And that's nothing but good news.
That, of course, does not end the discussion - about the war, about Iraq, about dubya's failed presidency. The war on terror is still going on, Iraq is still a shambles and dubya's presidency is still a complete and utter failure. Killing an important terrorist won't really change any of that. Hey, Bush said Zarqawi's the #1 terrorist - whatever happened to that Osama bin Laden guy? You know the one - the guy resposible for 911.
As John McIntire posted:
Yes, this is a good thing. WE GOT al-ZARQAWI.And he adds a little later:
We shouldn't have invaded, and since we DID invade, the responsibility for humongous loss of life so far in Iraq is ours, but this guy is still an evil bastard and his sudden removal from the planet (though I am not an advocate of the death penalty per se) is a good thing.
Projectile Vomiting Alert - The smarmy Fox News' John Scott and the rest of the flag waving retards are declaring complete victory with their condescending tone, as if the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who've died, and the thousands of permanently maimed and/or killed American and Iraqi soldiers now don't matter, because we got ONE bad guy.Exactly.
But the blind supporters of whatever we do, and the guilt ridden regular folks who still have a conscience but can't deal with the reality that sometimes we screw up royally and tens of thousands of innocents die as a result, are grasping at this straw like Monica on Bill's ceegar.
Compare that to McIntire's fellow KDKA employee Fred Honsberger's take on all this. He spent more than a few minutes yesterday on the radio talking about this:
Zarqawi died inside the house, U.S. officials said, along with at least five other people, including Rahman, a woman and a child of unspecified age.[emphasis added]And the complaints he'd heard about the death of that child.
He said that since that child was being raised in that house, he was probably being raised to be a terrorist/suicide bomber. So therefore killing the child now is acceptable (or at least complaining about it is unacceptable) because it's ridding the world of a future terrorist and saving the lives of all the people that terrorist would have killed.
The morality of that statement is absolutely appalling.
By the same logic, why doesn't Bush surround Baghdad and just kill all the children? Sure, some of the dead might not have grown up to be terrorists, but with innocent lives at stake should we really be taking that chance?
Nothing explains the morality of the right better than that.
Technorati Tags: Al-Zarqawi, Fred Honsberger, John McIntire
16 comments:
fred h. is one of the most hatefilled people i've ever heard.
he's gotten much more radical in his hate over the past 2 or 3 years. it's noticable.
he cloaks his intolerance in his being in the salvation army. as if that gives everyone in that religion an automatic halo.
i can not listen to him anymore. i used to, but life is too short to subject myself to his holier than tho nastiness.
johnny mac rocks tho!!!
The mention of bin Laden reminds me of the story we ran on "The Carbolic Smoke Ball": NATION'S MOST WANTED FUGITIVE IMPLORES FEDS TO PURSUE HIM WITH SAME ZEAL IT USES TO PURSUE BIN LADEN.
WASHINGTON - Donald Eugene Webb, on the FBI's "Most Wanted" list longer than any fugitive in history, is wanted in connection with the murder on December 4, 1980 of the police chief in Saxonburg, Pennsylvania, who was shot twice at close range after being brutally beaten about the head and face with a blunt instrument.
No one had heard from Webb for more than a quarter century until last week when he sent a message to the New York Times that law enforcement officials describe as cordial. Webb said that he wanted his pursuers to know that they have him "boxed in," that he can't misbehave because the slightest misconduct would "raise [his] profile and lead to [his] capture." Therefore, he suggested, "the Feds should pursue me with the same diligence and zeal they are employing to track down Osama bin Laden, who killed 3,000 people, as opposed to the one person I killed. Just like bin Laden, I have been, to quote President Bush, 'marginalized,' and, to quote Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, 'neutralized.' I respectfully suggest that my pursuers adopt the attitude President Bush has toward bin Laden: 'I truly am not that concerned about him.' Perhaps they could channel their anger against me toward someone else instead. You know, just like Bush went after Saddam instead of bin Laden."
