Appreciate the Podhoretz...but can you tone it down?...you're getting shrill.
Great find Ican! Pity some will assign it no value at all, despite some obvious truth...
And pump up the volume, pump up the volume, DANCE!
Pump up the volume!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If this
AP Report is true, then we're gonna have to have us a regular hoe-down!!!!
Quote:Iraq's interior minister on Saturday refused to comment on rumors that the top terror leader in the country had been taken into custody.
"I wouldn't like to comment for the time being," Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib said when asked about rumors that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been arrested. "Let's see. Maybe in the next few days we will make a comment about it."
Pressing him, a reporter asked, "Does that mean he is in custody?"
"No comment," the minister repeated.
Half of me warns to be skeptical, but my intuition tells me THEY'VE GOT HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I got my dancing shoes ready just in case it's true!
OCCOM BILL wrote:Great find Ican! Pity some will assign it no value at all, despite some obvious truth...And pump up the volume, pump up the volume, DANCE!
All righty! Here's some more from Podhoretz's very long and very thorough article.
Norman Podhoretz wrote:Bush made no secret of his repudiation of realism, and he did not pussyfoot around it:
For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the
sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and
much oppression, so I have changed this policy.
That took care of the first guiding precept of the realist perspective. And
Bush was equally forthright—almost brutal—in giving the back of his hand to the realist prohibition against using force to transform the internal
character of other states:
Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality: America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.
Farewell, then, to cuius regio eius religio as well.
What Bush was declaring here was a revolutionary change in the rules of the international game. If we are to grasp the full significance of this change, we have to start by recognizing that the invasion of Afghanistan was only a partial application of the new doctrine. Because the terrorists who had attacked us were based in Afghanistan, and were protected and supported by the Taliban regime ruling that country, going after it did not constitute a preemptive strike. It represented, rather, a conventional retaliation against an unconventional aggression: they hit us and we hit back.
Being nothing new, the invasion itself was not opposed in principle by the
realists (even though some of them considered it crazy to think that we
could win where so many other armies—most recently the Russians—had come a cropper). But the operation in Afghanistan did begin to conflict in
principle with the realist perspective when it went beyond toppling the
Taliban regime to sponsoring a replacement government pledged to
democratization.
Still, the main criticism leveled by the realists at this point took a
prudential form: our political objective, they said, was even more foolhardy than our military effort. This suggests that they were slower than the liberal internationalists in fully grasping what Bush was throwing at them. Probably unable to imagine that he could possibly be serious when he talked about reshaping the political character of the entire region, they seem to have consoled themselves with the notion that Afghanistan was just a one-shot overreaction to 9/11.
If so, they were soon to be stripped of this cold comfort by the invasion of
Iraq. And even then, it still took another while before the realists felt
the full force of the gale being whipped up by George W. Bush.
...
NORMAN PODHORETZ is the editor-at-large of COMMENTARY and the author of ten books. His essay, "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win," appeared in our September 2004 issue.
Oh, I almost forgot to be more
shrill and to
dance!
I agree!
I forgot , you don't tell a child to quieten, they'll do just the opposite. But really, I told Blatham I'd read Pod's article and it was pretty insightful. Of course he couldn't say he agreed with it but promised he'd remark on it
<Looks around for Pan> <OK....he's not here>
panzade wrote:I forgot , you don't tell a child to quieten, they'll do just the opposite.
Nor can a child tell an adult to
quieten; true adults will do exactly what they think they ought to do.
I'm glad you liked the article.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Gelisgesti wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:It would be exactly the same Blatham. I'd still want the guilty punished and I believe that is exactly what's happening. Your assumption that "higher ups" are responsible has not been proven. Since when would a liberal person like you like to see people convicted of crimes based on perceived likeliness of guilt? That doesn't jive with most of your politics and frankly, it screams hypocrisy.
Do you really believe that those troopers brought the hoods and dogcollars into the field .... do you think they studied'Islamic taboos in high school.... ?
They were trained by a superior, not by someone under them.
Who Gel? Who do you want convicted and what evidence do you have that would meet the legal requirements to do so? Groundless accusations, assumptions and rationalizations amount to nothing more than hyper partisan slander unless you have sufficient evidence to accuse a personÂ… who? What is your position on Habeas Corpus anyway? Is that something only our suspected enemies should be entitled to in your book?
