Kossacks “quietly panic” at prospect of success in Iraq

posted at 2:10 pm on November 5, 2007 by Bryan

According to a Kos Kid, yes. (h/t Commissar)

As U.S. casualties have continued to drop, many people on the anti-Bush side of the aisle have begun to quietly panic in recent days over this question: “Could George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan have possibly been right about the surge?”

The Kossack goes on to poo-poo any thought that the surge or Gen. Petraeus, pardon me, “Betray Us,” has come with a counterinsurgency strategy that’s paying off. And the Kossack entirely ignores the fact that absent US troops, the sheiks who have decided to take on and fight al Qaeda would have had no means at hand to do so. The Anbar Awakening, which the left still pretends isn’t happening at all, couldn’t have spread all across Iraq without US troops provinding the backbone of the forces that are defeating al Qaeda.

The panicked Kossack pins the entire war, success or failure, on what Moqtada al-Sadr does or doesn’t do. Not US action or politics. Not even the actions of al Qaeda or the Iranians or the Iraqi government. Just the mullah Atari.

When al-Sadr lays down his arms, there will be relative peace. When he takes them up, Americans will die in dozens.

Quiet panic at the thought that the US might win a war. Reality-based thinking in action, friends.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I saw that article… it’s linked on their front page, so this must be really troubling to them.

*pops corn, prepares to watch shadenfraude”

Seriously, if it’s bad news that America is winning the war–how can they be patriotic?

Vanceone on November 5, 2007 at 2:13 PM

That Kos Kid is the VoteVets guy. So he is unrestrained by logic on account of atleast 2 seperate classifications.

E5infantry on November 5, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Al-Sadr has a lot to say in this.

bnelson44 on November 5, 2007 at 2:17 PM

This is him debating on MSNBC with regard to the ridiculous Limbaugh faux controversy.

E5infantry on November 5, 2007 at 2:17 PM

The one point that does need to be considered is: what happens when Mookie decides to rise again? They don’t ask that directly, but we need to keep it in mind. If he waits too long, then the IA may have enough strength to fight him off, and the citizens enough love of their lives to resist locally. But if he times it right (mid-next Summer–in time to make a splash here politically?), we get caught in another round of sectarian fighting, get bloodied, and the Dhimmis here get to make maximum political hay out of it.

I’m not saying we’d lose militarily. But politically, it could be maximum carnage for the Republican Party.

nukemhill on November 5, 2007 at 2:18 PM

America winning the war AND a writer’s strike? Their world is turning upside down. Poor babies.

robblefarian on November 5, 2007 at 2:18 PM

First it was Chuckie Schumer saying that the Anbar Awakening took place “in spite of” the surge. The local sheiks provided security because our troops couldn’t. Then more recently, some on the left have suggested that the decline in violence comes from the Baghdad neighborhoods all have been “cleansed” in a way similar to ethnic cleansing, but along religious lines. Neither has bothered to explain how these developments just happened to occur when the surge was finally getting underway.

In their Bush Derangement Syndrone, losing the war and confusion reigning in Iraq is the lesser evil. The greater evil is the U.S. winning this war under Bush’s leadership.

Just the mullah Atari.

Ah yes, the Mullah of Video Games.

Bigfoot on November 5, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Cindy Sheehan couldnt be reached for comment

http://www.exposetheleft.com/images/cindyarrest.jpg

William Amos on November 5, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Winning wars and not having a draft. Sounds like there is a Republican in the White House.

Hening on November 5, 2007 at 2:23 PM

They support the troops!

lorien1973 on November 5, 2007 at 2:26 PM

It is time to start questioning their patriotism. They actively want America to lose. Not only to lose, but to have American soldiers killed so that they can say ‘I told you so’. These people are not patriots.

ThackerAgency on November 5, 2007 at 2:26 PM

The Democrats have are getting caught with their pants down with regard to Iraq, and immigration. They have not a victory to claim policy wise even after a two year majority. Despite the MSM trying to help them out on the enviroment, there is zero support for higher taxes to “go green”. The Democrats do not have a single domestic issue that they can win. Not one.

Really conservatives fearing 2008 based on polls should be ashamed of themselves.

