Recently in Iraq Category

Because learning firsthand what's really happening in Iraq and visiting with all those victims in the US military he claims to care about would just be a "stunt":

John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge.

You really have to hand it to McCain - rather than shy away from the Iraq war as a campaign topic, he's been making it a centerpiece issue. You'd think that Obama, whose war stance was sold as the reason to pick him over more experienced Democrats in the primaries, would be delighted to go toe-to-toe with McCain on this issue. Instead, he cowers from any direct debate, and falls back on distortions such as his dishonest claim that McCain doesn't want the troops to get an affordable education or the "100-year war" lie that he's told so frequently.

It requires more than just judgment to lead. It requires courage as well. Obama is proving that he lacks both.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed four U.S. soldiers in Baghdad on Sunday, the military said, pushing the overall American death toll in the five-year war to at least 4,000. The grim milestone came on a day when at least 61 people were killed across the country.

Well, I guess we know what the topic of the week is going to be for the Democrat candidates. Expect more dishonest tripe from both as Obama claims his ignorance-based stance on the war shows better judgment than that of those who actually had access to intel, and watch Hillary spin like a top as she regrets basing her Iraq war vote on facts instead of opinion polls of the moonbat wing of her party. And both will attack each other on which plan for surrender waves the white flag faster and higher.

Lost in all of this will be the troops, some of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom while the left continues to actively undermine the morale and mission of those that remain.

As a military retiree, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the men and women currently serving their country. Your tireless devotion, courage, and professionalism are appreciated.

And without withdrawal demands or timetables, too. Someone please tell Nancy Pelosi that liking the war apparently isn't just for Republicans anymore.

George Bush is well on his way to becoming the most powerful lame-duck ever.

New suggested mottos for Harry Reid's Senate:

• "I guess when you're all about surrender, any surrender will do."

• "When you can't be with the surrender you want, honey - love the surrender you're with." (works as a theme song as well)

• "It's not about giving up while you're ahead - it's just about giving up."

• "You don't go to the Senate floor with the surrender you want - you go to the Senate floor with the surrender you have."

• "If at first you don't succeed, give up, give up, again."

If you want to send an inspirational Christmas gift to your favorite Democrat Senator, this would be a good place to start.

Update: 0 for 2 on a sunny December Friday.

Kinda hurts to look at it, eh?

Pulling no punches, Karl Rove serves up a critique of the most unpopular Congress in history. From their fear and loathing of the military to their childish antics to please their MoveOn.Org masters, he scores on each shot:

"The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences."

Actually, I think "No immigration reform" is a good thing, but it's a small quibble. Please go read the whole article. I'm bookmarking this one.

Have been watching C-SPAN and the drama unfolding with Dennis Kucinich's impeachment resolution. Steny Hoyer tried to table the resolution, but the Republicans all switched votes to keep the resolution alive. This was to embarrass the Democrats who are already under fire for the endless and fruitless investigations. Currently, there's a motion to send it committee, where it could be kept low-key (and unembarrassing to house Dems). Looks like that motion will pass.

Had the Republican's gambit worked, the house would have debated for an hour followed by a vote. Republicans would have had a field day shaming the ludicrous assertions in the resolution, such as "Keeping all options on the table" meaning that Cheney was conspiring to wage war with Iran.

Back later with more...

Update from Yahoo/AP:

Debate on Cheney impeachment averted

WASHINGTON - House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.

Bruising indeed. It would have been fun to watch, too. Statement from the White House in the same article:

The White House, in a statement, said Democrats were shirking responsibilities on issues such as childrens' health insurance "and yet they find time to waste an afternoon on an impeachment vote against the vice president. ... This is why Americans shake their head in wonder about the priorities of this Congress."

And I managed to make it all the way through the post without exploiting the extraterrestrial angle!

I couldn't help but think back to the visit his vile bunch of haters made to Delaware. Kristin Harty recalls the event in the Wilmington News-Journal today:

Demonstrators from Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church huddled together with their signs.

"God Hates Fags."

"Fags Doom Nations."

"Thank God for Dead Soldiers," some of the signs read.

Then one of the demonstrators smiled at Dunn and spit on the American flag.

"Can't you do anything about that?" Dunn asked one of the dozens of policemen protecting the protesters.

"Not a thing," the policeman said.

Thankfully for the family of Cpl. Cory Palmer, the town of Seaford poured out into the streets to counter the Kansas group's disgusting display. The town made sure the location of the protest was out of view from where friends and family paid their respects to Cory. A funeral for a fallen hero is surely a sad event, but thanks to many Seaford residents, it was also a proud day for Delaware as over a thousand folks stood up for their own.

It wasn't just Seaford residents. Ms. Harty doesn't mention the efforts of 370+ Patriot Guard Riders, who helped to cancel the sick vitriol from Phelps' haters.

Marine Corporal Cory Palmer, 21, died on May 6, 2006 at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Tex., from wounds received while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Anbar Province. One of Delaware's own, and a true hero.

