Saturday, March 29, 2003  

Rebutting the "Arabs Hate Freedom" Lie

There's an op-ed in Britain's Independent which argues that the coalition is losing the war for the hearts and minds of the Arab world (no kidding). The author posits that the new media in the Arab world (ex: Al-Jazeera) has made it impossible for the Western powers to convince Arabs of the righteousness of their actions. She ends with this:

Paul Wolfowitz and Mr Rumsfeld imagine an Arab world remade in the image of the West. With the voices of the street still ringing in my ears, I would suggest the new Arab world may be anything but friendly to their vision. Far from it.

Here's why she's wrong:

(1) Everyone loves a winner. I think it was Napoleon (noted Frenchman) who said something to the effect of "People follow winners and ignore losers". I'm sure that's paraphrased, but you get the drift. Victor Davis Hanson makes the point that anger naturally arises in war. But one should wonder "why a German public that hated us in 1941 did not do so in 1945." The reason: we won. Point being, Arabs may hate us for awhile, but no one likes perpetually being on the losing team. Especially when they see that the winning team treats them better than the losing team ever did (see point (2)).

(2) Freedom is always better than slavery. As ridiculously as they have acted of late, the Arab public is not stupid. Though they may not care about it right now, they know that Saddam is a butcher who for two decades has brutalized 'his' people for his own gain. And when Iraqi dissidents take control of Iraq in a few weeks, that fact will be broadcast on Iraqi TV for all Arabs to see.

The above author's sentiment displays the unspoken racism of the liberal elites, who think that "These dark people could never truly understand freedom and democracy. They will always be dependent on our outstretched hands." Wrong. Everyone understands that it is better to be alive and free than be murdered and enslaved. Al-Jazeera can rant about American imperialism all it wants, but their propaganda will be refuted when we give Iraqis the kind of freedom they have never seen. Democracy will reign in Iraq (and eventually in all the Middle East), because the people there will soon know that their lives are better because of it.

In the end, we will win the hearts and minds of the Arabs because we are morally right. No amount of propaganda can defeat the truth.

posted by Josh | 10:45 PM

Rummy Bashing: "Former High-Level Intelligence Official" Tells Seymour Hersh That War Is Now a Stalemate Due to Sec Def's Decisions

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon planners that substantially more troops and armor would be needed to fight a war in Iraq, New Yorker Magazine reported.

In an article for its April 7 edition, which goes on sale on Monday, the weekly said Rumsfeld insisted at least six times in the run-up to the conflict that the proposed number of ground troops be sharply reduced and got his way.

"He thought he knew better. He was the decision-maker at every turn," the article quoted an unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying. "This is the mess Rummy put himself in because he didn't want a heavy footprint on the ground."

It also said Rumsfeld had overruled advice from war commander Gen. Tommy Franks to delay the invasion until troops denied access through Turkey could be brought in by another route and miscalculated the level of Iraqi resistance.

"They've got no resources. He was so focused on proving his point -- that the Iraqis were going to fall apart," the article, by veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, cited an unnamed former high-level intelligence official as saying.

[Rumsfeld] has insisted the invasion has made good progress since it was launched 10 days ago, with some ground troops 50 miles from the capital, despite unexpected guerrilla-style attacks on long supply lines from Kuwait.

Hersh, however, quoted the former intelligence official as saying the war was now a stalemate.

Much of the supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles has been expended, aircraft carriers were going to run out of precision guided bombs and there were serious maintenance problems with tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, the article said.

"The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements arrive," the former official said.

The article quoted the senior planner as saying Rumsfeld had wanted to "do the war on the cheap" and believed that precision bombing would bring victory.

Every time I hear crap like this, I want to ask the armchair quarterback what his response would have been had Rumsfeld waited for the 4th Infantry Division to arrive from the Mediterranean, only to have them (and the rest of the coalition forces) get hit by chemical strikes while they were crammed into Kuwait, a country the size of New Jersey. I'd really like to hear one of these critics address this issue, so if there are any "former high-ranking Pentagon officials" reading WMI, please feel free to e-mail me with an answer.