Theworldisnotenough on November 5, 2007 at 2:30 PM

This is similar to an idea Jon Stewart floated a week or two ago. While interviewing Tony Snow, Stewart threw out the idea that lowered levels of violence were part of a deliberate decision by Al Qaida to get the US to leave Iraq.

Neither the audience nor Tony reacted, but I wondered how long it would be before the idea was picked up elsewhere.

For some people, it simply can’t be that the US did something right.

cyrano on November 5, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Not patriots at all. I’ve been at a loss for some time as to why “questioning their patriotism” has become the unforgiveable sin. That’s the whole issue. They don’t love our country, or where we came from. They hate our Christian roots, and the values that arose from that faith.

TexasDan on November 5, 2007 at 2:32 PM

The problem is that success won’t luke the same to the west as it has in past wars. Defeat…doesn’t mean an end to troubles and a realization that a new way is needed. There will always be a level of violence in the Middle East that can be portrayed as a failure on our part.

I hope that the virus has been implanted into the Borg and reason can come to the Middl East.

tomas on November 5, 2007 at 2:33 PM

So if the war is an absolute failure, the Mahdi Army will be blamed, not Bush or Republicans, right Dems? Or is that only a one-way street?

amerpundit on November 5, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Nothing to see here. Just another liberal trying to do the same things over and over again and expecting different results (fits a famous definition…) then making excuses for things not turning out how they planned.

bj1126 on November 5, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Freude for the successes.

Schadenfreude at the Kossacks.

Entelechy on November 5, 2007 at 2:39 PM

This is the ugly truth of modern neo-liberalism and its anti-Bush fundamentalism.

They’ve painted themselves into an inescapable rhetorical and logical corner. For them to be proven right, America must fail, more people must die, Iraq must grow more chaotic, and the terrorists must gain victories.

They’re in a horrible position. If, in 20 years, Iraq is a peaceful democracy (or what passes for a peaceful democracy in the Middle East), if terrorism has been quelled … then Bush will have been proven right. And they’ll look awfully silly. (Almost as bad as they’re going to look when the whole global warming kerfluffle collapses …)

So what do liberals do? They’re absolutely trapped by their own short-sightedness. What do they hope for? They don’t dare openly hope for American deaths (of course, they do hope for just that, and sometimes they do it openly).

It’s the ultimate irony of liberalism. If George Bush could wave a wand and give liberals everything they say they want, the Democrat Party would vanish in a heartbeat.

Good news for America is bad for liberals. Peace harms the liberal movement. Environmental progress – real progress – weakens their political power. Racial harmony weakens the race-baiters.

They’re trapped. And I think some of them are starting to see it.

Professor Blather on November 5, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Have the rest of you been following the latest anti-Iraq war meme floating around there just today?

Things have been going well in Iraq – probably better than we could have hoped for, not too long ago. Essentially proof positive that the Surge has been working and making a difference.

So now the media is focusing on how 2007 was the most violent year of the War, in terms of deaths, since the war began.

Of course, no context is given on how increased military operations, obviously, bring higher casualty rates, or how some of the most violent sections of Iraq are beginning to turn the corner (or tentatively already have). The headlines just read “Iraqi violence highest it’s ever been”.

If that’s not deliberate misleading journalism, I don’t now what is.

Vyce on November 5, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Americans will die in dozens? No Einstein, Mookie layed down his arms because when he picks them up, HIS men die in doz … HUNDREDS!

Good Lord, can’t these people at least be happy that our Soldiers aren’t dying? Or that Iraqi civilians are dying at a lower rate (waaaay lower than in the Saddamite days)? No, because that would mean they have to admit they were wrong, and that’s a fate far worse than what they consider fascist baby killers dying by the dozen.

Tony737 on November 5, 2007 at 2:41 PM

To the liberals, any success in Iraq or in the larger GWOT must be the result of actions taken by somebody, anybody, other then the America administration or the military. Heck if Zawahiri or Bin Laden released a tape saying they ordered the AQI to stop fighting for [insert your reason here], the liberals would stumble all over themselves to point to that as the reason.
You have to really hate yourself a lot to not even give the country in which you live, that allows them to espouse such thoughts, a little credit for succeeding.