The Johnstown Tribune-Democrat weighed in yesterday with their thoughts on the Murtha - Irey Congressional race, and it's not pretty (H/T Irey campaign). Unlike the NYT editorial endorsing Lamont, this one actually talks about the candidate they endorse - and they have little nice to say about him besides approving of his "cut and run" war stance. Emphasis added:

On his famous love for pork:

While we endorse the local congressman in his re-election bid, we fear the spending spree that might result from a shift in power...

On his smearing of the troops, which has made him very unpopular with the military:

We would also urge Murtha to sit down with area veterans who clearly have different views on the Iraq conflict than he does.

On his alignment with the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party:

We are frightened by Murtha’s willingness to align himself with California Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Clearly, Murtha is hoping that relationship paves the way for his ascension to a position of higher power in the House. But we don’t believe our region’s values match well with Pelosi’s, and we don’t see much good coming for the 12th district – even if the relationship benefits the congressman.

Beyond that, Murtha has endeared himself to liberals on both coasts – raising money for his allies in California, New England and elsewhere. We hope he can keep these “friends” and their spending ways in check if the Democrats retake the House.

They even acknowlege how corrupt he is, hoping he can restrain his urges:

But we urge him to remain faithful to his fiscally and socially conservative western Pennsylvania roots – even if it costs him in personal gain and national influence.

Read the whole editorial. It's painfully clear what the Tribune-Democrat is saying here - "Murtha sucks, but vote for him anyway 'cause he's a Democrat."

The Tribune-Democrat's editorial staff has surely reached new lows when their bias toward the left causes them to endorse a candidate whom they acknowlege is unsuitable in most ways. Do they really believe the voters in Johnstown are dense enough to buy it?

Update: Those troops that Murtha rushes to condemn have a few thoughts about cutting and running (H/T Captain's Quarters). The Tribune-Democrat is right, the troops simply don't agree with Murtha.

Via Little Green Footballs, a revealing view of Ned Lamont's base:

It certainly fits the pattern I've noticed among some Lamont supporters. I'm not ready to put a label on it, save to say that even just a small hint of it here and there is certainly disturbing and sad.

The nutroots know how utterly unappealing these views are to most Americans, and some are trying to keep a lid on any open discussion that may cast them in a bad light. Right now, in some places, if you use a normally acceptable far-left greeting such as "Gaza is a gulag", you might be answered with "...let’s leave this subject alone until next Wednesday. Please."

How very sad.

If something that even hints at a success for the administration rears it's ugly head, count on our supportive MSM to cast it in the worst possible light. Via CBS News:

(CBS/AP) In a world sharply divided on Iraq since the U.S.-led war began in 2003, Saddam Hussein's death sentence Sunday unleashed fears of fresh violence and new questions about the fairness and impartiality of the tribunal that ordered him to hang.

Underscoring the fault lines that split the international community and widened the divide between Muslims and Christians, Islamic leaders warned that the verdict could inflame those who revile the United States — undermining U.S. policy in the volatile Middle East and inspiring terrorists to strike.

"The hanging of Saddam Hussein will turn to hell for the Americans," said Vitaya Wisethrat, a respected Muslim cleric in Thailand, where a bloody Islamic insurgency is raging in the country's south.

"The Saddam case is not a Muslim problem but the problem of America and its domestic politics," he said. "The Americans are about to vote in a midterm election, so maybe Bush will use this case to tell the voters that Saddam is dead and that the Americans are safe. But actually the American people will be in more danger with the death of Saddam."

Stepping up to the plate for their pals.

Dan Rather is on Fox News as I write this, he's questioning the timing. Hope someone got video - I'll link if it's out there.

A major milestone in Iraqi history is reached as its most barbaric and murderous leader receives justice - Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to hang by the neck until dead for his crimes against humanity. He deserves worse, IMO.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced Sunday to hang for crimes against humanity in the 1982 killings of 148 people in a single town, as the ousted leader, trembling and defiant, shouted "God is great!"

As he, his half brother and another senior official in his regime were convicted and sentenced to death, Saddam yelled out, "Long live the people and death to their enemies. Long live the glorious nation, and death to its enemies!"

Some feared the verdicts could intensify Iraq's sectarian violence after a trial that stretched over nine months in 39 sessions and ended nearly 3 1/2 months ago. Clashes immediately broke out Sunday in north Baghdad's heavily Sunni Azamiyah district. Elsewhere in the capital, celebratory gunfire rang out.

"This government will be responsible for the consequences, with the deaths of hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands, whose blood will be shed," Salih al-Mutlaq, a Sunni political leader, told the al-Arabiya satellite television station.

Saddam and his seven co-defendants were on trial for a wave of revenge killings carried out in the city of Dujail following a 1982 assassination attempt on the former dictator. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Islamic Dawa party, then an underground opposition, has claimed responsibility for organizing the attempt on Saddam's life.

