September 8, 2007

Deadline For Terrorism: September 15th

The terrorists arrested in Germany had a deadline for their attack on Ramstein Air Base and the Frankfurt airport, given to them by their al-Qaeda masters: September 15th. Why that date, rather than the more obvious 9/11 anniversary? AQ has more current politics in mind:

Three suspected Islamist militants who were planning to attack U.S. installations in Germany had orders to act by Sept. 15 and knew police were hot on their trail before their arrest, a magazine said on Saturday.

The plan was foiled on Tuesday when police arrested two German converts to Islam and a Turk in the biggest German police operation in 30 years.

According to surveillance details published in Der Spiegel magazine, the men had been given a two-week deadline for their planned strikes in a late August call from northern Pakistan that was monitored by German police.

Congress set a deadline on September 15th as well -- the due date for a progress report on the Iraq War from President Bush. (Power Line incorrectly notes this as the date of General Petraeus' testimony, which will happen on the 11th.) AQ wanted to replicate the Tet offensive, only not in Iraq but in Europe. A devastating attack before Bush delivered his report would tend to discredit the forward strategy pursued by the administration since the 9/11 attacks.

Why attack Europe? Osama wants the US out of the Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan. If he could convince the American critics of the administration that the forward strategy had failed, Osama thinks he could gain enough leverage over Bush to force a withdrawal of troops in Iraq, if not Afghanistan. He wants to hit behind our lines to push us into a retreat from the real fronts against AQ in Iraq and Afghanistan.

His video message was timed to deliver that purpose. His announcement would have immediately preceded the attacks in Germany and Denmark, emphasizing AQ's ability to strike anywhere in the world. And it probably would have had the effect Osama intended, had it worked; there is little doubt that war critics would have redoubled their effort to discredit the forward strategy and force Bush to pull out of Iraq.

Ask yourselves this: why does Osama want to push us out of the Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan? It's not because we're losing in either theater. If we were losing, he'd be happy to beat American military forces for as long as we stuck around. He wants us out because he's losing -- and he tried to hit Germany and Denmark because he can't beat the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Or perhaps people think it's a coincidence that Osama finally reappeared after the surge pushed AQI all the way to the Syrian border?

Finally, let's just take a moment to acknowledge how this cell got discovered in the first place:

The arrests were the culmination of an investigation that began a year ago, when U.S. officials alerted German authorities to e-mails intercepted from Pakistan.

Chalk one up for the NSA. Nice work, folks.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Deadline For Terrorism: September 15th:

» Full Length Osama Bin Laden Tape from Stop The ACLU
Link: Just in case you feel like analyzing it. However, I agree with Allah…I’d just stick with the transcript. It is faster, and for some reason, analyze what you will, it switches to a freeze frame and stays that way afte... [Read More]

» Terror Surge by the 15th from
Investigators are saying that the German terrorists with links to al-Qaeda were ordered to perform their acts prior to September 15th, a deadline that seems intended to coincide with the US Congress’ deadline for a review of the surge in Iraq. T... [Read More]

Comments (63)

Posted by Jeff | September 8, 2007 12:22 PM

If your analysis is right, then those jihadis who were reported to be giggling and gloating on the internet about Osama's September 11 "surprise" must feel like total dopes right about now, since our side got ahold of the tape before the jihadis could even release it.

Looks like President Bush gave the jihadis their own little surprise!

Posted by jim | September 8, 2007 12:26 PM

Ask yourselves this: why does Osama want to push us out of the Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan?

Why would he want the US invading army out the Middle East? Must be his hatred of freedom.

That being an occupying invading force has nothing to do with it.

From the very beginning his stated objective is to get the US out of the middle east.

Now you think it's because he losing that he wants us out?

He's always wanted us out. And us invading Iraq has really hurt him. In what way? what have we accomplished? Well I guess it's mission accomplished. There is no strategic victory against AQ available in Iraq, what have we won? You who support the war should be able to answer that.

Heck OSB is still free to make his videos and the best you offer is how the timing of their release is a sign of how we are winning?

Billions wasted, countless innocent Iraq civilians killed, millions of Iraqis displaced, tens of thousand of American troops and contractors killed and wounded and my good Christian friends continue to support this war. Wow. Good Job guys.

Posted by Jeff | September 8, 2007 12:31 PM

Hey jim, among the dead on Flight 11 was a little girl who was flying to go to Disneyland for the first time.

Can you imagine the final moments of her short life?

I can.

Your sympathies are misdirected.

Posted by Bill M | September 8, 2007 12:51 PM

It seems likely the Osama tape was enroute before the recent arrests in Europe. I have my doubts that Osama has ready access to taping facilities and quick release to the media. More likely he makes a tape and then it has to be smuggled out from wherever he is to the outside world. This could be a matter of days to a few weeks, depending.

There could still be other attackers out there waiting to strike, but we know that two of those attacks won't go through. Of course, if the Dems had had their way, it's likely those two sets of attackers would still be readying themselves for attack. And they may have succeeded. All the more reason to make sure the Dems don't get into a position where they are completely in charge.

New slogan fo the Dems: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do to your country so you can get back in power."

Posted by Lightwave | September 8, 2007 12:52 PM

Ed's theories certainly have merit. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the bulk of OBL's message was actually directed at Europeans, especially his repeated calls that "to end the war in Iraq, you must convert to Islam."

It's been six years and AQ hasn't been able to touch us in America since 9/11. But Osama has correctly identified our weak point as our European allies, with the stated goal of winning a propaganda and terror war where our military has proven that he can't win a conventional one.

Europe is a different story. The Brits has pulled out of Basra, and the rest of Europe isn't willing to fight. "This is America's war!" they scream while millions of Muslims immigrate into their countries and bring those who are willing to wait and strike.

Perhaps the Dhimmification of Europe was the goal all along.

Posted by Alan | September 8, 2007 1:03 PM

Yes Jim.

We should let people live under dictators who pay for terrorist activity against the united states.

Heck, they aren't you and me after all. Who cares about them.

Let's give Osama what he wants - which is not just the middle east but the victory of Islam throughout the world.

If he wants it, after all, he should get it. We are morally wrong to oppose what Osama wants. How dare we!

By your definition, we are an invading occupying force in Europe and Asia - still, after how many years? What did we win there? An opportunity, plain and simple.

The key is what the locals did with that opportunity.

Posted by Carole | September 8, 2007 1:05 PM

jim, if you did not have the real numbers of Amercan troops, why the huge numbers that are
very, very are off the truth.

This is the problem with people like yourself,
if you don't know, lie, and make it a good one,
because stupid people may believe it. You,
believe so why can't more people be as smart as

Stop the lies, you are wasting you time here and
on any conservative blog.

A war is a war and people get hurt and die,
grow up, this is not the first war in history,
why don't you read about the war with Germany,
and find out the difference in the amount of
troops lost. When you all whine about this,
the older people in the country see you as
a whiner, not able to think past what CNN has
on each day.

Thinking for yourself is not a bad thing,
in fact, it helps one make better decisions.

I certainly agree with Jeff, how did that little
girl feel? Or any of the people who jumped to
their death rather than burn to death?

Watch a video on that day and then tell us
how stupid it is to try and stop this happening
again in America.

I will not argue with you, you have said how
you think and I have told you what I think.
Quite honestly, there is not a happy compromise
with this situation.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 8, 2007 1:10 PM

Osama Bin Lunatic.

Isn't it written somewhere, that if you're going to have enemies; you should have them more like Osama, and less like Hitler and Satlin?

Just asking.

