out that the Republicans would not give him the satisfaction of walking out the door, he caved. In fact, Reid didn't even bother to attend his own No Snooze Until We Lose party after the first instruction motion, choosing to hit the sack instead while Republicans took the podium all night long.

The cloture vote has been scheduled for around 11 am this morning. The overnight session has done nothing except to annoy Republicans into a more unified caucus, and to make Harry Reid look like a fool. One might have expected a Senator from Nevada to recognize a busted flush when he saw it.

Just One Minute:

Playing politics with this? Geez, do they mean to suggest that the same party that gave us Clinton, Kerry and Edwards supporting the war resolution in 2002 in order to burnish their "tough on security" credentials is still playing politics?

Take Our Country Back:

Reid lost. Spree allowed me to live blog on her site. I stopped after the GOP stopped the cloture issue and they did so. Now, the whiner Reid is whining. The dude with the LOWEST approval rating in history is frustrated. He is a TOTAL idiot!!

Demediacratic Nation:

So, to Reid and the Rosies, the UN, and the MSM thanks for making the assured destruction of many a possibility with your lack of seriousness in these grave issues.

Michelle Malkin live blogged the senate debate also:

Jim Hoft notes that the Dems would not meet with anti-surrender veterans. Power Line has more.

(For those that don't know yet, Jim Hoft is from Gateway Pundit.)

Neo-Neocon:

Of course, it also focuses attention on the willingness of the Democrats to push for what Republican Orrin Hatch called the “political abandonment . . . of the biggest threat we face of the 21st century.”

Hot Air:

Update: Our crap politics — having failed to get his up or down vote, Reid throws a tantrum by yanking the entire defense policy bill from the floor.

Just a small example of how we see the left's attempt to surrender to our enemies.

.

Blast From The Past

I remember this...do you? The democrats have forgotten.

From the AP archive:
July 16, 1979

Iraqi President Resigns, Replaced by Saddam Hussein

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr resigned Monday and was replaced by Saddam Hussein, vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council under Bakr, the Iraqi News Agency reported.

Hussein reshuffled the Cabinet, and the news agency said he assured Syria there were no plans to change the political-military alliance the two nations have pledged to form to confront Israel.

Bakr, known to be suffering from a heart ailment, had made few public appearances in recent years, during which Hussein exercised many of the day-to-day functions of a government chief.

INA said Bakr, 67, had expressed a desire to step down as president, citing health reasons.

The Revolutionary Command Council, of which Bakr was chairman, accepted the resignation, the agency said, and Hussein was sworn in during the same RCC session.

Bakr announced his resignation late Monday in a nationwide address marking the 12th anniversary of the coup that brought his ruling Baath Party back to power in Iraq after a five-year respite.

The outgoing president was one of the officers who overthrew the Iraqi Hashemite monarchy in July 1958. He held no official position until 1963 when he was appointed premier. Later in 1963 a coup ousted the Baath Party from power, and he engineered the July 17, 1968, coup that brought it back.

Hussein, 42, was regarded as the real power in the last few years, often credited with thwarting attempts to topple Bakr during his illness.

He holds the military rank of lieutenant general, has studied law and has written several books with political themes.

The RCC appointed Interior Minister Izzat Ibrahim as vice chairman to fill the post vacated by Hussein.

Four ministers were dismissed and several new posts were created, the official news agency reported.

Syria and Iraq are ruled by rival wings of the Baath party but Egypt's signing of a peace treaty with Israel prompted Iraq and Syria to drop their decade-old, often bloody feuds to mount a united front against Israel.

Attempts since their reconciliation last November to unify the two countries fell short, but last month Bakr and and Syrian President Hafez Assad agreed to form a joint political command to coordinate political, military and economic policies.

The New Iraq...A Lesson In National Emergence

I have read email after email, blog after blog, article after article since I began blogging over six years ago. I haven't always had my own blogs and in the beginning, I messed up the blogs so badly I had them deleted.

While achieving skills for my own blog at Townhall, I was "playing with" other blog platforms and eventually got the Word Press blog up and running. After I achieved the #1 slot at Townhall, I began "playing with" Blogspot at the suggestion(s) of other popular bloggers because they said it was fun to work with. While the Word Press blog gained some recognition,I began "playing with" Blogspot and decided to use my new Blogspot blog as the primary blog. I still maintain the others due to loyal readers, viewers and those that wish to leave comments.