LakeRuins on November 5, 2007 at 2:45 PM

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how we will know if we win and what we will win if we win.
As far as I am concerned “we”, and I put we in quotes because only a minuscule percent of Americans are fighting in Iraq while the rest are out shopping or waxing poetic on the internet, won years ago.
*
WMD – check
Odai and Qusay – check
Saddam Hussein – check
Zarqawi – check
Elections – check

Democracy? They have a new constitution – not based on our Jeffersonian values, but theirs – namely Islamic. Which of Shiites or Sunnis are really pro-US? I mean really now. Shiite? Marriage of temporary convenience, nothing more. Sunnis? Marriage of temporary convenience, nothing more. Kurds? They are pro American, but we aren’t supporting a separate Kurdistan. So which of the parochial groups who we are trying to support actually deserves it?

And once again what’s our mission now? Resolving whether Mohammed’s rightful successor was Umar or Ali? If there is a civil war between Shiites or Sunnis, whose side should we be on? Should we even be on either side?

If there is civil war between Infidel hating
Sunnis and Infidel hating Shiites why is that such a bad thing for us Infidels? If two of your enemies are busy fighting each other, why should you even bother trying to stop them?

If the Sunnis and Shiites by some very remote chance were to “kiss and makeup”, and General David Petraeus himself has said, “There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq”, and a lasting united Iraq were to be formed who could think that would be good for us in the long run. Be careful what you wish for. And did Nixon and Kissinger try to get the USSR and China together or did they try to split them? Would they be concentrating so heavily on Iraq while Afghanistan and Pakistan my be catching on fire?
*
(Thoughts from JihadWatch and commenters thereof liberally assimilated herein.)

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 2:53 PM

“… but to have American soldiers killed so that they can say ‘I told you so’.” – Thacker

And that’s what makes them so disgusting. They claim they want U.S. troops of Iraq because they don’t want of our soldiers to die for no good reason. But they’re full of shi’ite. The real reason they want us to leave is so that we lose the war, because that’ll lead to a dhimmirat electoral victory.

Ask a lefty: “If you could choose between winning the war and losing the election or losing the war and winning the election, which would you choose?”

You will NOT get a straight answer … well, that’s a given with a lefturd.

Tony737 on November 5, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Cindy Sheehan couldnt be reached for comment

William Amos on November 5, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Now look what you have gone and done!


Cindy Sheehan’s secret MySpace entry:

Hi there fellow bloggers. My name is Cindy Sheehan. You can just call me Peace Mom if you want. I was born on July 10, 1957, although people tell me that I don’t look my age.

My heroes are Kim Jong Il, Ramsey Clark, Jimmy Carter,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejadin and Hugo Chavez, in fact I have a big crush on him.

I am very witty and am an expert diplomatic ambassador. I am also a frequent guest at Crawford, TX. Intelligent and multi-talented. Of course. Was there any doubt?

I am in a new relationship and completely in love. His name is Hugo Chavez, maybe you know him? I love attention. I would like to think that I would try almost anything at least once. Naturally, it depends on the situation.

I would like to think that I am open minded, honest, polite, and trustworthy, or at least that I can fool other people into thinking that I am once in a while. And I appreciate the same qualities in others.

Did I mention that I adore my new boyfriend Hugo Chavez? Yes, I LOVE HIM! Because of the long distance involved we have not been able to consummate our relationship yet, but we do have a lot of hot and steamy E-mail sex! I am now divorced and my son whats his name is long gone so I am as free as a bird!

Who I’d like to meet:
…other psyhco bloggers. People who like to peace out. Cool people who live close to Saint Elizabeth’s in Washington D.C., because I understand that is where I will be moved to before long.

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 2:59 PM

“I am still waiting for someone to tell me how we will know if we win and what we will win if we win.”

The mission is stability. We can’t leave Iraq if it’s not stable. That would be like fire fighters putting out part of a fire and then going home. What we will win is a country in the heart of the Middle East that is peaceful to it’s people and it’s neighbors and will be an alley in the fight against terrorism.

