Recently in Iraq Category

Because learning firsthand what's really happening in Iraq and visiting with all those victims in the US military he claims to care about would just be a "stunt":

John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge.

You really have to hand it to McCain - rather than shy away from the Iraq war as a campaign topic, he's been making it a centerpiece issue. You'd think that Obama, whose war stance was sold as the reason to pick him over more experienced Democrats in the primaries, would be delighted to go toe-to-toe with McCain on this issue. Instead, he cowers from any direct debate, and falls back on distortions such as his dishonest claim that McCain doesn't want the troops to get an affordable education or the "100-year war" lie that he's told so frequently.

It requires more than just judgment to lead. It requires courage as well. Obama is proving that he lacks both.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed four U.S. soldiers in Baghdad on Sunday, the military said, pushing the overall American death toll in the five-year war to at least 4,000. The grim milestone came on a day when at least 61 people were killed across the country.

Well, I guess we know what the topic of the week is going to be for the Democrat candidates. Expect more dishonest tripe from both as Obama claims his ignorance-based stance on the war shows better judgment than that of those who actually had access to intel, and watch Hillary spin like a top as she regrets basing her Iraq war vote on facts instead of opinion polls of the moonbat wing of her party. And both will attack each other on which plan for surrender waves the white flag faster and higher.

Lost in all of this will be the troops, some of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom while the left continues to actively undermine the morale and mission of those that remain.

As a military retiree, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the men and women currently serving their country. Your tireless devotion, courage, and professionalism are appreciated.

George Bush is well on his way to becoming the most powerful lame-duck ever.

New suggested mottos for Harry Reid's Senate:

• "I guess when you're all about surrender, any surrender will do."

• "When you can't be with the surrender you want, honey - love the surrender you're with." (works as a theme song as well)

• "It's not about giving up while you're ahead - it's just about giving up."

• "You don't go to the Senate floor with the surrender you want - you go to the Senate floor with the surrender you have."

• "If at first you don't succeed, give up, give up, again."

If you want to send an inspirational Christmas gift to your favorite Democrat Senator, this would be a good place to start.

Update: 0 for 2 on a sunny December Friday.

Kinda hurts to look at it, eh?

"The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences."

Actually, I think "No immigration reform" is a good thing, but it's a small quibble. Please go read the whole article. I'm bookmarking this one.

Had the Republican's gambit worked, the house would have debated for an hour followed by a vote. Republicans would have had a field day shaming the ludicrous assertions in the resolution, such as "Keeping all options on the table" meaning that Cheney was conspiring to wage war with Iran.

Back later with more...

Debate on Cheney impeachment averted

WASHINGTON - House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.

Bruising indeed. It would have been fun to watch, too. Statement from the White House in the same article:

The White House, in a statement, said Democrats were shirking responsibilities on issues such as childrens' health insurance "and yet they find time to waste an afternoon on an impeachment vote against the vice president. ... This is why Americans shake their head in wonder about the priorities of this Congress."

And I managed to make it all the way through the post without exploiting the extraterrestrial angle!

I couldn't help but think back to the visit his vile bunch of haters made to Delaware. Kristin Harty recalls the event in the Wilmington News-Journal today:

Demonstrators from Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church huddled together with their signs.

"God Hates Fags."

"Fags Doom Nations."

"Thank God for Dead Soldiers," some of the signs read.

Then one of the demonstrators smiled at Dunn and spit on the American flag.

"Can't you do anything about that?" Dunn asked one of the dozens of policemen protecting the protesters.

"Not a thing," the policeman said.

Thankfully for the family of Cpl. Cory Palmer, the town of Seaford poured out into the streets to counter the Kansas group's disgusting display. The town made sure the location of the protest was out of view from where friends and family paid their respects to Cory. A funeral for a fallen hero is surely a sad event, but thanks to many Seaford residents, it was also a proud day for Delaware as over a thousand folks stood up for their own.

It wasn't just Seaford residents. Ms. Harty doesn't mention the efforts of 370+ Patriot Guard Riders, who helped to cancel the sick vitriol from Phelps' haters.

Marine Corporal Cory Palmer, 21, died on May 6, 2006 at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Tex., from wounds received while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Anbar Province. One of Delaware's own, and a true hero.

The Johnstown Tribune-Democrat weighed in yesterday with their thoughts on the Murtha - Irey Congressional race, and it's not pretty (H/T Irey campaign). Unlike the NYT editorial endorsing Lamont, this one actually talks about the candidate they endorse - and they have little nice to say about him besides approving of his "cut and run" war stance. Emphasis added:

On his famous love for pork:

While we endorse the local congressman in his re-election bid, we fear the spending spree that might result from a shift in power...

On his smearing of the troops, which has made him very unpopular with the military:

We would also urge Murtha to sit down with area veterans who clearly have different views on the Iraq conflict than he does.

On his alignment with the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party:

We are frightened by Murtha’s willingness to align himself with California Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Clearly, Murtha is hoping that relationship paves the way for his ascension to a position of higher power in the House. But we don’t believe our region’s values match well with Pelosi’s, and we don’t see much good coming for the 12th district – even if the relationship benefits the congressman.

Beyond that, Murtha has endeared himself to liberals on both coasts – raising money for his allies in California, New England and elsewhere. We hope he can keep these “friends” and their spending ways in check if the Democrats retake the House.

They even acknowlege how corrupt he is, hoping he can restrain his urges:

But we urge him to remain faithful to his fiscally and socially conservative western Pennsylvania roots – even if it costs him in personal gain and national influence.

Read the whole editorial. It's painfully clear what the Tribune-Democrat is saying here - "Murtha sucks, but vote for him anyway 'cause he's a Democrat."

The Tribune-Democrat's editorial staff has surely reached new lows when their bias toward the left causes them to endorse a candidate whom they acknowlege is unsuitable in most ways. Do they really believe the voters in Johnstown are dense enough to buy it?

Update: Those troops that Murtha rushes to condemn have a few thoughts about cutting and running (H/T Captain's Quarters). The Tribune-Democrat is right, the troops simply don't agree with Murtha.

Via Little Green Footballs, a revealing view of Ned Lamont's base:

It certainly fits the pattern I've noticed among some Lamont supporters. I'm not ready to put a label on it, save to say that even just a small hint of it here and there is certainly disturbing and sad.

The nutroots know how utterly unappealing these views are to most Americans, and some are trying to keep a lid on any open discussion that may cast them in a bad light. Right now, in some places, if you use a normally acceptable far-left greeting such as "Gaza is a gulag", you might be answered with "...let’s leave this subject alone until next Wednesday. Please."

How very sad.

If something that even hints at a success for the administration rears it's ugly head, count on our supportive MSM to cast it in the worst possible light. Via CBS News:

(CBS/AP) In a world sharply divided on Iraq since the U.S.-led war began in 2003, Saddam Hussein's death sentence Sunday unleashed fears of fresh violence and new questions about the fairness and impartiality of the tribunal that ordered him to hang.

Underscoring the fault lines that split the international community and widened the divide between Muslims and Christians, Islamic leaders warned that the verdict could inflame those who revile the United States — undermining U.S. policy in the volatile Middle East and inspiring terrorists to strike.

"The hanging of Saddam Hussein will turn to hell for the Americans," said Vitaya Wisethrat, a respected Muslim cleric in Thailand, where a bloody Islamic insurgency is raging in the country's south.

"The Saddam case is not a Muslim problem but the problem of America and its domestic politics," he said. "The Americans are about to vote in a midterm election, so maybe Bush will use this case to tell the voters that Saddam is dead and that the Americans are safe. But actually the American people will be in more danger with the death of Saddam."

Stepping up to the plate for their pals.

Dan Rather is on Fox News as I write this, he's questioning the timing. Hope someone got video - I'll link if it's out there.

A major milestone in Iraqi history is reached as its most barbaric and murderous leader receives justice - Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to hang by the neck until dead for his crimes against humanity. He deserves worse, IMO.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced Sunday to hang for crimes against humanity in the 1982 killings of 148 people in a single town, as the ousted leader, trembling and defiant, shouted "God is great!"

As he, his half brother and another senior official in his regime were convicted and sentenced to death, Saddam yelled out, "Long live the people and death to their enemies. Long live the glorious nation, and death to its enemies!"

Some feared the verdicts could intensify Iraq's sectarian violence after a trial that stretched over nine months in 39 sessions and ended nearly 3 1/2 months ago. Clashes immediately broke out Sunday in north Baghdad's heavily Sunni Azamiyah district. Elsewhere in the capital, celebratory gunfire rang out.

"This government will be responsible for the consequences, with the deaths of hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands, whose blood will be shed," Salih al-Mutlaq, a Sunni political leader, told the al-Arabiya satellite television station.

Saddam and his seven co-defendants were on trial for a wave of revenge killings carried out in the city of Dujail following a 1982 assassination attempt on the former dictator. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Islamic Dawa party, then an underground opposition, has claimed responsibility for organizing the attempt on Saddam's life.

In the streets of Dujail, a Tigris River city of 84,000, people celebrated and burned pictures of their former tormentor as the verdict was read.

The death sentences automatically go to a nine-judge appeals panel, which has unlimited time to review the case. If the verdicts and sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days.

A court official told The Associated Press that the appeals process was likely to take three to four weeks once the formal paperwork was submitted.

During Sunday's hearing, Saddam initially refused the chief judge's order to rise; two bailiffs pulled the ousted ruler to his feet and he remained standing through the sentencing, sometimes wagging his finger at the judge.

On FNN, they're reporting lots of celebrating. Below is a picture of celebrating in Sadr city:

This is people protesting against the verdit Tikrit.

But remember, this isn't over. We'll see more of Saddam as the appeal plays out.

Here's something that tickled me:

Before the session began, one of Saddam's lawyers, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, was ejected from the courtroom after handing the judge a memorandum in which he called the trial a travesty.

Chief Judge Raouf Abdul-Rahman pointed to Clark and said in English, "Get out."

Others blogging about the verdict:

Stop the ACLU
Hot Air
Gateway Pundit
Patterico
Blue Crab Boulevard
Polipundit
Ankle Biting Pundits
The Wide Awakes
Iowa Voice
Mary Katharine Ham
Junkyard Blog
Flopping Aces
Ed Driscoll
Tim Blair
Pajamas Media
Sister Toldjah
Captain's Quarters

Early yesterday morning I emailed another blogger on an unrelated topic, but included my thoughts on the NYT's story:

I'm staying away from the NYT nuke story for now. The article was clear that the documents were pre-gulf war, I think some of the arguments being made on the right are a little thin. More info is sure to come out, maybe I'll be proven wrong. I hope so. Right now, though, I see this as a negative, albeit a minor one that probably won't have much effect on the election.

I think the Times' story hasn't even lived up to my mild prediction, as apparently the story hasn't gained much traction. Indeed, Dan Riehl notes:

More than 12 hours after the New York Times dropped perhaps what they thought was a nuclear bomb on the Bush administration four days before the coming election, a look at Google News puts the story at second tier status with no more than 265 additional stories linked to the breaking news.

The argument from the left that this somehow helped Iran will sway few outside the BDS echo-chamber. Iran has worked on their program for years with plenty of help, it's unlikely these old Iraq documents will help them.

As for the right side, while I feel that there should now be some increased attention to all the captured documents, the notion that the Times has somehow validated all 48,000 boxes of them is somewhat silly. I would like to think we can come up with a better vetting standard than the New York Times. (yes, I know, Ed isn't being entirely serious with this. But he was among the first to say it, and many other blogs are flogging this as if it's a big "gotcha", and I simply don't think it is.)

Folks on my side are also hyping the fact that the documents place yet another dagger in the heart of the "BushLied" meme. ""Iraq is a year away from building a nuclear bomb" was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush used to trick us into war."

True, but there were more than enough daggers in that heart already, and yet the "BushLied" meme is still alive and well. It's a comforting and fun rallying cry for the anti-Bush/anti-war crowds, they're not going to stop beating that drum no matter how much truth they ignore. Just this week, Kerry repeated it:

John McCain ought to ask for an apology from Dick Cheney for misleading America. He ought to ask for an apology from the president for lying about the nuclear program in Africa.

Of course, when the higher levels on the left still say it, the low will follow. For example, this deserter:

"The whole story behind it, it all feels like a big lie," Glass said. "I ain't fighting for no lie."

Hmmm. Kerry might have been right about this particular fellow - he's obviously not applied himself to his studies. Point is, though, the article in the Times turned out to be a big, fat, hairy zero.

If this is the best the NYT can muster, maybe Tuesday won't be such a disaster after all.

Oh - something struck me as I read the response to the article by Rep. Hoekstra, specifically this paragraph:

"With respect to the possibility that documents may have been released that should not have been released, I have always been clear that the Director of National Intelligence should take whatever steps necessary to withhold sensitive documents. In fact, as of today the DNI had withheld 59 percent of the documents that it had reviewed, and has become more risk-averse over time. If the DNI believes that the documents that were released were in the safe 40 percent, imagine what the 60 percent being withheld must contain.

Am I the only one who thinks Rep. Hoekstra isn't waxing rhetorical? And could the media be sedate in their coverage of this because they fear being thrown off track by that "60 percent"?

Just asking...

From Kerry's website earlier:

Statement of Senator John Kerry

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative..." - In other words, "It's a shame that the troops (and the rest of you ignorant peasants as well) are too lazy and uneducated to understand the finely nuanced humor from my superior intellect."

This is as forced an apology as I've ever heard. And the addition of swipes at the right just give the impression that he hasn't had a change of heart since he made the "I don't apologize" speech yesterday. He's sorry anyone was offended, but not sorry he said it.

Even if, as he says, was making a joke about Bush, it would still warrant an apology. I've griped about the level of discourse in politics before, nowhere is it more of a problem than among our elected officials. The decline of statesmanship in Congress over the last thirty years is truly shameful. As a country, we deserve for our elected officials to set standards for dignity and grace. They can and should disagree - just act like adults.

Making jokes about the troops or the president in this manner is simply juvenile. It shows a distinct lack of maturity and character. The inability to offer a simple and contrite apology when necessary is a serious flaw - one that Kerry seems determined to display over and over.