As my learning curves began to show promise, at least to me, an odd analogy emerged. No matter the conflict; no matter the venture; no matter the conflict; no matter the goal; they take time.

For instance, The United States. Yes, we hear of our Founding Fathers and the Framers and the First President and how all gave their all and some even lost their fortunes in the process. But, how did they get to where they were? What took place between the end of the American Revolutionary War and the inception and ratification of the United States Constitution and how did we become the United States of America? Did it happen overnight? Did it emerge from sort of primordial ooze?

Perhaps you are wondering what this has to do with the title of this post. I would be. I was reading Spree's post today in regards to the Benchmark issues in regards to progress in Iraq that the Leftinistra are soiling their Depends over and I suddenly recalled a history exam essay which I wrote many moons ago as I was going for my degree(s) in American History and American Studies. I cannot locate that essay as I am not physically able to crawl into my attic and break the seals of boxes to look for it. Suffice it to say that the data at hand can be located here.

As the "war drags on" and as the "war is lost" and "we cannot win", I find it sadly comical and horridly ignorant to think that instant success in Iraq is obtainable. We live in a society where Instant Success is expected and if our microwave ovens are no longer functional, life for us ends. The end of the world comes down all around us if a Crime Drama takes more than 2 hours to solve, or if our Cappuccino Machines break down.

The Articles of Confederation of the newly free colonies was ratified in 1781. Presidents served for one-year terms. From 1781 to 1789, eight men served as President of The United States, as mandated in Article 1 of the Articles of Confederation. George Washington was actually our ninth president but the first president under the new Constitution because the Articles of Confederation were found to be deficient. That experiment was not so much a failure but a learning curve; an eight year long learning curve.

In our history there were other learning curves, the last major one in my estimation was the War Between The States. We are still learning and emerging.

So is Iraq. They had elections. Air Force Pundit tells a tale of tribal units joining American Forces fighting AQI. Al Anbar is no longer the worse place in Iraq. Operations Rolling Thunder and Arrowhead Ripper are rendering similar results in the Northern Provinces of Iraq.

AQI is on the run in Iraq and we are winning and the full force of the "surge" (horrible term for what is happening) is just now beginning to fall into full play. Three weeks ago, the total Surge Force was finally in theater. I suppose Reid and his fellow 16% Approval Ratings Crowds expected the surge to be over by now. If they knew what they were yakking about, perhaps we would be more understanding of their ignorance and stupidity. After all, one of Reid's people doesn't know that $2 exist...he thinks they are phony. What kind of an operation is Reid running anyway?

Some are demanding a political solution. Like Korea? That worked out well, right? How many troops are STILL in Korea and why? Sherman Adams; "At the moment of a Korean truce," he said, "we shall be in danger. There will be nothing in the terms of such a truce which will give any permanent relief from the ominous threat which confronts the free world." The Marxists were rather pleased.

That was a "political solution" and look where we are today in the Korean Zone. Is this what we want in Iraq? Another Korea?

Was Vietnam a military solution or a political one? Silly question I know but it needs to be asked. It was a political solution. And look at that aftermath. At least in Korea we left troops there to ensure South Korea remained South Korea. The Democrats completely abandoned the Vietnamese people and that resulted in the Killing Fields. Well done, Democrats. Well done.

Is this what we want in Iraq?

Here is my gut call.

The Leftinistra KNOW that a withdrawal will bring about a repeat of the Cambodian Killing Fields and thus they can lay the blame at GWB's feet. This will ensure (to them) a sure victory in 2008. They cannot afford to be seen as the owners of defeat of which they are. Troops cannot be pulled out of Iraq on their watch.

Should their efforts cause a loss in Iraq and, our troops are still in theater in 2008, the Leftinistra cannot afford a loss in Iraq and they will NOT pull the troops out.

Just a thought.

The Learning Curve here in this modern day is this; the Democrats are the Party of Defeat and must be challenged and exposed at and on all levels possible. It is our duty to do so as members of The new media.

Iraq, Terrorism and WMD Links

Iraq and Terrorism

Iraq and Terrorism

Wednesday, June 06, 2007 8:08 PM

Scared politicians, politically correct politicians, should be ashamed of themselves; key word being “should”. This information has been KNOWN to “us” that developed this information for YEARS but it hasn’t been politically expedient to make it public.