In the streets of Dujail, a Tigris River city of 84,000, people celebrated and burned pictures of their former tormentor as the verdict was read.

The death sentences automatically go to a nine-judge appeals panel, which has unlimited time to review the case. If the verdicts and sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days.

A court official told The Associated Press that the appeals process was likely to take three to four weeks once the formal paperwork was submitted.

During Sunday's hearing, Saddam initially refused the chief judge's order to rise; two bailiffs pulled the ousted ruler to his feet and he remained standing through the sentencing, sometimes wagging his finger at the judge.

On FNN, they're reporting lots of celebrating. Below is a picture of celebrating in Sadr city:

This is people protesting against the verdit Tikrit.

But remember, this isn't over. We'll see more of Saddam as the appeal plays out.

Here's something that tickled me:

Before the session began, one of Saddam's lawyers, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, was ejected from the courtroom after handing the judge a memorandum in which he called the trial a travesty.

Chief Judge Raouf Abdul-Rahman pointed to Clark and said in English, "Get out."

Others blogging about the verdict:

Stop the ACLU
Hot Air
Gateway Pundit
Patterico
Blue Crab Boulevard
Polipundit
Ankle Biting Pundits
The Wide Awakes
Iowa Voice
Mary Katharine Ham
Junkyard Blog
Flopping Aces
Ed Driscoll
Tim Blair
Pajamas Media
Sister Toldjah
Captain's Quarters

Early yesterday morning I emailed another blogger on an unrelated topic, but included my thoughts on the NYT's story:

I'm staying away from the NYT nuke story for now. The article was clear that the documents were pre-gulf war, I think some of the arguments being made on the right are a little thin. More info is sure to come out, maybe I'll be proven wrong. I hope so. Right now, though, I see this as a negative, albeit a minor one that probably won't have much effect on the election.

I think the Times' story hasn't even lived up to my mild prediction, as apparently the story hasn't gained much traction. Indeed, Dan Riehl notes:

More than 12 hours after the New York Times dropped perhaps what they thought was a nuclear bomb on the Bush administration four days before the coming election, a look at Google News puts the story at second tier status with no more than 265 additional stories linked to the breaking news.

The argument from the left that this somehow helped Iran will sway few outside the BDS echo-chamber. Iran has worked on their program for years with plenty of help, it's unlikely these old Iraq documents will help them.

As for the right side, while I feel that there should now be some increased attention to all the captured documents, the notion that the Times has somehow validated all 48,000 boxes of them is somewhat silly. I would like to think we can come up with a better vetting standard than the New York Times. (yes, I know, Ed isn't being entirely serious with this. But he was among the first to say it, and many other blogs are flogging this as if it's a big "gotcha", and I simply don't think it is.)

Folks on my side are also hyping the fact that the documents place yet another dagger in the heart of the "BushLied" meme. ""Iraq is a year away from building a nuclear bomb" was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush used to trick us into war."

True, but there were more than enough daggers in that heart already, and yet the "BushLied" meme is still alive and well. It's a comforting and fun rallying cry for the anti-Bush/anti-war crowds, they're not going to stop beating that drum no matter how much truth they ignore. Just this week, Kerry repeated it:

John McCain ought to ask for an apology from Dick Cheney for misleading America. He ought to ask for an apology from the president for lying about the nuclear program in Africa.

Of course, when the higher levels on the left still say it, the low will follow. For example, this deserter:

"The whole story behind it, it all feels like a big lie," Glass said. "I ain't fighting for no lie."

Hmmm. Kerry might have been right about this particular fellow - he's obviously not applied himself to his studies. Point is, though, the article in the Times turned out to be a big, fat, hairy zero.

If this is the best the NYT can muster, maybe Tuesday won't be such a disaster after all.

Oh - something struck me as I read the response to the article by Rep. Hoekstra, specifically this paragraph:

"With respect to the possibility that documents may have been released that should not have been released, I have always been clear that the Director of National Intelligence should take whatever steps necessary to withhold sensitive documents. In fact, as of today the DNI had withheld 59 percent of the documents that it had reviewed, and has become more risk-averse over time. If the DNI believes that the documents that were released were in the safe 40 percent, imagine what the 60 percent being withheld must contain.

Am I the only one who thinks Rep. Hoekstra isn't waxing rhetorical? And could the media be sedate in their coverage of this because they fear being thrown off track by that "60 percent"?

Just asking...

From Kerry's website earlier:

Statement of Senator John Kerry

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative..." - In other words, "It's a shame that the troops (and the rest of you ignorant peasants as well) are too lazy and uneducated to understand the finely nuanced humor from my superior intellect."

This is as forced an apology as I've ever heard. And the addition of swipes at the right just give the impression that he hasn't had a change of heart since he made the "I don't apologize" speech yesterday. He's sorry anyone was offended, but not sorry he said it.