On a related note, I saw General Barry McCaffrey making a similar argument on CNBC a couple nights ago. As he was talking/bitching about Rumsfeld's flawed strategies, it struck me that this was the same guy who thought that, if he spent $19.2 billion a year, he could actually win the war on drugs.

posted by Geraldine | 10:30 PM

Hell Has Frozen and Pigs Are Flying

Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that it is the official opinion of W.M.I. that 'columnist' Ted Rall is a professional America-hater and general scumbag. That is why I was so shocked (shocked! I say) to read a column of his that actually made a few good rational points. In this column, he seems to accept the fact that we are in Iraq for the duration and he suggests some things that we should do to ensure that this war is a success.

But here's the scary part: some of his ideas make sense. What I expected from him was "Bush should force Barbara and Jenna to marry Uday and Qusay", but what I got was things like "rebuild Iraq" and "let Iraq choose its own government", which aren't bad ideas. Nor are these ideas very deep or very original, but they are such a divergence from the usual mad rantings of this maniac that I had to take note of them.

Of course, he also calls the war "illegal" (untrue; go to law school, jerk) and a "debacle" (nine days in, a little early to judge). But if you can ignore the leftist Bush-hating dictator-loving commentary, you might be able to find some grains of sense. Again, I won't go so far to say Ted Rall is, or has ever been, right. But since we have bashed him so much in the past, I thought it was in the interest of fair play to note the one time he hasn' t been ridiculously wrong.

posted by Josh | 8:20 PM

The Real Reasons I'm Glued to FOX

From the Guides I Never Knew I Needed file: some guy has produced a guide to the blondes from FOX News (with a few brunettes).

Now I know she doesn't fall into the right category, but I wish there was a way he could have included Patti Ann Browne (site 1) (site 2).

posted by Josh | 12:05 PM

Terrorist Tactics Good Military Strategy? We think not.

As we just noted, it should come as a surprise to no one that Iraq has started using suicide bombers against coalition forces.

Throughout recent history, suicide attacks have been hallmarks of desperate and doomed regimes. The Japanese did not start flying kamikaze missions in WWII until they realized that their home island was threatened. Although large in number, the attacks were of little strategic value (they never won a battle) and served only to steel American resolve. In the end, it was one of the factors that led to the use of nuclear weapons against Japan - the U.S. realized it had to use overwhelming force to defeat such fanaticism.

Similarly, suicide bombings by 'Palestinians' (they don't live in Palestine, last time I checked) against Israeli military and civilian targets have only had the effect of moving the Palestinians farther away from their intended goals. They have radicalized the Israeli public (understandably), delegitimized the prospect of a Palestinian state, and caused the Isreali military to use harsher and harsher measures to fight Palestinian violence. In sum, Palestinian suicide attacks have caused more damage to Palestinians than they have to Israelis.

And that pattern will continue in Iraq. Iraqi suicide attacks may cause us to lose men, but not battles or ground. They will cause the Iraqis to use what little resources they have on attacks that will have no military value. They will cause the U.S. to use extreme measures to counter the threat. And they will put Saddam's Iraq in the same category with other extinct regimes, scratching and clawing to avoid the inevitable.

posted by Josh | 11:40 AM

Terrorist Tactics a Surprise to Military Planners? We think not.

On the first night of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Warmongering Illustrated posted a speech given by Marine Corps General J.N. Mattis to his troops. The next time some media outlet tries to convince you that the Saddam Fedayeen and their terrorist tactics were a "surprise," we ask that you consider the following excerpt from General Mattis' pre-battle address:

Chemical attack, treachery, and use of the innocent as human shields can be expected, as can other unethical tactics. Take it all in stride.

posted by Geraldine | 9:55 AM

Friday, March 28, 2003  

Don't Get Comfortable, Saddam

I'm sure that tomorrow there will be celebrations from Paris to Riyadh about the fact that U.S. commanders have ordered a four to six day pause in the march toward Baghdad. Since all Saddam requires for 'victory' is a cease-fire, this should be all he needs to claim that he is the resurrected Saladin.