What will it take to have the politicos get off of their beloved buttocks and make this information and facts PUBLIC? Will they fear reprisals of the Lame Stream Media and the Leftinistra hoards of ignorance and stupidity?

There will be the usual loonies that will say…without facts to back them up naturally…that this data has been refuted. Refuted by whom and with what facts? Opinions don’t count.

___________________________________________________________________________
WASHINGTON – It has been denied, downplayed, overlooked, forgotten, disregarded and omitted from the public record.

But a thorough review of open-source material demonstrates conclusive and widespread cooperation between former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime and terrorists from the Iraqi al-Qaida network.

Dozens of former Saddam Hussein loyalists captured by U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq were found to be working with al-Qaida or linked to their operations.

Here are some notable players in that alliance:

Muhammed Hila Hammad Ubaydi

Muhammed Hila Hammad Ubaydi, aka Abu Ayman, was the former aide to the chief of staff of intelligence during the Saddam regime for 30 years. Ubaydi later led the Secret Islamic Army in the Northern Babil Province and was said to have had strong ties to the former terror leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. He was captured April 6, 2006, in southern Baghdad.

Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri

Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri is “the former vice chairman of Saddam’s Baathist Revolutionary Command Council who swore fealty to Zarqawi and provided funding for al-Qaida and significant element of the Baathist/al-Qaida converts and collaborators.

Abdel Faith Isa is a former Iraqi army officer who was later identified as an al-Qaida emir. He was captured May 6, 2004.

Abu Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi is “believed to be a former officer in Saddam’s army, or its elite Republican Guard, who (has) worked closely with al-Zarqawi since the overthrow of the Iraqi dictator in April 2003.” Al-Baghdadi was among the candidates nominated as potential Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s leadership position in al-Qaida in Iraq.

Ahmad Hasan Kaka al-’Ubaydi was a former Iraqi Intelligence Service officer, and believed to have later become associated with al-Qaida affiliate Ansar al-Islam.

Abu Aseel is a “former high ranking Saddam official” who was working with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi after 2002.

Abu Asim was a Special Republican Guard officer under Saddam Hussein and is said to have been active within the insurgency after the fall of the former regime, including association with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Abu Maysira al-Iraqi was reportedly a “minister of information” for al-Qaida in Iraq and formerly an expert in information technology for Saddam’s army. “He was an expert in information technology in Saddam’s army and was entrusted with the additional task of waging the jihad through the Internet” for Zarqawi’s al-Qaida in Iraq.”

Abdul-Hadi al-Iraqi is being held in Guantanamo Bay and was called “a top leader with al-Qaida in Iraq and the Mujahedeen Shura Council and originally comes from Nineveh province. He was a major in Saddam’s army but left to travel to Iraq to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1990s” and was later identified as a “liaison between bin Laden and al-Qaida’s leadership in Afghanistan, and the al-Qaida network formerly headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq.” Al-Iraqi has also been cited as one of bin Laden’s top al-Qaida commanders.

Unnamed former air force officer – a man who was killed in a coalition raid in Iraq “was later identified as a retired officer in the Iraqi air force serving under the Saddam regime. The male who initiated the gunfire is a suspected al-Qaida terrorist for whom the troops were searching, as well as the retired officer’s son. The former officer was killed April 14, 2006.

Abed Dawood Suleiman and son Raed Abed Dawood – Suleiman was a former Iraqi general believed to have become Zarqawi’s “military adviser.” Raed was a former army captain in the Iraqi army and was caught April 15, 2005.

Mohammed Khalaf Shkarah al-Hamadani, aka Abu Talha, was a key facilitator and financier for al-Qaida in Iraq. He reportedly was the head of a Zarqawi’s terror cell. Al-Hamadani previously was a member of the Baath Party and a warrant officer in the former Iraqi army. He was captured June 5, 2005.

“Al-Hajji” Thamer Mubarak was an Iraqi military officer who became a key aide to Zarqawi. Mubarak reportedly was involved in the August 2003 al-Qaida attack on U.N. headquarters in Iraq.