Even if, as he says, was making a joke about Bush, it would still warrant an apology. I've griped about the level of discourse in politics before, nowhere is it more of a problem than among our elected officials. The decline of statesmanship in Congress over the last thirty years is truly shameful. As a country, we deserve for our elected officials to set standards for dignity and grace. They can and should disagree - just act like adults.

Making jokes about the troops or the president in this manner is simply juvenile. It shows a distinct lack of maturity and character. The inability to offer a simple and contrite apology when necessary is a serious flaw - one that Kerry seems determined to display over and over.

Nope - this didn't cut it.

...in today's Washington Post to decry Republican name-calling. In the process, he continues to show why Democrats like him don't deserve to be in power. His message is unmistakably clear - Iraq is hard, we might lose, so we should give up.

Had the forefathers of this country decided that the possibility of losing was enough not to try, we'd still be a colony today. How about WWII? Winning wasn't a given when we engaged in Europe - matter of fact, we went over there because our allies were losing. Murtha's head-in-the-sand brand of defeatism would have condemned Europe to defeat at the hands of Hitler all because it was too hard.

Is Iraq a mess? Yes. Do the Iraqi people deserve the even worse chaos and loss of life that would ensue if we simply pulled up stakes and abandoned them? No.

Murtha was quite the humanitarian when speaking out on the loss of Iraqi life when he claimed our troops were killing them in cold blood without the benefit of a complete investigation. If our continued presence while the Iraqis gradually take over saves lives that would otherwise be lost in the expanded sectarian violence that would surely erupt if we left now, why wouldn't Murtha support that? Cause it wouldn't further his political ambitions? Some humanitarian, eh?

Lots of things are hard, Jack. Lots are painful, too. Running away from things that are right because they might be hard and/or painful shouldn't be the trademark of a decorated veteran.

Very unusual in an AP story - a tale of heroism:

CORONADO, Calif. - A Navy SEAL sacrificed his life to save his comrades by throwing himself on top of a grenade Iraqi insurgents tossed into their sniper hideout, fellow members of the elite force said.

Please go read the rest.

Update: Must remember to search before posting. Shoulda known Froggy was on top of this over at Blackfive.

Kit has chapter 2 and chapter 3 of her series about the Pendleton Eight posted. Doesn't disappoint. We disagree on a point or two, but I'll wait until the series is completely posted to comment. Suffice to say that on most of her major points, I agree. These men appear to be getting a raw deal and the military needs to address the problem.

is being discussed in a series of posts starting today by the always excellent Kit Jarrell of Euphoric Reality. This is not only the must read of the day, but the rest of the series as it gets posted should be watched for as well:

Now imagine that you are sitting in an 8×8 cell, as are seven of your brothers, waiting to find out if your promise to remain faithful will in fact result in your death–not in a hail of enemy fire, not in the blinding explosion of a terrorist’s bomb, but by the sterile needle of a lethal injection, administered by the very country you spent your adult life defending. You have been shackled, wearing a label that says “PVD”: potentially violent and dangerous. You have been here for over a month now, in solitary confinement for almost 24 hours a day, with nothing to do but pray that someone stands up for you, just as you did for them. But hope is dwindling. Your military attorneys don’t have time to help you, and your civilian attorneys are being denied access to evidence that would prove you’re innocent–no autopsy of the man they say you murdered in cold blood, no witnesses, nothing.

Kit also provides links for those who wish to help - also recommended.

It matters little if you believe these men innocent or guilty - they deserve to be treated fairly by the military justice system, and by all indication, they haven't been.

I would also recommend writing to your elected officials in Congress. Unless, of course, you live in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District, where your representative is likely in his favorite rocking chair knitting nooses instead of flags. Those folks should write to someone else's Representative instead.

From this morning's AP coverage of the video of the two mutilated soldiers:

It said that as soon as fighters heard of the rape-slaying, "they kept their anger to themselves and didn't spread the news, but were determined to avenge their sister's honor."

The 4:39 minute video shows two bloodied bodies in torn military uniforms lying near a curb on a bridge over a canal. One of them, partially naked, has been decapitated and his chest cut open. The other's face is bruised, the jaw apparently broken, and his leg has long gashes. Fighters are shown turning the bodies over and lifting the head of the decapitated man.

I don't know about you, but when I see this, I have a hard time thinking of those that did it as "fighters".

If you have any doubts about what kind of people our troops face in Iraq and elsewhere.

If you have any doubts about why we have to stay and finish the job.

If you have any doubts about why it's so important to help the middle east join the 21st century.

Don't go unless you can handle extremely graphic images. There are plenty of warnings, please read and heed.

Although if it were up to me I'd make this required watching for nearly every adult in the U.S.

H/T Little Green Footballs.

That's the title of a post yesterday from Captain Ed about a proposal to arm insurgents under the presumption that they would take on Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Here's a little from the USA Today article it's based on:

BAGHDAD — Iraq's government is studying a request from some local insurgent leaders to supply them with weapons so they can turn on the heavily armed foreign fighters who were once their allies, according to two Iraqi lawmakers.