Nope - this didn't cut it.

...in today's Washington Post to decry Republican name-calling. In the process, he continues to show why Democrats like him don't deserve to be in power. His message is unmistakably clear - Iraq is hard, we might lose, so we should give up.

Had the forefathers of this country decided that the possibility of losing was enough not to try, we'd still be a colony today. How about WWII? Winning wasn't a given when we engaged in Europe - matter of fact, we went over there because our allies were losing. Murtha's head-in-the-sand brand of defeatism would have condemned Europe to defeat at the hands of Hitler all because it was too hard.

Is Iraq a mess? Yes. Do the Iraqi people deserve the even worse chaos and loss of life that would ensue if we simply pulled up stakes and abandoned them? No.

Murtha was quite the humanitarian when speaking out on the loss of Iraqi life when he claimed our troops were killing them in cold blood without the benefit of a complete investigation. If our continued presence while the Iraqis gradually take over saves lives that would otherwise be lost in the expanded sectarian violence that would surely erupt if we left now, why wouldn't Murtha support that? Cause it wouldn't further his political ambitions? Some humanitarian, eh?

Lots of things are hard, Jack. Lots are painful, too. Running away from things that are right because they might be hard and/or painful shouldn't be the trademark of a decorated veteran.

Very unusual in an AP story - a tale of heroism:

CORONADO, Calif. - A Navy SEAL sacrificed his life to save his comrades by throwing himself on top of a grenade Iraqi insurgents tossed into their sniper hideout, fellow members of the elite force said.

Please go read the rest.

Update: Must remember to search before posting. Shoulda known Froggy was on top of this over at Blackfive.

Kit has chapter 2 and chapter 3 of her series about the Pendleton Eight posted. Doesn't disappoint. We disagree on a point or two, but I'll wait until the series is completely posted to comment. Suffice to say that on most of her major points, I agree. These men appear to be getting a raw deal and the military needs to address the problem.

is being discussed in a series of posts starting today by the always excellent Kit Jarrell of Euphoric Reality. This is not only the must read of the day, but the rest of the series as it gets posted should be watched for as well:

Now imagine that you are sitting in an 8×8 cell, as are seven of your brothers, waiting to find out if your promise to remain faithful will in fact result in your death–not in a hail of enemy fire, not in the blinding explosion of a terrorist’s bomb, but by the sterile needle of a lethal injection, administered by the very country you spent your adult life defending. You have been shackled, wearing a label that says “PVD”: potentially violent and dangerous. You have been here for over a month now, in solitary confinement for almost 24 hours a day, with nothing to do but pray that someone stands up for you, just as you did for them. But hope is dwindling. Your military attorneys don’t have time to help you, and your civilian attorneys are being denied access to evidence that would prove you’re innocent–no autopsy of the man they say you murdered in cold blood, no witnesses, nothing.

Kit also provides links for those who wish to help - also recommended.

It matters little if you believe these men innocent or guilty - they deserve to be treated fairly by the military justice system, and by all indication, they haven't been.

I would also recommend writing to your elected officials in Congress. Unless, of course, you live in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District, where your representative is likely in his favorite rocking chair knitting nooses instead of flags. Those folks should write to someone else's Representative instead.

From this morning's AP coverage of the video of the two mutilated soldiers:

It said that as soon as fighters heard of the rape-slaying, "they kept their anger to themselves and didn't spread the news, but were determined to avenge their sister's honor."

The 4:39 minute video shows two bloodied bodies in torn military uniforms lying near a curb on a bridge over a canal. One of them, partially naked, has been decapitated and his chest cut open. The other's face is bruised, the jaw apparently broken, and his leg has long gashes. Fighters are shown turning the bodies over and lifting the head of the decapitated man.

I don't know about you, but when I see this, I have a hard time thinking of those that did it as "fighters".

If you have any doubts about what kind of people our troops face in Iraq and elsewhere.

If you have any doubts about why we have to stay and finish the job.

If you have any doubts about why it's so important to help the middle east join the 21st century.

Don't go unless you can handle extremely graphic images. There are plenty of warnings, please read and heed.

Although if it were up to me I'd make this required watching for nearly every adult in the U.S.

H/T Little Green Footballs.

That's the title of a post yesterday from Captain Ed about a proposal to arm insurgents under the presumption that they would take on Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Here's a little from the USA Today article it's based on:

BAGHDAD — Iraq's government is studying a request from some local insurgent leaders to supply them with weapons so they can turn on the heavily armed foreign fighters who were once their allies, according to two Iraqi lawmakers.

Leaders claiming to represent about 11 insurgent groups asked for weapons to fight foreign al-Qaeda elements in Iraq, said Haider al-Ibadi, a Shiite lawmaker and member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party.

"They want to take part in the war against terrorists," said al-Ibadi, who supports the proposal. "They claim they could wipe out the terrorists and work with the government."

Captain Ed, notably, thinks it's a bad idea:

Still, it sounds too cute. They want arms to fight the terrorists. If the native insurgents want that, they should have enlisted in the Iraqi Army. These groups could simply provide the Iraqi Army with their intel and let the government handle the problem.

Frankly, I think it's worse than a bad idea. And based on the offer being made public, (certainly AQI has access to the news) something about this story doesn't smell right. I see three possibilities:

A) If the offer is genuine, then Haider al-Ibadi is either stupid or has sold out the insurgents. AQI isn't likely to trust these 11 groups enough to let them get close now that the offer is public. Indeed, they'll change their hiding places now, making the insugent's intel useless. And the insurgents themselves will now become targets of AQI.

B) The second possibility is that the offer was extended just so that the insurgents can re-supply their dwindling weapons caches. Unless AQI was in on the scam, it may have backfired as the insurgents may fall from AQI's good graces due to the offer being made public.

C) The third possibility is that there was no offer at all. The Iraqi government introduced a bogus proposal to drive a wedge between the insurgents and AQI. This could force the insurgents to be more cooperative in the bargaining efforts, and maybe bring more of the groups to the table.

The scenario in the article doesn't work at face value. Insurgents not only have intel, they have it because they are the ones giving shelter to AQI (who else would?). The terrorists are far more ruthless than the insurgency, and I'm sure the local fighters have a healthy respect (read: fear) of that fact. I can't imagine that any of them would offer up AQI without demanding secrecy.

So the real question, then, is why did the Iraqi government give this to the press? This has to be either a blunder or a ruse.

Via AP/Yahoo:

MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered Russia's special services to hunt down and "destroy" the killers of four Russian diplomats in Iraq, the Kremlin said.

Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Federal Security Service — the main successor to the Soviet KGB — later said that everything would be done to ensure that the killers "do not escape from responsibility," the Interfax news agency reported.

"The president has ordered the special forces to take all necessary measures to find and destroy the criminals who killed Russian diplomats in Iraq," the Kremlin press service said in a brief statement.

This is good news - the terrorists in Iraq have historically received a different reaction from taking and/or killing non-US hostages.

Putin has a somewhat different intelligence footprint in Iraq stemming from a long involvement there, and they're chummy with some of the factions that have regarded us in a chilly fashion. If there's a minimum amout of coordination, it's likely that Russia's more active role in hunting down Al Qaeda in Iraq will benefit our mission as well.

This would be a terrific time for Condi and/or Bush to make a few phone calls.

I've seen lots of the reaction to the announcement from Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra about the chemical munitions shells.

The press is now starting to get the leaks from "anonymous sources" saying that the shells were of little use:

But intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed.

They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004.

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.

And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said.

While David Kay may be right about the sarin, he's completely incorrect about the mustard gas.

Mustard gas doesn't have to be lethal to be effective, as it's not used to kill. During World War I, the death rate among those exposed was only 5% - hardly a weapon you would depend on for its lethality. No, the doctrine for its use is based on causing widespread injury, which bogs down a military far more than deaths - a dead soldier takes out one combatant, a wounded soldier takes out two.

Mustard gas has a uniquely long persistance compared to other chemical agents. During the annual training I received while active duty, it was common to hear the story about a chemical warfare instructor during the 70's who dismantled a vintage gas mask to show some students how it was used. The mask had traces of mustard gas in it - the instructor wound up in the hospital by the end of the day with blisters on his hands and arms.

While the story may have attained the status of urban legend, there's no reason to doubt its basis in truth. In Europe, there's still occasional cases of mustard agent exposure reported in the media, usually from unexploded shells left over from World War I.

The point is that even in a degraded condition, it's possible that stockpiles of mustard gas shells could have been used to great effect.

That doesn't necessarily mean the 500 shells combine to make a smoking gun. As details come out in the coming weeks and months from official sources (rather than those that hide in the shadows), we may very well learn that the shells were degraded beyond being a viable threat. What will be more telling to me is any documentation that shows what the Iraqis believed. If they thought the shells were valuable assets and maintained them as such, it would be revealing as to why no new production was found. After all, why make more if you don't have to?

But this does add to the documentation and eyewitness reports already available showing that there was an ongoing desire by the Hussein regime to maintain and use WMDs.

That said, I'm afraid that even should enough evidence pile up to take away all doubts for those of us on the right, there will always be the robotic chanting of the dishonest "Bush lied" mantra from the left. After the years of repetition, their investment in this particular lie may be far too great for any amount of truth to overcome.

Today promises to be another big day for Republicans as the Democrats attempt a repeat of last week's Iraq debate:

WASHINGTON - Fierce election-year debate on Iraq spilled over into a second week on Capitol Hill with Senate Democrats lining up behind a proposal to start U.S. troop withdrawals this year and Republicans chastising them for espousing a "cut-and-run" strategy.

The Republicans are standing firm, as they should:

"Let me be clear: Retreat is not a solution," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "Cutting and running is bad policy that threatens our national security and poses unacceptable risks to Americans."

Democrats seem to think that keeping our word to the Iraqi government is a bad idea for a very anti-liberal reason:

"The administration's policy to date, that we'll be there for as long as Iraq needs us, will result in Iraq's depending on us longer," said Levin, top-ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. "Three-and-a-half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent."

Would that they applied the same logic to their beloved entitlement programs here at home.

In a weird deja vu kind of way, Senator Kerry wants to ressurect his proposal from last week for yet another overwhelming defeat:

It would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving in place only U.S. troops essential to training Iraqi security forces, conducting counterterrorism operations and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities.

Also joining Kerry is Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold (who doesn't support the war but supports nearly 86% of the constitution). I guess they felt left out last week.

Ultimately, today's debate in the Senate should prove to be a positive for Republicans as Democrats line up once again to show their lack of resolve on security issues.

While as of yet unconfirmed, it appears that the missing soldiers may be dead:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The bodies of two U.S. soldiers have been found near where the men went missing, a senior Iraqi military official said Tuesday, but the U.S. military said it could not confirm the report.

Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed said the bodies of Army Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and Army Pfc. Thomas Lowell Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore., were found on a street near a power plant in the town of Youssifiyah, just south of Baghdad.

U.S. Maj. Doug Powell said he could not confirm the report.

The soldiers came under attack Friday at a traffic checkpoint near Youssifiyah. A third soldier, Spc. David J. Babineau, 25, of Springfield, Mass., was killed in the attack. All three were from the 101st Airborne Division based at Fort Campbell, Ky.

I'll update when confirmed. Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families.

Update (9:30am EST): Bodies show signs of torture:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An Iraqi military official said Tuesday that the bodies of two missing U.S. soldiers showed signs of torture, and that men appeared to have been killed "in a barbaric way." Also, the umbrella group for Iraqi insurgents claimed responsibility for the soldiers' deaths.

"We give the good news ... to the Islamic nation that we have carried God's verdict by slaughtering the two captured crusaders," said a statement in the name of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, which groups five insurgent organizations including al-Qaida in Iraq.

At a news briefing, U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell declined to identify the two men until their families could be notified.

I'm sure over the course of this week there will be lots of pixels devoted to the shameful defeatist posturing of Rep. John Murtha yesterday on Meet the Press. Indeed, there already has. Today's Wall Street Journal has a terrific twofer on the politics of cut 'n run^TM and the war in general.

The first, Iraq and Congress, says of Murtha:

As for Mr. Murtha's proposal that U.S. forces should redeploy to some nearby part of the Middle East, this is merely a disguise for what everyone would understand was a defeat in Iraq. Anyone who doubts it should merely listen to Mr. Murtha, who said again yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press that "We can't win a war like this." It's more accurate to say that our troops have a harder time winning a war with political leaders as inconstant as Mr. Murtha, who voted to commit U.S. troops but now lacks the will to finish the job.

Certainly Rep. Murtha deserves the credit for being the loudest of those who would abandon Iraq and prove to the world that the United States can't be counted on to keep its word. And who could blame him? After all, what use is our integrity as a nation when the Majority Leader post is on the line? And the thrust of his message should not be mistaken by anyone, considering the ill-chosen comparison to Beirut or Somalia, both of which cost the US dearly by emboldening the ideology and strategy of Al-Qaeda.

It simply cannot be other than raw stupidity to repeatedly claim a need to "change directions" and offer only examples that abandoned friends and contributed greatly to 9/11. Murtha would have us take that route again, once and for all eliminating any measure of trust that might be placed in us by a nation in need.

But Murtha isn't alone - he has the backing of an opportunistic party so hell-bent on regaining power that they eagerly anticipate our nation's failure so that they can cynically sweep in and pick up the pieces. Nancy Pelosi referred to the war as a "grotesque mistake" recently. I wonder how the groups in Iraq most subject to the murderous whims of Saddam Hussein feel about the suggestion that their plight under Saddam was just fine by Nancy, and any attempt to liberate them was a "mistake"? Her political posturing fails to consider that the real mistakes have already been judged by history:

Most terrorism experts are agreed that the precipitous withdrawal from both places emboldened our enemies by convincing them the U.S. could always be made to back down in any conflict. Not repeating those mistakes may be reason enough to stay the course in Iraq.

It would be foolhardy to believe otherwise. Surrender in Iraq would be Al-Qaeda's greatest victory - not only would it embolden Bin Laden to plan more attacks, it would make his recruiting far easier.