Of course, Osama Bin Mental Case wants a religious war. Because he figures God can help him pull out a victory, ahead. (And, no, that's not uncommon. There have been lots of wars where both sides do a lot of praying.) But only one side wins.

Pays to have a great military, funded by taxes.

As to the lunatic's rant; if you noticed, he's saying "pay less taxes."

So, he's figured out how we fund our military.

While he also complains that his big-moolah payments to the donks, "hasn't stopped us" in Irak. Or Afghanistan.

Perhaps we can show him a window in a very tall building, and tell him if he jumps through it, he can get a refund?

Something, ahead, has got to stop our own affirmative action crowd from keeping their "power seats." So, what concerns me most is the ways the electorate tends to split their tickets; giving us 40/51 splits in Congress.

If the English Language really worked, thin margins wouldn't be anything to brag about. But that's just me. I've got no way to identify what's gonna happen t'marra.

But the legacy media's hit a couple of walls, on their drives to market garbage to us. And, it seems the Internet is a better place to meet. And, to talk over these things.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 8, 2007 1:17 PM

TYPO ALERT: 49/51 ... That's more like it.

Has anyone seen Drudge's headline, today, where Chuck Hagel threw in his towel?

Me thinks, the House of da' Soddies are gonna have to pay lot'sa money to an "unknown." (What do I mean? Chuck Hagel, being an "incumbant" had the seat's advantage.)

And, if Osama's been complaining that it's costing him too much, where he's getting very little "return," what happens when 2008 becomes such an expensive race?

Don't be fooled by the commercials. The real stakes in this thing is the oodles of money.

Oh. And, now I'm supposed to become aware of Rama-Dama-Ding-Dong?

Drudge has another headline, saying the Germans are focussing bigger and better efforts on their "information gathering techniques," among their unassymilated 'yoots.' Seems technology stays ahead of the seated pants-dancers.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 8, 2007 1:19 PM

Jeff said:

"Hey jim, among the dead on Flight 11 was a little girl who was flying to go to Disneyland for the first time.

Can you imagine the final moments of her short life?

I can."

That would be Christine Lee Hanson, age 2, of Massachusetts. And a slight correction: she was on Flight 175. As was Juliana McCourt, age 4, also on her way to Disneyland. And David Brandhorst, age 3, was on his way home after a vacation on Cape Cod.

On Flight 77 were several 11 year old kids on their way to participate in a National Geographic Society conference. And Dana and Zoe Falkenberg, ages 3 and 8, were also on the same plane.

The loss of 4-year-old Juliana McCourt represents a cruel twist of fate. Ron Clifford, a software salesman, was in the North Tower when the first American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the skyscraper. He managed to stumble out of the haze of aviation fuel and witnessed the second airliner crashing into the South Tower, only to learn his sister and niece were on board

Posted by Scott Malensek | September 8, 2007 1:28 PM

Ooooo, Hagel's gonna run...yet another place for Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich supporters to go.

Great analysis Cap'n Ed.

Might I add...

Europe, because it's easier, and it has the added possibility of making allies and supporting nations from the US stop supporting the US (see also AQ attack on Spain=Spain leaves war in Iraq). AQ attacks in Germany, Germans might not support ops in Afghanistan anymore. AQ hits in Europe, NATO countries cease support of war in Afghanistan (the Ron Paul/Kucinich doctrine of "just leave, and everything will be better"

(Sorry for making everyone snarf at that last one)

Posted by brooklyn - hnav | September 8, 2007 1:33 PM

Thanks for the fine post.


And the Democrat Party continues to attempt to lie about the mission in Iraq and the danger posed by the Terrorists.

As if the GWOT is not a serious issue, just a nuisance or a bumper sticker.

Sadly, the best chance Osama and the Radical Militants have is the enabling-appeasing-undermining of the Liberal Democrats for their own personal political gain.

Their unethical deceit is dangerous, perhaps as concerning as anything we face.

Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Hillary 'de-authorize the authorization' Clinton should follow Hagel's regretful tenure to the door, and leave Washington for the sake of everyone involved.

Seeing Durbin and Reid slander General Patraeus was sickening.

The modern Democrat Party is a disgrace.

Posted by Scott | September 8, 2007 1:53 PM

The two main points in Ed's post:

1. OBL thinks the Democrats can be manipulated by terror. Scare them enough, they will surrender. That is based on THEIR rhetoric. The Democrats have been broadcasting how to get the US out of Iraq: kill more Americans, create more terror, kill more innocent people. The Democrats are pathetic traitors, willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people and American servicemen to win an election.

I question their patriotism. They have none.

2. The plot was shut down because of the work of the NSA. The interception of international calls and emails. Again, the Democrats want to destroy out intelligence abilities.

I question their patriotism. They have none.

Actually, I guess I don't question their patriotism. They have none.

Posted by Jim C | September 8, 2007 1:56 PM


You ask: "what have we won?" and "what have we accomplished?".

First of all, what we have won is the hearts and minds of a great number of Iraqis. If not the adults, than the children. At some point in the future, those children will realize that it was the sacrifice of Americans that allowed their parents to vote for the first time, or that it was the sacrifice of Americans that allowed their families to finally live in freedom... out from underneath the boot of tyranny.

Secondly, what we have accomplished is both what I mentioned above, and the killing of a large number of Islamofacist terrorists. Despite the administration's aversion to body counts, there's a great deal to be said for killing one's enemies before they kill you.

Furthermore, you can discount OBL's own words about Iraq being the central front in the GWOT, but frankly, it's foolish to do so.

Jim C
Thinking Right

Posted by Carol Herman | September 8, 2007 2:22 PM

Oh, this is so good! And, it's from HOT AIR!

While our legacy media was trying to groom Osama Bin Lunatic's fake beard; look what Israel's been up to!

Report: Israeli troops disguised as Palestinian grocers kidnap Gilad Shalit’s kidnapper
posted at 1:54 pm on September 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

No confirmation from the IDF but I bet it’s true. Ehud Barak is internationally famous for his participation in raids like these behind enemy lines, most notoriously when he dressed as a woman to assassinate PLO leaders in Beirut in 1973. He took over as defense minister from the much-maligned Amir Peretz less than three months ago; this is probably his way of leaving a calling card for Hamas.

Pretty awesome:

The sources said that the undercover soldiers entered the Gaza Strip, and carried out their operation near the Rafah Crossing. According to the sources, the undercover soldiers were disguised as grocers riding a donkey-pulled wagon. Sources said they disguised force even chatted with locals near the crossing.

According to the report, the undercover soldiers approached a plot of land belonging to Muhawesh al-Kadi, a senior Hamas official who acts as spokesman of the organization’s special security forces in Rafah.

Al-Kadi was working his land when the disguised force approached and kidnapped him. The Palestinian sources reported that the operation went quickly and smoothly. The undercover force left Rafah with al-Kadi, and brought him to Israel.

According to the report, the operation was carried out about 2 kilometers from the security fence, in an area where a large number of Hamas gunmen are stationed.

Hamas officials confirmed that this was one of the Israelis’ most daring acts and that troops disguised as Arabs had not entered so deep into the Strip for a long time.

Will they kill Shalit as a reprisal? Probably not. They can’t afford to invite an IDF offensive when they’re still worried about controlling the Gaza strip. I wonder if Israel will offer al-Kadi as part of the prisoner exchange.

Meanwhile, Debka floats a not-unlikely theory about that strange Israeli flyover of Syria a few days ago. Apparently, the IAF was able to jam the Russian-made Syrian anti-aircraft system; it so happens that Iran has the same system. You do the math.