SoulGlo on November 5, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Professor Blather on November 5, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Very well said.

abinitioadinfinitum on November 5, 2007 at 3:06 PM

These God-damned traitors are upset that America is going to win. Bush will be proven right and every one of these duplictious lying b*stards will be proven to be not only wrong, but disloyal.

F*-em!

georgej on November 5, 2007 at 3:12 PM

They’re trapped. And I think some of them are starting to see it.

Professor Blather on November 5, 2007 at 2:40 PM

They didn’t support Reagan re. evil empire. They don’t credit his philosophy with communism’s fall. The don’t fault Carter for Iran. They will never take the heat for their disloyalty during the Iraq war, as long as the MSM heart beats. They are not trapped. They are evil and dangerous and must be beaten.

JiangxiDad on November 5, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Here’s what I don’t get. Why does anybody give a shit what the losers and lunatics at the daily kos say or think about anything?

tomk59 on November 5, 2007 at 3:17 PM

What we will win is a country in the heart of the Middle East that is peaceful to it’s people and it’s neighbors and will be an alley in the fight against terrorism.

SoulGlo on November 5, 2007 at 3:04 PM

And I’m hoping that some day I will wake up and be able to fly like Superman.

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 3:20 PM

The panicked Kossack pins the entire war, success or failure, on what Moqtada al-Sadr does or doesn’t do. Not US action or politics.

That’s not right. Why would the dumb Kossack do something like that, when “everybody” knows that it should be: success is based on what al-Sadr does or doesn’t do, and failure is based on what the U.S. does or doesn’t do.

Rick on November 5, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Tony737 on November 5, 2007 at 3:26 PM

And I’m hoping that some day I will wake up and be able to fly like Superman.

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 3:20 PM

If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again…

Rick on November 5, 2007 at 3:28 PM

ooooops! Sorry! I can’t figure out how to do that.

J-Dad, good point, also they don’t give Reagan any credit for the booming economy of the 80′s via taxcuts, even after it’s been proven by Dubya and even JFK.

Tony737 on November 5, 2007 at 3:29 PM

“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again”

- Scotland’s King Robert 1, aka Robert the Bruce.

The Bruce had lost yet another battle to the English. He was ready to give up, but then he saw a spider trying to connect a web, it missed, it tried again and missed again and then finally got it. Robert saw this and made his famous qoute, then went on to defeat the English at the Battle of Bannockburn.

Tony737 on November 5, 2007 at 3:32 PM

The Kossacks will do what the liberal demagogues always do to win an argument:

1) Move the goalposts.

2) Set an impossible test for victory and insist the Republicans meet it.

And if that doesn’t work, they’ll do it again and again until it does.

Tantor on November 5, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Nah. The liberals will simply wait 20 years, then quietly re-write history while no one’s looking. Just like was done with opposition to Communism during the Cold War. Or the bi-partisan love-fest that was the Reagan Presidency.

Annoying Old Guy on November 5, 2007 at 3:44 PM

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how we will know if we win and what we will win if we win.

According to Bush: We’ll win victory. And we’ll win it by staying the course until the job is done. Which, come to think of it, is a lot like playing a game of Candy Land. Keep flipping cards until you’re no longer stuck in the Molasses Quagmire. Your prize? Not having to play Candy Land anymore.

Mark Jaquith on November 5, 2007 at 3:56 PM

And I’m hoping that some day I will wake up and be able to fly like Superman.

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 3:20 PM

If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again…

Rick on November 5, 2007 at 3:28 PM

I do keep trying, but the only success that I have had is that I can now run faster than the guy with the butterfly net!

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 4:02 PM

Seems my post got deleted for using the feared and dreaded “s” word. Fine. But the question still stands. Why does anybody care(better,Bryan?) what the losers and lunatics at the daily kos think or say?

tomk59 on November 5, 2007 at 4:07 PM

According to Bush: We’ll win victory.

Mark Jaquith on November 5, 2007 at 3:56 PM

All I see there is platitudes.

I liked the old more level headed Bush better:

George W. Bush on October 11 2000 –

“Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military’s meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. But I’m going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.”

And 9/11 did not override that. It should have reinforced it.