Now Dianne Feinstein wants to followup the spectacular failure of the Kerry plan last week with a repeat of the surrender-based politics that have worked so well for the Democrats Republicans of late. Good. Let them bring it up every week if they want - right up to the mid-term elections. Let them ask the American people if our national integrity has any value at all.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An umbrella group that includes al-Qaida in Iraq claimed in a Web statement Monday that it had kidnapped two U.S. soldiers reported missing south of Baghdad. There was no immediate confirmation that the statement was credible, although it appeared on a Web site often used by al-Qaida-linked groups.

U.S. officials have said they were trying to confirm whether the missing soldiers were kidnapped.

If true, at least the missing soldiers are alive, and there's a chance of rescuing them. We're keeping our fingers crossed and praying for the best.

And the liberals are seething, claiming this to be a political stunt.

They don't look very happy, do they?

WASHINGTON - The House on Friday handily rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, culminating a fiercely partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats feeling the public's apprehension about war and the onrushing midterm campaign season.

In a 256-153 vote that mirrored the position taken by the Senate earlier, the GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.

**snip**

Democrats denounced the debate and vote as a politically motivated charade, and most, including Pelosi, voted against the measure.

It appears to me that Murtha and his pals are now mired in an intractable war. He was there for the wrong reasons and has mismanaged it terribly. Indeed, this is a war that he cannot win, and made worse by the fact that many in his own party don't support the cut 'n run^TM strategy and are apparently now engaged in a civil war within the Democratic Party. Maybe it's time for Murtha to re-deploy back to Pennsylvania.

Political stunt? You bet it was. Democrats have had free reign to run from channel to channel crying "Time frame! We need a time frame! Bring 'em home now!" while ducking the harder question of what it means to advocate abandoning those we've sworn to help. A long-running dishonest stunt by the Democrats for cheap political points.

They'll find it harder to earn those points now.

Or at least that's the plan (H/T Protein Wisdom):

Marine may call Murtha as witness

A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.

Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.

Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps' top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.

"Congressman Murtha will be one of the first witnesses I call to the witness stand," Mr. Puckett said yesterday.

Mr. Puckett represents Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, an eight-year Marine who was a key participant in the Haditha operations that resulted in the 24 civilian deaths.

I don't know if the claim of unlawful command influence will have any traction - but somebody in the command structure thought these Marines were guilty. And the choice of Murtha as a recipient of the leak shows malice as it should have been predictable what would be done with it.

But the fact is that we don't yet know what the truth is regarding Haditha. I'm hoping they're innocent, but recognize that it could go the way of those who hope that they're guilty. If you're reading this and saying "but I don't hope they're guilty - I just know they are" then you're being dishonest. You can't know any more than I can since the facts haven't all been revealed. Only a fool driven by more emotion than brains could reach a conclusion of innocence or guilt on the public facts as they currently stand.

So if you believe they're guilty, it's not fact, but hope alone that drives you, and I don't have it in me to even pity you.

Murtha has hope, too. Political gain seems like such a petty motive, doesn't it? But his reprehensable act cuts both ways - if there is something that the Marines should be brought to justice for, Murtha and his informant may have given them the tools to avoid it. If they're innocent, they'll never be able to remove the stain that's been smeared on them.

That's not something to be proud of, folks. Why don't some of you "hopefuls" tell me again how courageous and patriotic Murtha is - OK?

Update (5:00pm EST): Okay, okay - I had a change of heart on the drive home from work. "Patriotism" is overused nowadays anyway - just like "integrity". Both are terrific concepts, but the application of each changes dramatically depending on perspective.

So in all fairness, it's entirely possible that Murtha believes that selling out a few Marines to achieve his party's and his own objectives is beneficial to the country, therefore, patriotic. You know, kinda like that woman down in Texas who claimed that the only way to save her kids was to drown them. So, in that spirit, the last paragraph of this post is corrected to read:

That's not something to be proud of, folks. Why don't some of you "hopefuls" tell me again how Murtha did the right thing - OK?

There. I feel so much better now.

Today's first sighting - AP:

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon Thursday confirmed that 2,500 U.S. troops have died in the Iraq war since it began more than three years ago. The grim milestone was announced just hours before the House was to begin a symbolic election-year debate over the war, with Republicans rallying against calls by some Democrats to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

I take back the nice remarks.

Via AP/Yahoo, more indication of success in Iraq:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - American and Iraqi forces have carried out 452 raids since last week's killing of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and 104 insurgents were killed during those actions, the U.S. military said Thursday.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said the raids were carried out nationwide and led to the discovery of 28 significant arms caches.

He said 255 of the raids were joint operations, while 143 were carried out by Iraqi forces alone. The raids also resulted in the captures of 759 "anti-Iraqi elements."

In other words, we're doing very well. I expect Murtha to make a statement soon congratulating our military's success. Don't you?

Update (10:00am EST): Meanwhile, AL-Reuters does it's best to put on a sunny spin on it for the left:

Military deaths in Iraq hit 2,500

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq has reached 2,500, the Pentagon said on Thursday, more than three years into a conflict that finds U.S.-led forces locked in a struggle with a resilient Sunni Arab insurgency.

If they hadn't included the above number, one could read the rest of the article and easily assume it was much higher.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's national security adviser said Thursday a "huge treasure" of documents and computer records was seized after the raid on terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's hideout, giving the Iraqi government the upper hand in its fight against al-Qaida in Iraq.

National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie also said he believed the security situation in the country would improve enough to allow a large number of U.S.-led forces to leave Iraq by the end of this year, and a majority to depart by the end of next year. "And maybe the last soldier will leave Iraq by mid-2008," he said.

Al-Rubaie said a laptop, flashdrive and other documents were found in the debris after the airstrike that killed the al-Qaida in Iraq leader last week outside Baqouba, and more information has been uncovered in raids of other insurgent hideouts since then.

He called it a "huge treasure ... a huge amount of information."

When asked how he could be sure the information was authentic, al-Rubaie said "there is nothing more authentic than finding a thumbdrive in his pocket."

"We believe that this is the beginning of the end of al-Qaida in Iraq," al-Rubaie said, adding that the documents showed al-Qaida is in "pretty bad shape," politically and in terms of training, weapons and media.

"Now we have the upper hand," he said at a news conference in Baghdad. "We feel that we know their locations, the names of their leaders, their whereabouts, their movements, through the documents we found during the last few days."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, meanwhile, pressed forward with his initiative to crack down on violence in Baghdad. Government forces fanned out across Baghdad for a second day, setting up checkpoints and frisking motorists.

I discussed the potential cascade effect stemming from Zarqawi's death here, and it appears to be coming true. AP's reporting is a welcome change from their usual fare. While I hope they keep it up, the reality is that bad habits are difficult to break.

I wonder how the rest of the media will treat this?

Well, the autopsy report has been released - and there are no surprises:

Col. Steve Jones, command surgeon for Multinational Forces, said an autopsy concluded that al-Zarqawi died from serious injuries to his lungs. An FBI test positively identified al-Zarqawi's remains.

Of course, that won't stop the conspiracy nuts from making all sorts of wild claims. If I see an especially imaginative one I'll link to it later.

Meanwhile, al Qaeda has chosen a successor to Zarqawi:

"The shura council of al Qaeda in Iraq unanimously agreed on Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, to be a successor to Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," said a statement signed by al Qaeda and posted on a Web site frequently used by Islamist militants.

I assume they didn't release an org chart to go along with the announcement.

Today's Washington Post has the first instance of the accused in the Haditha incident speaking out. It's not a direct interview - the Marine's version of events is related through his attorney:

Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," said Neal A. Puckett, who represents Wuterich in the ongoing investigations into the incident. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."

It's a long article with lots of detail, too much to quote here. But the alleged coverup is addressed as well:

After clearing the second house, Puckett said, Wuterich immediately got on the radio and reported the "collateral damage." When the company radio operator asked him to estimate how many civilians had been killed, he said he thought it was about 12 to 15.

McConnell, the company commander, "knew the number was high" and reported it to the battalion executive officer, a major, according to McDermott, his lawyer. McConnell also said that a Marine intelligence team investigated the civilian deaths and reported their findings to senior Marine commanders, the lawyer said.

Wuterich told his attorney that he never reported that the civilians in the houses were killed by the bomb blast and maintains that he never tried to obscure the fact that civilians had been killed in the raids. Whether Wuterich gave false information to his superiors is the focus of one of the military investigations. He said the platoon leader, who was on the scene, never expressed concern about the unit's actions and never tried to hide them.

I've been relatively silent about the investigation thus far. It's been obvious since the story broke that there were details not coming out in the press or in the irresponsible and opportunistic statements from politicians and pundits.

But the Post article should serve to remind us that there numerous voices to be heard. The insistance by some that this event equates to My Lai on the sparsest of data from a bias source serves no one, especially the individuals being accused. Our system of justice requires the presumption of innocence - it's truly unfortunate that as we've seen before, so many lack respect for that simple concept.

The Post should be commended for bringing the other side of the story to us. I hope that the rest of the media picks up the Marines' account defending their experiences in Haditha and gives them the same prominence given to less credible accounts of our troops' behaviour in Iraq.

There's a certain segment of the left where hypocrisy reigns unchecked. There's really no reconciliation of "support the troops by bringing them home" and complaints of our "worn-out, stressed-out, missionless troops in Iraq" who commit "everyday, unheralded horrors perpetrated on innocent Iraqi civilians". Any attempt to concatenate these conflicting views results in a logic-defying mess. More balanced coverage in the media at-large of Haditha won't change the minds of these people, nor will it affect Murtha and other politicians who have abused their public voice and the troops for political gain.

Nonetheless, the Marines and the American people are entitled to a fair accounting. And that's certainly not too much to ask of the news industry, is it?

Doin' what they do best!

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Flush with intelligence, the U.S. military moved quickly Friday to take advantage of the power vacuum left by the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, carrying out nearly 40 raids in an effort to stop his terror network from regrouping.

I see this as have a cascade effect, at least in the short term. As these raids yield even more actionable intel, I see us causing major damage to the terrorist networks in Iraq. It will take time for what's left to regroup - months, perhaps.

That's valuable time for the Iraqi military to spend training and standing up instead of dodging bombs and bullets at recruiting stations.

That's valuable time to repair infrastructure - and for a change, faster than it's being sabataged.

That's valuable time for the new government to make progress instead of stamping out fires.

Yes, I'm pinning a lot of hopes on this in a week when nearly everyone is expressing caution. And the current effort by the troops could cease bearing fruit rapidly. But somehow I sense that there is a turning point being approached.

And I'm normally a pessimist.

I've been advised by my friends at Centcom that they now have video of the airstrike available.

Note: slow loading - I'm sure they're getting flooded with visitors today.

That's the assessment from Jo's Cafe after Nick Berg’s father was interviewed on Fox News this morning about al-Zarqawi's death. TB also saw it, unfortunately I did not.

Apparently he claims that al-Zarqawi didn't kill his son, in spite of the video tape of the gruesome act.

Naturally, Mr. Berg blames Bush.

I hope someone recorded this. And I'm considering starting an office pool guessing the first time a major name Democrat calls al-Zarqawi's (and the 7 or so people who were with him) death a "massacre".

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's leader in Iraq who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings and kidnappings, has been killed in an air raid north of Baghdad — a major victory in the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the broader war on terror. Iraq's prime minister and U.S. officials said his identity was confirmed by fingerprints and a first-hand look at his face.

The announcement came six days after the Jordanian-born terror leader appeared in a videotape, railing against Shiites in Iraq and saying militias are raping women and killing Sunnis and the community must fight back.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said al-Zarqawi was killed along with seven aides Wednesday evening in a house 30 miles northeast of Baghdad in the volatile province of Diyala, just east of the provincial capital of Baqouba, al-Maliki said.

"Today, al-Zarqawi was eliminated," al-Maliki told a news conference, drawing loud applause from reporters as he was flanked by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and U.S. Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Al-Maliki said the air strike was the result of intelligence reports provided to Iraqi security forces by residents in the area, and U.S. forces acted on the information.

"Those who disrupt the course of life, like al-Zarqawi, will have a tragic end," he said.

He also warned those who follow the militant's lead that "whenever there is a new al-Zarqawi, we will kill him."

"This is a message for all those who embrace violence, killing and destruction to stop and to (retreat) before it's too late," he said. "It is an open battle with all those who incite sectarianism."

Khalilzad added "the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a huge success for Iraq and the international war on terror." He also gave a thumbs up and said it was a good day for the United States.

Casey said the hunt for al-Zarqawi began in the area two weeks ago, and al-Zarqawi's body was identified by fingerprints and facial recognition.

I promise not to get too excited about this just yet. If the story holds up as the day progresses, this is indeed great news - although I'm sure a large number of folks on a certain side of the blogosphere will spend their day telling us how it doesn't matter...

Update (5:50 AM EST): Oil falls below $70 on death of al Qaeda's Zarqawi

I expect a cascade of good news related to this - provided Ben Bernanke can keep his mouth shut.

Added: I wonder how long before someone tries to spin this as a war crime?

Arianna hits bottom and digs yesterday as she shows her utter contempt for the troops and advises Democrats to sell out our military for political gain as "drugged up, hallucinating, and stressed out" killers for whom Haditha is an everyday occurance.

She starts by extending allegations about Haditha to all the troops.

It means the killings in Haditha -- like Abu Ghraib, like Bagram, like Guantanamo, like all the everyday, unheralded horrors perpetrated on innocent Iraqi civilians -- have made America less safe.

After all, says Arianna, smearing our troops is the moral thing to do. She continues by expressing her approval of Murtha's use of the tactic:

This is the issue that nationalizes the 2006 races. It's the right stance strategically (as Jack Murtha has been saying for months). It's the right stance morally. And it's also the right stance politically.

This is disgustingly cold and calculating by anyone's standards. But hey, it's about regaining power, right? After all, painting them as "baby killers" worked before...

And to Arianna, this represents an opportunity to be exploited - nothing more.

If Democrats can make this their defining issue, they can stop worrying about the laundry list of "what ifs" they are now obsessing over: What if people forget about Katrina and Abramoff and DeLay? What if gas prices come down? What if GOP gerrymandering trumps voter unrest? What if the gay marriage ruse works again? What if, what if, what if...

