June 19, 2006

al Qaeda Kidnapping Plays to the DNC

Via Brietbart:

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.

"Your brothers in the military wing of the Mujahedeen Shura Council kidnapped the two American soldiers near Youssifiya," the group said in a statement posted on an Islamic Web site.
The Web site did not name the soldiers.
The soldiers were reported missing Friday after insurgents attacked a checkpoint. The Defense Department identified the missing men as Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore.
The U.S. military said Monday that seven American troops have been wounded, three insurgents have been killed and 34 detained during an intensive search for the soldiers.
Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq, said fighter jets, unmanned aerial vehicles and dive teams had been deployed to find the two men. They went missing Friday during an attack on their checkpoint in the volatile Sunni area south of Baghdad that left one of their comrades dead.

al-Zarqawi's killing and the wildly successful series of raids that followed were crippling both for al Qaeda in Iraq and for the increasingly panicked voices of anti-war Democrats after Bush's surprise visit to Baghdad. A military or political blow against U.S. forces in Iraq was desperately needed. This kidnapping of two American soliders—and I think it only safe to assume that this was planned as such from the beginning—can only be viewed as a much-needed political success for al Qaeda and its allies.

Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed that American commanders in Iraq didn't anticipate such an attempt and didn't better prepare their men for it. On a micro level, I surprised that the soldiers manning this checkpoint feel for a simple diversionary plan that has been used for thousands of years. It is a classic military tactic to use skirmishers to draw a defensive force away from the location it is guarding so that the now undermanned location can be then assaulted by an enemy force hidden nearby. This may not be the oldest trick in the book, but it certainly comes close.

Now we can anticipate a full-on media campaign by al Qaeda and the Democratic Party to be played out in the mainstream media, hopefully (from their perspective) blunting the impressive gains made against the terrorists in Iraq in the past two weeks.

The media, now having the names of these two soldiers, will begin stalking their families, probing for an image of a tearful wife or mother, hoping for an anti-war or anti-Bush soundbite [note: already there].

If we are unable to locate and free these two soldiers, it is quite likely that these terrorists will feature the soldiers in a propaganda video, perhaps decapitating them, which will then be released to al Jazeera, Reuters, and the Associated Press. It is perhaps the worst possible outcome, and one we must prepare to face based upon past treatment of prisoners by these terrorists.

In any event, be assured that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Dishonorable John Murtha will use these events as "evidence" of why we must beat a retreat from Iraq.

al Qaeda is no doubt counting on Democrats toutter those very sentiments, and the three leaders of the Defeat Party cited above are almost certain not to disappoint.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at June 19, 2006 01:25 PM | TrackBack

I've already heard liberals blaming the inevitable abuse of these soldiers on OUR not following the Geneva Conventions. Get ready for it. It's coming.

Posted by: Tony B at June 19, 2006 02:50 PM

Who do you hate more the terrorists or the liberals? I think I hate the libs more cause I have to sit next to them on the bus and listen to them prattle on and on about their treasonous views.

What about y'all? Don't you hate the liberals more?

Posted by: Baptist Belle at June 19, 2006 03:15 PM

Baptist, come on. No contest. Headchoppers vs idiots. People who blow up innocents vs people who want to surrender to them. Keep some perspective.

Posted by: Tony B at June 19, 2006 05:23 PM

What's the difference between a liberal traitor who wants the terrorists to win and a terrorist? They want the same thing, right?

Posted by: Baptist Belle at June 19, 2006 05:49 PM

This is what I'm talking about. Y'all don't agree?

Ann Coulter Fights the Good Fight

Philip V. Brennan
Tuesday, June 13, 2006

There's a war on, and I don't mean the one in Iraq. It's been called the KultureKampf - the conflict between the traditional values of our culture and the nihilism of modern liberalism that renders just about everything but religious faith, the sanctity of the womb and patriotism, permissible.