But don't get too cocky too fast, fascist-lovers. Don't ignore the fact that the 4th Infantry Division is on its way to your doorstep. You remember their brothers in the 3rd Infantry, right? They're the guys that just gained the most ground of any army in military history - 320 miles in six days. Well, the 4th Infantry is just like them, so you're in trouble. Deep trouble.

How long do you think it will take the 4th to get to Iraq? My guess is four to six days. You think that's why we're pausing? A division commander in the 4th just told his troops this:

"The full combat power will come to bear quickly and decisively upon an enemy who has no idea of the combined weaponry getting ready to strike him."

I've got a feeling that these guys are going to make 320 miles in six days look like the work of Girl Scouts. Hoo-ah.

Also: Allegros look like something Hans Blix would drive. I'll take my SUV.

posted by Josh | 10:47 PM

Josh, FYI, I found a page dedicated to Austin Allegros

posted by Geraldine | 10:46 PM

Canada Bashing Pt. II: Mark Steyn Thinks That, Contrary to What the CBC (or CNN) Might Tell You, We're Winning the War

Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I think the Anglo-Aussie-American forces are winning. And, despite whatever "the story of the day" was, they were even winning last weekend.

As it happens, "the story of the day" on Saturday and Sunday was no different from "the story of the day" on Thursday and Friday. If anything, the human toll declined somewhat: In the first two days of the war, the coalition lost 21 people; in the next five days, they lost 17. The difference is that, in the first 48 hours, the deaths were overwhelmingly British and so attracted less attention from the sob sisters of the American networks. If the media's "overarching narrative" of this war is that the first two days were a cakewalk and the next two a quagmire, this précis never applied to the Brits.

In the opening moments of this war, the British lost four times as many soldiers as the Princess Patricias did in that "friendly fire" incident in Afghanistan that convulsed the nation for a week. Using Canadian standards of bereavement voyeurism, the United Kingdom should have gone into a mawkish grief wallow for over a month. (This is not to disparage the sacrifice of the Pats: The masturbatory spasm was cannily manipulated by opportunist figures who've never supported either a credible military or its participation in Afghanistan.)

But, if only because of Northern Ireland, the British are more stoic about this sort of thing. As General Wall put it in Qatar, "Notwithstanding these tragic events, we must get on with the mission." Diane Sawyer might find it a bit off-hand, but I say well said. The best way to honour the dead is to press on to victory. Fleet Street has a diverse press from gung-ho right-wingers to unrepentant Stalinists. But it doesn't have a lot of mushy ninnies for whom a run of bad luck is cause to question the entire strategy. There are times when there's something to be said for stiff-upper-lipped public-school emotional repression, and war is one of them.

posted by Geraldine | 9:38 PM

Please Pass the Freedom Mustard: French's Mustard Disavows French Connection

mustard disclaimer

From a recent corporate press release:

Recently there have been some questions about the heritage of French’s® Mustard. To answer these questions: Born in New York by the R. T. French company, French’s Cream Salad Mustard made its debut in 1904 at the St. Louis World’s Fair along with its sidekick, the hot dog. Both were an instant success! By 1915 the French’s pennant became the brand’s official logo, symbolizing French’s affiliation with baseball and American celebration. Born in New York by the R. T. French company, French’s Cream Salad Mustard made its debut in 1904 at the St. Louis World’s Fair along with its sidekick, the hot dog. Both were an instant success! By 1915 the French’s pennant became the brand’s official logo, symbolizing French’s affiliation with baseball and American celebration. “There are not many more American brands than French’s Mustard,” Says Elliott Penner, President of the Reckitt Benckiser Food Division, parent company of French’s Mustard. “The brand was launched by RT French Company almost 100 years ago at the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair, along with the hot dog. Since then hundreds of millions of American consumers have enjoyed French’s at cookouts, schools, and restaurants and at home. The brand is 100% American with homegrown roots stronger than most. French’s is an American icon and the only confusion in consumers minds is about the brand name and not the brand heritage."