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Why does anybody care(better,Bryan?) what the losers and lunatics at the daily kos think or say?

tomk59 on November 5, 2007 at 4:07 PM

Because it’s a slow news day. That’s about it. What do you want the man to do, make things up!!!

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 4:12 PM

They didn’t support Reagan re. evil empire. They don’t credit his philosophy with communism’s fall. The don’t fault Carter for Iran. They will never take the heat for their disloyalty during the Iraq war, as long as the MSM heart beats. They are not trapped. They are evil and dangerous and must be beaten.

JiangxiDad on November 5, 2007 at 3:17 PM

You’re sort of right. They are trapped. They’ve already beaten themselves.

But in 30 years, this will be the future:

Nah. The liberals will simply wait 20 years, then quietly re-write history while no one’s looking. Just like was done with opposition to Communism during the Cold War. Or the bi-partisan love-fest that was the Reagan Presidency.

Annoying Old Guy on November 5, 2007 at 3:44 PM

Exactly.

Those of us with long memories will remember, of course. After Reagan died and polls showed him with 70%+ approval ratings, I laughed pretty hard even as I was mourning him.

Because I remember 1983 pretty well. I remember “The Day After” on television, and the marches in Europe that made anti-Bush sentiment seem tame. I remember the vows that Reagan was the anti-Christ, that he’d end the world.

And sure enough, 30 years later much of that seems forgotten. A lot of liberals have re-written their own history.

I guess the simple reality is that people grow up and get older. So that you’re right – the sad fools today that are wishing for our defeat will never really be held responsible. In 30 years, they’ll be telling their kids that George Bush wasn’t so bad … while their kids burn flags and denounce some new American president.

Just like global warming. By the time that’s revealed fully to be as silly as the “population explosion” or Y2K, you won’t be able to find any of the people who preach that gospel now. If Gore is still alive, we won’t be allowed to mock him … he’ll be an elder statesman.

So you’re right, I guess. The current generation never pays for their mistakes, and by the time the mistakes are obvious, most of them don’t admit to having been part of it. This is part of why I sort of like the old hippies: they’re at least admitting to what they said in the 60′s.

But for now, liberals are trapped.

And our job is to make sure people see it today. Sure it’ll be obvious in a couple decades, but by then it won’t much matter.

Although the though of all those DU and DKos kids carrying around pictures of Reagan and Bush on the money in their wallets in a few decades sure makes me smile.

They may not be held accountable. Or even remember.

But I will.

Professor Blather on November 5, 2007 at 4:12 PM

MB4-heh, sometimes fiction is more fun. Not meant to put anyone here down, but sometimes it perplexes me- and makes me a little sad- the way kos and his merry band of morons call the tune, and we here dance to it.

tomk59 on November 5, 2007 at 4:19 PM

U.S. casualties down in Iraq, hmmm, about the only thing the Kossacks won’t blame on Bush.

second digit on November 5, 2007 at 4:26 PM

Would they be concentrating so heavily on Iraq while Afghanistan and Pakistan my be catching on fire?
*
(Thoughts from JihadWatch and commenters thereof liberally assimilated herein.)

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 2:53 PM

As I was chatting with you before, Mr. (personality) MB4, I’m very happy that the U.S., a few allies, and NATO forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan, right next to Iran and Pakistan. The world, AlQaida and the Kossacks all know this. It makes them silly crazy and I love it.

Entelechy on November 5, 2007 at 4:33 PM

Professor, please, please come back to original frequency posting levels. Adore your comments. Respectfully and thankfully,

Entelechy on November 5, 2007 at 4:35 PM

Bryan, Anbar Salvation Council head Shaykh Ahmed Abu Risha is in the United States until, I believe, November 10. He is leading a delegation of Anbaris.

They met last week with Bush, Rice and Gates.

Photo: Secretary Rice with the Anbaris

Check out the caption in the AP photo. Shaykh Ahmed is misidentified as “Chair of the Iraq Awakening Council.”

An unintended admission by the Associated Press that the Anbar Awakening has become the Iraq Awakening.

Click through that post to see what the Anbaris think of Joe Biden’s Iraq partition plan.

ganeshpuri89 on November 5, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Well said Professor. And well worth repeating.