They need to calm their nerves and keep it simple. It's about making us safe, stupid. And keeping our worn-out, stressed-out, missionless troops in Iraq is making us less -- much less -- safe.

This is not just sick - it exposes an icy vacuum where heart and soul should be. In Arianna's case, I think the last thin veil of "I support the troops" - if indeed it was ever visible - has forever fallen away.

Update: Welcome Blackfive readers!

I stayed away from this one on purpose - I was Air Force, and didn't have the requisite Army know-how to spot all the discrepancies that the milblogging community did.

But it did seem fishy to me from the start. I watched only part of the video, but I saw enough to know that for someone to believe his story, they'd also have to believe that the largest war-crimes coverup in history was ongoing in Iraq. A few hundred thousand GIs, hundreds of imbedded media types, not to mention large numbers of Iraqi citizens all keeping quiet in the same environment that brought us over-hyped stories of Abu-Graib and white phosphorus from a media bloodthirsty for anything negative. No. No way that institutional slaughter of women and children would go unreported for this long.

Anyway, it now looks like Mr. MacBeth has some 'splaining to do. The best roundup, if you haven't visited yet, is from AllahPundit.

But what about the fallout from this sorry episode? Unfortunately, there are probably a few on the left who will believe MacBeth no matter what. And many that no longer do will now claim it's a plot by the right to discredit the anti-war movement.

Sigh.

The good news out of this is that MacBeth's dishonesty was outed in lightning fashion by blogs. Thirty years ago, Jesse's film would have become the predominant account, and the debunking would have been the urban legend - exactly opposite of what we saw this week.

I see it as a victory for truth.

This won't be received well by those that want us to fail in Iraq:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's prime minister-designate said Tuesday the main stumbling blocks to forming a new Cabinet have been overcome and he expects to present his team to parliament for approval by the end of the week.

Nouri al-Maliki said representatives of the country's political parties had agreed on who will head the main posts and that just a few ministries remain unfilled. Discussions were still under way on the nominees for the oil, trade and transportation ministries, he said.

The incoming prime minister did not say who would get the key ministries of interior, which controls police, and defense, which runs the army. U.S. and British officials have insisted those posts go to people without ties to sectarian militias, believed responsible for many of the revenge killings of Sunnis and Shiites.

"The direction we took, and which was agreed upon by the political groups, was that the two who will occupy these posts be independent and unaffiliated with a party or a militia," he said at a news conference.

Al-Maliki, a Shiite, said he hoped to present the Cabinet to parliament by the end of the week. Parliament must approve each minister by a majority vote.

Even AP must feel this is good news for the U.S. effort in Iraq, as they felt compelled to devote the second half of the story to insurgent attacks, sectarian tensions and journalists' deaths.

However, separate stories like this one where death and bad news is the lede include no mention of al-Maliki's announcement.

in that it was much more busy than most.

Protests from the left that there is too much war in Iraq, followed by protests from the left that there isn't enough in Darfur.

Colin Powell confirms that different folks have different ideas, and the left goes nuts because the President followed the Pentagon's plan instead of the State department's.

Bush gets lots of laughs from the press, and a lefty comedian's jokes are answered with the sound of chirping crickets.

Iran is starting to fear the UN Security Council, so they're now sqirming to avoid them.

And we've still got tomorrow's May Day to get through as the illegals and their supporters protest for something they had a better chance of getting if they hadn't.

And in spite of all the negativity from the press and the left, we're still winning in Iraq. The goal of having the Iraqis take over their own security isn't yet achieved, but is in sight. And Al Qaeda in Iraq is running out of nutcases willing to blow themselves up.

Next week will have to be busy indeed to top it.

Say you're a terrorist - you've just arrived in baghdad, you don't have much money, and you're dying to go after some infidels. Where do you go to gear up? Ask Reuters!

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - It doesn't cost a lot to set up your own death squad in Iraq. Military uniforms, guns and even police vehicles are easily available to all comers in the markets of Baghdad.

In a city where gangs of men dressed as police have killed dozens of people and stolen tens of thousands of dollars, anyone with a modest amount of cash can set up their own fake squad.

At Baghdad's Bab al-Sharjee market, a haven for criminals, anyone can walk into one of about 15 shops selling police and military supplies and buy a police commando uniform for 35,000 Dinars (about $24) or an ordinary police uniform for $15.

No questions asked, no identity checks. Badges of rank from Captain to Major-General -- enough to ensure no one asks questions on the mean streets of the capital -- go for $2.

"One person came yesterday and took 12 full commando uniforms. Another took 15 army uniforms and ski masks with holes for the eyes," said Tariq, who runs one of the stores.

"I don't care who comes to buy them. As long as they give me the money, I give them the products," he said, adding the most popular items were police commando uniforms.

Although some uniforms such as a plain blue Iraqi police shirt are relatively simple for any tailor to produce, it was unclear where Tariq and others get the complicated camouflage uniforms from.

There are plenty of smaller items such as laser pointers for weapons, face-hiding ski masks, and handcuffs.

(snip)

Just a few kilometres from Bab al-Sharjee, at the Nahdha car showrooms, it is possible to buy the same vehicles the police special forces or ordinary police use for $12,000.

For an extra few hundred dollars, sirens and police markings can be added at the central Sinak market. Then it's a short trip to Mureydi market in the sprawling Sadr City Shi'ite slum for fake IDs.

Car salesman Abu Mohammed will sell a customer anything they want, including a range of bullet-proof cars costing up to $340,000.

"There is a possibility some people buy these cars with violent intent, but we can't go around checking after them," he says. "Our job is to sell cars and make money.

"I can get anything you can think of, even an American Humvee if the price is right."

And yes, I know, that probably wasn't their intent. But they really could have gotten their point across without writing the story as a how-to guide for visiting jihadists...

A ministry official said he believed the attacks were aimed at: "intimidating pupils and disrupting learning."

What he was talking about:

Teachers beheaded in Baghdad in front of students

Update: Looks like it may have been an overstatement:

Iraq Police Deny Report of Teachers Killed

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Militants killed two people at elementary schools in a mainly Shiite district of Baghdad on Wednesday, the government said. But police in the neighborhood denied any attack occurred.

The contradictory accounts could not immediately be reconciled.

The National Security Ministry initially said in a statement that militants broke into the Amna and Shaheed Hamdi schools and "slaughtered" a teacher in each one in front of students in the Shaab neighborhood of the capital.

But the ministry later said the dead were a school guard and a teacher. It said the guard was stabbed to death by militants in front of students, while the teacher was shot outside the school as he arrived in the morning for classes.

The ministry said it was still working to establish details in the attack.

Ali al-Obeidi, the director of the police in the Shaab district, said there was no attack against any school in the area.

When they make up their minds, we'll let you know.

Todays Wall Street Journal has a good take on the small number of former generals speaking out for Rumsfeld's resignation:

"The anti-Rumsfeld generals have a right to their opinion. But there's a reason the Founders provided for civilian control of the military, and a danger in military men using their presumed authority to push elected Administrations around. As for Democrats and their media allies, we can only admire their sudden new deference to the senior U.S. officer corps, which follows their strange new respect for the "intelligence community" they also once despised. U.S. military recruiters might not be welcome on Ivy League campuses, but they're heroes when they trash the Bush Administration."

Worth a read.

Remember the Christian Peacemaker Teams foursome that was kidnapped by terrorists last November? At least one of them has been murdered execution-style in Baghdad:

Tom Fox, 54, from Clear Brook, Va., was the fifth American hostage killed in Iraq. There was no immediate word on his fellow hostages, a Briton and two Canadians.

He was shot in the head:

He said Fox was found with his hands tied and gunshot wounds to his head and chest. There were cuts on his body and bruises on his head, al-Mohammedawi said.

You'd think CPT would be calling for justice, yes? Well, no. True to form, Christian Peacemaker Teams ignores the obvious in their statement:

In response to Tom’s passing, we ask that everyone set aside inclinations to vilify or demonize others, no matter what they have done.

There you have it. Bringing terrorists to justice equals villification. Protecting folks from terror equals demonization. How much more deluded can you get?

This from CNS is speculative but interesting:

Having ascended to the national stage as one of the most vocal critics of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha has long downplayed the controversy and the bitterness surrounding the two Purple Hearts he was awarded for military service in Vietnam.

Murtha is a retired marine and was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress. Since 1967, there have been at least three different accounts of the injuries that purportedly earned Murtha his Purple Hearts. Those accounts also appear to conflict with the limited military records that are available, and Murtha has thus far refused to release his own military records.

A Cybercast News Service investigation also reveals that one of Murtha's former Democratic congressional colleagues and a fellow decorated Vietnam veteran, Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, alleges that Murtha admitted during an emotional conversation on the floor of the U.S. House in the early 1980s that he did not deserve his Purple Hearts.

"[Murtha] is putting himself forward as some combat veteran with serious wounds and he's using that and it's dishonest and it's wrong," Bailey told Cybercast News Service on Jan. 9. Murtha served in the Marines on active duty and in the reserves from 1952 until his retirement as a colonel in 1990. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and was a First Marine Regiment intelligence officer in 1966 and 1967.

You'd think after the beating he's taken over the cut and run statements, Murtha would want to keep this issue from causing even more damage.

Of course, his medals could very well be legit. Rep Murtha, why not end the speculation by releasing your complete military record? All it takes is one simple form - after you get done, you can give lessons to John Kerry...

Update (12:15 PM EST): Ya gotta admit the folks at CNS know how to stir the pot - now they have the Washington Post on their trail - duck, guys! The WaPo quotes Nancy Pelosi, who predictably and breathlessly says:

"The Swift Boat-like attacks on an American hero, Congressman Jack Murtha, are despicable and have no place in politics."

Since we all know the Swift Boat crowd was never effectively disputed, Nancy must be telling us the CNS story is true. Although her contention that truth is despicable and has no place in politics is a little over the top...

Update 2 (1:19 PM EST): Ed Morrissey throws down on CNS' story:

If someone wants to attack John Murtha's policy statements, there's ample room for criticism there. If people have issues with his defeatism, then they should specifically call Murtha out for that. Let's not get into denigrating a former Marine's commendations when he has not abused them himself for political purposes, especially when he has such a long record of honorable military service.

As I said in the comments - Murtha has made his own bed politically by his statements made in this century. There's no need to go back fifty years for irrelevant stuff.

Also, here's Murtha's response, from of all places, the Huffington Post (thanks, Cap'n Ed):

"Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves."

"I volunteered for a year's duty in Vietnam. I was out in the field almost every single day. We took heavy casualties in my regiment the year that I was there. In my fitness reports, I was rated No. 1. My record is clear."

Update 3 (2:00 PM EST): Greyhawk weighs in as well:

Let me be clear: attacks on Murtha's Vietnam record are pointless. Murtha's latest statements against the success of US troops in Iraq speak for themselves; his current behavior renders his past insignificant. Democrats, grown tired of waiting for an attack on Murtha's war record from the Right, have created their own. He's painted as a victim now - of "right wing chickenhawk" contempt for real war heroes. But those serious about standing up to the current John Murtha would be well advised to let his fellow Democrats and the mainstream media keep this war "unilateral".

Yesterday All Things Beautiful posted a nice roundup of the former Army sergeant Mark Seavey's exchange with Mothra and Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.). The video of the exchange is available at Michelle Malkin. Here's the words of Mark Seavey:

"Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you, (applause)

"Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn't have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.

"And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."

I'll add my comment to the fray, albeit late. It's beyond belief that an elected servant chooses to ignore a constituent like this - and in public, too. I hope some Republican shows this tape on the house floor the next time support for the troops comes up as a subject.

This tape would be a terrific cornerstone of a Republican ad campaign as well.

It's a new year, but the moonbats remain the same. The Senorita of Shameless Exploitation yesterday shows us once again the immeasurable distance between her thought processes and reality:

"Then we have the unfortunate innocents of Iraq. I have heard reports of up to as many as 200 of them killed yesterday. So if 200 were reported, one has to really wonder what the true count was. Bill O'Reilly and George Bush define a terrorist as someone who "kills innocent men, women and children." Am I the only one who sees the irony and stunning hypocrisy in this statement?" Who do Bill and George think are being killed in Iraq? Well-trained and an organized Army? Terrorists? We all know that is false. This is who is being killed in Iraq: living breathing human beings, identical to Americans, or any other human beings on earth, who are just trying to go about their lives trying to survive in a war torn country that was no threat to America or our way of life."

Cindy suggests that the "200" deaths are attributable to Bush, therefore the artificially low number reported. Here's who really killed 200 people two days ago:

KERBALA/RAMADI, Iraq (Reuters) - Two suicide bombers killed 120 people and wounded more than 200 in attacks near a Shi'ite holy shrine and a police recruiting center on Thursday, the bloodiest day in Iraq for four months.

Seven U.S. soldiers were killed in two roadside bomb attacks, three bombs exploded in Baghdad and insurgents sabotaged an oil pipeline near the northern city of Kirkuk, causing a huge fire.

Coming a day after 58 people died in a wave of bombings and shootings, the latest bloodshed ratcheted up tension between Iraq's minority Sunni Arabs and majority Shi'ite Muslims.

Am I the only one who sees the irony and stunning hypocrisy in Cindy's refusal to see that her beloved "freedom fighters" are the terrorists responsible for the deaths?

In a rare moment of clarity, Cindy admits the ineffectiveness of her (along with the rest of the hate America crowd) tactics of marches and vigils:

"Apparently, candlelight vigils do very little to stop, or even slow down a little, the carnage committed by the war criminals in DC."

I wonder if this revelation affects her plans for a moonbat convergience in Crawford this Easter. So what to do to correct it? More of the same!

"Hold your vigils and marches in relevant places: such as warmongering local Congressional offices."

Yeah, Cindy, that should do it. (snicker)

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein again grabbed center stage at his mass murder trial Wednesday with claims that Americans beat and "tortured" him and other defendants while in detention.

The deposed leader's lengthy complaint came after witnesses graphically described how their captors administered electric shocks and used molten plastic to rip the skin off prisoners in a crackdown following an assassination attempt against Saddam in 1982.