Hasayn Ali Muzabir, a former Iraqi Intelligence (Mukhabarat) officer for Saddam’s regime, was later identified as al-Qaida’s emir of Samarra. Muzabir was killed in Balad, Iraq, on June 2, 2006.

Muhammad Hamza Zubaydi was a “Baath Party official in charge of security in central Iraq and had helped put down an uprising by Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq in 1991.” Zubaydi was later found to be an associate of Zarqawi’s al-Qaida branch in Iraq.

Abdul Hamid Mustafa al-Douri was a relative of Saddam’s former aide Izzat al-Douri. As an aide to Zarqawi, and head of the Salaheddin province al Qaida branch and car-bombing network, he was captured in a joint Iraqi police and army operation in a village in northern Tikrit.

Haitham al-Badri – “Before joining al-Qaida in Iraq, Badri was a warrant officer in the Special Republican Guard under Saddam. After the invasion, he joined the insurgent group Ansar al-Sunna, where he trained recruits and carried out attacks.”

Salas Khabbas is “a former member of the Baath party and (was) closely linked with al-Qaida.” Khabbas “specialized in attacking convoys and kidnapping.” He was captured July 12, 2006, by Polish intelligence agents.

Abu Zubair was trained in Iraq and was reportedly sent by Saddam’s government to lead “supporters of Islam” into northern Iraq to assassinate leading Kurds and to assist in building chemical warfare facilities.

Rafid Fatah “also known as Abu Omer al-Kurdi, was also trained by Saddam and worked with (Abu) Zubair against the Kurds. It is not known when he left Iraq, but he too became a leading member of al-Qaida . His whereabouts are not known.”

Mohammed Hanoun Hamoud al-Mozani is a former Iraqi intelligence officer who was captured by police after bombings in Baghdad and Karbala. It was later revealed he was paid by al-Qaida to carry out attacks on civilians.

Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi is a former member of Saddam Hussein’s intelligence services who rose to No. 2 in al-Qaida’s Iraq wing. Al-Saeedi reportedly “told interrogators that al-Qaida in Iraq exchanges logistical support and information with supporters of Saddam Hussein.”

Muharib Abdullah Latif al-Juburi was a military intelligence officer in Saddam’s army and later rose to a leading position for al-Qaida in Iraq. Al-Juburi also served as the “Information Minister” for the Islamic state of Iraq.

Abu Mustafa was a Saddam-era military officer who told Time magazine he spent his time in jail (post-invasion) “studying Salafi Islam and receiving lessons in jihad from bearded Iraqis and detainees who came from places like Syria and Saudi Arabia” before joining the jihadist fighters in Iraq.

Abu Ali was “among those who have thrown their support behind the jihad. … A ballistic-missile specialist in Saddam’s Fedayeen militia, he fought U.S. troops during the invasion and has served as a resistance commander ever since, organizing rocket attacks on the Green Zone, the headquarters of the U.S. administration in Baghdad. When interviewed by Time last fall, he spoke of a vain hope that Saddam would return and re-establish a Baathist regime.”

Omar Hadid, according to Middle East news outlets cited by Powerlineblog.com, was a former personal body guard of Saddam and had trained with al-Qaida in Afghanistan before fighting against coalition forces in Fallujah and elsewhere. Hadid, according to an al-Qaida biography after his death, also had a relative who was an official for Iraq’s intelligence services and worked with Hadid on postwar operations.

A former Saddam Hussein officer was appointed as an al-Qaida leader to set up attacks on Iraqi oil sites in early 2007.

An unnamed former Saddam Fedayeen leader as an insurgent leader responsible for al- Qaida/foreign fighter camps in Syria.

Abu Raja hails from a family who was “well-connected” during Saddam Hussein’s rule and later joined forces with al-Qaeda.

Abu Haydr had an “important government job” before the invasion and later enlisted with al-Qaida.

A group of former Iraqi Republican Guard officers reportedly has been “giving ground-to-ground missiles, including Scud-B and Hossein missiles” and collaborating with al-Qaida to launch attacks on key targets in Iraq.

Adullah Rahman al-Shamary “was an officer in [Iraq’s] feared Mukhabarat General, an intelligence service run by Saddam’s son, Qusay.” Al-Shamary told Richard Miniter, from a prison cell, that Qusay Hussein “oversaw the Mukhabarat’s relationship with Jund al-Islam, an al-Qaida wing operating in northern Iraq before the 2003 American invasion” and he was involved in the Jund al-Islam-Mukhabarat relationship.