Leaders claiming to represent about 11 insurgent groups asked for weapons to fight foreign al-Qaeda elements in Iraq, said Haider al-Ibadi, a Shiite lawmaker and member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party.

"They want to take part in the war against terrorists," said al-Ibadi, who supports the proposal. "They claim they could wipe out the terrorists and work with the government."

Captain Ed, notably, thinks it's a bad idea:

Still, it sounds too cute. They want arms to fight the terrorists. If the native insurgents want that, they should have enlisted in the Iraqi Army. These groups could simply provide the Iraqi Army with their intel and let the government handle the problem.

Frankly, I think it's worse than a bad idea. And based on the offer being made public, (certainly AQI has access to the news) something about this story doesn't smell right. I see three possibilities:

A) If the offer is genuine, then Haider al-Ibadi is either stupid or has sold out the insurgents. AQI isn't likely to trust these 11 groups enough to let them get close now that the offer is public. Indeed, they'll change their hiding places now, making the insugent's intel useless. And the insurgents themselves will now become targets of AQI.

B) The second possibility is that the offer was extended just so that the insurgents can re-supply their dwindling weapons caches. Unless AQI was in on the scam, it may have backfired as the insurgents may fall from AQI's good graces due to the offer being made public.

C) The third possibility is that there was no offer at all. The Iraqi government introduced a bogus proposal to drive a wedge between the insurgents and AQI. This could force the insurgents to be more cooperative in the bargaining efforts, and maybe bring more of the groups to the table.

The scenario in the article doesn't work at face value. Insurgents not only have intel, they have it because they are the ones giving shelter to AQI (who else would?). The terrorists are far more ruthless than the insurgency, and I'm sure the local fighters have a healthy respect (read: fear) of that fact. I can't imagine that any of them would offer up AQI without demanding secrecy.

So the real question, then, is why did the Iraqi government give this to the press? This has to be either a blunder or a ruse.

Via AP/Yahoo:

MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered Russia's special services to hunt down and "destroy" the killers of four Russian diplomats in Iraq, the Kremlin said.

Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Federal Security Service — the main successor to the Soviet KGB — later said that everything would be done to ensure that the killers "do not escape from responsibility," the Interfax news agency reported.

"The president has ordered the special forces to take all necessary measures to find and destroy the criminals who killed Russian diplomats in Iraq," the Kremlin press service said in a brief statement.

This is good news - the terrorists in Iraq have historically received a different reaction from taking and/or killing non-US hostages.

Putin has a somewhat different intelligence footprint in Iraq stemming from a long involvement there, and they're chummy with some of the factions that have regarded us in a chilly fashion. If there's a minimum amout of coordination, it's likely that Russia's more active role in hunting down Al Qaeda in Iraq will benefit our mission as well.

This would be a terrific time for Condi and/or Bush to make a few phone calls.

I've seen lots of the reaction to the announcement from Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra about the chemical munitions shells.

The press is now starting to get the leaks from "anonymous sources" saying that the shells were of little use:

But intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed.

They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004.

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.

And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said.

While David Kay may be right about the sarin, he's completely incorrect about the mustard gas.

Mustard gas doesn't have to be lethal to be effective, as it's not used to kill. During World War I, the death rate among those exposed was only 5% - hardly a weapon you would depend on for its lethality. No, the doctrine for its use is based on causing widespread injury, which bogs down a military far more than deaths - a dead soldier takes out one combatant, a wounded soldier takes out two.

Mustard gas has a uniquely long persistance compared to other chemical agents. During the annual training I received while active duty, it was common to hear the story about a chemical warfare instructor during the 70's who dismantled a vintage gas mask to show some students how it was used. The mask had traces of mustard gas in it - the instructor wound up in the hospital by the end of the day with blisters on his hands and arms.

While the story may have attained the status of urban legend, there's no reason to doubt its basis in truth. In Europe, there's still occasional cases of mustard agent exposure reported in the media, usually from unexploded shells left over from World War I.

The point is that even in a degraded condition, it's possible that stockpiles of mustard gas shells could have been used to great effect.

That doesn't necessarily mean the 500 shells combine to make a smoking gun. As details come out in the coming weeks and months from official sources (rather than those that hide in the shadows), we may very well learn that the shells were degraded beyond being a viable threat. What will be more telling to me is any documentation that shows what the Iraqis believed. If they thought the shells were valuable assets and maintained them as such, it would be revealing as to why no new production was found. After all, why make more if you don't have to?

But this does add to the documentation and eyewitness reports already available showing that there was an ongoing desire by the Hussein regime to maintain and use WMDs.

That said, I'm afraid that even should enough evidence pile up to take away all doubts for those of us on the right, there will always be the robotic chanting of the dishonest "Bush lied" mantra from the left. After the years of repetition, their investment in this particular lie may be far too great for any amount of truth to overcome.