An FBI agent, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the rules applicable to bin Laden do not apply to Webb. The agent explained: "We only say that 'marginalized' stuff about bin Laden because we haven't been able to get him."
"That, of course, does not end the discussion - about the war, about Iraq, about dubya's failed presidency. The war on terror is still going on, Iraq is still a shambles and dubya's presidency is still a complete and utter failure. Killing an important terrorist won't really change any of that. Hey, Bush said Zarqawi's the #1 terrorist - whatever happened to that Osama bin Laden guy? You know the one - the guy resposible for 911."
I predicted that the liberals would say crap like the above quote from our friend Dave. It's amazing how easy to read you people are. Always a negative spin.
Dave and company still refers to the war in Iraq as illegitimate, even though Zarqawi snuck into Iraq after the United States went into Afghanistan following 9/11. Zarqawi was a terrorist, and Hussein was harboring a terrorist. Hussein was a monster who killed thousands and thousands of his OWN people, and you call this an illegitimate war how?
The liberal argument on the war in Iraq is fading fast. The American people see this, and it will show this come November when you liberals yet again lose another election. Only then, you liberals will sit back and scratch your heads as to how you lost, claiming voter fraud as usual.
Ohmigodohmigodohmigod!
The war isn't illegitimate anymore?
Where/when did they find the WMD? When/how did they establish the links between al qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime?
Would seem to be the only way to "legitimize" the war at this point.
hey judge,
you're recycling your posts! ain't that illegal or sumpin??
You are correct that I am recycling our posts, but only in the same sense that the same Bible readings are read aloud at church year after year. (You figure it out.) I am proud to report that our news source, carbolicsmokeblog.blogspot.com, does break al-Zarqawi's dying words . . .
Anonymous you are an even bigger imbecile than I originally thought. If you had any ounce of common sense in that concrete headed liberal mind of yours you'd actually figure out this:
Using diplomatic methods under the U.N., Hussein had how many months to move his WMDs to Syria. You need proof? Fine:
http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd.html
Now, how about taking your "where were the WMDs" b.s. and giving it up. Fact is, you hate our President so much, the truth blinds you. Proof and facts presented to you just don't matter because your hatred for Bush reveals you being nothing more than a raving lunatic obsessed with hating him, no matter what, when, who, or how.
So now the WMD are in Syria?
Don't you think someone should tell The White House?
Wouldn't it be a huge PR slam dunk, if the administration could point to some actual reality-based evidence to show that the WMD both existed and were moved to Syria?
The fact that The Whitehouse is not going with that particular argument must mean that either, the current occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are just as "concrete headed" and as filled with hate as you accuse me of being OR
.
.
.
now wait for it
.
.
.
you're wrong.
Anonymous: You are a fool. Even a high member of the Iraqi military under Hussein said the WMDs were moved to Syria. He saw them. Fact is, you're in denial to the point you have yourself convinced otherwise.
On top of that, I guess having a dictator like Hussein in power who slaughtered countless numbers of his own people in Iraq wasn't good enough to take him out. I guess having Hussein who was harboring terrorists wasn't good enough either. It's all been proven and you just are too stubborn to read it. Facts do not matter to you, as I have said before. Your hatred for Bush is what drives you to the mindset you are in. Bush could stick his head in a cesspool and say it stinks and you would find grounds to disagree with him. Need I say more?
Concluding this pointless argument, I'd like to say that you are a very, very hateful individual toward those you disagree politically with. Heck, I would even dare to say that you are projecting the very same behavior as you accuse the people on the right of; which is "tolerance." However, in your case, that does not matter because the political blinders you wear have erased an important value you currently do not have, and that is "common sense."
I find it astonishing that people like you claim to adhere to tolerance, and diversity. It doesn't exist here, that is for sure.
The most interesting thing about your comment, troll, is that you never really responded to my question about the Whitehouse.
So I'll ask it again.
If inded there is bullet-proof, slam-dunk, concrete-solid evidence that you (and General Sada) are correct and that all of Saddams' WMD were moved to Syria (the Bekaa Valley is the favored location these days, I am led to understand), then WHY ISN'T THE WHITE HOUSE USING THAT ARGUMENT TO SILENCE ANY/ALL OF IT'S CRITICS?
