Washington Times: “Iraqi rebels target female U.S. soldiers” “Al-Qaeda-tied terrorists with no connection to Iraq target female US soldiers in Iraq”:
Terrorists in Iraqi rebel leader Abu Musab Zarqawi’s network have been instructed to kidnap a female U.S. soldier, the Washington Times said Thursday.
“We have heard through intelligence channels that several extremist organizations are attempting to capture coalition servicemen and women,” said a senior military officer in Iraq. “We have instituted additional force protection methods to thwart these attempts.”
Of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about 11,000 are women. They work as drivers, medics, aviators, police and clerks. By law, they are banned from land combat, but they still come into close contact with the enemy.
The defense source told the Times Zarqawi’s network wants to further shock the West by kidnapping servicewomen and displaying them on videotape.
He also said the terrorists might be planning “payback” for a U.S.
…Whereas Daniel Pearl was “payback” for the crusades, and soft soap, and Madonna; Nick Berg was “payback” for Adalusia, and Elvis Presley, and colorful Cricket cellular phones; Robert Johnson was “payback” for “Palestine,” and Stratego, and delicious coconut-sprinkled Snowballs; and Kim Sun-il was “payback” for pork sausages, and Lotto, and every movie starring Freddie Prinz, Jr, and blah blah blah Abu Ghraib Abu Ghraib Abu Ghraib.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has authorized an increase in the reward offer for information leading to the arrest or conviction of Zarqawi to $25 million.
Zarqawi has had a long-standing connection to the senior leadership of al-Qaida and his organization has committed numerous atrocities in Iraq in recent months […]
Yes, that’s all fine and dandy, but is this “long-standing connection” an “operational” one? Because, y’know, that makes all the difference in the world to a bunch of severed heads.
For lefties, it’s never about what people do, it’s always about why they do it. Actions are available for everyone to see. But motives are in the person’s head – no-one can see them, so lefties are safe spinning their theories and conspiracies, arguing that the person who did the act isn’t guilty because. Perhaps this way of thinking – spending their time speculating about issues for which they can never be sure of the answer – takes over their whole world view. Moving the goalposts maps the essential quality of being unprovable from the lefties main arena (why did they do it?) into the righties main arena (what did they do?)
Actually, what’s lovely is not taking out Zarqawi when Bush had the chance (and actual plans) in order to keep an excuse for the war. So if you’re bitching about Zarqawi, then you really have to bitch big time about Bush who is ultimately responsible for keeping the guy around.
I know I’ll hear crickets chirping on this, or some snarky remark about how fat Michael Moore is, rather than some actual bashing against his nibs. But really. If you’re going to be pissed about what Zarqawi is doing now, you should at least be pissed at the people who cancelled plans to take him out so that the greater good of the Iraq war wouldn’t lose an excuse.
I guess one might call that hypocrisy, but that would be speculating about motives inside people’s head, and you know how bad us lefties are at that.
Hal,
Why should I assume that your statement that Bush avoided taking out Zarqawi “in order to keep an excuse for the war” is NOT speculation about motives?
Let’s cut to the chase—you don’t believe that Bush lied about the existence of ricin production in Iraq; do you think he lied about the existence of other WMD?
So the story has changed from
“there were no labs, AQ was not in Iraq, and Bush rushed to war”
to
“Bush took too long attacking the AQ labs in Iraq”?
Hal is right!
Zarqawi is on the board of Unocal and the Carlyle Group—also was a pilot for Caterair back in the early 1990s.
The White House couldn’t “take out” a fellow board member and former employee.
Hey—why are you looking at me like that . . .
Yet that story is denied, so officially, it has the same standing as the Czech insistance that Mohammed Atta met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence operative.
What might have motivated that?
Cordially…
Hal….how predicatble. Good gawd.
Rational people are pissed at the actual perps.
And hey….could ja all keep it down up there? I can’t hear the crickets!
First we couldn’t go unilaterally into Iraq, now we needed to do a unilateral strike into the sovereign nation of Iraq? Preemption was bad, but now preemption would have been proper? Boy I wonder what the UN and all our “allies” would have thought if while we were debating the war in Iraq in front of the security counsel we just started bombing targets in Iraq. I’m sure all the liberals would have been just fine with it, and Saddam would have admitted it was a terrorist camp, and not, let’s say, a wedding party!
Lessee…”NBC News has learned.” From?
Oh.
“U.S. officials.” And who are they?
Ah. “Roger Cressey, terrorism expert,” and, “Michael O
I just knew there was going to be hell to pay for those Cricket phones, what with the upside down “K” in their logo and all.
But wait, Zarqawi, an associate of al Qaeda, could not have been in Iraq because we all know that there was never any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. So if we had bombed Iraq to kill Zarqawi we would not have hit anything because Saddam had no, nothing, nada to do with terrorist groups.
Whew, you almost had me losing faith in the NY Times.