Today promises to be another big day for Republicans as the Democrats attempt a repeat of last week's Iraq debate:

WASHINGTON - Fierce election-year debate on Iraq spilled over into a second week on Capitol Hill with Senate Democrats lining up behind a proposal to start U.S. troop withdrawals this year and Republicans chastising them for espousing a "cut-and-run" strategy.

The Republicans are standing firm, as they should:

"Let me be clear: Retreat is not a solution," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "Cutting and running is bad policy that threatens our national security and poses unacceptable risks to Americans."

Democrats seem to think that keeping our word to the Iraqi government is a bad idea for a very anti-liberal reason:

"The administration's policy to date, that we'll be there for as long as Iraq needs us, will result in Iraq's depending on us longer," said Levin, top-ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. "Three-and-a-half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent."

Would that they applied the same logic to their beloved entitlement programs here at home.

In a weird deja vu kind of way, Senator Kerry wants to ressurect his proposal from last week for yet another overwhelming defeat:

It would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving in place only U.S. troops essential to training Iraqi security forces, conducting counterterrorism operations and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities.

Also joining Kerry is Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold (who doesn't support the war but supports nearly 86% of the constitution). I guess they felt left out last week.

Ultimately, today's debate in the Senate should prove to be a positive for Republicans as Democrats line up once again to show their lack of resolve on security issues.

While as of yet unconfirmed, it appears that the missing soldiers may be dead:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The bodies of two U.S. soldiers have been found near where the men went missing, a senior Iraqi military official said Tuesday, but the U.S. military said it could not confirm the report.

Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed said the bodies of Army Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and Army Pfc. Thomas Lowell Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore., were found on a street near a power plant in the town of Youssifiyah, just south of Baghdad.

U.S. Maj. Doug Powell said he could not confirm the report.

The soldiers came under attack Friday at a traffic checkpoint near Youssifiyah. A third soldier, Spc. David J. Babineau, 25, of Springfield, Mass., was killed in the attack. All three were from the 101st Airborne Division based at Fort Campbell, Ky.

I'll update when confirmed. Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families.

Update (9:30am EST): Bodies show signs of torture:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An Iraqi military official said Tuesday that the bodies of two missing U.S. soldiers showed signs of torture, and that men appeared to have been killed "in a barbaric way." Also, the umbrella group for Iraqi insurgents claimed responsibility for the soldiers' deaths.

"We give the good news ... to the Islamic nation that we have carried God's verdict by slaughtering the two captured crusaders," said a statement in the name of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, which groups five insurgent organizations including al-Qaida in Iraq.

At a news briefing, U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell declined to identify the two men until their families could be notified.

I'm sure over the course of this week there will be lots of pixels devoted to the shameful defeatist posturing of Rep. John Murtha yesterday on Meet the Press. Indeed, there already has. Today's Wall Street Journal has a terrific twofer on the politics of cut 'n run^TM and the war in general.

The first, Iraq and Congress, says of Murtha:

As for Mr. Murtha's proposal that U.S. forces should redeploy to some nearby part of the Middle East, this is merely a disguise for what everyone would understand was a defeat in Iraq. Anyone who doubts it should merely listen to Mr. Murtha, who said again yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press that "We can't win a war like this." It's more accurate to say that our troops have a harder time winning a war with political leaders as inconstant as Mr. Murtha, who voted to commit U.S. troops but now lacks the will to finish the job.

Certainly Rep. Murtha deserves the credit for being the loudest of those who would abandon Iraq and prove to the world that the United States can't be counted on to keep its word. And who could blame him? After all, what use is our integrity as a nation when the Majority Leader post is on the line? And the thrust of his message should not be mistaken by anyone, considering the ill-chosen comparison to Beirut or Somalia, both of which cost the US dearly by emboldening the ideology and strategy of Al-Qaeda.

It simply cannot be other than raw stupidity to repeatedly claim a need to "change directions" and offer only examples that abandoned friends and contributed greatly to 9/11. Murtha would have us take that route again, once and for all eliminating any measure of trust that might be placed in us by a nation in need.

But Murtha isn't alone - he has the backing of an opportunistic party so hell-bent on regaining power that they eagerly anticipate our nation's failure so that they can cynically sweep in and pick up the pieces. Nancy Pelosi referred to the war as a "grotesque mistake" recently. I wonder how the groups in Iraq most subject to the murderous whims of Saddam Hussein feel about the suggestion that their plight under Saddam was just fine by Nancy, and any attempt to liberate them was a "mistake"? Her political posturing fails to consider that the real mistakes have already been judged by history:

Most terrorism experts are agreed that the precipitous withdrawal from both places emboldened our enemies by convincing them the U.S. could always be made to back down in any conflict. Not repeating those mistakes may be reason enough to stay the course in Iraq.

It would be foolhardy to believe otherwise. Surrender in Iraq would be Al-Qaeda's greatest victory - not only would it embolden Bin Laden to plan more attacks, it would make his recruiting far easier.