The fact that they aren't has to mean that THE STORY ISN'T TRUE or maybe
.
.
.
just maybe
.
.
.
The Whitehouse really DOES KNOW but doesn't want US to know. Yea, that must be it. There must be this whole vast worldwide government/media conspiracy to keep us from the truth that ONLY YOU, our anonymous troll, are smart enough and/or brave enough to speak up about.
Wow - that must make you feel very important.
Perhaps the WMDs aren't there anymore? Hidden perhaps? Look at how much time has passed up. Thanks to the United Nations "diplomatic" methods, we have them to thank for a near nuclear Iran. Diplomacy worked real well for North Korea with Carter sticking his nose in it all under the Clinton administration. North Korea basically stuck up their middle finger and went with pursuing nuclear weapons technology all the while it earned Jimmy Carter a Nobel Peace Prize. How nice, huh?
Again, closing this useless conversation with you (which could be compared with attempting to convert Bin Laden into a Catholic), it doesn't matter. You will never listen.
* A monster of a dictator in Iraq who killed countless numbers of his own people has been removed from power - still an illigitimate war in your eyes, although Bill Clinton's stance/actions on Bosnia. I've attached the transcript below for your review.
November 27, 1995
Web posted at: 11:25 p.m. EST
Last week, the warring factions in Bosnia reached a peace agreement as a result of our efforts in Dayton, Ohio, and the support of our European and Russian partners. Tonight I want to speak with you about implementing the Bosnian peace agreement and why our values and interests as Americans require that we participate.
Let me say at the outset America's role will not be about fighting a war. It will be about helping the people of Bosnia to secure their own peace agreement. Our mission will be limited, focused, and under the command of an American general.
In fulfilling this mission, we will have the chance to help stop the killing of innocent civilians, especially children, and at the same time, to bring stability to central Europe, a region of the world that is vital to our national interests. It is the right thing to do.
From our birth, America has always been more than just a place. America has embodied an idea that has become the ideal for billions of people throughout the world. Our founders said it best: America is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In this century especially, America has done more than simply stand for these ideals. We have acted on them and sacrificed for them. Our people fought two world wars so that freedom could triumph over tyranny. After World War I, we pulled back from the world, leaving a vacuum that was filled by the forces of hatred. After World War II, we continued to lead the world. We made the commitments that kept the peace, that helped to spread democracy, that created unparalleled prosperity and that brought victory in the Cold War.
Today, because of our dedication, America's ideals -- liberty, democracy and peace -- are more and more the aspirations of people everywhere in the world. It is the power of our ideas, even more than our size, our wealth and our military might, that makes America a uniquely trusted nation.
With the Cold War over, some people now question the need for our continued active leadership in the world. They believe that, much like after World War I, America can now step back from the responsibilities of leadership. They argue that to be secure, we need only to keep our own borders safe, and that the time has come now to leave to others the hard work of leadership beyond our borders. I strongly disagree. As the Cold War gives way to the global village, our leadership is needed more than ever because problems that start beyond our borders can quickly become problems within them. We're all vulnerable to the organized forces of intolerance and destruction, terrorism, ethnic, religious and regional rivalries, the spread of organized crime and weapons of mass destruction and drug trafficking. Just as surely as fascism and communism, these forces also threaten freedom and democracy, peace and prosperity. And they too demand American leadership.
But nowhere has the argument for our leadership been more clearly justified than in the struggle to stop or prevent war and civil violence. From Iraq to Haiti; from South Africa to Korea; from the Middle East to Northern Ireland, we have stood up for peace and freedom because it's in our interest to do so, and because it is the right thing to do.