Sure...right, whatever you say. Let's review the facts: French's mustard was launched along with the "hot dog" at the 1904 World's Fair. Now, everybody knows that "hot dogs" are really "frankfurters," a.k.a. "wieners." So what we're really dealing with is a Franco-German conspiracy, almost 100 years in the making, to cause massive heartburn among American consumers, thereby weakening our economy, the social fabric, and ultimately our ability to wage war. Nice try French's mustard, but we see through your propaganda.

posted by Geraldine | 9:11 PM

Hippie Lawyer Gets What's Coming to Her

Albuquerque Assistant D.A. Jennifer Albright got fired today after deliberately blowing the cover of two plainclothes officers at an anti-war rally. Since she worked with the cops, she knew what they looked like and pointed them out to other dirty hippie anti-war protestors. After their cover was blown, the officers had to leave for their own safety.

This is truly disgusting behavior, especially from someone who has been entrusted with upholding the law. I haven't looked up New Mexico law, but I would not be surprised if the New Mexico Bar could charge her with an ethics violation or even if she could be charged with a crime (obstructing justice or impeding law enforcement or something of that nature). This quote from the hippie scumbag's attorney is pure gold. He says that

"just because she is an at-will employee of the district attorney's office does not mean she can be fired under these circumstances."

Really? Because my Employment Law book says 'at-will' means you can be fired for any reason. And even if she wasn't 'at-will', I can't believe that her actions would not constitute 'good cause.' This wasn't free speech, this was an attempt to undermine the safety of police officers in their line of duty. Not only was she rightly fired, she'll be lucky if she doesn't end up disbarred or in jail.

posted by Josh | 2:08 PM

David v. Goliath

Gotta love the Sun. They report that in the biggest British tank battle since the Second World War, the legendary Desert Rats wiped out fourteen Iraqi T-55s. One tanker reports:

"It was like a bicycle against a motor car."

And a more Eurofied version of the same statement:

"It’s like Ferraris going up against Austin Allegros."

I don't know what an Allegro is, but that's still really cool. However, a little further down in the article, their Captain says:

"Some of [the Iraqis] engaged us so we attacked them. They were driving pick-ups, but we had to let the truck go because we couldn’t prove that they were military targets."

You couldn't prove? To whom? This is the only thing about this war that scares me: not that the Iraqis are going to beat us, but that we may beat ourselves. Looking out for civilians is all well and good, but not at the expense of the lives of coalition troops. Now, because some politician or lawyer was worried that these soldiers might pull the trigger on the wrong people, there is still a truck full of Iraqis just waiting to catch these troops sleeping. It's war; let's act like it.

posted by Josh | 12:45 PM

Axis Of Evil Minus One Plus One

To no one's surprise, it has been discovered that Syria is currently supplying Iraq with military equipment. Rumsfeld warned them today, saying:

"We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments."

Do I hear the beautiful sounds of a second front opening up? I think I might. As W.M.I. noted earlier, the Syrians have been worried that they were next on our hit list. Now we know why.

But this is really a 'cup is half full' kind of development. Syria has been dealing with terrorists such as Hezbollah for years, and it would be a great thing if they gave us a reason to get them in on the action. Those 120,000 new troops gotta do something, don't they? And anyway, can you really have an 'Axis' with only two countries? With the Iraqi threat gone soon, we'll need a replacement and Syria has just established itself as the number one contender.

posted by Josh | 12:07 PM

Thursday, March 27, 2003  

From the "Better Late Than Never" File: U.S. Ambassador Bolts Debate on Iraq War

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations walked out of a debate on the Iraqi war Thursday after Iraq's ambassador accused Washington of planning the military assault for years, falsely believing Iraqi people would welcome invading troops with "hugs and flowers."