It takes naivety to the nth degree to believe that a corporal wasthe highest rank in the entire interogation effort in the military.
Good, the war is over now we can go home .... or was that when saddam was captured ......
We have had an interesting diversion through the worst excesses of the Boer War, the Sepoy Uprising and the Boxer Rebellion, but have skated over the fact that it is against international law and the US Constitution to attack another sovereign country.
The more the merrier! Pura Vida Amigo!
Other than reading from and responding to real meaningful posts here; I am through with this thread. It has turned into a waste of time.
McTag wrote:We have had an interesting diversion through the worst excesses of the Boer War, the Sepoy Uprising and the Boxer Rebellion, but have skated over the fact that it is against international law and the US Constitution to attack another sovereign country.
You must not have been paying attention when the House granted war powers to Bush. Oh, and I'll buy international
standards... not
law. There is no such thing that is more than your ultra-biased opinion. Craven articulated this point wonderfully, but I can't remember where right now.
That al Qaeda declared war on Americans is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda, ican.
That Al Qaeda declared that American civilians and military must be killed wherever they can be found is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
That Al Qaeda murdered American civilians is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
That Al Qaeda murderers were trained in al Qaeda camps is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
That Al Qaeda were encamped in Afghanistan and in Iraq prior to the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
That US air attacks on Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan did not remove al Qaeda camps from Afghanistan is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
US ground and air attacks in Afghanistan DID NOT remove al Qaeda camps from Afghanistan. The al Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden and his closest subordinates are probably still in the area. US ground and air attacks in Afghanistan are not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
That Kurds defeated al Qaeda in northern Iraq by 1999 is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
That Al Qaeda reformed in northern Iraq by 2001 is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
That the US claims it requested that Saddam Hussein's regime extradite the leadership of the al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
Your claims that Saddam Hussein's regime did not attempt to extradite the leadership of the al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq are not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
Your claims that Saddam Hussein's regime did not attempt to remove al Qaeda camps from northern Iraq are not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
That the US invaded Iraq on the ground and in the air in 2003 is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
Your claims that the US removed al Qaeda camps in northern Iraq are unfounded. There are "al Qaeda" camps all over Iraq subsequent to our invasion and occupation thereof. Your claims that the US removed al Qaeda camps in northern Iraq are not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
That the US's discovery and destruction of the al Qaeda encampment in northern Iraq is evidence that at the time of the US's invasion of Iraq 3/20/2003, the al Qaeda were encamped in northern Iraq is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
That that in turn, plus the fact that Saddam Hussein NEVER claimed that the taQeinI (the al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq) were NOT so encamped, plus the fact that Saddam NEVER claimed he tried to remove taQeinI, are evidence that Saddam did NOT attempt to remove taQeinI is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
Your allegation that that in turn is evidence that Saddam tolerated taQeinI is a leap of logic.
Your allegation that that in turn is evidence that Saddam harbored taQeinI is a leap of logic.
That YOU, ican, believe that in turn, plus the fact that the Kurds were NOT able to prevent the taQeinI from reforming by 2001 after the Kurds had defeated taQeinI by 1999, are evidence that a US invasion of Iraq was required to remove taQeinI is merely speculation on your part. Your speculation is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda.
That YOU believe that in turn, plus the fact that air attacks in Afghanistan were insufficient for removing al Qaeda camps from Afghanistan, plus the fact that a US ground and air invasion was required to remove al Qaeda from Afghanistan, is evidence that the US had to invade Iraq on the ground and in the air in order to remove taQeinI from Iraq is merely speculation on your part. A US ground and air invasion has not removed al Qaeda from Afghanistan. Your speculations are predicated on erroneous assumptions. Your speculations are absolutely not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda, ican.
Regards the AP report that a major terrorist leader has been captured: I believe that is the fourth time in six weeks that I have seen the same report of a rumor that eventually fades, maybe my posting this will bring the fervent believers some luck.
Anyone who believes that Iran, Syria and the Saudis are on the same side with regard to the Iraqi insurgents, like Mr. P, please raise your hands and tell us what you have been smoking.
Joe(This is not Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas, Toto.)Nation