Now that doesn't mean that we can solve every problem. My duty as president is to match the demands for American leadership to our strategic interests and to our ability to make a difference. America cannot and must not be the world's policeman. We cannot stop all war for all time but we can stop some wars. We cannot save all women and all children but we can save many of them. We can't do everything but we must do what we can. There are times and places where our leadership can mean the difference between peace and war and where we can defend our fundamental values as a people and serve our most basic strategic interests. My fellow Americans, in this new era there are still times when America and America alone can and should make the difference for peace. The terrible war in Bosnia is such a case. Nowhere today is the need for American leadership more stark or more immediate than in Bosnia.
For nearly four years a terrible war has torn Bosnia apart. Horrors we prayed had been banished from Europe forever have been seared into our minds again. Skeletal prisoners caged behind barbed-wire fences, women and girls raped as a tool of war, defenseless men and boys shot down into mass graves, evoking visions of World War II concentration camps and endless lines of refugees marching toward a future of despair.
When I took office, some where urging immediate intervention in the conflict. I decided that American ground troops should not fight a war in Bosnia because the United States could not force peace on Bosnia's warring ethnic groups, the Serbs, Croats and Muslims. Instead, America has worked with our European allies in searching for peace stopping the war from spreading and easing the suffering of the Bosnian people. We imposed tough economic sanctions on Serbia. We used our air power to conduct the longest humanitarian airlift in history and to enforce a no-fly zone that took the war out of the skies. We helped to make peace between two of the three warring parties -- the Muslims and the Croats.
But as the months of war turned into years, it became clear that Europe alone could not end the conflict. This summer, Bosnian Serb shelling once again turned Bosnia's playgrounds and marketplaces into killing fields.
In response, the United States led NATO's heavy and continuous air strikes, many of them flown by skilled and brave American pilots. Those air strikes, together with the renewed determination of our European partners, and the Bosnian and Croat gains on the battlefield, convinced the Serbs, finally, to start thinking about making peace.
At the same time, the United States initiated an intensive diplomatic effort that forged a Bosnia-wide cease-fire and got the parties to agree to the basic principles of peace. Three dedicated American diplomats -- Bob Frasure, Joe Kruzel and Nelson Drew -- lost their lives in that effort. Tonight, we remember their sacrifice and that of their families, and we will never forget their exceptional service to our nation.
Finally, just three weeks ago, the Muslims, Croats and Serbs came to Dayton, Ohio, in America's heartland, to negotiate a settlement. There, exhausted by war, they made a commitment to peace. They agreed to put down their guns, to preserve Bosnia as a single state, to investigate and prosecute war criminals, to protect the human rights of all citizens, to try to build a peaceful, democratic future. And they asked for America's help as they implement this peace agreement.
America has a responsibility to answer that request, to help to turn this moment of hope into an enduring reality. To do that, troops from our country and around the world would go into Bosnia to give them the confidence and support they need to implement their peace plan.
I refuse to send American troops to fight a war in Bosnia, but I believe we must help to secure the Bosnian peace.
I want you to know tonight what is at stake, exactly what our troops will be asked to accomplish and why we must carry out our responsibility to help implement the peace agreement.
Implementing the agreement in Bosnia can end the terrible suffering of the people, the warfare, the mass executions, the ethnic cleansing, the campaigns of rape and terror. Let us never forget a quarter of a million men, women and children have been shelled, shot and tortured to death. Two million people, half of the population, were forced from their homes and into a miserable life as refugees, and these faceless numbers have millions of real, personal tragedies, for each of the war's victims was a mother or daughter, father or son, a brother or sister. Now the war is over. American leadership created the chance to build a peace and stop the suffering.
Securing peace in Bosnia will also help to build a free and stable Europe. Bosnia lies at the very heart of Europe, next door to many of its fragile new democracies and some of our closest allies. Generations of Americans have understood that Europe's freedom and Europe's stability is vital to our own national security. That's why we fought two wars in Europe; that's why we launched the Marshall Plan to restore Europe; that's why we created NATO and waged the Cold War, and that's why we must help the nations of Europe to end their worst nightmare since World War II now.
