Unless you live under a rock, you are probably well aware that terrorist Abu Abbas has been captured by American forces in Baghdad, and that it appears he will finally have to face justice for his vile acts some 17 years ago. Already, the defeat at all costs crowd is claiming this is not a real blow against terrorism, but rather it is merely a symbolic victory. For those of you who forget what this cretin did, here is a little primer:
Abu Abbas, as head of the Palestinian Liberation Front, was tried and convicted in absentia in Italy for his role in the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro. He allegedly oversaw the operation, which included the killing of an American passenger, Leon Klinghoffer, off the coast of Egypt.
His minions took a 69 year old man in a wheelchair, executed him, and then threw him and his wheelchair overboard. They chose Leon Klinghoffer for two reasons:
1.) He was Jewish.
2.) He was American.
Maybe they did it because he was American first, Jewish second. Who cares? This was the symbolism- the execution of an American Jew to further the agenda of a Palestinian terror organization. There is, however, no symbolic victory in his capture- it is a victory, no matter how you look at it. His capture is merely our government fulfilling a promise made to every America- and a clear message that if you committ terrorist acts against America or Americans, there is no happy ending for you. We will catch you, whether it takes 6 months, 6 years, or 6 decades.
Others also will try to downplay capturing this terrorist as symbolic because he was not a member of Al Qaeda. Who cares? All of these terrorist groups have loose affiliations with each other. Members of Ansr al-Islam know members of Al Qaeda, and are intermingled with the PLF, they are intertwined with Hezbollah and Hamas. Taking any terrorist down is a step in the right direction in the war on terrorism. What is so hard to understand about that?
So you were against the war. Fine. Do you have to be against reality? Kos comes back from a couple day vacation/business trip/hiatus and unloads with this multiple column-inch sneer:
So Bush “won” the war. At least that’s the spin from the White House and its allied Mighty Wurlitzer.
Actually, Kos- it is quite clear to everyone that the war has been won. Even Dan Rather has come to his senses, albeit belatedly. That does not mean the violence, mayhem, and confusion is over. The rebuilding will take a while, and I am sure that you will be along for the ride, with Mr. Chriac and Mr. Schoreder, doing everything you can to hamper success so that your candidate (is it Dean? Kucinich? Hart? Kerry?) has a better chance in 2004.
The last time a Bush won a war against Iraq, his approval ratings were in the 90s. This time, Bush can barely break the 70s. CBS has him at 73. NBC at 71. Newsweek at 71. Fox at 71. ABC is the most generous to Bush at 77.
So what’s going on? To hear the media talk, this was a crushing, easy, absolute, unconditional, bloodless victory. We’re told, over and over again, that they’re cheering us on the streets of Baghdad. We’re told order is being restored. We’re repeatedly told we found WMDs, quietly retracting all such statements days later.
So, what’s going on? Why aren’t Bush’s numbers higher than common sense might dictate?
Only in the fantasyland that is the core of Democrat support could 75% approval ratings be spun negatively. But, since Kos is curious, I will answer his question- why aren’t Bush’s numbers higher?
Because about 20% of the population would be incapable of saying anything good about Bush if he was able to turn water into wine, if his sweat could be used as a cure for cancer, and if he was able to solve aids, racism, give white people rhythym, provide universal health care and child support, all while balancing the budget solely on the taxes of the rich and corrupt robber barons like Enron. Then and only then, might Kos utter something nice aboutBush- but he still wouldn’t vote for him (Dean’s so much smarter- I mean- Bush just doesn’t speak very well and isn’t very smart).
That is why- 20% of the population is composed of ultra-partisan jerks who simply hate everything about Bush, and there is nothing he can do about it. And guess what, Bush and Rove know that- so I watch with joy as you and your issues get ignored- because you have made yourself IRRELEVANT. When the man does the right thing, you oppose him, shit on him, and try to marginalize his victories. Why the hell would he pay attention to you? And then you get shriller, and less appealing to the general public, and you lose another election. Your solution? Go farther left, and become more obnoxious. It’s really quite beautiful to watch. If the Democrat party was Ben Sanderson (Nick Cage) in Leaving Las Vegas, the only thing they would be pissed about is that they only had two hands and one mouth to get the vodka in. The self-destruction is impressive.