I wonder if the left is going to come to his defence over this?

After sitting quietly through several hours of testimony, Saddam launched into an extended monologue, saying he'd been beaten "everywhere on my body. The marks are still there." He did not display any marks.

"I want to say here, yes, we have been beaten by the Americans and we have been tortured," Saddam told the court before gesturing toward his seven co-defendants, "one by one."

Really (chuckle), folks, we should (snicker) launch (snort) an investigation (giggle). Right away (chortle).

Last night the President made yet another forceful speech. I especially liked the way he framed the choice as victory or defeat. This is the proper way to view it – there’s no gray area here.

What I didn’t like was the way Bush took responsibility for the war. Not that he shouldn’t – he is the President, and as such should take responsibility. But the way he framed it was entirely wrong, exposing a disturbing memory loss in the White House. Glenn Reynolds wrote:

Why did he do that? Because he thinks we're winning, and he wants credit. By November 2006, and especially November 2008, he thinks that'll be obvious, and he wants to lay down his marker now on what he believed -- and what the other side did. That's my guess, anyway.

That may very well be, but I still feel it was a grave error to frame the decision for the war around WMDs alone. This simply shores up the false accusations of the left. And it’s exactly why Sen. Reid is applauding the President’s candor, even though it's nothing of the sort.

Bush should have reminded the public that there were many more reasons for going to war in Iraq. And he should have done by using the text of the resolution that gave him the authority to do so.

The Democrats have framed WMDs as the sole reason for far too long. The administration should be getting more specific in answering the left’s increasingly disingenuous and shrill rhetoric, not pandering to it.

For other opinions, try here.

is again on display in Iraq as voting begins:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Voting began Monday in hospitals, military camps and even prisons across Iraq, launching the process to choose a new parliament that the United States hopes can help quell the insurgency so U.S. forces can begin heading home.

The woman pictured at right voted today in a Baghdad hospital.

Although most of the 15 million eligible voters will cast ballots Thursday, soldiers, police, hospital patients and prisoners not yet convicted of crimes can vote Monday.

No amount of defeatist rhetoric from the left can mask the truth that Iraqis are indeed taking charge of their own future. Even as the media puts their darkest spin on the election, this woman shows us the truth - Iraqis are more determined to succeed than any on the left would care to admit.

And yet Howard Dean and other leaders on the left call for surrender and retreat - a cynical dishonesty of spirit that leaves one breathless when contrasted with the truth pictured here.

Can't win? By many measures, we've already won, Howard. The choice now is between maintaining that victory or shattering it.

In London, Euromoonbats continue to fawn over Cindy Sheehan. Now they're turning her into the Princess of Pathetic Plays:

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, who won wide attention with a vigil outside President George W. Bush's ranch in the name of her soldier son killed in Iraq, is the subject of a new play by Nobel laureate Dario Fo.

"Peace Mom" received its world premiere in London on Saturday night, starring British actress Frances de la Tour, with both Sheehan and Italian dramatist Fo in the audience.

The one-woman show is based on extracts from Sheehan's letters to Bush and other writings. De la Tour delivered the monologues beneath large pictures of Sheehan's son Casey and a tank in the Iraqi desert in front of a plume of fire.

"Frances did such an amazing job of conveying my feelings of anger and betrayal," a tearful Sheehan said after the play.

I'm assuming this was classified as a comedy. If the name Frances de la Tour (pictured to the right) sounds familiar, it is. She plays the giant headmistress Madame Maxime in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Additionally, the play is going on tour:

The play was rushed into production to conclude a day-long conference of activists opposed to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, with de la Tour reading some passages from a script.

Fo, the leftist playwright who won the 1997 Nobel Prize for Literature, said his wife and artistic partner Franca Rame would star in a longer final version of the play in Italy.

I guess he has a knack for fiction. By the way, one of Fo's websites is creepy.. And here's another website of his where apparently, he's running for mayor of Milano. And if you're curious what kind of it takes to win a Nobel prize for literature, here's a sample of his "work" from 2004:

Dario Fo’s new play has aroused not only ire but a lawsuit. The Nobel Prize winner’s latest, The Two-Headed Anomaly, pokes fun at Italian premiere Silvio Berlusconi, with Fo himself playing the prime minister and Fo’s wife, Franca Rame, playing Veronica Lario (Berlusconi’s wife).

In the play, Berlusconi is visited by Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who gets shot by Chechen rebels, and part of Putin’s brain is put into the Italian’s head. The result is a vodka-drinking, confused drunk worried about men trapped in a submarine.

What a good choice to write a play about a demented moonbat. And to top it off, here's an excerpt from his bio in Columbia Encyclopedia:

A long-time member of the Communist party (he was denied entry into the United States in the early 1980s), Fo has often been critical of the policies of the Roman Catholic church, which has termed some of his plays blasphemous. Forceful, wittily anarchic, and often disturbing, his work was impeded by Italian censorship before 1962. In 1968, Fo and his wife, actress Franca Rame, with whom he has frequently collaborated in writing and acting, began presenting plays on contemporary issues. The most famous of these is Accidental Death of an Anarchist (1970), a farce about the alleged suicide of an anarchist in police custody. Among his more than 70 other plays are Mistero Buffo (1969), Can't Pay, Won't Pay (1974), The Pope and the Witch (1989), and The Devil with Boobs (1997). Fo was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1997.

Say it isn't so! Cindy being canonized by a communist? I wonder where we've seen that before...

Cindy Sheehan on her soapbox son, Casey, from an interview in the Guardian:

"His recruiter told him that even if there was a war, he would never see combat because he had scored so high in the entrance exam - he'd only be in a support role," says Cindy.

Obviously she feels that all those in combat roles are dimwits. I guess she didn't see this.

Also, she needs a massage:

The non-stop campaigning has taken its toll, she says, and Cindy feels in need of a good massage: "I really feel I'm carrying the whole world on my shoulders," she says.

Any combat soldiers want to help her out? I didn't think so.

Hat tip Little Green Footballs

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The trial of Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants was adjourned Wednesday until Dec. 21 after a truncated session that the ousted president refused to attend.

After two prosecution witnesses described beatings and torture by the regime, Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin adjourned the proceedings and said the court would reconvene Dec. 21, six days after national elections.

In the meantime, Saddam will just have to suffer the terrorism of infrequent showers, incomplete wardrobes, and nicotine withdrawal.

From a press release by the Florida Democratic Party:

"With the President's latest PR campaign clearly failing, Republicans like Jeff Miller are now cherry-picking Governor Dean's words just like they cherry-picked the pre-war intelligence."

Hmm. Let's see what Jeff Miller said, shall we?

“Yesterday, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee said our troops can’t win in Iraq. Howard Dean effectively signaled to insurgents and terrorists everywhere that his party was ready to wave the white flag in the War on Terror.

For the sake of political gains, Dean’s Party has chosen to trivialize the sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made in Iraq. His Party has gone from attacking the liberation of Iraq, to attacking the Bush Administration, to attacking the Armed Services of this country and saying they cannot win.

Howard Dean’s comments were a direct attack on the morale of our military and border on treasonous.

Regardless of your opinions on Iraq, it is wrong to attack the capabilities of our military for the purposes of political gain. I call on Mr. Dean to resign as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.”

Just as a reminder, this is what Rep. Miller supposedly "cherry-picked":

"Iraq is a catastrophe for America and Americans will leave, it will only be a matter of time.

"I say to Bush: You entered Iraq with lies, you will lose Iraq and lie about it and you will leave with the pretext that you have completed your mission ... America only has to decide on the number of (troops) it wishes to lose before withdrawing."

Oops - I'm sorry. That was Al Zawahri. Maybe it was:

"...Iraq can not be won militarily."

Oops - Sorry again. That was Mothra. Here it is:

"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha"

Sorry again - that was Nancy Pelosi. Lets try again:

the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Maybe the Florida Dems are right - Rep. Miller did cherry-pick. But Miller wasn't incorrect, just incomplete. It was wrong for him to paint Dean's remarks as out of step with the rest of the party - increasingly, it's becoming the unified party message. A message of defeatism, surrender, and hopelessness.

Via Yahoo/Al-Reuters, Al Qaeda's number two guy is insisting that Osama Bin Ladin is still in charge:

"I bring a message of joy to all Muslims and mujahideen that al Qaeda is spreading, expanding and strengthening. Its prince Sheikh Osama bin Laden is still leading its jihad (holy war)," he said in a video interview aired on an Islamist Web site.

It's getting increasingly difficult to determine who is writing the talking points, and who is simply repeating them, as Al Zawahri appears to be channeling Howard Dean:

Zawahri said the United States had suffered a defeat in Iraq and it was only a matter of time before it pulled out its troops.

"Iraq is a catastrophe for America and Americans will leave, it will only be a matter of time.

"I say to Bush: You entered Iraq with lies, you will lose Iraq and lie about it and you will leave with the pretext that you have completed your mission ... America only has to decide on the number of (troops) it wishes to lose before withdrawing."

I hope Howard is proud of himself.

Updated: Klause corrects me - Al Zawahri's statement does indeed pre-date Howard's. Thanks, Klause - good catch!

The point is still valid, though. And it's been pointed out by others, many times, the uncanny similarity between the talking points of the left and the rhetoric of the terrorists. Howard really needs to pull his head out and ask himself if he really wants to throw in with a bunch of murderous thugs before he opens his mouth.

Yesterday Saddam Hussein vowed not to return to the trial. Today, he's apparently making good on that promise:

Trial Delayed As Saddam Refuses to Attend

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein's trial was delayed Wednesday after the ousted president refused to attend the session, court officials said. Defense lawyers huddled with the judges in hopes of resolving the latest test of wills in the often-unruly trial.

They can continue without him, of course, but are seemingly reluctant to do so:

Court officials on Wednesday said Saddam was sticking by his vow, and the judges were trying to decide whether to proceed without him.

If the differences cannot be resolved, an official said the court might hold a closed session to search for solutions.

I say continue, and stick a closed-circuit monitor in his cell. The added bonus being that the court can continue without all of his arrogant outbursts.

Update (8:00 AM EST) Looks like they're pressing on without him. Good.

Welcome Pajama People! Feel free to look around while you're here!

No matter how you support the terrorists, it's still support.

Whether you support them directly by undermining our nation's mission in Iraq.

Or indirectly by supporting others who give aid and comfort to our enemies.

It's still support. And there's a special phrase just for the kind of anti-American sub-human Howard has proven himself to be. But I promised not to use it here.

H/T Michelle Malkin, who has a terrific roundup of opinion on this.

Update: Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert weighs in:

"We should all be grateful that Governor Dean is not General Dean. Rather than standing by our troops who are fighting the War on Terror, Howard Dean has made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender.

"This type of rhetoric for political gain is irresponsible. But even worse, it sends the wrong message to our troops who are fighting terrorism on the front lines and to the millions of Iraqis who are days away from another landmark accomplishment in their march towards freedom. We must take the fight to the terrorists in Iraq, rather than fight them here. I urge Governor Dean and the Democratic party to put away their negative and harmful political rhetoric."

Well said, Mr Speaker.

Update 2: RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman being interviewed on the same radio station that Howard Dean used as a urinal yesterday (emphasis mine):

"It's fairly extraordinary. I can't remember any time in history where the leader of a national party, one of our 2 national parties, predicted that America would lose a war we were engaged in. I think it sends the wrong message to our troops, the wrong message to the enemy, the wrong message to the Iraqi people just 10 days before the election."

"...You think about it, this isn't anything new. Just this past weekend on Sunday, John Kerry talked about American troops engaged in terroristic and other activity, terrorizing kids and children. He talked about we've already seen Nancy Pelosi embrace a retreat and defeat strategy...you have the Democratic nominee in '04, Democratic national chairman, lead Democrat in the House, have all now come out embrace a retreat and defeat strategy while our country is at war."

Host: "Well I actually asked him about that. I mean, I think that Murtha is the one that started it. Nancy Pelosi is now agreeing with it, that we should have these troops, and they're using the word redeployed within 6 months. Howard Dean won't go there. He says he wants it to happen within 2 years. So, if anything, the Democrats seem to be undecided about, you know, about agreeing on a time frame here. And do you think that it's wrong from its get-go to have any sort of a time frame at all or should there be?"

Ken Mehlman: "...here's why a time frame is a mistake.... If you tell the enemy when you're going to stop fighting, then the enemy knows when it needs to hold out (UI). If you want the Iraqi people to risk their lives, run for office (UI) vote in this election (UI) 10 days and do the things they're doing, if they know that after a given period, they're going to be abandoned to Zarqawi, they're much less likely to do it. You want the enemy to understand that there is no alternative but to air their grievances at the political process, then obviously, again, giving them a time frame is a mistake. Imagine if we had said to Hitler in 1942 that in 2 years we're going to pull out of Europe. Hitler would not have been, would not have ended his war. Hitler would not have surrendered. Germany would not have surrendered."

"It is always a mistake when you're fighting an implacable foe tell them the point at which you're going to stop fighting."

---

Ken Mehlman: "But think about it. Why would (UI) national party say America can't win a war while its troops are engaged in that war?"...

---

Host: "Well I think what's interesting also to add here, Ken, is that John Kerry also came out after the President's speech the other day and what he said was we don't want to redeploy; we don't want to get the troops; we just want to have a time frame for victory. So, again, in the Democratic party itself, there are varying answers. I want to throw this at you because Howard Dean brought this up yesterday, that 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out. And I asked him what is the source of that? Who exactly did the survey? Who did the poll and who exactly did they ask? And he didn't have an answer. Have you seen this poll that shows that 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out?"

Ken Mehlman: "No, not at all. I've seen polling that shows something very different, in fact, and that is that Iraqis increasingly understand and believe that they need (UI) their country is heading in the right, not the wrong, direction. They're optimistic about the future in a way they haven't been. ... Fundamentally it comes down to this. Do you believe this (UI) in the war on terror is victory versus defeat has a huge consequence for American security? Answer is unquestionably yes."