This is the ugly truth of modern neo-liberalism and its anti-Bush fundamentalism.

They’ve painted themselves into an inescapable rhetorical and logical corner. For them to be proven right, America must fail, more people must die, Iraq must grow more chaotic, and the terrorists must gain victories.

They’re in a horrible position. If, in 20 years, Iraq is a peaceful democracy (or what passes for a peaceful democracy in the Middle East), if terrorism has been quelled … then Bush will have been proven right. And they’ll look awfully silly. (Almost as bad as they’re going to look when the whole global warming kerfluffle collapses …)

So what do liberals do? They’re absolutely trapped by their own short-sightedness. What do they hope for? They don’t dare openly hope for American deaths (of course, they do hope for just that, and sometimes they do it openly).

It’s the ultimate irony of liberalism. If George Bush could wave a wand and give liberals everything they say they want, the Democrat Party would vanish in a heartbeat.

Good news for America is bad for liberals. Peace harms the liberal movement. Environmental progress – real progress – weakens their political power. Racial harmony weakens the race-baiters.

They’re trapped. And I think some of them are starting to see it.

Professor Blather on November 5, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Griz on November 5, 2007 at 4:59 PM

I like this quote in the comments.

I depend on Daily Kos and especiallly writers like you to provide this important perspective on the news. I now instinctually don’t trust the MSM, but it really helps to have accurate information to know why!

Despite journalists donating to Democrats 9 to 1 over Republicans and an overwhelming majority of the American public thinking the media has a liberal bias, this guy, and lots of other koz kids, think the media tilts right.

BadgerHawk on November 5, 2007 at 6:02 PM

The only people who don’t believe the MSM has a liberal bias are liberals.

SoulGlo on November 5, 2007 at 6:04 PM

Because I remember 1983 pretty well. I remember “The Day After” on television, and the marches in Europe that made anti-Bush sentiment seem tame. I remember the vows that Reagan was the anti-Christ, that he’d end the world.

And sure enough, 30 years later much of that seems forgotten. A lot of liberals have re-written their own history.

I guess the simple reality is that people grow up and get older. So that you’re right – the sad fools today that are wishing for our defeat will never really be held responsible. In 30 years, they’ll be telling their kids that George Bush wasn’t so bad … while their kids burn flags and denounce some new American president.

Professor Blather on November 5, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Penn, of Penn and Teller, has a great quote relating to what you wrote. To paraphrase; Every generation has a vastly better life than the one before it, but its inhabitants always think the world is getting worse.

BadgerHawk on November 5, 2007 at 6:19 PM

They’re trapped. And I think some of them are starting to see it.

Professor Blather on November 5, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Oh it’s sooooo much worse than that. See the deal is, that once it becomes inescapably obvious that GWB was right not only will the lib’s be foreced to recognize that they were wrong about Iraq, but that they were also wrong and traitorous about Vietnam. Why you might ask/ Because they insisted on drawing parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.

Once their strategy of withdrawal and retreat is proven wrong in Iraq it will become inescapably obvious that it was also wrong in Vietnam, and this more than anything is what is troubling them now. That they weren’t just wrong about Iraq, but that they have been wrong for 40 years is what is scaring the living crap out of them.

doriangrey on November 5, 2007 at 6:43 PM

Check out the caption in the AP photo. Shaykh Ahmed is misidentified as “Chair of the Iraq Awakening Council.”

An unintended admission by the Associated Press that the Anbar Awakening has become the Iraq Awakening.

My bad. Nix that. I got to thinking that the AP likely printed information supplied by the State Dept.

Turns out, there is such a thing as the Iraq Awakening Council. And It predates the Anbar Awakening.

8 August 2007:

The efforts of the American administration have been successful with the assistance of some Arab intelligence apparatuses, specifically those of Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The Jordanian capital Amman hosted a conference for Anbar tribes who had been subjected to intimidations by Al-Qaeda. These shaykhs, headed by Osama Jadan and before him Sabah Sattam Al-Kaoud, who later were both killed, established the Iraq Awakening Conference, from which the idea of the Anbar Salvation Council grew, a coalition of many tribes, most of them belong to the Dulaim confederation led by Abdul Sattar Abu Risheh, in mid-September 2006.