The only force capable of getting this job done is NATO, the powerful military alliance of democracies that has guaranteed our security for half a century now. And as NATO's leader and the primary broker of the peace agreement, the United States must be an essential part of the mission. If we're not there, NATO will not be there. The peace will collapse; the war will reignite; the slaughter of innocents will begin again. A conflict that already has claimed so many victims could spread like poison throughout the region, eat away at Europe's stability and erode our partnership with our European allies. And America's commitment to leadership will be questioned if we refuse to participate in implementing a peace agreement we brokered right here in the United States, especially since the presidents of Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia all asked us to participate, and all pledged their best efforts to the security of our troops.
When America's partnerships are weak and our leadership is in doubt, it undermines our ability to secure our interests and to convince others to work with us. If we do maintain our partnerships and our leadership, we need not act alone. As we saw in the Gulf War and in Haiti, many other nations who share our goals will also share our burdens. But when America does not lead, the consequences can be very grave, not only for others but eventually for us as well.
As I speak to you, NATO is completing its planning for IFOR, an international force for peace in Bosnia of about 60,000 troops. Already, more than 25 other nations, including our major NATO allies, have pledged to take part. They will contribute about two-thirds of the total implementation force, some 40,000 troops. The United States would contribute the rest, about 20,000 soldiers.
Later this week, the final NATO plan will be submitted to me for review and approval. Let me make clear what I expected to include and what it must include for me to give final approval to the participation of our armed forces: First, the mission will be precisely defined with clear realistic goals that can be achieved in a definite period of time. Our troops will make sure that each side withdraws its forces behind the front lines and keeps them there. They will maintain the cease-fire to prevent the war from accidentally starting again. These efforts, in turn, will help to create a secure environment so that the people of Bosnia can return to their homes, vote in free elections and begin to rebuild their lives. Our joint chiefs of staff have concluded that this mission should and will take about one year.
Second, the risks to our troops will be minimized. American troops will take their orders from the American general who commands NATO. They will be heavily armed and thoroughly trained. By making an overwhelming show of force, they will lessen the need to use force. But unlike the U.N. forces, they will have the authority to respond immediately and the training and the equipment to respond with overwhelming force to any threat to their own safety or any violation of the military provisions of the peace agreement.
If the NATO plan meets with my approval, I will immediately send it to Congress and request its support. I will also authorize the participation of a small number of American troops in a NATO advance mission that will lay the groundwork for IFOR starting sometime next week. They will establish headquarters and set up the sophisticated communication systems that must be in place before NATO can send in its troops, tanks and trucks to Bosnia.
The implementation force itself would begin deploying in Bosnia in the days following the formal signature of the peace agreement in mid-December. The international community will help to implement arms control provisions of the agreement so that future hostilities are less likely and armaments are limited while the world community -- the United States and others -- will also make sure that the Bosnian Federation has the means to defend itself once IFOR withdraws. IFOR will not be a part of this effort.
Civilian agencies from around the world will begin a separate program of humanitarian relief and reconstruction, principally paid for by our European allies and other interested countries. This effort is also absolutely essential to making the peace endure. It will bring the people of Bosnia the food, shelter, clothing and medicine so many have been denied for so long. It will help them to rebuild -- to rebuild their roads and schools, their power plants and hospitals, their factories and shops. It will reunite children with their parents and families with their homes. It will allow the Bosnians freely to choose their own leaders, it will give all the people of Bosnia a much greater stake in peace than war so that peace takes on a life and a logic of its own.
In Bosnia, we can and will succeed because our mission is clear and limited and our troops are strong and very well prepared. But my fellow Americans, no deployment of American troops is risk free, and this one may well involve casualties. There may be accidents in the field or incidents with people who have not given up their hatred. I will take every measure possible to minimize these risks, but we must be prepared for that possibility.
As president, my most difficult duty is to put the men and women who volunteer to serve our nation in harm's way when our interests and values demand it.
I assume full responsibility for any harm that may come to them, but anyone contemplating any action that would endanger our troops should know this: America protects its own. Anyone -- anyone who takes on our troops will suffer the consequences. We will fight fire with fire, and then some.