What a bizarre twist from one of the biggest terrorist supporters of all time.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein shouted at the court Tuesday that he will not return "to an unjust court" when it convenes for the fifth session the following day. As the court deliberated whether to reconvene Wednesday, Saddam shouted: "Are you deliberately hauling defendants before the trial when they are exhausted?"

Saddam also complained he had no fresh clothes and had been deprived of shower and exercise facilities.

"This is terrorism," he said

When Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin said that the session would continue Wednesday, Saddam, shouted: "I will not return. I will not come to an unjust court! Go to Hell"

At that point, the audio was cut off to the media gallery and the curtain drawn so that reporters could not tell what transpired afterward.

Honestly, I don't who he thinks he's going to convince with that routine.

A man named Ahmed Hassan was the feature witness today at the Saddam Hussein trial. Here's some excerpts from his testimony via Al-Reuters:

"I swear by God I walked by a room and on my left I saw a grinder with blood coming out of it and human hair underneath," said 38-year-old Ahmed Hassan, who said he had been kept in room 63 at the Hakmiya intelligence headquarters in Baghdad.

He said Saddam, from the Sunni Arab minority, asked a 15-year-old boy if he knew who he was. "He said 'Saddam'. Then Saddam hit him in the head with an ash tray," Hassan said.

He said it was while he was climbing the stairs there that he saw the meat grinder. "No one escaped torture," he said.

"They would put a mask on my eyes and because I was young it would fall down. I saw women being tortured," he said.

"My brother was given electric shocks while my 77-year-old father watched," Hassan said. "They told us, 'why don't you confess, you will be executed anyway'," he said.

"One man was shot in the leg with two bullets... Some people were crippled because they had their arms and legs broken."

He said they were held in Hakmiya for 70 days. While they were there a woman told a guard that her infant baby needed milk or he would die.

"He died and the guard threw him from the window," Hassan told the court. "Pregnant women gave birth in the prison. Their babies died."

As more comes out in testimony, it's going to be difficult for the rabidly anti-war left to continue to spout the line that Iraq was better off before the war.

The trial for Saddam has adjourned until Tuesday. Todays session was marked by repeated outbursts by defendants and the entire defense team walking out of the courtroom for a brief time. In one of Saddam's outbursts, he indicated how well he knows his future:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein told the judge at his trial Monday that "I am not afraid of execution" during an unruly court session in which the first witness took the stand and testified that the former president's agents carried out random arrests, torture and killings.

And he issued a threat to the judge:

At one point, Saddam appeared to threaten the judge, saying: "When the revolution of the heroic Iraq arrives, you will be held accountable."

Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin replied: "This is an insult to the court. We are searching for the truth."

As long as we're there, that revolution will never happen. However, if Pelosi and Mothra get their way...

Now that the defence has had a rant, the trial continues with an actual witness and an ugly exchange:

...the first witness to take the stand, Ahmed Hassan Mohammed, began his testimony. He said that after an assassination attempt on Saddam, security agencies took people of all ages from age 14 to over age 70.

"There were mass arrests. Women and men. Even if a child was 1-day-old they used to tell his parents, 'Bring him with you,"' Mohammed said. He said he was taken to a security center where "I saw bodies of people from Dujail."

"They were martyrs I knew," Mohammed said, giving the name of the nine whose bodies were there.

The first witness earlier exchanged insults with Saddam's half brother, telling him "you killed a 14-year-old boy."

"To hell," the half brother, Ibrahim, replied.

"You and your children go to hell," the witness replied.

The judge then asked them to avoid such exchanges.

"There was random arrests in the streets, all the forces of the (Baath) party, and Thursday became `Judgment Day' and Dujail has become a battle front," the witness said, sometime fighting back tears. "Shootings started and nobody could leave or enter Dujail. At night, intelligence agents arrived headed by Barazan" Ibrahim.

At this point Ibrahim interrupted him, saying that "I am a patriot and I was the head of the intelligence service of Iraq."

I think I may have lost the office pool on how quickly the defence would pull another stunt to delay Saddam Hussein's trial:

Saddam's Defense Team Walks Out of Court

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein's defense team walked out of the courtroom Monday shortly after the former leader's trial resumed because the judge refused to allow former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark to challenge the tribunal's legitimacy in an address to the court.

Yes, that's right - we have world renowned terrorist supporter Ramsey Clark to thank. Frankly, I wish the press would dump the "former U.S. Attorney General" handle. It gives the impression that he's acting as an American, and I think his actions are about as anti-American as it gets.

The trial is supposed to continue with appointed lawyers, though:

Clark said he needed only two minutes to present his argument. But Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin said the tribunal had been established under the law by an elected Iraqi government and that only Saddam's chief lawyer could address the hearing.

Amin said the defense should submit its motion in writing and warned that if the defense walked out then the court would appoint replacement lawyers.

We'll see. The way this has gone so far, I expect a full week's worth of testimony to be completed by June.

Update: From Al-Reuter's version of the story:

In theory, if Saddam's lawyers do not return, the court can appoint its own lawyers to defend him, a move that would likely anger the former president even more.

Well. We wouldn't want to make him mad now, would we? Additionally, it appears that Terrorist Supporter Ramsey Clarke was the architect of today's walk-out stunt:

"I just need two minutes," Clark stood up and told judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin sternly. "If I don't get two minutes we will walk out," the 77-year-old said in his southern drawl.

Moments later, as the court erupted into shouting, Clark looked at Saddam's chief lawyer, Iraqi Khalil al-Dulaimi, and said: "Let's walk out."

Update 2: The AP story linked above has completely changed to this:

Court Reverses Ruling in Saddam Trial

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The court in the Saddam Hussein trial allowed former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and another foreign defense lawyer to address the session Monday, reversing a ruling that had led the defense to walk out.

After a 90-minute recess, Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin allowed Clark and ex-Qatari Justice Minister Najib al-Nueimi to speak on the questions of the legitimacy of the tribunal and safety of the lawyers.

"Reconciliation is essential," Clark told the court. "This trial can divide or heal. Unless it is seen as absolutely fair, and fair in fact, it will divide rather than reconcile Iraq."

At that point the judge reminded Clark that he was to speak only about the security guarantees for the defense lawyers — two of whom have been assassinated since the trial began Oct. 19.

Clark then said all parties were entitled to protection and the measures offered to protect the defense and their families were "absurd." Clark said that without such protection, the judicial system would collapse.

Al-Nueimi then spoke about the legitimacy issue, arguing that court is not independent and was in fact set up under the U.S.-led occupation rather than by a legal Iraqi government. He said the language of the statute was unchanged from that promulgated by the former top U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, and was therefore "illegitimate."

If you don't like the way the trial is going, wait a few minutes...

Welcome, Balanced News Blog readers! Feel free to look around while you're here.

The DNC lied.

For all the posturing of the DNC, turns out we weren't being told the whole story on the Lamar billboard flap. The Cincinnati Post has a tiny little detail that most versions of the AP story and the DNC's press releases left out:

Kilshaw said late Friday that Lamar offered to put up the billboard if the DNC increased the size of a disclaimer saying it had paid for the ad, but the DNC refused.

So Lamar didn't "arbitrarily reject the billboards", but tried to work with them, eh? Kinda takes a little steam out of the "evil Republican supporter" meme of the DNC, doesn't it? Is it possible the DNC chose to pick a fight with a business known to donate to conservatives rather than put up the billboards it solicited funds from members for? Could be. Or maybe the DNC wanted their name small and unreadable to the motorists zipping past the sign and feared the embarrassment from having larger text announcing to the world who's responsible for the smear. Here's the proposed billboard (from the DNC website), you be the judge:

Sorry for the small size, that's what I had to work with. If you put up this billboard, would you want your name associated with it? The picture alone (on an otherwise color billboard) is enough to make you cringe. Here's a larger version showing how the DNC wants folks to see her (note the black spots near nose):

And this is what she normally looks like when the smear merchants aren't giving her the "wicked witch" treatment:

Of course the Dems want to keep their hands clean. And that's why they chose not to cooperate with Lamar, who would have been all too happy to run the billboards with a minor modification. Hal Kilshaw, vice president of government relations for Lamar, says that Lamar is only trying to protect itself - "We do get complaints if billboards are offensive, so we take our responsibility seriously."

I haven't yet found a copy of the original image the DNC used in their ad. If anyone can help, I'd appreciate it. But I suspect the the original lacks the black artifacts around the nose (are those supposed to be warts?).

Out of curiousity, I checked some other news regurgitators to see if they included this apparently unimportant detail:

AP/Yahoo left it out.
Kansas City Star left it out.
Thibodaux Daily Comet left it out.
Cincinnati Channel 5 left it out.
DNC press release left it out.
Lancaster Eagle Gazette left it out.
Chillicothe Gazette left it in.
Canton Repository left it in.
Cleveland Plain Dealer left it out.
Akron Beacon-Journal left it out.
Washington Post left it out.
Seattle Post Intelligencer left it out.
Philadelphia Daily News left it out.

I'm not a statistician, but I can see a pattern here. Never mind the bias behind the curtain, folks.

By the way, the Cincinnati Enquirer deserves kudos - they did their own legwork, and their story is much more complete than the version from AP. Worth a look.

Again, I'm not defending the remarks Rep. Schmidt made (and apologized for) on the house floor. This is more to illustrate some of the left's latest smear tactics - no matter what she said on the house floor, she doesn't deserve a smear campaign full of lies, half truths, and photoshopped pictures. Completely lacking in substantive programs and ideas, this is what the Democrats are left with to get votes. Disgusting.

Nancy Pelosi issued this press release today on President Bush's Iraq war plan. Although it was filled with the usual tripe we've come to expect from Rep. Pelosi, notable was the last paragraph:

"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make America safer, to make our military stronger, and to make Iraq more stable."

But when faced with having to put up or shut up, she bolted away from the Mothra Cut and Run Plan as if it had cooties.

I'm sure her opinion's just evolved - right?

By now, you've all heard about the latest hostages in Iraq. Most rational and sane folks know that terrorists are to blame.

But the Christian Peacemaker Teams, the group that the hostages belong to, doesn't blame the terrorists. Who do you suppose they do blame?

Yes, that's right:

We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. governments due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people.

Denial. It's not just for breakfast anymore.

I didn't post on the horrid Ted Rall cartoon yesterday. Nick at Conservative Dialysis addressed it pretty thoroughly, and I couldn't add to his analysis.

Today Ted dredges up a little more bile in his weekly op/ed subtitled "How Ragtag Insurgents Beat the World's Sole Superpower"

He wants to rewrite history on the Afghan war - something not even Nancy Pelosi would dare do. He claims the Afghan was not only lost, but claims our troops, to the last man, acted dishonorably and even criminally:

Banditry and looting soon made the average Afghan nostalgic for the security that accompanies tyranny. On the other hand, since U.S. soldiers quickly gained a reputation for shoving, kidnapping, robbing and even torturing innocent Afghans, perhaps their small number was a good thing.

If any of you reading this are veterans, this is what Ted Rall thinks of you. He doesn't stop there, however. He moves on to describe our Guard and Reserve:

As inexperienced weekend warriors shot up carloads of civilians from rooftops above invisible checkpoints, it soon became apparent that our forces were undereducated, poorly trained and excessively preoccupied with their own safety. The Americans' cultural insensitivity, often beyond the point of brutality, transformed people grateful to be liberated into insurgents in a matter of months.

If you ever served as a weekend warrior, that's what Ted Rall thinks of you. Oh - by the way - below the fold is another one of his cartoons in which he accuses our troops of homosexual rape. Just in case the above wasn't enough.

Linked with:
Conservative Cat
bRight & Early
Don Surber - then again, maybe not. No, I don't know why. MT 3.2 isn't as good with trackbacks as I would like.
Basil's Blog

From AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A military vehicle carrying three congressmen overturned on the way to the Baghdad airport, injuring two of them, the U.S. Embassy said Sunday.

Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., was airlifted to a military hospital in Germany for an MRI on his neck, and Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record), D-Mo., was sent to a Baghdad hospital for evaluation, said Rep. Jim Marshall (news, bio, voting record), D-Ga., who was also in the vehicle but was not hurt when it overturned Saturday.

We've been pretty lucky 'till now. VIP visits to Iraq have been frequent, even though this wasn't a hostile act, it easily could have been.

DGITL wishes rapid recovery to Rep. Murphy and Rep. Skelton.

Update (10:00 P.M.): Others are apparently not as generous, though.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi police arrested eight Sunni Arabs for allegedly plotting to kill the judge who prepared the indictment of Saddam Hussein, authorities said Sunday, the day before the ousted leader's trial for crimes against humanity resumes.

The "plotters" (why can't AP get it right?) were apparently under orders:

The eight alleged plotters from Iraq's Sunni Arab minority were apprehended Saturday in the northern city of Kirkuk, police Col. Anwar Qadir said.

He said they were carrying written instructions from a former top Saddam deputy, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, ordering them to kill investigating judge Raed Juhi, who prepared the case against Saddam and forwarded it to the trial court in July.

Al-Douri is the highest ranking member of the Saddam regime still at large and is believed to be at least the symbolic leader of Saddam loyalists fighting U.S. forces and Iraq's new government.

If this keeps up it's going to be a long trial. In the meantime:

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark arrived in Baghdad to help the defense but might not be allowed in court Monday when the first of up to 35 prosecution witnesses take the stand.

What is it about this guy? Is there a genocidal maniac that he wouldn't defend?

Update (8:00 am 28 Nov 05): Maybe it will be a longer trial than I thought:

Saddam Trial Resumes, Then Is Postponed

After a short session during which the first testimony was read into the record, Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin adjourned the trial until Dec. 5 to allow time to find replacements for two defense lawyers who were slain and another who fled the country after he was wounded.

Saddam's strategy appears to be "complain about everything":

The trial of Saddam Hussein for alleged crimes against humanity resumed in a heavily guarded courtroom Monday with the former Iraqi president angrily complaining about having to walk up four flights of stairs under foreign guard.

I really don't think he's going to get a lot of sympathy from his bellyaching, though.