Yasser al-Sabawi is Saddam’s nephew and reportedly was linked to a Saddam Fedayeen cell arrested for being involved in the al-Qaida/al-Zarqawi beheading of Nicholas Berg. The video of the beheading was posted on al-Qaida-linked website, and Berg may have been kidnapped by the al-Sabawi’s cell and then sold to Zarqawi’s group.

A former colonel in Saddam’s army was said to have later become the leader of al-Qaida’s branch in the Diyala province of Iraq.

Haydar al-Shammari (may be the same person as Adullah Rahman al-Shamary) is a former Iraqi intelligence officer who claimed his commander, Abu Wa’il, ordered him to aid al-Qaida members fleeing Afghanistan to enter Iraq through Jordan and Syria. Al-Shammari then assisted their mission in joining up with Ansar al Islam.

Abu Iman al-Baghdadi told BBC news that Saddam’s intelligence services were assisting al-Qaida affiliate Ansar al Islam with arms to counter the PUK, and al-Baghdadi was checking on Abu Wa’il status in assisting the group.
Eighty-five fighters were killed, though many escaped, when a joint Baath/al-Qaida camp was confronted by Iraqi forces in March 2005. Gen. Adnan Thabet said the camp was “frequented by members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s branch of al-Qaida [and] was built after the U.S. offensive to retake the rebel enclave of Fallujah in November. “They were Zarqawi followers and Baathists from the old military because they knew how to fight. They fought like old soldiers.”

The Islamic Army in Iraq is an insurgent group that includes former members of Saddam’s Baath Party, Muslim Brotherhood members and worked with al-Qaida in the past until a recent spilt in which an IAI spokesman told al Jazeera “the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaida in Iraq. … In the beginning we were dealing with Tawhid and Jihad organization, which turned into al-Qaida in Iraq.”

Mohammad’s Army, also known as Jaish-e-Mohammed, is a group that includes pro-Saddam members of the former regime’s Intelligence, Security and Police services. Responsibility for the 2003 attack on the U.N. building in Iraq was claimed both by members of al-Qaida in Iraq (including Zarqawi) and Mohammed’s Army. The material for the bomb was from the former regime’s stock, for which members would have had superior access, though observers said insurgents could have acquired it on their own. Abu Omar al-Kurdi, an al-Qaida/Zarqawi associate later admitted responsibility for making the bomb after his capture.
While the Bush administration contended there was evidence of a Saddam Hussein/al-Qaida connection before the war, those assertions have come under heavy criticism, especially from Democrats who contend they and others were deceived about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. However, as WND reported last year, pre-war documents posted online by the Pentagon included a letter from a member of Saddam’s intelligence apparatus indicating al-Qaida and the Taliban had a relationship with the regime prior to the 9/11 attacks.

A letter by the member of Saddam’s Al Mukabarat to a superior, dated Sept. 15, 2001, reported a pre-9/11 conversation between an Iraqi intelligence source and a Taliban Afghani consul.

The information had been released on the orders of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, and the letter was reviewed by an independent Middle East analyst who concluded it appeared genuine.

The letter indicated bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan were in contact with Iraq – noting a specific visit to Baghdad – and said the U.S. had proof Saddam’s regime and al-Qaida were cooperating to hit a target in the U.S.

The documents also suggested the possibility the U.S. could strike Iraq and Afghanistan if an attack on the U.S. proved to be tied to bin Laden and the Taliban.

The Legacy of A Friend Of Our Leftinistra

The Legacy of Saddam Hussein

The Legacy of Saddam Hussein

Friday, June 01, 2007 11:57 AM

One could call him So Damned Insane. Or, just call him dead.

Again, Hat Tip to Conservative Thoughts

Click the link above to view the video…I can’t get it to come up here…

For those who are still believe in Saddam or his kind of leadership, here is just one example to show to the world how Iraqi people lived under the dictatorship. Saddam Regime wasted and have stolen Iraq oil money and left the country in ruined and underdeveloped.Iraq has the capacity to produce 15 million barrels per day of oil, and it should have been one of the richest nation.Saddam and his regime left Iraq with US200 billion in debt and more than US 200 billions dollar in compensation to still to be paid to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Eygypt, Israel, and Iran, this is because of his foolish wars.