Posted by Drew | September 8, 2007 2:23 PM

Chalk up another successful task by the No Such Agency, and this is just one of the few that we know about, v. the many that we never will.

Posted by gr8inferno | September 8, 2007 2:24 PM

And according to Michael Moore terrorism is a fairly tale.

Posted by Old Mike | September 8, 2007 2:31 PM

The arrests were the culmination of an investigation that began a year ago, when U.S. officials alerted German authorities to e-mails intercepted from Pakistan.
Scott, we seem to be on the same page. Is this the same type of e-mail intercept the Dems and the MSM has been squawking about?

Posted by Tom W. | September 8, 2007 3:09 PM

Why do so many "progressive" posters sound exactly the same? I can't count the number of times I've read "Wow. Good job, guys," when some idiot is going through his or her hackneyed laundry list of reasons why Iraq is a failure.

I guess there's safety in numbers. You feel all warm and smug when you think and speak the way all your peers are thinking and speaking. You're like the Young Pioneers in the former USSR, chanting your slogans in one voice.

The thing is, aren't you disgusted that bin Laden puts out a video chastising the Democrats for not ending the war, and the very next day Dick Durbin announces that he'll no longer vote to fund the war?

This is incontrovertible proof that some Democrats are working to benefit terrorists. The only possible word that applies here is "treason."

Posted by Carol Herman | September 8, 2007 3:14 PM

Could Bush be planning our own Rama-Dama-Ding-Dong assault? You laugh. And, you'll probably laugh that I read about this possibility up at Debka.

But I do know Israel "did something" in Syrian airspace. Because Drudge had the headline.

While what I didn't know, is that Assad's already had his uncle lifting about $7-billion out of Damascus banks, and transfering the funds, himself and his family to Dubai.

And, Condi went and put some teeth in the lastest American UN "offering." (Wanna see it? Go read Debka.)

Don't want to believe it? See if I care?

But it seems russia provided the most expensive, and mobile anti-aircraft radar and artillary units; capable of traveling, while shooting at 12 targets per minute.

And, no, Israeli aircraft "dropping fuel tanks" only proved that what russia sold to syrian and iran as "jam proof," got jammed up it's ying yang just the same.


Russia is still delivering these anti-aircraft systems. But I'd bet they're spooked.

And, why would Israel run such an extravagent test; with dangerous fly-overs ... to ENGAGE the russian batteries on the ground, huh?

IF there's gonna be action; now that the "fly space" is known to be dangerous; but not as deadly as "having stuff you couldn't jam" would'a produced ...

Where does this leave Bush?

Ya know, Friday, September 15th is the date Patraeus' report is due in Congress.

What if it's also a good time to scare Assad? If not the dude-in-a-dinner-jacket in Tehran?

I'm just asking.

In a week we will learn more.

But just in case, I'll gamble on the 15th, as a Rama-Dama-Ding-Dong, where Americans "ring da bell."

Why not?

Can you imagine the Bonkey confusion in congress? Now, that would be a hoot. Almost as good as discovering that yes, Israeli technology CAN jam da' radar.

Oh, now that Osama wears a fake beard; what do you think he'll do next? I'd suggest a brunette wig. While it's true he's 6'4" ... he'd make a big hit with us, if he could do a little tap dance. And, maybe, even the hokey pokey? The Bonkeys would race to their stalls, and expose themselves, then, real good.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 8, 2007 3:16 PM

Oh, my favorite line today; where you can see I read a lot; was the one where Ehud Barak, in kidnapping Shalit's kidnapper, from gazoo ... "Left his calling card for Hamas."

It's okay. You can concentrate on Osama's beard. It's a fake.

Posted by Tom Shipley | September 8, 2007 3:24 PM

Yeah, I don't know. It's hard to say we're winning in either Iraq or Afghanastan. Just the fact that al qaeda -- the entity that attacked us -- is operating freely in Pakistan and the Taliban still has a lot of support in Afghanastan suggests to me otherwise.

And Iraq, we're winning against AQ there, but more because Iraqis are fighing them. I don't know if we earned that vitory or not or if that matters at all. We'll always be able to defeat AQ when we fight them head on. Having other ME countries join the fight against them is a bigger "win" than any battle could be.

But Iraq is still very much in flux, and easily could end up a close ally of Iraq. I find it hard to say we're winning when the country could turn into an enemy of ours in the near future.

Not to mention that the al qaeda we're fighting in Iraq is of its own creation.

I still believe Osama welcomed the Iraq invasion is delighted we are there. It's helped further his cause more than any propaganda video ever could.

Posted by Tom Shipley | September 8, 2007 3:28 PM

That should be "a close ally of Iran."

Posted by Carol Herman | September 8, 2007 3:35 PM

Ever get the feeling that it's just before Christmas. You know the gifts are in the house. And, still you have to wait?

Maybe, September 15th will be Patraeus' ... without anything else happening.

But, then, why (as per Debka), is Assad sitting on the hot seat, now? His uncle (who was a big honcho in his dad's government), just upped and took about $7-billion out of Damascus. Then, he plucked himself and his family up. And, all joined hands, again, in Dubai. (Well, the Saud's don't like Assad much.) This I already know.

But then?

Geez. Russia gets this big order for more than 50 mobile anti-aircraft guns, that they're aiming at the sky. To shoot down American and Israeli airborne.

Well, today, as I've shared with you; seems the "unjam-able" russian product, couldn't stop a few Israeli dare devils from "flying in."

Did you notice Bush saying much? Wasn't it referred to as something that "could'a happened," but no one knows fer shur? Or, it was a misguided reading of a map. An accident.

Followed, of course, by the Assad government losing one of their top dogs. Who flew the coop with enough money the whole financial system in syria could'a collapsed.

Rama-Dama-Ding-Dong, ahead. Indeed. Who knows? It may even feel like Christmas.

Or, it's all just a bunch of random events.

Meanwhile, what disturbs me most; is that the GOP isn't going gangbusters, here. While it's pretty obvious the Bonkeys have run into their own dead ends.

What was going on that didn't allow the GOP to advance far enough into mainstream territory?

And, then. How do you fix that? It's gonna take more than Christmas gifts. (Though that would be a spectacular start.)

I guess most people are most uncomfortable with rumors? I guess I'll wait for Drudge.

Posted by pk | September 8, 2007 3:42 PM

one thing that people do not know or remember is that the american soldier, sailor, airfarce or marine is a very powerful ambassador of our culture.

there are many many stories in europe and asia of people who as small children during a war remember quite well the "gi's" who sat down,

gave them candy bars when they were hungry,

blankets when they were cold,

or just a strong person to be with when they were afraid.

there is a series of pictures on the net (i know not where) of a bazaar. an american soldier is standing more or less in the middle of the area.

in the first picture there is the sound of gunfire and the soldier is turning towards it.

in the second picture he is stepping towards the gunfire and one small boy is stepping behind him.

in the third picture the soldier is squared to the danger and several small children are hiding behind him.

those kids will remember the american flag on his shoulder for the rest of their lives.

our military people are the best ambassadors we have throughout the world just by being standard navy issue cornfed americans.

this is beneath the liberals purview and so not noticed by them.


Posted by John | September 8, 2007 3:55 PM

While the Democrats and their supporters on the Kos/DU/Move.On fringe are trying to spin the bin Leden video rant into being bad for Republicans, there's no way for the average person not to see those efforts as a "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" type of situation (only substituting ears for eyes in this case). Osama's complains are in some cases almost word-for-word criticisms of the U.S., Bush and even Democrats for not cutting off Iraq funds that many on the left have been uttering. Trying to set up a Tet-like situation around Petraeus' report to Congress is al Qaida's efforts to aid Iraq war foes, at the same time Osama's chiding Democrats for not doing it on their own.