Cindy has a new web post! (hat tip: Little Green Footballs)

Odd that it isn't posted at Huffington Post like usual. Maybe she's having trouble getting past Arriana's censors. That's where I usually go for her posts, since it's brighter lit and cleaner than the other places. And besides, I know I can take Deepak Chopra if he gets too rowdy. Anyway, the Damsel of Delusion serves up an unusually tasty Thanksgiving treat featuring Moonbat Pie as the desert. So lets get on to the quotes:

My family is spending our 2nd Thanksgiving without Casey thanks to you and your lies. I am spending the day crying on a plane on my way to come to Crawford to again ask you for a meeting.

Let's forget about the fact that President Bush didn't lie, and never mind the fact that Bush didn't kill Casey, the terrorists did. After 2 years, why does she continue to choose misery? No one is forcing her to cry on airplanes. Why keep stalking the President? Maybe it's all the attention:

But wait - there's more:

Also, since August we have discovered that American forces are using chemical weapons in Iraq . The Army admitted that white phosphorous was used as an offensive weapon against "enemy combatants."

Tsk, tsk. Caught in another one! The Army didn't say that! And let's assume (however wrongly) for a moment that WP is a chemical weapon. In that case, Saddam had a bunch of it! So are you really willing to throw out your "Bush Lied" fiction in favor of a much weaker one? Do none of your handlers give you advice? Oh, and if you're curious about the white phosphorous story, find out from folks who know. Start here.

Cindy also gets more personal than ever before in this post:

Are you and Laura going to hit the sack tonight and toss and turn or stare out of the window worried that Jenna or Barbara may be killed in Iraq?

It's their business, Cindy. And a mite distasteful of you to speculate what the Bushes do in bed, don't ya think? That said, I'd like to think since the twins aren't in Iraq, they'll be doing some tossin' and turnin' in the sack.

Well, the Trollop of Turkeys won't be getting arrested in Texas tomorrow - but all her moonbatty friends will (emphasis mine):

Texas Anti-War Protesters Still Determined

CRAWFORD, Texas - War protesters say they are determined to demonstrate outside President Bush's ranch during the Thanksgiving holiday despite the arrests of a dozen people on Wednesday.

The group had pitched six tents along the road in defiance of new local bans on roadside camping and parking. Many in the group held up signs, including one that said "Give me liberty or give me a ditch."

Give me liberty or give me a ditch?!?!?!? What happened to "Power to the People"? A couple of these nuts wanted to play-pretend to be just like the Matron of Moonbats:

More than two dozen McLennan County sheriff's deputies arrived and asked if they wanted to walk out on their own or be carried. Two chose to be carried.

And we also had a verified sighting of the hypocritical yellow-crested chicken dove:

A dozen others left after deputies warned them they would be arrested.

Just as in earlier protests, some had no reason to be there other than to recapture the drum-banging, flower in the gun barrel, dope-smokin', unbathed days of their fabulously misspent youth:

Among them was Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department official who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war, who estimated it was his 70th arrest for various protests since the 1970s.

Whew - Cindy was right! Getting arrested must really be addictive.

"Those of us who finally saw through the Vietnam war saw through this war, and all the actions that were necessary to end the Vietnam war will be necessary here," Ellsberg said Wednesday. "I think the American people will get us out of this (war)."

That's right, Danny. Americans are working very hard to get us out of this war. Let's see, there are the Army-Americans, the Marine-Americans, the Navy-Americans, and the Air Force-Americans. They're working very, very hard to get us out of the war the right way - by winning.

But alas, the Mistress of Missing was nowhere to be found. Apparently, she had a family emergency back in festive and ditchless California. No word on when she would reprise her role as the Doll of Ditches. She just said "soon".

My bet - she won't show up on Thanksgiving day, possibly due to the little-known fact that hippies have trouble getting the turkey just right.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the United States will probably not need to maintain its current troop levels in Iraq "very much longer," though she declined to provide a precise timetable for reduction in U.S. forces.

It's appearing to me that Lorie's proving to be the rightest as well as the firstest.

Terrance Hunt, AP's White House Correspondant apparently thinks so:

Bush Lowers Temperature of Iraq War Debate

BEIJING - After fiercely defending his Iraq policy across Asia, President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President Dick Cheney that the critics were "reprehensible."

The president also praised Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., as "a fine man" and a strong supporter of the military despite the congressman's call for troop withdrawal as soon as possible.

The suggestion that the President has somehow changed his tone on the Iraq war debate is a specious assertion by Mr. Hunt. Each and every time Bush has spoken on the topic, he has acknowleged that disagreement with his policies wasn't a problem, but being dishonest about it was. This is even illustrated later in the same article through a quote fom the President:

"This is not an issue of who's patriotic and who's not patriotic," he said. "It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."

Of course, if the media were more responsible in their reporting, President Bush wouldn't have to address his critics at all.

If this pans out, it will be the best news for Iraq in many months:

Breaking: Zarqawi Killed?

Via Little Green Footballs.

Update: From the always witty LGF commenters: "Will the eulogy be given by George Galloway?"

May only be getting worse. After the fire he took last week when he advocated surrendering Iraq to Al-Zarqawi (something even Al-Zarqawi's family wouldn't do), now he may be facing an ethics probe:

Republican lawmakers say that ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother’s lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee.

I think the timing isn't good on this, as the left will surely paint it as retribution no matter how valid the reasons for the probe. Considering the cries of "corruption" from the left every time a Republican sneezes and the bloodlust displayed in pursuit of Plamegate, Delay, Frist, etc., it's certainly a cynical paint job, though - a point that hopefully won't be missed by the public.

Even if the ethics allegations are true, it's no more than a pimple on the butt of the damage Murtha's already inflicted on himself.

Check out the rest of the story at NeoCon Central.

Howard Dean, responding to the Murtha controversy, sent a letter to Democrats yesterday defending the former Marine. What's in it is fairly ordinary for this type of communication from Dean, lots and lots of mud-slinging against the Republicans. What's notable is what he doesn't include - there's not a word about what the fuss was really all about. Here's Dean's masterpiece of illusion in its entirety:

Dear Friend,

I want to tell you about John Murtha. He's a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania. He's also a combat veteran and retired Marine Corps colonel.

Murtha spent 37 years in Marine Corps, earned the Bronze Star, two purple hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. And for the last thirty years he's been one of the most respected voices in Congress on military issues -- universally respected by Democrats, Republicans and military brass alike.

Until now.

Republicans have disgraced themselves by viciously attacking John Murtha with such disrespect that not only veterans, but every decent American should be angry.

What did Murtha, a decorated combat veteran, do to draw fire from a White House led by a president and vice president who evaded service in Vietnam? He questioned their management of the war in Iraq. Here's part of what he had to say:

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. ...

"For two and a half years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. ...

"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

Shameless Republicans immediately went on the attack. Dick Cheney, who has said that he had "other priorities" and collected 5 deferments while people like Murtha served in Vietnam, called Murtha's comments "irresponsible" and regretted that "the president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone." The White House spokesman, who has also never worn the uniform, pronounced himself "baffled" that Murtha, who volunteered for two wars, wanted to "surrender to the terrorists". A Republican Congressman said Murtha and others "basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Shame on them. Every one of us -- right now -- needs to let Jack Murtha know that we respect his service, respect his leadership, and respect his right to speak the truth. This man has spent his life serving us. The very least each one of us can do is let him know that no matter what dishonorable smear campaign Republicans wage we will be there with him.

Send Congressman Murtha a note telling him that you will not be silent while he is attacked:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

I will deliver your message to him personally, along with my own thanks for his service to our country and his continuing courage in the face of threats.

Lies and manipulation characterized the Republican case for war, and lies and manipulation have been the primary weapon against anyone who questions their failed leadership.

First it was Senator Max Cleland, who left limbs in Vietnam, being savagely attacked in 2002. Then John Kerry, who received three purple hearts, being smeared in 2004. The history of this war has shown that Republicans value political posturing more than the service of America's veterans.

Republicans don't want a serious debate about Iraq because they know the American people are simply not with them. They cannot respond to the substance of Murtha's criticism -- or any criticism -- because they are wrong.

Jack Murtha is already fighting back. When told of Cheney's comments he reminded people where Cheney was while he was in Vietnam: "I like guys who got five deferments and have never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

But Jack can't beat this back alone. Show him that Americans know that Republicans should be ashamed of themselves:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

Enough is enough -- we cannot allow another veteran to be smeared by George Bush's cronies.

Thank you for taking a stand.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

What he fails to pass on to the rank and file is the part of Murtha's statement that got everyone riled up - the part about immediate withdrawal:

"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats.

"To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."

"I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy."

Not everyone follows the news as closely as the average blogger, and I'm sure that many Democrats had not heard the whole of Murtha's statement, if any of it at all. Obviously Dean was trying to capitalize on it by omitting key facts which would have revealed the true nature of Murtha's "Cut and Run" message.

All this from Howie, who in the letter says:

Lies and manipulation characterized the Republican case for war, and lies and manipulation have been the primary weapon against anyone who questions their failed leadership.

Yet it's Howie using lies and manipulation to sway the voting public once again.

Via Little Green Footballs - The Hen of Hand-Wringing's new book comes out Wednesday! Charles adds:

Will these speeches include the one where she called Iraqi insurgents “freedom fighters?” Or her anti-Israel statements?

Don’t count on it.

All her journal entries will be included:

Now those journal entries are in her book, “Not One More Mother’s Child,” to be released Wednesday. The paperback also contains some of her speeches to peace groups earlier this year, letters to politicians and writings since leaving Crawford.

You know your star has really fallen when the first release of your book is in paperback.

House Resolution 571

For: 3 Against: 403 Present: 6

All Ayes and Present votes were Democrat, 16 Rs and 6 Ds did not vote.

It's gonna be awful hard for some of the Dems to face their anti-war constituents. Snicker. Snort.

Of course, the outcome was guaranteed:

Pelosi sent word to rank-and-file Democrats to vote - with the Republicans - against immediate withdrawal of American troops.

I'll try to give a roundup in the morning.

By the way, I spent most of my time over at Euphoric Reality where the vote was being live blogged. It was great fun!

In an answer to Representative Murtha's call to pull out of Iraq immediately:

WASHINGTON - House Republicans, seeing an opportunity, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We will not retreat."

The bill is very short and sweet:

House Republicans planned to put to a vote — and reject — their own resolution that simply says: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

This is a smart move - it forces the Democrats to put up or shut up on their posture regarding the war. If they vote yes, those Democrats will have given the GOP more ammunition to use in the current pushback campaign from the White House.

If they vote no, then they have exposed themselves to even more criticism on their recent posturing. It will be difficult for such Democrats to continue to pander to their anti-war base.

This should be interesting.

Update 1: Kos thinks the Democrats should cut and run from the vote. I think that would still be illustrative to the nature of the Democrat's hypocritical position.

Update 2: John Hinderaker: "Notwithstanding the media's breathless heralding of each liberal politician who comes out against continuation of the war, a substantial majority of House members will vote to reject the call for surrender. That's good, as our service personnel deserve the assurance that our government continues to stand behind their mission."

Ace of Spades: "Brilliant."

Jason Smith at GOP Bloggers: "Let's dispense with the public flogging of our troops' efforts and put it to a vote."

Rick Edwards at PowerPundit: "When the Democrats cry that holding them accountable for their words is "challenging their patriotism," as a number of them are doing on the House floor now, you know that they understand that their position is weakening."

Sister Toldjah: "The House isn’t playing around. It’s time to put up or shut up for the cut and run wing of the Democratic party."

Democratic Underground: Cleveland eaten by Batboy!

The Political Teen: "The Republicans have called Murtha’s bluff and boy has it paid off."

Kender at Stop the ACLU: "The Dems, railing constantly about the War in Iraq, have found themselves backed into a corner by the House Republicans, who finally tired of all the lies and rhetoric and have decided to vote regarding whether we should pullout of Iraq or not."

Euphoric Reality is live-blogging the vote. That's where I'm hanging out - Come and join us!

Very interesting: Murtha Acquaintaince Speaks Out

Update 3: (9:50 P.M. EST) Amazing. We went out to dinner and they're still at it when we get back. Democrats apparently have been foaming at the mouth with anger over being forced to act like adults and put their money where their mouths are. More later...

Via U.S. Newswire, a press release from "Stop Torture Now" (part of the Center for Theology and Social Analysis) about a weird event they're having in North Carolina:

Peace Activists to Deliver 'Indictment' Friday

On Friday morning, Nov. 18, a group of a dozen peace activists will deliver an "indictment" against the owners of Aero Contractors, charging them with conspiracy to commit torture in violation of United States law, the United Nations Convention against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The "indictment" also cites former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director George Tenet and present CIA Director Porter J. Goss, for violations of the same laws and treaties.

The event is happening at the Johnston County Airport in Smithfield. If all this sounds familiar, it is. Johnston Co. Airport and Aero Contractors were outed by the New York Times back in may. I hope the folks at the NYT are proud of themselves. (Via PowerLine)

The phony "indictment" being delivered by Stop Torture Now is available as a PDF here. I'm not a lawyer - any out there that care to look at it for me?

Interesting that the media and the left are still infatuated with Plamegate when here is a real covert operation that has been harmed through the compromise by NYT and it's sources. Unreal.

Cindy is hitting new lows. In her delusional world, any nutbag conspiracy theory and false accusation was always a fair straw of hope for her to grasp. And we can at least grant her the attribute of consistancy in her fantasy quest. She's been consistantly wrong from the very beginning.

Her message, however flawed, was guaranteed to have traction with certain groups. We've all seen who's been showing up at her protests - communists, socialists, racists, and the hard-core tinfoil hat factions. Her lack of honesty and sincerity have been transparent to mainstream America, which is why even the leftist media have abandoned her for greener pastures.

So having failed to be embraced by anyone with common sense, I guess nobody should be surprised when, in her desperation, she reaches further and further into the outrageous to get attention. For example, in an especially cynical Huffington Post entry, the Windbag of Woe attacks the President's mother:

Open Letter to George's Mama

Dear Barbara,

On April 04, 2004, your oldest child killed my oldest child, Casey Austin Sheehan.