Before you know it, the base of the Democrat party is going to be voting for this guy, with the broad theme of “12 Galaxies Guiltied to A Zegnatronic Rocket Society.” Hell- that makes as much sense as everything else the Donks have been pitching at us.
*** Update ***
Larry Maggiti (who has a new blog you should bookmark and visit) suggests that I wrote this in an attempt to be over the top. IN part, I did. But for the most part, I did not.
You hear this a lot from Bush supporters. Those of us who don
What terrorist ties? Oh… Those:
A wanted Palestinian fugitive, Abu Abbas, has been detained by US forces in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
He led the Palestinian Liberation Front, which hijacked a US cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, in 1985.
During the hijack, an elderly American passenger was killed.
Abu Abbas had been mentioned by US President George W Bush as an example of the kind of figure given refuge by the former regime of Saddam Hussein.
It has been a great week for results in the war, and I am going to take a day off. Remember, though, that despite all the advances this week, we still have men and women in harms way, and remember to keep our MIA’s and POW’s in your thoughts.
U.S. Army Spc. Shoshawna Johnson, one of America’s best and brightest.
*** Update ***
Nancy Pelosi stands by her principled position against the war:
“I have absolutely no regret about my vote on this war,” she told reporters at her weekly briefing yesterday, saying the same questions still remain: “The cost in human lives. The cost to our budget, probably $100 billion. We could have probably brought down that statue for a lot less. The cost to our economy. But the most important question at this time, now that we’re toward the end of it, is what is the cost to the war on terrorism?”
Whatever. Keep talking, Honorable Minority Leader.
Apparently, the folks at IndyMedia have their own issues with Mrs. Pelosi:
Join us in a picket of warmonger, Democratic Party machine Congressperson Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, as she receives a “peace” award on April 12, 2003 at 5 p.m. at the Fairmont Hotel, Nob Hill, California and Mason.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party machine’s favorite fundraiser and Congressional representative of most of San Francisco since 1987, deserves only one thing: Immediate defeat by a peace candidate who is not a Democrat or Republican in the 2004 election. She has voted for everything Bush has asked for including, most recently as last week, $80 billion for war and fascism.
Nancy Pelosi, warmongerer. You heard it here first. Does anyone still question whether or not the IndyMedia loons are divorced from reality?
Well, this whole quagmire seems to be getting worse, eh? I see the Yanks have now been reduced to staging fake scenes of supposed jubilation on the alleged streets of what the Pentagon assures us is Baghdad. If you pause the video, you’ll see the guy on the right jumping up and down thwacking his shoe on the head of Saddam’s toppled statue is actually Richard Perle disguised as an Iraqi cab driver and the woman standing next to him ululating “Blessings be upon you, o great Bush” is David Frum in a chador.
Tapped provides the government with some more much-needed military advice:
The U.S. military — and hopefully some of those in the Secretary of Defense’s office — is now learning what the Israelis already know, which is that armored vehicles and old-fashioned ground troops are still the essential weapons in urban combat. It’s not that the high-tech stuff isn’t useful. It is — under the right circumstances (like concentrating massive amounts of firepower on massed enemy forces rolling across a desert). But what what we need is neither a military based entirely on the Cold War force structure nor one consisting dependent on Special Forces and precision standoff weapons, but rather one able to quickly deploy the correct mix of forces for any given situation.
Actually, jerks, the military knew all along what was needed to fight door-to-door- they do practice it, you know. What you mean is that WE- the boneheads at TAPPED, are learning what it takes- that there is no easy solution. My favorite line is this, which I will repeat again for all its silliness:
But what what we need is neither a military based entirely on the Cold War force structure nor one consisting dependent on Special Forces and precision standoff weapons, but rather one able to quickly deploy the correct mix of forces for any given situation.
