A bad week for Zarqawi and the Democrats
 

November 22, 2005
Zarqawi's Bad Week
By Jack Kelly

Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the al Qaida chieftain in Iraq, has had a bad week. If it turns out Zarqawi was among seven al Qaida leaders killed in Mosul Saturday, it'll have been a really bad week. But even if Zarqawi got away again, it's been a rotten week for him. It's also been a bad week for antiwar Democrats, who had their bluff called in the House of Representatives.

Zarqawi's bad week is a product of the suicide bombings he orchestrated November 9th against three hotels in Amman, Jordan. The bombings resulted in 62 deaths, mostly of Arabs attending a wedding. Because of its large Palestinian population, Jordan had been the country most supportive of al Qaida.

No longer. Last Friday, more than 200,000 Jordanians took to the streets to demonstrate against al Qaida. Zarqawi is Jordanian, but his tribe has disowned him.

This is a big deal, said Jim Robbins, who teaches at the National Defense University: "One of the reasons I thought the report of Zarqawi's death was credible at first was that his tribe had forsaken him," Robbins wrote.

"Extended tribal ties among groups in al Anbar province in Iraq may be what has kept him safe thus far." It could have been a tip from a disgruntled relative that led U.S. and Iraqi troops to surround the house in Mosul where seven men and a woman died, several by blowing themselves up. More likely, they were ratted out by Iraqis who had once been friendly to al Qaida, but are turning against it.

There has been a surge in tips from Iraqis over the last month, a U.S. intelligence officer told the Washington Post. "These tend to be traditional Iraqi leaders -- sheiks and imams -- upset with the organization, especially its recent execution of Sunni Arabs in Ramadi," the official said.

Ramadi, the capital of al Anbar province, is a smuggling center that long has been as lawless as Dodge City before Wyatt Earp became marshal. There have been running gun battles betweenlocal insurgents tied to the former regime of Saddam Hussein and al Qaida. There also have been gun battles between al Qaida and U.S. troops in Ramadi, which have gone badly for al Qaida.

Nearly 200 "insurgents," most of them al Qaida members, have been killed or captured in Operation Steel Curtain, now in its second week, a joint Marine-Iraqi operation which has been cleaning out hideouts along the Syrian border.

Zarqawi has lost a number of key lieutenants in recent weeks, thanks to the increasing number and timeliness of tips. The most recent were Abu Ahmed, the "Emir" of Sadah, nabbed on day three of Steel Curtain, and Abu Ibrahim, a technology expert who manufactured triggering devices for roadside bombs, taken in Baghdad Oct. 31st. More of Zarqawi's command network was lost in the house in Mosul, even if he himself got away.

With the walls falling in on al Qaida in Iraq, it would seem a curious time for congressional Democrats to go into preemptive surrender mode. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., introduced a resolution last week calling for "immediate redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Murtha, a retired Marine reserve colonel and a decorated Vietnam veteran, is a substantive man. The news media described his resolution as a blow to the Bush administration. "When President Bush decided to wage war on Saddam Hussein, perhaps no Democrat was a firmer ally," wrote Maura Reynolds in the Los Angeles Times. This was untrue. Murtha had expressed doubt about going to war in 2002, and had declared Iraq "unwinnable" in May of last year.

Showing more backbone and more brains than they customarily do, House Republicans called for a vote on immediate withdrawal from Iraq. It failed, 404-3. Democrats who'd applauded the introduction of Murtha's resolution whined it was dirty pool for Republicans to make them vote on his bottom line.

"It's a trap," a Democratic strategist told Newsweek's Eleanor Clift. "If the party comes out for a unilateral six month withdrawal, that would become the issue for 06, and they (Republicans) would kill us again." Democrats like to make antiwar noises for their moonbat base, but were unwilling to cast a vote that could hurt them with swing voters. They were too cowardly to be forthright cowards.

Jack Kelly is national security columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Blade of Toledo, Ohio.

Re: A bad week for Zarqawi and the Democrats
 

afaik many of Saddam's buds fled to Jordan with stolen bank money. I also read that it's having a significant impact on the increase of Jordan's economic activity. For ex property values have significantly increased.

"Zarqawi and the Democrats"

Who wants to join the Republican Party? Flint is taking applications now. All you have to do is abandon reason, lump terrorists and the opposing party together in every sentence, and do your best to personally destroy anyone that disagrees with you on any subject.

Oh, and learn to hate. I mean really, really learn to hate!

Back to your cave ignorant man.

Rodeo, Remember it is the democrats that hate, not the republicans. They are merely telling the unpleasent truth.... Right.

Somehow, this bunch has decided that anyone that disagrees with the narrow views espoused by the neo-cons (not just Republicans as a whole), they are somehow supporting the enemy. This is BS pure and simple. I am sick of the Karl Rove brand of politics that demonizes anyone who disagrees with an official administration opinion (even as they shift).

The country does not need this degree of division. Eventually, this approach is going to backfire spectacularly. In fact, I think that we are starting to see the beginings of this with the sinking Poll numbers.

"They were too cowardly to be forthright cowards." That pretty much sums up the state of the Democratic party these days. Lots of talk, lots of whining, unworkable "solutions" that even they cannot support when the rubber meets the road.

They have no direction; no clue whatsoever. When one of their "leaders" (and I use that term very loosely) steps forward with some hair-brained, ill-conceived "plan" all it has to be is contrary to what the Republicans want. That has become their only measure of merit, unable as they are to come up with an original thought. That will ensure every self-rightous, brain-dead Democrat worth his or her salt will flock to support the "plan", as long as it requires no action and no accountablility. The Republicans called their bluff. They apparently understand the modern dysfuntional Democratic party better than its own "leadership" - if it had any.