All that leads to two assumptions -- either al Qaida has done a superb job of focusing on key talking points/events of the left, dating back to Vietnam, in an effort to push the right buttons in the U.S. to force an American withdrawal, or they're being advised by people actually in the west, or even in America, on the best things to say to force a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The first option would just be an aspect of today's Internet society, where information is available to virtually anyone, anywhere. If the second is true, and al Qaida is being given instructions on how to defeat the U.S. by Americans, I believe that comes under the category of treason in its purest form.

Posted by docjim505 | September 8, 2007 4:30 PM

Osama videos. Always illuminating: we get to see the stupidity, ignorance, and mulishness of the left on full display. Let's look at a couple of arguments the seem common in the wake of OBL's latest missive:

1. "He WANTS us to stay in Iraq!"

Oh, yeah. He LIKES the fact that our military is slaughtering his minions by the thousands while the best he can swing is to kill a handful of Americans each month with suicide bombs. Even (most) libs have finally realized that those brave, courageous patriots and freedom fighters in AQ haven't got the skill or guts to engage in anything like a standup fight with our men. Hell, they won't even take on the ISF that the libs deride on a regular basis as cowardly, inefficient, and corrupt. Blowing up helpless women and children with suicide bombs is the terrorists' ONLY way to inflict casualties. But I shouldn't jeer: it works. After all, the MSM breathlessly reports the casualties from such bombings every day; the score is usually the lead article on Yahoo! news.

Yeah, OBL likes having the US armed forces in Iraq where "he can get at us".

And note that OBL openly jeered at his pals in the democrat party for their abject failure to force a US surrender. Ah, but that's just a clever psychological ploy! See, by sneering at the dems for NOT getting us out of Iraq, he's REALLY signalling that he wants us to stay. Oh, that and he's driving divisions between Americans. Yep, his rhetoric is strictly designed to trick us into staying and make Republicans question the patriotism of democrats.

2. These OBL videos are a product of the Bush cabal.

Yeah, seriously: there are libs who believe this. After all, the war has been ever so good for Bush's political fortunes: he needs to keep bin Laden around to use as a boogey man to scare Americans into staying in Iraq to keep his poll numbers up. And it also helps to constantly remind everybody that, almost six years after 9-11, we still haven't gotten bin Laden. Yep, Bush needs to have Rove made one of these videos every month! It does him so much good!

We've previously discussed at some length the left's maniacal need to smear Petraeus in case he comes back and doesn't report that we're losing in Iraq and the world is going to end because of it. Yes, the same libs who've criticized Bush for years because "he didn't listen to the generals" are now calling the senior general in Iraq a liar because he won't (apparently) say what they want to hear. The idea of people like Dingy Harry, The Swimmer, or Trashcan Chuckie calling an Army officer a liar should be ridiculous on its face, but libs revel in idiocy.

Iraq has been a tough fight, and the future may well bring more disasters. For individual American and Iraqi families who will find an empty place at the table, it certainly will bring catastrophe and sadness. However, the price to be paid for surrender is far greater.

This is the price the dems are not only willing to pay, they are actively working to bring it about.

But I'm not questioning their patriotism. /sarcasm

The arrests were the culmination of an investigation that began a year ago, when U.S. officials alerted German authorities to e-mails intercepted from Pakistan.

I wonder if things might have been a bit different if Schroeder and the German libs were still in power instead of das Merkel?

Posted by MaidMarion | September 8, 2007 5:29 PM

Great post Captain.

This makes me wonder even more why Chuck Schumer came out as early as he did attacking the effectiveness of the surge. Did he have inside NSA info that a terrorist op inside Germany was about ready to take place...and assume it would be successful?

Was he being politically "forward leaning" as they say?

Posted by MaidMarion | September 8, 2007 5:56 PM

Looks to me like Petraeus is playing chess instead of checkers...and if so perhaps this is a sign that the U.S. has finally grown out of its adolescence years and become an adult player in international politics...

Does State Dept know how to play chess?

Posted by Carol Herman | September 8, 2007 5:59 PM

Nah. The Bonkeys are terribly worried about Patraeus' report. They don't want their party to end like the movie did, Thelma & Louise.

WHile Laurence Simon's site, "This Blog Is Full of Crap" ... has comments he's making about Turkey. WHo are making the sounds that they're there to protect iran from our "overheads." Especially, now that Israel went and found out that the russians didn't supply "jam proof" electronics to their mobile anti-aircraft needs.

And, for what it's worth from an Internet site; he sez that "if" we're gonna do anything to impede iran's nuke-U-lar program, we'd do it with missiles on dolphin class subs. So you can zoom in on that.

And, I don't know what Bush will pick. But between changing the way we look at 9/11 ... to ringing in at some point during Ramadan ...

To Patraeus' report due on 9/15 ...

Heck, there are better scripts available in reality than anything, so far, picked by hollywood.

And, Bush is a long distance runner. He get's another shot at 9/11 ... and ringy-dingy; in 2008.

So, it's just not my call.

While up at InstaPundit, Glenn Reynolds produced a link today, to show that the book Fiasco, has the wrong maps. How so? Well, that book claimed the sunni triangle couln't be fixed.

How much bad information infests the Bonkeys? Ah. Well, now they know Osama Bin Laydin's material has him in a false beard. Is this the beginning of the "leadership" jumping the shark?

Seems the Internet gets better every day.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 8, 2007 6:09 PM

Since most people wouldn't go to a blog recommendation called

I've cut & pasted it here. (The link about Turkey comes from the Jerusalem Post.)

A time to remember, too, how Turkey screwed around with the US. Remember? When Tommy Franks plans were sent to the crapper, because Turkey thought they'd show us who they really were?

Saturday September 8, 2007
That's nobody's business, not even the Turks.

Turkey is demanding an explanation of the so-called IAF flyover of Syria.

Tough words, coming from:

* The illegal occupier of Western Kurdistan.

* The illegal occupier of Northern Cyprus.

* The perpetrators of the Armenian and Kurdish genocides of the Twentieth Century.

* Diplomatic friends to both Hezbollah and Hamas.

If the Turkish government consisted solely of centipedes, they'd each have a hundred feet in their mouths.

Posted by glasnost | September 8, 2007 6:55 PM

You're kidding yourself, Ed. It's great that these attacks were interrupted by police work in the target country at the last minute, and all, but the fact that Al-Quieda has the freedom of movement and space to plan and attempt these attacks is an obvious sign that our attack plan is broken.

You know no one is reporting? No one is reporting that these attacks were supervised from Iraq. They were supervised from Pakistan. While our soldiers die in a false-flag operation, a honey trap, an unwise battlefield of bad choice in Iraq, Bin Laden gains invaluable space to operate, because we don't have the resources in Afghanistan/Pakistan to roll him up or to genuinely threaten him.

Great work, guys. Here's a promise - any government overthrown in the ME by US troops, Al-Quieda will be there in force within 12 months. If you don't see the connection, you're crazy.

Bin Laden is smart enough to tell us on video to withdraw in order to get us to stay. He can easily tell by observation that we hate his guts and are motivated to do the exact opposite of his suggestions. Our war in Iraq serves his purposes. Don't ask me, ask former NSA head William Odom.