Didn’t Rumsfeld and Franks sort of just do that, dragging you and the other gloom and doom predictors all the way?
Please, go back to protesting judicial nominations or parsing the statements of the Democrat leadership to prove they are patriotic. Your military analysis is somewhat lacking.
If there is anything you want or need to know about PFC Lynch, you should head immediately to the Hillbilly Sophisticate. And I really mean anything, as the Sophisticate is covering everything possible.
Some new fan mail from “Daryl:”
its funny how you take pictures of protests off a independent media source, while your pictures of american loving iraqs comes from corporate owned media.
Fine, send me some professional pictures of the peace protestors. The Indymedia ones I have up now are kind of grainy.
maybe you should take a step back and do a little more research..
If I take a step back, I can’t reach the keyboard. Ba dum dump tshh! Seriously, though, twerp. I am in Morgantown, West Virginia – I could hardly be farther removed from the action in Baghdad or San Francisco. To suggest that I need to pause, and step back, so as to clarify my thinking, is absurd.
where are all the wmd?
First Guess: Iraq, somewhere hidden
Second Guess: In your pants after a few tequilas and tacos
the pretext for this war, oh wait i forgot its operation iraq freedom or what not.
I’m with you. The name does suck. I was happy with Operation F— France, but that didn’t get much State Department support.
go back to cnn.com and report back some more wonderful facts genius.
Roger that, skippy. I’m on it. Y’all come back now, ya hear?
That the Palestinians don’t start rooting for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Can these guys ever pick a winning team? Cripes:
While many in Iraq and around the world are celebrating the fall of Baghdad, there is sadness and anger among radical Palestinian groups. Radical Palestinians saw Sassam Hussein as a friend, ally and sponsor of their struggle.
Since the US-led attack on Iraq began, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have turned out to demonstrate against the war, holding pictures of Saddam Hussein.
Can we trust them to run a state? Isn’t one Syria enough?
Yesterday, Porphyrogenitus mused:
The next thing some people will start complaining about – including many of the ones who predicted horrible civilian casualties and talked about how we were thinking of napalming urban neighborhoods while cackling like that guy in Apocalypse Now while we deliberately strafe civilians – is that we’ve made war too “humane” and thus will want to engage in it now.
That is, the next complaint – from some (not from the willfully ignorant who will intransigently insist that we turned Baghdad into Dresden) – will be that by having high-tech weapons that “minimize” civilian casualties (they’ll always put “minimize” in quotes and sneer at “collateral damage”, just like they’ll always put “humane” in quotes), we’ll have the urge to conduct more wars now. Their new “worry” that will wrack them with “deep concern” will be that we’ll now think we can have “war on the cheap, with few casualties” and thus resort to it at every opportunity, and that we’ll be filled with hubris in thinking we can solve all problems with military force at a “low” cost in innocent lives (they’ll put “low” in quotes, too). Because of this there will be more U.S. agression against the peace-loving despotisms of the world.
From the LA Times Op-Ed page:
A Danger of Success
The plan to seize two of Saddam Hussein’s Baghdad presidential palaces wasn’t devised by the U.S. high command but rather, as The Times’ David Zucchino reported Tuesday, by Col. David Perkins and his staff in a command field tent in the shadow of a highway overpass. Indeed, the skillful use of troops, first in Afghanistan and now on a greater scale in Iraq, should put to rest a piece of conventional wisdom that emboldened Osama bin Laden and other terrorists: that America won’t send its young men and women into battle.
There’s no disputing that since Vietnam, U.S. presidents have been reluctant to commit ground troops and quick to pull them out. In 1983, President Reagan withdrew U.S. Marines from Lebanon after a suicide truck-bomber killed 241. Reagan’s retreat created the perception that enemies could terrorize the U.S. with little consequence.