There’s good reason AQI wanted Osama Jadan dead.

16 June 2006:

Osama al-Jadan, a leader of Anbar’s Kerabilah tribe, told Radio Sawa’s Adil Awadh on April 28 that Zarqawi was surrounded by “the murderers – whose hands are drenched in the blood of Iraq – of the tyrant Saddam.” Jadan started out leading fighters against “the occupiers,” then, after the January 5 massacre of 58 police recruits in Ramadi, began working with the Iraqi government. In the radio interview, he said, “We expelled him [Zarqawi] from Anbar,” and promised Iraqis to “get him in a matter of weeks.” Jadan himself was killed in Baghdad’s Mansour district on May 28.

And Sheikh Sattam Kaoud (Gaood) was a former senior Baath official and close friend of Saddam Hussein. One of the 55 most-wanted members of Saddam’s regime, he was released from US detention in Dec. 2005 and in the spring of 2006 helped secure the release of CSM reporter Jill Carroll by acting as a middleman between Carroll’s parents and her kidnappers.

ganeshpuri89 on November 5, 2007 at 7:49 PM

The longer Al Sadr and his minions stay quiet, the stronger the Iraqi army and police forces get, the more infrastructure is built, and the more organized the Iraqi goobermint gets…….

thus the Iraqi population gets to appreciate a “normal” existence. They won’t take too kindly to Mr. Bad Teeth coming back to raise hell.
Anyone banking on some great Sadr increase in effectiveness the longer he stays quiet are smoking some grade A crack.

mylegsareswollen on November 5, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Cindy Sheehan couldnt be reached for comment

http://www.exposetheleft.com/images/cindyarrest.jpg

William Amos on November 5, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Is it just me or does Saint Cindy appear to be enjoying the way that the cop is holding her leg?

dawgyear on November 5, 2007 at 7:57 PM

That they weren’t just wrong about Iraq, but that they have been wrong for 40 years is what is scaring the living crap out of them.

doriangrey on November 5, 2007 at 6:43 PM

Precisely right, my friend….and I’d pay to watch the little smoke rings pop out of their ears when they realize that.

PatrickS on November 5, 2007 at 8:17 PM

Precisely right, my friend….and I’d pay to watch the little smoke rings pop out of their ears when they realize that.

PatrickS on November 5, 2007 at 8:17 PM

Hell the dummycrats could probably finance Hillarycare and then some on what most republicans would be will to pay to watch that happen.

doriangrey on November 5, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Personally, I don’t think it matters one bit if we win in Iraq/middle east and it’s a slam-dunk everything nice and tidy… the left will still find a way to spin, twist, defile the truth so it ends up sounding as if we lost and it was the Republicans fault.

And I have no problem at all questioning their patriotism. They don’t have the faintest idea what that means.

4shoes on November 5, 2007 at 9:27 PM

I do keep trying, but the only success that I have had is that I can now run faster than the guy with the butterfly net!

MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 4:02 PM

Run Embee…ruuun.

soundingboard on November 5, 2007 at 9:50 PM

Liberalism is a psychological disorder.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:24 PM

Actually they will be forced to face up to more than just their failed view on Iraq/VietNam.

If for some reason in the GWOT we have to step up in another place for a conflict they will already have that big taint on their recent actions and they will be much less effective in trying to counter it.

All we will have to do is rerun tapes of Regan saying “there you go again”.

CommentGuy on November 5, 2007 at 11:43 PM

The panicked Kossack pins the entire war, success or failure, on what Moqtada al-Sadr does or doesn’t do. Not US action or politics. Not even the actions of al Qaeda or the Iranians or the Iraqi government. Just the mullah Atari.

I think this talking point comes directly from Jennifer Loven of AwtP.

It was amazing to see her article in which the US military was entirely ignored in favor of what Mookie did or did not do.