By the way - you heard it here first - the Uzbekistani connection is a read herring. Google Joshua Foust to read about the details.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 8, 2007 7:09 PM

Well, glasnost, anybody can make predictions. What's the big deal?

Meanwhile, how many millions of Iraqis live in Irak? How many soldiers are there? You think you can overthrow anything without the leverage of millions of men? I don't.

I think that for Irak to work out, it will need the cooperation on the ground.

In the past, we'd allow someone like Gandhi to hold us up. Because? Way back in 1941 he pulled the pacificist card. And, this deprived the Hindus of a lot. The Muslems took the card, by the way, and trumped the Hindus. With prices still being paid to this day.

Yes, it's possible that Saddam's departure, brought in some players who thought they'd rake in the whole country. Right into their pockets. WIth terror.

While Hitler pretty much showed the world (if only the world wanted to listen), that terror is a good way to waste resources. And, leave citizens in country after country, unhappy. And, then? They're glad to see ya go.

Oh, Bin Laydin, just jumped the shark. So did Michael Moore. And, even though venice gave him an award, so, too, did Brian DePalma. who just recycled an old diatribe against Vietnam, into Redacted.

It makes lots of splashes in the Legacy Media pond.

But we're heading into dates that contain opportunities. Just depends if Bush wants to use them. Or not.

And, Rama-Dama-Ding-Dong; Patraeus' report shows up at the start of "you know whose" big month partay. (Party.)

I keep thinking Bush won't hold back this time. But I've guessed Bush's actions wrong before.

As to how the Israelis just defeated the russian's big sale of anti-aircraft batteries to syria and iran, is just a hoot. Seems they tossed out a fuel tank. And, the russians couldn't shoot straight. While the daring pilots, are, of course, Israelis.

Oh, and Ehud Barak left his calling card for Hamas. Sure. The idiots in gazoo are still holding Shalit. But the Jews just got themselves a bargaining chip. Personally? I think Shalit, and the other two soldiers kidnapped in Lebanon, are dead.

Let the "bargaining" begin. Jews aren't fools at the bizarre. And, Ehud Barak's stock just shot up among Israelis.

If there's gonna be action in the Mideast, ahead, that involves either syria or iran? I suspect it's "just around the corner."

If not? What teeter totters is still the terrorists looking for some sort of traction.

Posted by Les Nessman | September 8, 2007 7:17 PM

"Posted by Tom W. | September 8, 2007 3:09 PM

Why do so many "progressive" posters sound exactly the same? I can't count the number of times I've read "Wow. Good job, guys," when some idiot is going through his or her hackneyed laundry list of reasons why Iraq is a failure."

Heh. And then glasnost comes along and provides yet another example, Tom.

Notice, too, his left-handed compliment '..It's great that these attacks were interrupted by police work in the target country at the last minute, and all, but..'

Uh-huh. Police work. With info provided by the NSA.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 8, 2007 7:32 PM

Here. I stole these from Lucianne's site. Where she's headlining the jibberish of Osama's tape; and, of course, people piping up makes the comments PRICELESS:

Reply 1 - Posted by: glcinpdx
Reads like DNC/Nutroots talking points (well except the part about taxes).

Reply 2 - Posted by: TrueBlueWfan
You can't make this stuff up. The Dems should be ashamed that they spout the same ridiculous tripe that this murderous lunatic does.

Reply 4 - Posted by: sagman
Incredible. This serial mass murderer complains that we are viciously trying to stop his jihadist suiciders, basically. Can't make this stuff up.

Reply 16 - Posted by: Wookie
In the video, he looks like Cramer (Michael Richards) with a beard and turban. Come to think of it, have you ever seen Bin Laden and Cramer in the same room. Hmmmmmmmm.

Reply 17 - Posted by: NorthernDog
The Dems will probably conclude that if we just listened to them, Osama would be our friend.

Reply 18 - Posted by: Proudcanuck
I felt the love of Laden enter me. I think that I will convert. Sorry guys. He was very convincing. He is now... the word... the way... the path... to my salvation. Nah!.... if I wished to convert, give up my freedoms, it would be easier to just become a Democrat.

Reply 20 - Posted by: Safari Man
In Islam, they taxes cost you an arm and a leg... or a head.

Reply 21 - Posted by: gop juggernaut redux
Well I guess the plus side of cowering in a cave for the rest of your natural life is no mortgage interest.

Reply 22 - Posted by: nevernaught
Not only that, caves seem to be good for him. Notice all of the gray is gone, and he's wrinkle free. I believe that is Cate Blanchett in drag.

Reply 29 - Posted by: SheikYerBooty
Bin Laden is in the US disquised as John Kerry.

Reply 31 - Posted by: kennowen
Has Oprah held a fundraiser for him yet?

Reply 32 - Posted by: WiBadger
This is from The Onion right ?

Reply 34 - Posted by: Theophilous Meatyard III
Talk about a homicidal fruitcake on meth.

Reply 42 - Posted by: gop juggernaut redux
Except for the tax cut diatribe, this could've been written by Teddy Kennedy's speechwriter.

Reply 44 - Posted by: Urgent Fury
Hey're in!

Reply 55 - Posted by: wes mouch
Praises Chomsky (chuckle) and tells the democrats to try harder (guffaw). 2008 election here we come!

Posted by NahnCee | September 8, 2007 7:36 PM

He wants us out because he's losing -- and he tried to hit Germany and Denmark because he can't beat the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would have thought he's attacking Europe because he can still *get* to Europe, while fortress America is more and more drawing up the bridges and filling the moats, both for Arab terrorists and for Mexicans.

I also wonder if it escaped bin Laden's attention that most of Yurp and certainly Germany (late BFF with France in a multilateral attempt to bring us down) has been calling us various filthy names for the last few years, and we're really not best buddies any more. Without taking the time to research it, how many Germans are with the NATO force in Afghanistan, and what, exactly, has Germany done for us lately that we need to leap to it and change our national policy at German behest.

Finally, the thought occurs to wonder if the two "students" caught on the East Coast ferrying Really Big Firecrackers in their trunk and now under arrest might have had anything to do with anything, bin Laden-signalling-wise.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 8, 2007 7:47 PM

Ah, NahnCee, Osama [if that was him, and not Kate Blanchard in drag; or John Kerry all dressed up] I'd say he couldn't even brag about London. And, Glasgow. Just this summer.

Oh, and the Germans and Dutch also rolled up their trash.

Seems that the muzzies are a talkative bunch. So, perhaps, their plans go awry when the "chatter" is intercepted?

What's Osama gonna do? Heck, he couldn't even hit a ferry in Seattle. How bad is that? It's so blue in Seattle, it's a wonder anyone snapped the picture of the two perps. Let alone the coverage it got beyond the PI, "intellegencia."

You just really can't move lots of military ordnance, or explosives, around without getting noticed. If ya get my drift?

Why, today, landlords who thought they were lucky to get some muslems to rent from them; well, don't cha think they got spooked by the wall-to-wall coverage from Glasgow? Where I learned really, really nice English speaking people live. But when they were interviewed on TV? Um. I understood a word or two, per sentence.

Glad only the terrorist got toasted.

And, whom does Osama choose to compliment, instead? Noam Chompsky. Here, the comedy practically writes itself.

Posted by vet66 | September 8, 2007 7:49 PM

Carol Hermann;

Good job! The only thing left for the dems is the "Fairness Doctrine!" Connect the dots on this one and it resembles a noose swinging in the breeze, waiting...waiting....