Now Dianne Feinstein wants to followup the spectacular failure of the Kerry plan last week with a repeat of the surrender-based politics that have worked so well for the Democrats Republicans of late. Good. Let them bring it up every week if they want - right up to the mid-term elections. Let them ask the American people if our national integrity has any value at all.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An umbrella group that includes al-Qaida in Iraq claimed in a Web statement Monday that it had kidnapped two U.S. soldiers reported missing south of Baghdad. There was no immediate confirmation that the statement was credible, although it appeared on a Web site often used by al-Qaida-linked groups.

U.S. officials have said they were trying to confirm whether the missing soldiers were kidnapped.

If true, at least the missing soldiers are alive, and there's a chance of rescuing them. We're keeping our fingers crossed and praying for the best.

And the liberals are seething, claiming this to be a political stunt.

They don't look very happy, do they?

WASHINGTON - The House on Friday handily rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, culminating a fiercely partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats feeling the public's apprehension about war and the onrushing midterm campaign season.

In a 256-153 vote that mirrored the position taken by the Senate earlier, the GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.

**snip**

Democrats denounced the debate and vote as a politically motivated charade, and most, including Pelosi, voted against the measure.

It appears to me that Murtha and his pals are now mired in an intractable war. He was there for the wrong reasons and has mismanaged it terribly. Indeed, this is a war that he cannot win, and made worse by the fact that many in his own party don't support the cut 'n run^TM strategy and are apparently now engaged in a civil war within the Democratic Party. Maybe it's time for Murtha to re-deploy back to Pennsylvania.

Political stunt? You bet it was. Democrats have had free reign to run from channel to channel crying "Time frame! We need a time frame! Bring 'em home now!" while ducking the harder question of what it means to advocate abandoning those we've sworn to help. A long-running dishonest stunt by the Democrats for cheap political points.

They'll find it harder to earn those points now.

Or at least that's the plan (H/T Protein Wisdom):

Marine may call Murtha as witness

A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.

Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.

Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps' top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.

"Congressman Murtha will be one of the first witnesses I call to the witness stand," Mr. Puckett said yesterday.

Mr. Puckett represents Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, an eight-year Marine who was a key participant in the Haditha operations that resulted in the 24 civilian deaths.

I don't know if the claim of unlawful command influence will have any traction - but somebody in the command structure thought these Marines were guilty. And the choice of Murtha as a recipient of the leak shows malice as it should have been predictable what would be done with it.

But the fact is that we don't yet know what the truth is regarding Haditha. I'm hoping they're innocent, but recognize that it could go the way of those who hope that they're guilty. If you're reading this and saying "but I don't hope they're guilty - I just know they are" then you're being dishonest. You can't know any more than I can since the facts haven't all been revealed. Only a fool driven by more emotion than brains could reach a conclusion of innocence or guilt on the public facts as they currently stand.

So if you believe they're guilty, it's not fact, but hope alone that drives you, and I don't have it in me to even pity you.

Murtha has hope, too. Political gain seems like such a petty motive, doesn't it? But his reprehensable act cuts both ways - if there is something that the Marines should be brought to justice for, Murtha and his informant may have given them the tools to avoid it. If they're innocent, they'll never be able to remove the stain that's been smeared on them.

That's not something to be proud of, folks. Why don't some of you "hopefuls" tell me again how courageous and patriotic Murtha is - OK?

Update (5:00pm EST): Okay, okay - I had a change of heart on the drive home from work. "Patriotism" is overused nowadays anyway - just like "integrity". Both are terrific concepts, but the application of each changes dramatically depending on perspective.

So in all fairness, it's entirely possible that Murtha believes that selling out a few Marines to achieve his party's and his own objectives is beneficial to the country, therefore, patriotic. You know, kinda like that woman down in Texas who claimed that the only way to save her kids was to drown them. So, in that spirit, the last paragraph of this post is corrected to read:

That's not something to be proud of, folks. Why don't some of you "hopefuls" tell me again how Murtha did the right thing - OK?

There. I feel so much better now.

Today's first sighting - AP:

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon Thursday confirmed that 2,500 U.S. troops have died in the Iraq war since it began more than three years ago. The grim milestone was announced just hours before the House was to begin a symbolic election-year debate over the war, with Republicans rallying against calls by some Democrats to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

I take back the nice remarks.

Via AP/Yahoo, more indication of success in Iraq:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - American and Iraqi forces have carried out 452 raids since last week's killing of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and 104 insurgents were killed during those actions, the U.S. military said Thursday.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said the raids were carried out nationwide and led to the discovery of 28 significant arms caches.

He said 255 of the raids were joint operations, while 143 were carried out by Iraqi forces alone. The raids also resulted in the captures of 759 "anti-Iraqi elements."

In other words, we're doing very well. I expect Murtha to make a statement soon congratulating our military's success. Don't you?