In the last week - since June 6, 2006 (666) when her book "Godless" hit the bookstores, Ann Coulter became the ultimate bete noir of our times - and the target of CoulterKampf - the war to destroy liberalism's most dangerous enemy.

She has been castigated for being "mean," and "cruel" for "crossing the line," for failing to recognize the sacredness of four canonized liberal icons. She's "mean" and "cruel" because she blasphemed women elevated to secular sainthood by the church of liberalism, and "crossed a line" drawn by, and visible only to the liberal media and the dominant left wing of Democrat Party .

Here's what Ann wrote about meanness in her book "Slander," four years ago.

"A central component of liberal hate speech is to make paranoid accusations based on their own neurotic impulses such as calling Republicans angry, hate-filled and mean."

She went on to note that "liberals have compared conservatives to Down's syndrome children, wished them dead of cholesterol-induced heart attacks, malevolently attacked women for their looks, called Clarence Thomas every racist name in the book, repeatedly stated they 'hate' Republicans, and now - in addition - they say Republicans are 'mean'"

Today, it's Ann Coulter who's "mean."

In the 310 pages of her meticulously researched new book, Ann Coulter documents her assertion that liberalism has all the earmarks of a religion, ergo a bizarre one, and carefully deconstructs the dogmas of the church of liberalism. But critics, who one has every reason to believe haven't so much as cracked the pages of "Godless," have focused all their venom on one small segment of a long chapter on liberalism's use of sacred cows made immune from criticism by virtue of some personal suffering to promulgate their slanders and falsehoods.

There seems to be universal agreement among the nation's literati, right and left, that she went too far in her wholly justified attack on the Jersey Girls who cynically parlayed the 9/11 deaths of their husbands into an anti-Bush political cause. In all of the myriad attacks on Ann for zeroing in on these liberal icons, I have yet to read one word that challenges the accuracy of her criticism of these women. It's all about the very fact that she dared to tell the truth about the women and failed to understand that they bear the liberal seal of immunity from attack by virtue of their widowhood.

Now I will grant that the lady is hard-as-nails tough - I once told her she reminded me of Baodicea, fearsome queen of the Iceni who casually butchered a few Roman legions and almost drove the invading Romans out of Britain.

She takes no prisoners, and why should she? She's fighting a war in which every decent clear-thinking American should be an ally because this war is against a foe that would destroy every vestige of everything Americans have always held dear, and everything that has carried this nation to the pinnacle it occupies as history's wealthiest and most powerful nation.

At stake in this war is whether Americans will remain free or end up ground under the heels of the atheistic Marxist elite who are the hierarchy of the church of liberalism whose Vatican is the Democrat Party.

Ann knows it's a war, and she knows what it takes to win a war. She believes in what she's doing despite snide references to her marketing savvy and her ability to sell books by the tens of thousands, allegedly her sole motivation. It's not easy to stand and take the abuse the left hurls at her and she deserves the support and sympathy of the American people she seeks to alert to the dangers they face from the clergy and acolytes of the church of liberalism.

In her book "Slander," Ann exposed the catechism of the church of liberalism as one that includes hatred of Christians, guns, the profit motive, and political speech and an infatuation with abortion," etc.

I'm with her, all the way. As a veteran of the Marine Corps I see her as one of us - the few, the proud, the warriors who go into battle with verve and steely determination to win, even if it involves ... gasp ... being mean to the enemy.

Semper Fi, Ann.

So, when do we declare war on the liberals? Isn't that what we are talking about here, or is just talk? Just wondering. If it's a war, we should treat it as such, is all I'm sayin'. Posted by: Baptist Belle at June 19, 2006 06:01 PM

Baptist, Shhh. You're not supposed to talk about that. It's a secret till they give the signal.

Posted by: DJ from Omaha at June 20, 2006 02:14 AM

via e-mail alert, the two missing soldiers have been found dead.

Posted by: markm at June 20, 2006 05:54 AM