I wonder if Bush nailed Pootie (Putin) correctly the first time. Putin never ran out of ways to stall the Iranians at Bushehr. It would make sense for payback against the Chechen and the Pankisi Gorge killers at Beslan.

Putin's note to the Mullah's of Iran and their stooges in Syria: No 'Jam" for you, I thought you were talking about lingonberry jam!

Embrace the SUCK!

Posted by Justrand | September 8, 2007 8:28 PM

over at Rantburg badanov had this splendid "Warranty phone call"

Russian Factory Warrenty rep (RFWR): This is Ivan, Makdonaldski Dooglasko Defense Missile Systems. How may I help you?

Mamoud Al Akbar( Syrian Al Lockheedi Defense Systems): Yeah, uh, Ivan, we have a little problem with your missile system?

RFWR: I need your name, your company name, your missile model number and serial number and the warranty number, as well as your receipt number.

MAA: ( AFter giving the requested info ) It seems our radars were jammed by an enemy probe of our air defenses.

RFWR: Did you buy the extended warranty package as well as the anti-jamming option?

MAA: Yes, we did and we aren't too happy with this missile system's performance. We would like to discuss a return.

RFWR: All sales are final: No refunds. No returns.

MAA: But we're now vulnerable to air attack from the Zionists!

RFWR: We do offer an upgrade which we warrant really will be jam proof.

MAA: But what about this warranty?

RFWR It is valid with the upgrade.

MAA: Why do I have to upgrade to get a jam proof system?

RFWR: Because it is included in the warranty. In the event it doesn't work, you must buy an upgrade so we can warrant against failure.

MAA: What if the upgrade doesn't work?

RFWR: It will work because it is warranted against failure.

MAA: But what if the upgrade doesn't work?

RFWR: Then you must buy an upgrade.

MAA: ( Hangs up )

Posted by Bennett | September 8, 2007 8:31 PM

"Without taking the time to research it, how many Germans are with the NATO force in Afghanistan..."

Posted by NahnCee | September 9, 2007 12:27 AM

Right - the Germans are hunkered down around their peaceful fireplaces in the north of Afghanistan with their French best buddies, learning how to cook cordon bleu, and not much else.

While the Americans are fighting the Taliban in the south and in Pakistan.

Big whoop for Germany.

Tell ya what, Osama - we'll go ahead and withdraw the German troops from Afghanistan and see if you can tell the difference in your personal scurrying, ducking and hiding routines.

Posted by Jim | September 9, 2007 12:42 AM

so here's what we got

Jeff says Remember the little American girl who died before she got to Disneyland in 911 and being concerned about innocent Iraqis dieing is misdirected.

Alan says, or implies that Saddam paid for terrorist activity against the US. Exactly when did this happen?

Carole -- Just calls me a liar I guess because I lumped killed and wounded soldiers and contractors together -- and war is war, just grow up and that I'm wasting my time here.

Jim C thinks we are winning their hearts and mind s -- nice if it's true but certainly no proof is offered -- then he says we at least we are killing a lot of them --- again killing who --- not AQ. Iraq and Iraqis are not responsible for 911. AQ wasn't in Iraq before our little invasion.

Oh -- Scott and Brooklyn by the way -- it's the Democratic Party not the Democrat Party. I know thats the latest semantic trick thats so popular with all the kids now a days.

Tom W says that all progressives sound alike and we are all guilty of treason anyways. (we all look alike too Tom)

Its been great talking to you all.

Still you and your like have lead us into this war in Iraq. You can't justify it. You can't answer fair questions about the effectiveness and objectives of it. You treat fellow citizens who disagree with you as the enemy. I can tell that there is as much hate here for progressives as there is for AQ. And you want to lead this country. Well when I last checked this is still a representative democracy, and most people aren't buying this.

So I ask again. What have we accomplished in Iraq? Are we safer? How have our interests been advanced? You guys can call me names, tell me in detail the horror of 911, call me a lemming, a traitor and what ever. But the right has held all the reins of power, the right choose this war, promised it would be quick, cheap and easy. That was wrong. There has been a huge failure in leadership and you just don't want to own up to it.

Posted by Bennett | September 9, 2007 1:19 AM

"I can tell that there is as much hate here for progressives as there is for AQ."

And you post here to show love towards those who disagree with you? You accuse others of that which you are guilty of yourself.

You state your personal opinions in the guise of questions and then dismiss any responses you receive as inadequate or malicious. But your mind is already made up, you aren't really interested in anyone else's point of view. You only want everyone to shout agreement with yours.

Why play such a silly game?

Posted by Jess | September 9, 2007 1:48 AM

Who cares if it is Osama or not, its the bush government pushing for more war on the middle east. And what better way to do that then to resurface this tension and create fear.
Osama wasn't behind 9/11. He even said he wasn't, well until the tapes were faked and said he did (Now who do we know in US government that goes back on their word.....)

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - G W BUSH.

Posted by Jim | September 9, 2007 1:51 AM


What have I said that is hateful? It was never my intent. The only questions that I asked are what have we accomplished in Iraq? are we safer? and how have our interest been advanced? Yes I do have an opinion about the answers to these questions.

But I am also interested in facts or analysis that are counter to my opinion. Why, because I'm an adult and as an adult have changed my positions on political issues when presented with convincing arguments that were based insight or understanding of an issue greater than mine.

Point of view -- every one has a point of view and I'm more interested in some than others that's true.

I'm sure everyone likes to be agreed with, but it seems to me that if thats all I wanted I would post somewhere else.

I did not characterize the responses I got in general. Although you maybe right when you say that I think they were inadequate or malicious. But I certainly haven't called any one a traitor or called anyone a liar.

I'm not playing a game. Dismiss me if you like. But I want to hear from those still supporting the war in Iraq because choosing that position in a democracy, opens one up to legit questions that someone with a self consistent position should be able to answer.

Posted by Bennett | September 9, 2007 2:48 AM

Jim, it depends on what you mean by "accomplished". If you mean what has been done, there are factual answers to that. The most obvious being, we removed Saddam Hussein and his government. If you seek instead a qualitiative assessment, i.e., of that which has been done, was it proper or desirable?, then you will have differing opinions.

As to being safer, what sort of answer are you expecting? How can one judge "being safer", that there is some adequate risk/benefit analysis that prejudges the future. If we do this, x will never occur or is less likely to occur. But in asking the question, you are clearly presupposing that this is a rationale for the war supported by the people who post here. What if it's not?

I think you might find that many people who support the war do so because they consider themselves Americans first, not Republicans or Democrats, and that the country went to war, not the right without the left. And that while it may be interesting to debate the wherefors and whyfors of the war, there are American men and women for whom the debate is not an academic one.

Those are the men and women who wear the American flag on their shoulders, a patch that doesn't have a "D" or an "R" embroidered on it. They have been given a mission and once that occurred (whether one agreed with it or not), many people believe that as a country we are obligated to set our political differences aside and do everything in our power to see that this mission is completed successfully. This is why you may sense disdain from many who post here (and I certainly don't mean to speak for anyone but myself).

You can say you do not believe in the mission and therefore it is proper and right for you to try and undermine it, but it is not you that pays the price for that. Some CPL walking down a dusty road in 120 degree heat in Al Qaim province in Iraq, he pays for your righteous indignation. Because the enemy knows that the CPL's own countrymen do not support him. He is who many of us support, not Bush, not the neocons, not the right. We support that CPL. And we think he's in a fight worth winning, mostly because he's in that fight to begin with because we as a country sent him there.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 9, 2007 6:22 AM

Bennett. Excellent comment. Thanks. Too bad these trolls don't really care about any of're wasting time trying to "reason" with them. Best to ignore them no matter how much they shout, stammer, drool and stomp their feet.