91Veteran on November 6, 2007 at 1:15 AM

The spin from the Left is that the violence has gone down because there just isn’t that many people left to kill. I’ve heard this from several corners of the liberal blogosphere. Apparently all the neighborhoods of Iraq have been ethnically cleansed, so there’s no more heterogeneous blocks left in Iraq. According to the Left, anyways, who will make up whatever “facts” they need to support the theory they are promoting.

Seixon on November 6, 2007 at 3:25 AM

I am in a relationship and completely in love. His name is Mahmoud and he is really my true soul mate. I like being a boy although I do girly things. I love attention!!! I would like to think that I would try almost anything at least once. Shy sometimes. Naturally, it depends on the situation.

I would like to think that I am open minded, honest, polite, and trustworthy and I appreciate the same qualities in others. I am a blogger. I like to blog. Like every day. Laptop in tow. Did I mention that I adore my boyfriend Mahmoud? Yes, I LOVE HIM!

Who I’d like to meet:
…other drugged out bloggers. People who like to muslim out. Cool people who live close to Saint Elizabeth’s in Washington D.C., because I was just institutionalized, I think that’s what they call it, there on April 1st.

MB4 on May 20, 2010 at 1:03 AM

I found it!!!

Natutroboy’s MySpace -

Hi. My name is Natutroboy, exhibitionist, narcissist, psycho. Sure like you know whatever. An art school student learning how to paint walls. I like to lurk blogs and change the subject to something totally irrelevant because I can. Also I get coupons for McDonald from David Axelrod.

Cute, big red eyes and short, green hair with always varying colors. I like change, OK. I have 4 tattoos, arm, chest, lower and upper back, 1 piercing and 3 retired piercings.

I am in a relationship and completely in love. His name is Mahmoud and he is really my true soul mate. I like being a boy although I do girly things. I love attention!!! I would like to think that I would try almost anything at least once. Shy sometimes. Naturally, it depends on the situation.

I would like to think that I am open minded, honest, polite, and trustworthy and I appreciate the same qualities in others. I am a blogger. I like to blog. Like every day. Laptop in tow. Did I mention that I adore my boyfriend Mahmoud? Yes, I LOVE HIM!

Who I’d like to meet:
…other drugged out bloggers. People who like to muslim out. Cool people who live close to Saint Elizabeth’s in Washington D.C., because I was just institutionalized, I think that’s what they call it, there on April 1st.

MB4 on May 20, 2010 at 1:05 AM

I found it!!!

Natutroboy’s MySpace -

Hi. My name is Natutroboy, exhibitionist, narcissist, psycho. Sure like you know whatever. An art school student learning how to paint walls. I like to lurk blogs and change the subject to something totally irrelevant because I can. Also I get coupons for McDonald from David Axelrod.

Cute, big red eyes and short, green hair with always varying colors. I like change, OK. I have 4 tattoos, arm, chest, lower and upper back, 1 piercing and 3 retired piercings.

MB4 on May 20, 2010 at 1:06 AM

I found it!!!

Natutroboy’s MySpace -

Hi. My name is Natutroboy, exhibitionist, narcissist, psycho. Sure like you know whatever. An art school student learning how to paint walls. I like to lurk blogs and change the subject to something totally irrelevant because I can. Also I get coupons for McDonald from David Axelrod.

Cute, big red eyes and short, green hair with always varying colors. I like change, OK. I have 4 tattoos, arm, chest, lower and upper back, 1 piercing and 3 retired piercings.

I am flirty. I play the flute and the drums. Intelligent and multi-talented. Of course. Was there any doubt?

I am in a relationship and completely in love. His name is Mahmoud and he is really my true soul mate. I like being a boy although I do girly things. I love attention!!! I would like to think that I would try almost anything at least once. Shy sometimes. Naturally, it depends on the situation.

I would like to think that I am open minded, honest, polite, and trustworthy and I appreciate the same qualities in others. I am a blogger. I like to blog. Like every day. Laptop in tow. Did I mention that I adore my boyfriend Mahmoud? Yes, I LOVE HIM!

Who I’d like to meet:
…other drugged out bloggers. People who like to muslim out. Cool people who live close to Saint Elizabeth’s in Washington D.C., because I was just institutionalized, I think that’s what they call it, there on April 1st.

MB4 on May 20, 2010 at 1:07 AM