After he left, Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri also accused the United States and allies Britain and Australia of trying to exterminate the Iraqi people.

"I did sit through quite a long part of what he had to say, but I think that I'd heard enough," said U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte outside the Security Council chamber....

I only hope Ambassador Negroponte enjoyed his walk-out as much as I did.

posted by Geraldine | 8:17 PM

Hell Yeah

crushing posters

I'm not sure that we're winning, but I'm positive we're not losing.

posted by Josh | 7:28 PM

The Cold Makes Them a Little Slow

OK, so Canada refuses to back us in Iraq, its legislature cheers when Jean Chretien announces that Canada won't participate in the war, and Canadian hockey fans boo our national anthem. And it's chock full of French people.

But now, Canada's Parliament has unanimously passed a motion calling for the indictment of Saddam Hussein.

WTF?! Here's an analogy: today the International Court of Warmongering Illustrated indicted Saddam Hussein. But you know what? It don't mean jack, because (unfortunately) Warmongering Illustrated doesn't have an army that's going to be able to haul Saddam in front of a court. Kind of like Canada. Hey Canucks, here's a new tourist slogan: Come to Canada, Land of Empty Gestures.

Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on our frozen northern neighbor. Like B-list comedian Paul Provenza has said, "Canada is sort of like America's retarded cousin." And while that may be true, they still have the obligation to join the winning team before the game starts, not in the middle of the fourth quarter. They should remember that next time.

posted by Josh | 7:15 PM

Goldberg Doesn't Buy the "Quagmire", Either

As WMI has noted, one 'bad' day does not create a new Vietnam. Jonah Goldberg agrees:

On television, I've heard constant references to being "bogged down" and even being in a "quagmire." If moving the Marines and the 101st Airborne to the gates of Baghdad in less than a week is a quagmire, then press treatment of total victory will sound like Iraq's Republican Guard just seized Philadelphia.

And yet, the press seems fixated by American casualties and POWs. Don't get me wrong. Every American life is precious. But can we at least acknowledge that 39 deaths (as of this writing) among a force of 250,000 ,while attacking an entrenched and brutal enemy in a police state that has had at least a year to prepare and while gaining 300 miles in the process is pretty amazing? I mean, am I missing something?

Not you, just the New York Times.

posted by Josh | 12:34 PM

The Free Speech Hypocrisy of the Anti-War Crowd

Here's an article from Slate arguing that free speech and protest is what makes this country strong and that free speech and protest in wartime is even more important. You know what? This article is absolutely right. I hate every "Bush=Hitler" sign I see, but I'd hate it worse if the government stopped people from making them. And someday (like when Hillary is president), I might want to make some signs ("Hillary=Hitler") and go marching myself. So to all you hippies: be anti-war and go protest.

But before you do, think about this: while you're screaming about your free speech rights, there are twenty million Iraqis who have had no free speech rights for three decades. If the views that the anti-war crowd espouses using their free speech rights were brought to fruition (namely, no Iraq war and Saddam stays in power), those twenty million Iraqis would be denied their right to speak freely for countless years to come.

Kind of ironic; using your free speech rights to deny the right of free speech to someone else. So go protest all you want to, anti-war hippie hypocrites. The Iraqis can watch you on TV and dream of the day (soon to come) when they can do the same thing.

posted by Josh | 10:50 AM

Wednesday, March 26, 2003  

Too Late Now

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan voiced his concern today about the civilian death toll in Iraq. Well, Kofi, I guess you should have thought of that while you were spending the last decade appeasing Saddam. You think maybe if the U.N. had shown a little backbone instead of cowering in front of this thug that maybe he would have backed down and we wouldn't be killing civilians? Maybe. But since the U.N. did everything for Saddam except build his WMDs themselves (France and Germany did that from him), I guess we'll never know.