If I may make a suggestion...rather than address each individual troll by "name" as you did above, why not make your same points without "naming" the troll? Many of these cretins make their posts just to see their names "in print". You know, makes them feel important...or like they're "somebody".

If you feel you most address any of the troll's "issues" do so without giving them their orgasmic "look at me" high.

Posted by docjim505 | September 9, 2007 6:26 AM


My compliments, sir, on a superb post. This is something that libs simply don't get:

My country is at war. That's why I want to win.

I don't want to win in Iraq because I voted for Bush.

I don't want to win in Iraq because I'm a Republican.

I want to win because we're at war and losing is not only hateful to me, but I believe harmful to my country. Iraq isn't a chess game or a sand lot baseball game that we can walk away from with no more penalties than hurt pride. If we lose, then the terrorists AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO DOESN'T LIKE OUR POLICIES will have clear proof that we can be beaten. As a consequence, they'll try harder to beat us somewhere else.

"We ran the Americans out of Lebanon."

"We ran the Americans out of Somalia."

"We ran the Americans out of Iraq."

"We ran the Americans out of Afghanistan."

"We ran the Americans out of Pakistan (and now we have nukes!)."

"We ran the Americans out of Kuwait."

"We ran the Americans out of Israel."

"We ran the Americans out of Turkey."

"We ran the Americans out of Europe."

"We ran the Americans out of..."

Posted by Bennett | September 9, 2007 6:35 AM

"Too bad these trolls don't really care about any of're wasting time trying to "reason" with them."

If I act as they do then I am no better than they are.

And anyway, I get tired of all this left/right cr*p which I honestly don't think means anything to the men and women in uniform, except to make them doubt that anyone back home cares about them at all and probably leaves them wondering if they are just political footballs to be tossed carelessly around to make a partisan point.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 9, 2007 6:45 AM

Bennett: Yes, I can tell you that many do feel like footballs. But most of us realize that the contemptible trolls who post here are not representative of most Americans (Dem or Repub). We really, really hope that the America-haters are in the minority.

Don't worry, judging from your comments alone, you are MUCH better than they are...

Will you give my other suggestion some consideration?

Posted by hunter | September 9, 2007 7:06 AM

You are hateful because you lie about the history and demean our present efforts. You are hateful because you and yours seek out defeat rather than victory. You ignore the years of Saddam's attacks on us, his support and coordination with Al Qaeda and other terror groups. His payola to Palestinian terrorists in Israel who did kill Americans. Saddam's attempt to murder Bush 41 by blowing up his plane after he retired. Heck you probably thought that was justified.
When your claimed goals in the war are met, you simply rewrite the goals.
And by the way, your rationalization in regards tot he children killed by AQ on 911 is contemptible.

Posted by Bennett | September 9, 2007 7:42 AM

"rather than address each individual troll by "name" as you did above, why not make your same points without "naming" the troll?"

First, I assume most people don't post under their real names.

Second, I don't use the name if I quote a portion of the comment.

Third, If I don't quote, then I will usually include the name of the person to whom my response is directed, mostly so that someone else doesn't think I mean my remarks to be directed at him or her (this has happened to me before).

And really, if someone gets a cheap thrill out of seeing his or her name used, wouldn't it be petty to deprive the person of it?

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 9, 2007 8:58 AM


I kinda figured Cyclops, chimpy, monkeyboy, shyster etc. were not “names”…hence the quote marks.

Speaking of “cheap thrills”…with all the serious, violent crime in our society, some call the laws making it illegal to masturbate in public “petty”. But if it were not illegal, wouldn’t those who do it already, do it more often…and wouldn’t some of those who don’t do it already consider starting up?

It was just meant as a suggestion. You think it’s petty, forget it. .fwiw: This swabby enjoys your great comments even if they do occasionally feed the trolls.

Posted by Keemo | September 9, 2007 8:59 AM

Excellent post Bennett... Very well stated; very representative of how most Americans feel about this war, or any war.

I was a young man when my country ran away from Vietnam; millions were slaughtered following the departure of American forces. I will not accept another defeat at the hands of the Liberal media and the Democratic Party; our soldiers did not lose the Vietnam war; our soldiers were handicapped by the weak kneed & limp dick politicians in D.C., who refused to fight that damn war to win. We have seen much of the same from Bush and Co. over the past few years; handicapped by constant 24/7 pressure from the Liberal media and the Democratic Party. The surge is working because Bush removed the political heads from the battle field and has finally allowed the warriors to take charge. One things for sure; Democrats and our Liberal media know how to lose a war, while stripping Americans of pride and honor. Another things for sure; the American warrior knows how to win a war, and the only obstacle standing in the way of an American warrior and total victory, is an American politician who runs scared of the press and phony polling data. When our country sends our sons/daughters into a war, our country needs to stand behind our own, and our politicians need to get out of the way of our warriors.

Neither of those have happened with this war; as the leftist in this country have demanded surrender and defeat, while the politicians have done everything but "get out of the way".

Yes Jim, you're a typical leftist that is guilty of "not standing with our soldiers during a time of war". Shame on you and your pathetic excuses.

Posted by vet66 | September 9, 2007 9:00 AM

Trolls, such as the one being discussed, come across as pseudo-intellectuals when their position is in fatal decline. They are anti-military, anti-patriot, and anti-American. Their positions are untenable, their motives questionable, and their allegiance is bought and paid for by America-haters like George Soros. They are dupes, willing or otherwise, in a conspiracy to weaken the U.S, because it is the one remaining super-power.

It is telling that they eschew talking about Saddam's rape rooms and torture cells, the dead of 9/11 and their families/America's loss, 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc. Then they take federal monies in violation of the Solomon ammendment by harrassing military recruiters on campus, attempt to ban the Blue Angels in San Francisco, throw out the plans for a battleship museum on the waterfront, and never lift their voice to protest those who attempt to defame and defile military funerals and those recovering in Walter Reed.

These trolls do not represent the best of America. They believe they support American ideals by abusing freedom of speech and engaging in dissent. Their behavior begs the question that they cannot answer which is, "When does dissent become aiding and abetting our enemy?" Once the decision to go to war was made, dissent necessarily turns to support of those in harm's way.

Posted by Bennett | September 9, 2007 11:42 AM

"I kinda figured Cyclops, chimpy, monkeyboy, shyster etc. were not “names”…hence the quote marks."

Hah! Well I was thinking of the "real" non-names. That Jim is probably really Horace, etc.

So when I use a name it's more a way of identifying which knucklehead (oops, scratch that), mental midget (no, don't mean that), lefty loser (poor choice of words)...

it's more a way of identifying which (possibly) sincere but (completely) deluded commenter I mean to lead back gently from the Nietzschean abyss before he jumps into the darkness forever. If he isn't already too far gone that is.

And I strive to overcome my pettiness on a daily basis. It's a continuing work.

Posted by NahnCee | September 9, 2007 12:24 PM

Dr. Sanity had an excellent analysis a couple of the psychological roots of the denial shown by ilk such as Jim. Here is an except from the piece:
This blogger is essentially arguing that-- instead of using a healthy and appropriate psychological defense called anticipation against terrorism and the Islamofascists (who most certainly want to kill us and destroy our society)--we should instead switch to a psychotic one, denial; and maintain that the only thing we have to fear is...President Bush. The latter is a defense mechanism called displacement that I have already discussed in an earlier post.