Update (10:00am EST): Meanwhile, AL-Reuters does it's best to put on a sunny spin on it for the left:

Military deaths in Iraq hit 2,500

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq has reached 2,500, the Pentagon said on Thursday, more than three years into a conflict that finds U.S.-led forces locked in a struggle with a resilient Sunni Arab insurgency.

If they hadn't included the above number, one could read the rest of the article and easily assume it was much higher.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's national security adviser said Thursday a "huge treasure" of documents and computer records was seized after the raid on terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's hideout, giving the Iraqi government the upper hand in its fight against al-Qaida in Iraq.

National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie also said he believed the security situation in the country would improve enough to allow a large number of U.S.-led forces to leave Iraq by the end of this year, and a majority to depart by the end of next year. "And maybe the last soldier will leave Iraq by mid-2008," he said.

Al-Rubaie said a laptop, flashdrive and other documents were found in the debris after the airstrike that killed the al-Qaida in Iraq leader last week outside Baqouba, and more information has been uncovered in raids of other insurgent hideouts since then.

He called it a "huge treasure ... a huge amount of information."

When asked how he could be sure the information was authentic, al-Rubaie said "there is nothing more authentic than finding a thumbdrive in his pocket."

"We believe that this is the beginning of the end of al-Qaida in Iraq," al-Rubaie said, adding that the documents showed al-Qaida is in "pretty bad shape," politically and in terms of training, weapons and media.

"Now we have the upper hand," he said at a news conference in Baghdad. "We feel that we know their locations, the names of their leaders, their whereabouts, their movements, through the documents we found during the last few days."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, meanwhile, pressed forward with his initiative to crack down on violence in Baghdad. Government forces fanned out across Baghdad for a second day, setting up checkpoints and frisking motorists.

I discussed the potential cascade effect stemming from Zarqawi's death here, and it appears to be coming true. AP's reporting is a welcome change from their usual fare. While I hope they keep it up, the reality is that bad habits are difficult to break.

I wonder how the rest of the media will treat this?

Well, the autopsy report has been released - and there are no surprises:

Col. Steve Jones, command surgeon for Multinational Forces, said an autopsy concluded that al-Zarqawi died from serious injuries to his lungs. An FBI test positively identified al-Zarqawi's remains.

Of course, that won't stop the conspiracy nuts from making all sorts of wild claims. If I see an especially imaginative one I'll link to it later.

Meanwhile, al Qaeda has chosen a successor to Zarqawi:

"The shura council of al Qaeda in Iraq unanimously agreed on Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, to be a successor to Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," said a statement signed by al Qaeda and posted on a Web site frequently used by Islamist militants.

I assume they didn't release an org chart to go along with the announcement.

Today's Washington Post has the first instance of the accused in the Haditha incident speaking out. It's not a direct interview - the Marine's version of events is related through his attorney:

Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," said Neal A. Puckett, who represents Wuterich in the ongoing investigations into the incident. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."

It's a long article with lots of detail, too much to quote here. But the alleged coverup is addressed as well:

After clearing the second house, Puckett said, Wuterich immediately got on the radio and reported the "collateral damage." When the company radio operator asked him to estimate how many civilians had been killed, he said he thought it was about 12 to 15.

McConnell, the company commander, "knew the number was high" and reported it to the battalion executive officer, a major, according to McDermott, his lawyer. McConnell also said that a Marine intelligence team investigated the civilian deaths and reported their findings to senior Marine commanders, the lawyer said.

Wuterich told his attorney that he never reported that the civilians in the houses were killed by the bomb blast and maintains that he never tried to obscure the fact that civilians had been killed in the raids. Whether Wuterich gave false information to his superiors is the focus of one of the military investigations. He said the platoon leader, who was on the scene, never expressed concern about the unit's actions and never tried to hide them.

I've been relatively silent about the investigation thus far. It's been obvious since the story broke that there were details not coming out in the press or in the irresponsible and opportunistic statements from politicians and pundits.

But the Post article should serve to remind us that there numerous voices to be heard. The insistance by some that this event equates to My Lai on the sparsest of data from a bias source serves no one, especially the individuals being accused. Our system of justice requires the presumption of innocence - it's truly unfortunate that as we've seen before, so many lack respect for that simple concept.

The Post should be commended for bringing the other side of the story to us. I hope that the rest of the media picks up the Marines' account defending their experiences in Haditha and gives them the same prominence given to less credible accounts of our troops' behaviour in Iraq.

There's a certain segment of the left where hypocrisy reigns unchecked. There's really no reconciliation of "support the troops by bringing them home" and complaints of our "worn-out, stressed-out, missionless troops in Iraq" who commit "everyday, unheralded horrors perpetrated on innocent Iraqi civilians". Any attempt to concatenate these conflicting views results in a logic-defying mess. More balanced coverage in the media at-large of Haditha won't change the minds of these people, nor will it affect Murtha and other politicians who have abused their public voice and the troops for political gain.

Nonetheless, the Marines and the American people are entitled to a fair accounting. And that's certainly not too much to ask of the news industry, is it?