Also, isn't it funny that he only seems to care about the Iraqis that Americans accidentally kill, and not the thousands upon thousands of Iraqis that Saddam has intentionally slaughtered? Sad funny, but still funny.

posted by Josh | 10:32 PM

They're Finally Getting It

"Baghdad today! Damascus tomorrow! Baghdad today! Damascus tomorrow!"
- chant from an anti-war protest in the Syrian capital last weekend

They're scared, and that is the point of it all. It's nice that Iraq will be free, it's great that Saddam won't have WMDs to give to terrorists, but the best thing is that this war is putting the scare into all the right people. Yes, if you threaten you neighbors, build WMDs, or otherwise destabilize what is already an unstable region, we might be coming for you. Remember that the next time you get a bright idea about conquering the infidels. We've got a president who might have something to say about that.

posted by Josh | 9:00 PM

Ode to a Friend

It is easy, and tempting, to harp on our more feckless "allies" (France, Germany, Turkey, and San Francisco, to name some of the more egregious examples) during these trying times, but we must not forget to show gratitude to our friends.

The best way we can do this is by honoring the sacrifices made by allied countries. The British have incurred significant casualties in the Iraq campaign, but the British Lions (as seen above) continue to roar.

It is often said that countries have interests, not friends. Well, as one of our professors says, for every good rule there's an exception.

The Brits are our exception.

posted by Geraldine | 2:46 PM

Tuesday, March 25, 2003  

Think About This, Hippies

Legendary actor Dennis Hopper has come out for the war. He says:

"We need to support the decision that's been laid down by our government to go after Saddam and try to get him to disarm."

Think hard about this: if you're still anti-war, that means you're more of a dirty hippie than a guy who used to look like this:

posted by Josh | 10:50 PM

QUAGMIRE! Or possibly not.

So we're almost a week into this war, and so far we've covered more ground than virtually any army in military history. But that doesn't stop the media from asking questions like this to Secretary Rumsfeld:

"Without again restating it, would you say that you have perhaps not adequately managed the expectations here of -- in the sense that some people believe that just five days into this, the war might be going badly, and you're trying to make the point that we're much closer to the beginning than the end?"

Yeah, the war is a week old, we've covered hundreds of miles of ground, and at last check the best estimate of our kill ratio (Iraq/U.S.) was something like 50 to 1. But since all we hear about is contrarians in the media (FOX News excepted) and on the street talk how bad it's going, the public now thinks it's going badly. Well, don't worry, huddled masses, they said it before and they'll say it again, but they'll never be correct.

For example, look at all the people who, a month or less before the Taliban fell, called Afghanistan a "quagmire":

The New York Times

The Socialist Voice

Muammar Qadhafi (via The Middle East Times)

Frontline Magazine

Here's the people who said the Afghan War would be a repeat of the Vietnam War:

The New York Times (said both)

The Guardian (op-ed 1)

The Guardian (op-ed 2)

Robert Fisk

I also distinctly remember a Newsweek headline that said "Quagmire!" over two full pages (I couldn't find it on the web). I remember the issue because I was reading it as I heard CNN say that Kabul had just fallen.

Patton would be rolling over in his grave if he could see what a bunch of pansies some of us have become. Thankfully, our heroic soldiers in Iraq don't think like that, because if they did we'd all be screwed. If history shows us anything, it shows us that the people waiting for an American military defeat (like those listed above) are going to have a long, long wait.

posted by Josh | 10:09 PM

The U.N. Really May Be Dead - For Now

The NY Times (registration req'd) reports that per my orders, America is leaving the U.N. out of post-war Iraq and will at least initially govern the country under a military administration.

Bypassing the United Nations and setting up an American civilian peacekeeping administration under the military, however temporary, is a huge break from recent tradition and a denial of one of the United Nations' central roles since the end of the cold war.