In fact, there is a strong element of paranoia here too. And a noticeable touch of both projection (ask yourself who is really desperate about getting and keeping power) and hysteria--though he thinks he can use it to describe normal people justifiably afraid of irrational fanatics not amenable to reason. The implication is that the only purpose such "fears" (deemed "inappropriate" by Greenwald's) are being manipulated must be to "justify illegal actions."

To me, the bottom line on this is that the Troofers and anti-American trolls like Jim are damned near paralyzed by their fear of the unknown, and rather than face it, they replace it with anger towards Daddy (Bush) for not protecting them from the monster in the bedroom closet. That is why any rational discussion with trolls like Jim is fruitless. His sanity depends upon him being able to nit-pick comma's and feel displaced anger against Bush, because then he can feel in control of the situation.

Jim's arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with either reality or history, and his mind cannot and will not be changed by any well-thought-out arguments or examples that might make him raise his eyes to a horizon where there might be questions that he is not up to answering.

I'm just wondering now if the passage of time will mature trolls such as Jim, or if they're a wasted generation which even the lesson of 9/11 is lost upon.

Posted by pk | September 9, 2007 12:32 PM

the biggest thing is that it is happening OVER THERE.

not on pennsylvania avenue, not on garden grove blvd. or on main street america.

we have organized an area where the really rabid bomb throwers congregate and throw their bombs at the group of our people best able to handle the problem.

think about it, are we better off if an islamist threw a bomb into a pizza joint across the street from a local university, or at a platoon of army people riding around in armoured personnell carriers in iraq.

well that stuff has simmered down a bunch.

have you noticed that very few bombs are "thrown" at targets of military importance lately. that shows that we are winning in iraq.

have you noticed that very few bombs are thrown at targets of civilian importance in the united states lately. that shows that there are getting to be a lot fewer bomb throwers willing to risk the price of throwing the bomb.

this is one of those leagues where the only way we can get these guys to stop this nonsense is to either lock them up for the rest of their lives or to kill them (they won't respond to "reasoned discourse").

we have killed a lot of them. however there is a problem with locking them up. that is that there is alwayse the chance that some liberal idiot will let them out.

which leads us to the inescapable conclusion that we must kill them all (they say they will kill all who do not convert to islam) so why not do it in thier country rather than ours.

and so jim, thats what iraq is, a huge killing field, this is a military term and such being i'm sure you won't recognize it. but thats what it is pure and simple.


Posted by Jim | September 9, 2007 12:51 PM

Again the answer is to attack my patriotism and call me a troll.

Demagogy, false dilemmas, and personal attacks, are far cry from real political discussion.

Yes I was against this war in Iraq from the start. In my opinion we lacked just cause, legitimate authority, right intention and probability of success when we invaded Iraq. Nor was the war a war of last resort.

How is this a just war? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter if it is a just war. This is not highly nuanced.

Posted by Bennett | September 9, 2007 1:05 PM

Jim (sorry Swabjockey!):

I didn't attack your patriotism. I simply declared my own. I call myself an American. You call yourself a progressive. I don't know where that country is so I could hardly attack your allegiance to it.

You seem to have confused 2007 with 2002. The time for your debating points has long since come and gone. We are in the war now and have been since March 18, 2003.

The initial mission, to remove Saddam Hussein, has been accomplished. You can wish that it hadn't happened but it has. He's dead now, he's not coming back.

The current mission, pacification and stability operations (at the request of the duly elected sitting Iraqi government) is ongoing. I'm sure there are many people here who would be glad to explain the nuances of this current mission to you. (People who are far more qualified than I to do so).

And you know trolls can be cute. LOTR and all that. I don't think you should be offended.

Posted by Ray | September 9, 2007 2:28 PM

"There is no strategic victory against AQ available in Iraq, what have we won?"

What have we won? How about the end of Saddam's tyrannical, murderous regime and the beginning of democracy in Iraq?

The Iraq war resulted in the closing of government run torture centers, the end of rape squads, the discovery of several hidden mass graves which held the bodies of Saddam's civilian victims, the end of systematic oppression of free speech, the end of systematic destruction of any opposition, the end of genocidal campaigns against the Norther Kurds and the Souther Shea, and the end of Saddam's quest of total control of the Middle East (he invaded both Iran and Kuwait, remember?) None of this would have occurred had we allowed Saddam to remain in control. This is what we've won, this is what the deaths and sacrifices of honorable men and women has brought Iraq; freedom to choose, freedom to grow. Freedom to live! Good job, guys!

You speak of the number of people killed in this war, yet fail to mention the wars that Saddam started (and lost) and the numbers of people killed by those wars. The invasion of Iran started a 10 year war that killed over a million people, combatants and civilians both. The invasion of Kuwait killed an untold number of military troops and civilians, lead to the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars of art, gold, etc. and resulted in the murder, rape, and torture of innocent Kuwaiti citizens, just like his terrorist government was doing in Iraq. Saddam even tried to invade Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert shield in 1991 when lead to more deaths in a futile attempt to maintain his military occupation of Kuwait. Where is your concern for all the people killed in Saddam's wars? Where is you condemnation of Saddam and his government that started these wars?

Do you think Iraq was some kind of paradise before we took out Saddam and his government? Think again! Saddam was a terrorist and he wanted total control by any means necessary. He was a continuing threat to the entire Middle East. Saddam not only produced and stored chemical and biological weapons (some of which he used in both the Iran/Iraq war but also against his own citizens which lead to the agonizing deaths of thousands of his own people) he also tried to acquire the means of producing nuclear weapons as well. Saddam and his supports used the same methods of fear, torture, rape, death, and the threat of the same that al-Qaeda uses today. Saddam killed off the opposition in government and appointed his supports in their place. Remember what happened shortly after Saddam gained control as President? He called out several member if the Iraqi Council, named them as traitors, and had then shot two days later. This was done in front of the entire Iraqi government and he even video taped the process as a means to remind people just who was in charge. Is this the type of government you would support? If not, just how would you prevent this type of government from gaining power and spreading across the Middle East today if not for the use of our military?

Saddam was a terrorist, used terrorist tactics as a means of control, and appointed fellow terrorists into positions of power in his security systems. His terroristic form of control resulted in the deaths of well over a million people, and probably close to over 1.5 million total. His government is now gone, he and his murderous sons are dead, and the Iraqi people have a new government and Constitution that was chosen by the citizens of Iraq and not imposed upon them by a tyrant. That's what we have accomplished and that what al-Qaeda is trying to reverse. Our continued military and civilian involvement in Iraq (both in the troops who are stationed there and the civilian contractors who are supporting those troops and are helping to the Iraqi people rebuild their country after decades of tyrannical rule) is preventing a return of tyrannical rule in Iraq and will continue to do so as long as we have brave men and women willing to risk their lives for the security of another people and another government. Good job, guys!

Posted by pk | September 9, 2007 3:45 PM

remember all of the wailers that ask "why didn't we kill off hitler before he got into real power"

well george bush did with hussein.

so whats the bitch.


Posted by Yoop | September 9, 2007 6:35 PM

Remember, gentlemen, and ladies too; if it wasn't for the far-left-wing trolls, and progressives (and whatever other label-du-jour they declare themselves), the rest of us might get a little lax in remembering just how great is this America, and the men and women who preserve the trolls free speech.

The real Americans, fighting the real wars, have seen with their own eyes the torture chambers, the rape rooms, the mass graves and the living results of barbaric justice.

The trolls, OTOH, see their keyboards and monitors as the real world.

Post a comment