After so much bloodshed and loss, after so many outrageous acts of inhuman brutality, it will take an extraordinary effort of will for the people of Bosnia to pull themselves from their past and start building a future of peace. But with our leadership and the commitment of our allies, the people of Bosnia can have the chance to decide their future in peace. They have a chance to remind the world that just a few short years ago the mosques and churches of Sarajevo were a shining symbol of multiethnic tolerance, that Bosnia once found unity in its diversity. Indeed, the cemetery in the center of the city was, just a few short years ago, the magnificent stadium which hosted the Olympics, our universal symbol of peace and harmony.
Bosnia can be that kind of place again. We must not turn our backs on Bosnia now.
And so I ask all Americans, and I ask every member of Congress -- Democrat and Republican alike -- to make the choice for peace. In the choice between peace and war, America must choose peace.
My fellow Americans, I ask you to think just for a moment about this century that is drawing to close and the new one that will soon begin. Because previous generations of Americans stood up for freedom and because we continue to do so, the American people are more secure and more prosperous. And all around the world, more people than ever before live in freedom, more people than ever before are treated with dignity, more people than ever before can hope to build a better life. That is what America's leadership is all about.
We know that these are the blessings of freedom, and America has always been freedom's greatest champion. If we continue to do everything we can to share these blessings with people around the world, if we continue to be leaders for peace, then the next century can be the greatest time our nation has ever known.
A few weeks ago I was privileged to spend some time with His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, when he came to America. At the very end of our meeting, the Pope looked at me and said, "I have lived through most of this century. I remember that it began with a war in Sarajevo. Mr. President, you must not let it end with a war in Sarajevo."
In Bosnia this terrible war has challenged our interests and troubled our souls. Thankfully, we can do something about it. I say again our mission will be clear, limited, and achievable. The people of Bosnia, our NATO allies, and people all around the world are now looking to America for leadership, so let us lead. That is our responsibility as Americans.
Good night, and God bless America.
Ha.
The fact that you STILL didn't answer the question shows that you, well, don't have one.
So I'm not the one who's so blinded by ideology that I can't accept reality.
I feel rather sorry for you.
It sounds as if Dayvoe is attempting to raise the "killing of civilians" coverage again.
Hey, you consort with a target, you become one yourself. These women/children were in the same house with a target, someone who is known to be under protection by a portion (small) of the civilians out there.
You want to really go there Dayvoe? How about asking yourself this question:
How many innocent civilians were killed by al-Zarqawi's suicide/car bombings/IED bombings since he relocated his terror operations in Iraq? Compare those numbers to the amounts of civilians killed by coalition forces and you can safely say that coalition forces fall way behind in those numbers. And no, I do not support the killing of innocent civilians, if military men and women did kill innocent civilians, they should be punished.
Where was all the liberal and media outrage and anger toward al-Zarqawi when innocent civilians were blown to bits under his direction? I do not ever remember seeing you express such anger given those "different" circumstances. You are demonstrating a double standard if you ask me.
i still think the right wing anonymous is jim quinn...come on fess up jimmy.
Dang, I do so take that as a compliment Sean!
Curious, especially since you demonstrate the lack of commenting on what I said. However, I do appreciate the kindness in you comparing me to Jim Quinn.
hell, i don't comment on your posts for the same reason i turn off quinn after 2 minutes...there's no way to comment on or listen to nonsense.
by the way, if we hadn't created AMAZ, we wouldn't have had to kill him. just like Dr. Frankenstein and his creation.
and killing AMAZ is like cutting down a wild cherry true...if you don't eliminate the roots that helped each grow and flourish, both will come back with even more offshoots.
good day because he's dead? only for the media and the GOP PR/BS grinder.
we're in this war for at least 2.5 more years folks.and probably more because no candidate supporting total, immediate troop withdrawl will win—unless things get really ugly. which really isn't a good thing either. so what's that translate to? another 2,000 American deaths in Iraq? should we thank them for their service in advance? to tell you the truth, there's nothing to be proud of in that.
Post a Comment