But the United States may have no choice for the moment. Under international law, the United Nations may be unable to work under a military occupation force. While the United Nations can offer emergency relief for refugees, children, food distribution and humanitarian coordination, international officials say that the Geneva Convention would forbid long-term cooperation without approval from the Security Council.

Of course, the real sweet thing here is that technically, it's not the U.S. that is bypassing the U.N., it's the U.N. that is bypassing the U.S. because France will veto any resolution that gives the Americans and British control in post-war Iraq. Control that we will have, considering we will be the only Security Council members with troops on the ground (don't forget the Poles and the Aussies are there, too). I could not be happier about this; the U.N. is dead - for now, at least - long live freedom. Jed Babbin of the American Spectator agrees:

Monday [3/17] will be remembered as the day the French killed the United Nations. The U.N. had been dying since it was born, its basic premise a false one. Any organization that makes Burkina Faso the equal of the United Kingdom is, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, a theater of the absurd.

Not to mention an organization with a Security Council that gives France a veto while it denies India (the world's second-largest nation) a seat. Gotta love it when bad things happen to bad organizations.

posted by Josh | 10:40 AM

Monday, March 24, 2003  

Tucker Out-Warmongers the Warmongers

From D.C., Tucker's at it again, this time at a Rally for the Troops (pro-Warmongering Rally) at the Lincoln Memorial. He bashed Canadians and got some free press from some lesbian reporters out of it - all in all not a bad day.

Read his account of the day here.

posted by Josh | 8:10 PM

Sunday, March 23, 2003  

Boycott the Oscars - Don't Watch

I don't want to see any of these people get awards and then proceed to spew anti-American propaganda from stage. Do you?

Update: Well, maybe they're not all bad. At least they booed Michael Moore when he started ranting. (note: I saw the story on Yahoo! - I wasn't watching)

posted by Josh | 3:29 PM

Enjoy It While You Can, Murderer

From Drudge comes this picture from Al-Jazeera of some Iraqi smiling while he stands over recently executed American soldiers.

smiling Iraqi

Hope you're having fun, you f--k. In a matter of days, Marines will be knocking on (or down) your door to return the favor.

Which brings two points to mind:

(1) I realize Al-Jazeera is basically just a mouthpiece for Saddam and Osama, but that said I don't understand the military's opposition to them showing these images. Obviously, they are a horrible sight, but I think people need to see them. They need to know that these are the kind of acts that Saddam and his regime commit on a regular basis. And they need to know that when they protest a war to rid the world of Saddam, they are attempting to prop up a regime that commits such atrocities. Try to find the moral high ground there, hippies.

(2) If there are war crime trials after this is all over (and there certainly should be), please, please, please don't give the responsibility for running them over to the U.N. or the E.U. or some other half-commie "international" organization. Iraqis that do this sort of thing should be tried in U.S. military courts, the only place where true justice for them will be found.

posted by Josh | 2:30 PM

Saddam's Dishonesty Pervades the Iraqi Rank and File

Coaltion forces suffered their heaviest losses yet today when Iraqis faked a surrender and then shot ten U.S. Marines.

While the deaths of Americans are always tragic, I wonder if this event doesn't have a silver lining to it. It sounds like we've been spending a whole lot of time making sure we're extra nice to the Iraqis - to the point now, it seems, of putting the lives of American troops at risk. While we shouldn't be brutal, I wonder if the lack of Iraqis POWs (as compared to the first Gulf War) has anything to do with the fact that they haven't been "shocked" or "awed" yet. Maybe this event will convince the military not to treat the Iraqis with such kid gloves. Just because the president says that this isn't the Iraqis' war doesn't mean that the Iraqis believe it.

Also: I'm counting the one death after that grenade attack on the 101st Airborne in the ROP's Monthly Death Count. I'm not positive it belongs there, but it's sure looking that way.

posted by Josh | 2:12 PM
WMI Poll
arsenals of democracy
coalition of the willing
evil empires
wmi's gonzo journalism
email us
link to WMI
the archives
that don't work