Might be better than being in a party that has no platform, direction and is wandering around with no guideance. It sure seems like its the Demo's who are the ones spouting hate and such.

Us? We are busy working our rears off keeping the country safe, economy moving forwards and looking ahead to a well deserved retirement.

You guys? Personally it sounds like you are just pissed off at having lost the major elections in the last 6 years and throwing a temper tantrum.

Hope you are having as much fun as we are.

JoeA

haha

now that's a laugh.

One of your own equates a terrorist killer of innocent civilians with the Democratic Party and your response is the it "sure seems like its the Demo's who are the ones spouting hate and such." You don’t condemn these ugly attacks, you praise them. And one of your kind does it every day of the week, practically every minute of every day.

You destroy people, whether they are Max Cleland, John McCain or Rep. Murtha, for political gain. I'm sure a lot of you think its good fun as well.

You live in an upside down, hateful, and deranged place.

Change is coming, and not a moment too soon.

While I know that there is plenty of Hate on either side of the political spectrum, I have never seen the magnitude of ill will coming from the right these days. It seems that it sharply increased during the Clinton years and hasn't abated since. 9/11 gave the right an excuse to push an us vs. them approach to the world. This is getting old, and it represents a double standard. We get the same crap over and over again: attacks from the cast of characters are justified since they are "true" (although that is usually a streach), but any statement polite or not disagreeing with these positions is an unjustified attack on the right.

It isn't even confined to inter-party attacks. The 2000 primary election attacks on McCain showed that in spades. There is a crowd of control freaks and losers who need to pushed out of power, and soon. Honor and dignity has suposedly been restored to the office of the president. During the Clinton years the main "scandal" was a 30year old deal that had no direct impact on the presidency. It eventually morphed into the Lewinsky thing. The partisans figured they had CLinton in a bind on that one. After all, he did actually lie under oath. The American people didn't buy it. The partisans are still seething over it. Meanwhile, we have had a FEMA crony fired for gross incompetence (he probably has blood on his hands for it too), and an administration official arrested in office on criminal charges associated with his official duties! I think that is a first for any administration.

So give me a break here. I am not buying this line.

BTW I am not a member of either party.

Democrat = Lack of direction
Republican = Wrong direction

Not an inspiring choice.

I have not heard of any terrorists using the words and positions of any Republicans for inspiration. If you were a terrorist, who would you have rather had elected, John Kerry, who had stated the war was a mistake and that he would be getting the troops out of there right away if elected, or the President?

BTW, have not heard of any Republicans having opponents killed, but have seen some pretty convincing evidence that Mr Rodham Clinton has. Both sides have degenerated quite a bit since he first was elected President. It is disingenuous to say that the Right is the only party gulty of this.

Is this some Rush Limbaugh BS you picked up? Can you please elaborate?

>BTW, have not heard of any Republicans having opponents killed, >but have seen some pretty convincing evidence that Mr Rodham >Clinton has. Both sides have degenerated quite a bit since he first >was elected President. It is disingenuous to say that the Right is >the only party gulty of this.

Joe, you don't honestly believe that, do you? I'm in full agreement about the pathetic state of the Dems, but I'm missing this "vision" and hard work of the Repubs. Extraordinary govt bloat, unprecedented debt to other countries, an economy that is arguably "growing" on smoke and mirrors.

There is not a single true assertion in this post. Not one.

You sir, are mistaken. If I had a bit more time, I would provide you with proof, but I, being a good Republican, have to go to the office work hard and be happy, I know how that drives you lefties nuts when we do thathttp://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/wat1.gif

Hypocrisy and delusion wrapped up in mantraesque regurgitated projection. The democrats, methinks, has brought the art of goebbelsian theory to new heights...the leftist propaganda ministry, from the pulpit of a deceptive media neo-monopoly, has warped its whored constituency...like the pimp the prostitute has sold its soul and lost contact with reality.

Lefties do hate people who work since they're all on welfare.

Or wait, they're elitists, which means they're snobby rich folks with lots of money...

Or wait, they're all on welfare

Or wait, they're all elitists

How can one keep up with all the slander?



And wasn't it Iran and the hardcore terrorists who wanted Bush to win because he's good propaganda for the terrorist recruits?

They practice on us.;)

George Bush, May 6, 1999:

"I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another … I think that each person ought to be judged by their heart and by their soul and by their contribution to society. Group-thought will balkanize our society, and I have rejected the politics of pitting one group of persons against another."

He sure has united us ... Well except for Flint and Mul and hundreds of thousands like them that would just as soon spit on a "liberal" as look at them. All except for those people that equate dissension with cowardice, criticism with treason.

I am not quite sure that I grok what Mul was trying to say. I am guessing the he is saying that somehow the Democrats have brought all of this about. I guess I am having trouble with the big words here. I am guessing if I were to bust them back down to a typical vocabulary, they wouldn't make much more sense.

Look. Bin Ladin is still running around someplace. We went into Iraq and divided our attention away from crushing Al Queda. Somehow it is an act of treason and support for the terrorists if I point out that we have poorly procecuted the war in Iraq and missed the boat. Meanwhile, our standing on the world stage has faired poorly.
After 911, we had the sympathy of the world and for a moment cooperation on pursuing the terrorist threat. That sympathy is gone.

Somehow this failure will be ascribed to the Democrats.