Hillary Lies When She Breathes

HILLARY’S HYPOCRISY ON IRAQ

HILLARY’S HYPOCRISY ON IRAQ

Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:10 AM

HILLARY’S HYPOCRISY ON IRAQ

By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

On Wednesday, May 24th, we learned the meaning of the word “hypocrisy.” The Senate voted 80-14 to approve funding for the next two months in Iraq without any restrictions or mandated withdrawal of troops. Thirty-eight Democrats voted to fund our troops, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). But three of the four Democrats who are running for president — Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Barack Obama (D-Ill), and Chris Dodd (D-CT) — all voted with eleven other Senators to deny funding to the war.

If they weren’t running for president, perhaps Barack Obama and Chris Dodd, who have long been in opposition to the war, would have voted against funding anyway. But would Hillary Clinton have voted with the minority to cut off funds? Not on your life! Only Joe Biden (D-Del) had the integrity to vote the way he would normally have voted were he not a candidate and backed the appropriations bill.

The hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton in voting against funding is stunning. In 2002, she voted for the war. When we found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, she reaffirmed her backing for the war. Dozens of times she has stated and restated that she would never agree to a timetable for withdrawal and that she would never vote to cut off funding while we had troops in harm’s way. Now she has gone back on all her nevers and cast precisely the vote she said she would never cast.

As recently as January 17th , Hillary said “I’m not going to cut American troops’ funding right now - they’re in harm’s way.” She went onto say “I am not for imposing a date - certain withdrawal date.”

In the past ten days she has not only voted for a withdrawal date but has also voted to cut off funding for the troops if no such date is included in the legislation.

What has changed? The polls. Surveys show Democrats supporting a funding cutoff and a date certain for withdrawal by 3:1. With John Edwards running to Hillary’s left, using her timidity in opposing the war as the raison d’etre of his candidacy, Hillary dared not vote her conscience or conform to her previous positions on the war. She had to back the left to prove her bona fides for the primaries.

John Edwards, in the meantime, dismissed talk of the “war on terror” as a slogan for a “bumper sticker.” In doing so, he inadvertently illustrated the fundamental difference between the parties on the terrorist issue. To Republicans, it is a real war, even more so than World War I or Korea or Vietnam. In this war on terror, w e were attacked by surprise just as happened at Pearl Harbor. To Republicans, December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001 are parallel dates.

But to Democrats of the John Edwards ilk, the war on terror is more akin to the war on poverty or the war on drugs, a slogan meant to emphasize how seriously we take the policy commitment. But he takes great pains to distinguish it from a real war by consigning it to the realm of the bumper sticker. At least one Democrat said what he really believed.

But pragmatically, Hillary’s vote probably assures that she will win the nomination. It certainly cuts the ground out from under John Edwards and leaves her in a two-way race for the nomination with Obama. But by taking the ultimate step of voting to cut off funding, Hillary is hugging the left rail on the Iraq issue and assuring that nobody can outflank her.

On May 24th, we saw Hillary at her opportunistic worst. But we better get used to it.

Iraq, Terrorism and WMD Links

More Evidence of Saddam-al Qaeda Ties

More Evidence of Saddam-al Qaeda Ties

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:07 PM

And the beat goes on…and the Leftinistra can’t dance…

An al Qaeda document newly released by the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) of the United States Military Academy provides an extraordinary new connection to a previously reported order by Saddam Hussein to support al Qaeda attacks upon US forces in Somalia. It corresponds with other documents that show Saddam Hussein was using Islamic terrorists as proxies to attack US interests. The document was part of a US Army report on al Qaeda in Africa. That study contends that although al Qaeda managed to train other Islamic fighters in Africa, it did the organization no long term good, as it failed to bend the region to al Qaeda doctrine.

The al Qaeda document is entitled The Ogaden File: Operation Holding (Al-Msk). Its’ name refers to a tribal region of Ethiopia extending into Somalia (Ogaden) and ‘al-Msk’ is an acronym for the Mission to hold Somalia and Kenya. The file is a personal log about a group of al Qaeda terrorists sent to Somalia in 1993 to provide military training to local Islamic militants. Islamic fighters trained by al Qaeda would later kill 18 Army Special Forces soldiers in what has become know as the Battle of Mogadishu which was portrayed in the popular movie Black Hawk Down. The US government confirmed the involvement of al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden in a 1998 indictment against him for the Somali attacks.