Did you teach George to use his words and not his violence to solve problems? It doesn't appear so. Did you teach him that killing other people for profits and oil is ALWAYS wrong? Obviously you did not. I also used to wash my children's mouth out with soap on the rare occasion that they lied…did you do that to George? Can you do it now?

No comments from me this time. I want yours. Let me know what you think about "Mother Sheehan" attacking other Moms.

Nancy Pelosi has no class whatsoever. About Jack Murtha's statement today demanding that the U.S. turn our backs on our allies and flee from our enemies - basically, surrender - she had this to say:

I also want to recognize the courageous statement made today by our distinguished colleague Congressman Jack Murtha.

Today he made a very courageous statement.

The courage of his statement, and the eloquence with which he presented it, and the passion and knowledge that he brought to the conversation were met very positively by our colleagues.

And that's all from the same press conference.

On the other hand... Maybe I'm reading too much into this. Maybe she wasn't saying that the "cut and run" argument is courageous - it's saying it in public.

Naaahh.

Well, the Femme of Felonious Fake Fatality didn't go to the big house:

They were each ordered to pay $75 in fines and court costs, but Sheehan's lawyer said he plans to appeal the verdict.

No word yet on whether she paid the fine. If she did pay it, doesn't that take away any moral standing to utter the word "liar" about others?

"We weren't demonstrating," Sheehan told reporters after the trial.

Snort. Chuckle. At least U.S. District Magistrate Judge Alan Kay saw right through that crap:

"They were consciously violating the law for publicizing their case," Kay said.

And since the Debutante of Derision loves the limelight so much, she's taking her show on the road again. This time, in Europe!

Hundreds of potential witticisms are swirling around in my head. But this one kinda writes itself.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert responds to Mothra's comments to the press earlier. I don't normally quote entire speeches, but this one hits the mark:

"I am saddened by the comments made today by Rep. Murtha. It is clear that as Nancy Pelosi's top lieutenant on armed services, Rep. Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans. To add insult to injury, this is done while the President is on foreign soil.

"Four years ago, America as we knew it changed. The terrorists attacked our people and attacked our nation. Nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives. Families were destroyed, and our children lost their sense of peace. On that day, we learned that we no longer had a choice. Failure to act -- and act strongly -- left our nation vulnerable to Osama bin Laden and his band of terrorist followers.

"But now, Rep. Murtha and other Democrats want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world. It is unfortunate that this is all politics all the time. We need to have a strong consistent policy that will protect our men and women who are fighting to protect us overseas. We must not cower like European nations who are now fighting terrorists on their soil.

"This is the highest insult to the brave men and women serving overseas. They have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our citizens, our way of life and our ideals of freedom and democracy. And they have done excellent work. In the four years since September 11th, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least 10 major terrorist attacks. Three of those attacks were planned on U.S. soil.

"I have known John Murtha to be a long-term veteran of this institution. He has stood up for our troops and has helped to provide them with the right equipment to do their job. We all saw the same pained faces among Americans when terrorists slammed into the Twin Towers. Did he see the faces the rest of America saw when terrorists plowed into the Pentagon or when the plane that was headed for a Washington target went down in Pennsylvania? I saw the faces that day, and, Mr. Murtha, that was no illusion."

Very nice job, Rep. Hastert.

Via AP/Yahoo:

House Democrat Wants Immediate Iraq Pullout

WASHINGTON - An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.

"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats.

Mothra channelled Cindy Sheehan as he spoke:

At times during his remarks to reporters, the decorated Vietnam War veteran was choking back tears.

Here's the jewel:

It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region," Murtha said.

Evidently he feels that letting the terrorists win would be more desirable.

The report also acknowedged the abandonment of thirty years' work to garner respect among his peers:

Murtha, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, has earned bipartisan respect for his grasp of military issues over three decades in Congress.

Well, I guess that ship has sailed.

Update: Full transcript now available. Two points for the use of the word "Iraqitize".

In response to President Bush's recent drive to correct the vicious smears of the left, Peace Action is having a hatred fest tonight in Washington, D.C.

Speakers for the event include U.S. Representatives Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Danny Davis (D-IL), Hilda Solis (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Sam Farr (D-CA), other Congressmembers, Kevin Martin, Executive Director of Peace Action and Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action's Political Director.

I'm bettin' the "other" Congressmembers don't include any "R"s.

I just don't get the mindset that drives people full of hate and denial of the truth to spend time with others full of hate and denial of the truth in order to share misery, pain, and gloom with each other for the goal of enhancing their own misery, pain, and gloom. What a terrible waste of time.

Oh, and the reason that Peace Action is hosting this unhappy event?

WHY: "While the President calls the peace movement 'irresponsible,' the polls show the American public hungers for a more responsible policy in Iraq. For 2006, Peace Action supports those candidates with foreign policies based on international cooperation and human rights," stated Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action's Political Director.

Well, actually, he didn't say the peace movement was irresponsible, Paul. He said that it's "deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began". But I guess you missed that part of the speech. In other words, it's OK to be for peace. Just don't levy spurious charges against the administration in order to achieve it. You know, Paul, President Bush may not have been talking about you at all.

Lets take a look at your website and see:

"...no more Americans shall die because of Bush’s lie!"

"...the Bush administration fixed facts to support their foregone conclusions and unilateralist ambitions."

"Bush stood there before god, country and the world and lied his ass off. On Veteran’s Day, by lying about the intelligence, again, Bush dishonored the over 2000 service people who he sent to die."

Oops. Oh my, Paul. I guess he was talking about you after all.

Update: Welcome Michelle Malkin Readers! And special thanks to Lorie Byrd!

Update 2: Welcome Myopic Zeal Readers! Thanks, Eric!

Update 3: Welcome Ex-Donkey Blog Readers - No garlic needed here! Cheers, Gary!

I found a link in the comments of this post at Blackfive yesterday that alerted me to a particularly disgusting act being waged by college professors calling themselves "Replacements Needed". They have been putting up posters on utility poles and other places with disturbing images on them. I have a few examples below the fold. (WARNING - graphic and disturbing images). Their website is here.

The commenter on Blackfive (his name is Brad Torgersen) has been waging a one man war against the filth being spread by "Replacements Needed", and you can find his website here. Please visit Brad's site and send him an email telling him how terrific his efforts are. Here are a few of the posters he has placed over the top of the moonbat filth:

Remember to drop Brad an email if you appreciate his efforts.

Via AP/Yahoo:

"Turns out, we were wrong," Stephen Hadley told "Late Edition" on CNN. "But I think the point that needs to be emphasized ... allegations now that the president somehow manipulated intelligence, somehow misled the American people, are flat wrong."

Republican lawmakers and other officials who appeared on Sunday news shows echoed Bush's Veterans Day speech in which he defended his decision to invade Iraq.

And John McCain is chipping in as well:

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said Democrats have a right to criticize the war but that it was disingenuous to claim that Bush lied about intelligence to justify it.

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Regardless of the President's late awakening, you should have been doing this all along. But, better late than never, so thumbs up, guys.

The Washington Post has an op/ed today from John Edwards. It is interesting that in the wake of President Bush's speech on Friday, the left not only refuses to tone down the destructive and selfish rhetoric, they've stepped it up. But Edwards' delivers it with a twist - an apology:

"I was wrong."

"Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda."

"It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake."

You see, in the fantasy world the left spins for us, apologies are the key to salvation. Thanks in no small part to a kind media, when the left apologizes, all is made right. Nothing left to see here, move along. But this is a thinly veiled bait and switch, the switch being a challenge to the administration to follow suit:

"George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace."

Since the perfectly-maned presidential hopeful accepts responsibility for his "mistakes", we're expected to give credance to oft-repeated leftist talking points on diplomacy (how many UN resolutions, John?), troop numbers (c'mon, we steamrolled 'em), equipment (proven not true time and time again), and inadequate planning. The "planning" meme is one that the left still feels to be essential from a PR standpoint. The administration, and rightly so, won't expose classified plans to scrutiny out of concern that doing so will jeopardize the mission. Since moonbattery adores a vacuum, the left rushes in to take advantage. The administration, being unable to respond, concedes the debate through default. It's a shamelessly dishonest game Edwards and his party plays, and he knows few can effectively call him out on it.

The switch of getting the President to "admit mistakes" has been attempted numerous times by the left. Any hint of admission by the administration so far has only resulted in even more shrill accusations from the left ("See, he admits he screwed up! Let's impeach him!") as demonstrated by the mock impeachments and calls for more investigations in spite of the fact that such investigations have continuously shown the Democrats' accusations to be baseless. The media, being more hostile to this President than any I can recall, is the all-too-willing accomplice to this charade.

As for me, I am pained to see the ineffectiveness of the White House in getting out even the most basic message. I do understand the difficulty of the President's PR task - after all, the decisions on Iraq (and the underlying policies) are vastly more complicated than the cute slogans and sound bites spewed by the left. And simple one-liners just play better in the media - even one not already driven to see this administration fail.

As I said yesterday (and others have said as well), Bush needs to follow-up aggressively. It may not cause opinion to sway much, but I can't respect not trying.

Back to Edwards - in his current rant, he would have you somehow believe that his admission of mistakes is an act of courage. But in his challenge to the President, he shows us cynisism behind the veil.

Bathing in "If I had it to do over again" doesn't make you clean. It's just revisionist. And in this life, you don't get a do-over. "Given the same situation and the same intelligence, I would vote the same way again" would have garnered a little more respect. But Mr. Edwards' willingness to completely abandon of his convictions of old to facilitate a cheap political attack just exposes his cowardice and lack of character.

Yesterday, President Bush said:

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will."

Today, conservatives are still celebrating that the President finally stood up to the vile smear attacks the left have levied against him. However, there's one group who could not (or would not) hear a word of it. The left. Here's Henry Waxman's take from today:

"There are many unanswered questions about why the Bush Administration led the nation into war in Iraq. Why did the President and his top advisors make literally hundreds of misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq? Were these honest mistakes, as the President insists, or was the intelligence deliberately twisted, as mounting evidence would indicate?"

Howard Dean:

"The fact remains that pre-war intelligence was manipulated and cherry-picked. Instead of trying to pass the buck to members of Congress, who like so many Americans were willing to trust their Commander-in-Chief, the President should tell the truth to our troops and their families about how they were sent to war."

Harry Reid called the president's comments a return to what Reid calls "his old playbook of discredited rhetoric about the war on terror."

Edward Kennedy says it is "regrettable" that the president is attacking those "who seek the truth" about how intelligence was manipulated before the war.

Nancy Pelosi says it is "never appropriate" to try to play politics with war or with veterans. She says the president is doing "a disservice" to U.S. troops and the nation by trying to silence those asking questions about putting U.S. forces in harm's way.

Oddly, Dianne Feinstein seems almost reasonable when placed against the backdrop of the above smearmongers. No mean feat, considering I've never found her to be reasonable before:

``If I knew then what I know now, I never would have voted that way,'' Feinstein said. ``I'm pretty good about trying to do my homework. . . . This was the first vote of its type for me, so it was a very big vote. And I was convinced that there was an imminent threat.''

At least she admits to supporting the war, something most of the left now runs away from.

It's obvious the President has to continue what he began Friday, and aggressively so. The left is so driven by hate that truth no longer means anything. All that matters is defeating Bush at any cost. They will continue to repeat the lies again and again depending on the persuasive power of repetition to drive the public toward untrue conclusions about the Iraq war.

Bush not only needs to push back hard and often, he needs to take the fight beyond words. Re-release the portions of the intelligence committee's report showing that the left is wrong. Scour the documents from the lead-up to the war and release those that prove that the administration didn't mislead or lie. I know lots of that stuff is classified, but surely there are lots that are no longer sensitive.

The media can't be counted on to help. The president's speech has already been relegated to the talking head shows on cable, blogs, and the op/ed pages, while the left's relentless smear campaign is still front page news. The President needs to learn a new skill - public relations. Failure to do so harms the GWOT and the effort in Iraq every bit as much as the dishonesty shown by the left does.

From Al-Reuters:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A lawyer for one of Saddam Hussein's co-defendants was to be buried on Wednesday amid concern that the killing undermines the credibility of the former president's trial for crimes against humanity.

If you'll recall, Saddam's lawyers blamed the Iraqi government for the killing:

Saddam's main lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, blamed the government for Tuesday's attack, telling Al-Jazeera television that the shooting was carried by "an armed group using government vehicles."

Like I said before, this is just a delay tactic. It flies in the face of reason to believe that the Iraqi government would jeopardize the credibility of Saddam's trial. There are enough crimes committed by Hussein and his pals to keep them in jail through trial after trial until they die of old age even if they never get a conviction.

But the trials are important for Iraq's efforts to stand up as a democracy. More delays would harm that effort. Hopefully they'll get past this episode quickly and get back to delivering the justice that the Iraqi people (and the rest of the world as well) deserve.

Via AP/Yahoo:

Another Saddam Co-Defendant's Lawyer Slain

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Three gunmen in a speeding car killed a lawyer for a co-defendant in Saddam Hussein's trial and wounded another Tuesday in Baghdad, a member of the defense team and police said. It was the second assassination of a Saddam defense team lawyer in less than a month.

Saddam's lawyers are blaming it on the Iraqi Government:

Saddam's main lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, blamed the government for Tuesday's attack, telling Al-Jazeera television that the shooting was carried by "an armed group using government vehicles."

"The aim of these organized attacks is to scare Arab and foreign lawyers," al-Dulaimi said. "We call upon the international community, on top of them the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to send an investigative committee because the situation is unbearable."

I can't imagine that he really believes it - it's just a good excuse to introduce more delays into the trial.

While most of the news seems focused on other topics, the troops keep doing their job. And doing it very well, by all indications. Example:

Al-Qaida in Iraq, meanwhile, warned the Iraqi government Monday to halt the offensive against Husaybah, a market town along the Euphrates River about 200 miles northwest of Baghdad, within 24 hours or see "the earth ... shake beneath their feet."

"Let them know that the price will be very heavy," al-Qaida said in a statement posted on an Islamist Web site. Its authenticity could not be confirmed.

While some on the left will no doubt take this as a sign that our presence is causing terrorism, I take it as a sign that the terrorists are worried. And that means we are winning.