The al Qaeda document itself provides a fascinating look at training operations of an expeditionary nature in hostile territory. It lists several terrorists who subsequently became high ranking al Qaeda leaders (most were later killed or captured by US forces). Many of them were Egyptians with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) terror group led by al Qaeda number two man Ayman al Zawahiri. The log was written by an al Qaeda terrorist named Saif al-Islam al Masri who was known to be a leader of al Qaeda in Somalia and an EIJ leader. He is now in US custody.

Saif writes that on the 20^th of January, 1993 he and his men were ordered to drop everything (marriage plans, travel) and report to a man named Abu Hafs in Peshawar, Pakistan. This deployment to Somalia heralded a major escalation of al Qaeda activities in Africa. Abu Hafs is also known as Mohammed Atef. Mohammed Atef was the number two man in the EIJ under Ayman al Zawahiri and also part of Usama bin Laden’s inner circle. He was included in the 1998 indictment for attacking US forces in Somalia and was considered the number three man in al Qaeda. He was killed by US forces shortly after 9/11.

Saif describes how he and his men were ordered by Atef to go Somalia and set up training camps. The fighters they trained would ultimately grab power in Somalia, only to be driven out by Ethiopian and American Special Forces action last year.

The date of Atef’s order for them to go to Somalia is very significant because it corresponds with an order by Saddam Hussein to do just that. A different set of documents, provided by the Cyber News Service (CNS) in 2004 and reported on here, are purported to be from a cache of documents captured in Iraq. CNS stated they were given to them by a member of the Iraqi Survey Group. Those documents - which have not yet been verified by the US government but do match secret information from other known Saddam documents and have been confirmed by several experts - are memorandums between Saddam and his intelligence service.

Saddam Hussein ordered his intelligence service to “hunt the Americans” in Somalia via Afghan mujahideen proxies including the EIJ on January 18^th, 1993 just two days before EIJ leader Atef ordered his best men to Somalia. The CNS memoranda also show that Saddam’s intelligence service was meeting with the leader of the EIJ (almost certainly Ayman al Zawahiri) to give him the assignment.

Saddam wanted his intelligence service to work with mujahideen (Islamic fighters) displaced from Afghanistan in 1992, which likely also included Usama bin Laden’s followers, the EIJ (the two groups would officially merge together to become al Qaeda) and another associated terror leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The order provided funding to the mujahideen and drew precedent from operations with the EIJ against the Egyptian government because it sided with the UN coalition against Iraq in the Gulf War.

This new al Qaeda document, when combined with the CNS documents, provides a sequential timeframe for the events and the human linkages to carry out the order from Saddam to his intelligence service to Ayman al Zawahiri to Mohammed Atef and then to his terror trainers.

The revelation about Mohammed Atef comes just days after former CIA Director George Tenet caused a political and media stir with the release of his new book At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA. Tenet devotes a portion of the book to discussing al Qaeda-Saddam ties. In it he writes about the case of Ibn Sheikh al Libi, “a senior military trainer for al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan.” Al Libi told his interrogators that

“a militant known as Abu Abudullah had told him that…al-Qa’ida leader Mohammed Atef had sent Abu Abdullah to Iraq to seek training in poisons and mustard gas.”

Al Libi would later recant his testimony and become a flash point in the debate over pre-war intelligence. Tenet notes the controversy and says it is unclear if al Libi was lying with the initial report or his recantation. Tenet writes,

“Another senior al-Qa’ida detainee told us that Mohammed Atef was interested in expanding al-Qa’ida’s ties to Iraq, which, in our eyes, added credibility to [al-Libi’s initial] reporting.”

This new evidence may provide more insight into why Saddam was making his military officers watch Black Hawk Down just prior to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He may have been shoring up their courage by reminding them of what he considered his previous defeat of the American army.

Ray Robison is a former army officer, a former member of the ISG, and co-author of the new ebook Both In One Trench: Saddam’s support to the Global Islamic Jihad Movement and International Terrorism

And just in case the Libs “forgot”:

Iraq and WMD

From blacktygrrrr