Or at least Fox News and The Raw Story are. Fox and The Raw Story reported that Ambassador Ryan Crocker got into a "heated exchange" with the Iranians, telling them "that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Al-Quds Force's "officers and their surrogates were not going to be safe in Iraq (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_tells_of_heated_exchange_in_rare_07242007.html) , where they have been linked to militants.

"That's something the Iranians should already know, but we made that clear," he said.

Say it a little louder Ambassador.

It was not a pleasant day for Democrats anyway, besides Crocker's well placed words Bush went on the offensive today in South Carolina, and here are a few excerpts:


I am traveling today with one of the true stalwarts of freedom, a man who understands the stakes of the war we're in, and a man who strongly supports the military in accomplishing the mission that we've sent you to do, and that's Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. (Applause.)

This base is represented by Congressman Henry Brown, of South Carolina. (Applause.) He understands what I understand; when we have somebody in harm's way, that person deserves the full support of the Congress and the President. And you'll have the full support of the President of the United States during this war against these radicals and extremists...

The key theater in this global war is Iraq. Our troops are serving bravely in that country. They're opposing ruthless enemies, and no enemy is more ruthless in Iraq than al Qaeda. They send suicide bombers into crowded markets; they behead innocent captives and they murder American troops. They want to bring down Iraq's democracy so they can use that nation as a terrorist safe haven for attacks against our country. So our troops are standing strong with nearly 12 million Iraqis who voted for a future of peace, and they so for the security of Iraq and the safety of American citizens.

There's a debate in Washington about Iraq, and nothing wrong with a healthy debate. There's also a debate about al Qaeda's role in Iraq. Some say that Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror. They complain when I say that the al Qaeda terrorists we face in Iraq are part of the same enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001. They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon, that it's independent of Osama bin Laden and that it's not interested in attacking America.

That would be news to Osama bin Laden. He's proclaimed that the "third world war is raging in Iraq." Osama bin Laden says, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-3.html) I say that there will be a big defeat in Iraq and it will be the defeat of al Qaeda. (Applause.)

What say you Democrats and other critics? Ready to walk away and leave the Iraqis to terrorists that "send suicide bombers into crowded markets...behead innocent captives"? Do you believe bin Laden or have you forgotten 9/11 and fallen asleep at the wheel? Are you supporting this great country's "defeat and disgrace forever"? Or will you stand up and join in supporting our troops, the Iraqis and the defeat of the Islamofascists that want to kill you?

Steve
P.S. The American Spectator has a transcript of Crocker's discussion (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11775)

Democrats are scared that they will have to operate during a wartime situation. That is why they are doing all they can to put an end to it before 2008. They are cowards, which is really surprising, because it is the Democrats who established this country in the first place. They lost their way somewhere, and now punish their constituents with their useless drivel.

XenoSapien

Great post! Thank you, thank you.

STANDING!


.

Hello Its:

Yeah, Bush tried to link Al Qaeda in Iraq with Osama bin Laden again. Only a few of you still believe that crap.

So, who should we invade next? Iran? Pakistan? Syria? Lebanon? Gaza? Saudi Arabia? Frankly, I think the Saudi's are the instigators in this whole thing, but we ain't going there. I don't know why.

excon

Steve .

Barak Obama is the only Dem running for Prez who makes some kind a claim that he was opposed to it FROM THE BEGINNING . For now I suppose I have to take it at his word since I have yet to hear a statement or a press release/commentary of any kind by him pre-war that makes a definitive statement of position. There were some who had reservations about issues of international cooperation and very few disputed the intel. Presented . Almost none questioned the rightness of removing Saddam from power. The rest of the critics can at best claim that the strategic position today is the result of a bungling of a policy that they all agreed to. ZERO... nada... none said their big concern was that when Saddam was removed there would be a vacuum that al -Qaeda supported by neighboring nations could exploit. A whole bunch of Monday morning quarterbacking the way I see it. And almost none address the point that if the policy is flawed ,this is their alternative .

I think Bush has a pretty clear grasp of the situation. But his problem is of course that he doesn't go far enough in naming the enemy . Until he gets rid of his politically correct way of talking about the enemy he will never be able to convince the public at large that all we face as a threat is a criminal enterprise. Take this as an example :

"Al Qaida and its affiliate organizations are a loose network of terrorist groups that are united by a common ideology and shared objectives" Well yes but what is that common ideology ? That has always been missing from his rhetoric.

"Iraq is not the reason that the terrorists are at war with us. " true.. please take the extra step and explain why they are at war with us. You and I know why but I'm willing to bet that most people don't . He needs to be out there every day hammering his message home.

Is al-Qaeda there now ? Yes ;we know because we kick their butts every day . What critics propose to do is retreat in the face of the very enemy they agree is the biggest threat to national security . That position make little sense to me . Even more illogical is the assertion that our being there enables al-Qaeda. If that were true then the best way to deal with them would be to retreat everywhere we encounter them since without us they lack their very reason for existence. We go and kumbaya... they leave contented .

Great post! Thank you, thank you.

My pleasure. Now if Bush would get more serious and more pointed, and the suddenly weasely Republicans would stand up we might get somewhere.

Hello Its:

Yeah, Bush tried to link Al Qaeda in Iraq with Osama bin Laden again. Only a few of you still believe that crap.

So, who should we invade next? Iran? Pakistan? Syria? Lebanon? Gaza? Saudi Arabia? Frankly, I think the Saudi's are the instigators in this whole thing, but we ain't going there. I don't know why.

Excon

OK exdude, then explain this message (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/30/binladen.tape/index.html) reportedly from bin Laden after al Zarqawi's timely passing:


"I say to Bush, you should deliver the body (of al-Zarqawi) to his family, and don't be too happy. Our flag hasn't fallen, thanks be to God. It has passed from one lion to another lion in Islam," bin Laden says in Arabic.

"We will continue, God willing, to fight you and your allies everywhere, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan, until we drain your money and kill your men and send you home defeated, God willing, as we defeated you before, thanks to God, in Somalia."

Notice the "our" and the "we's" in that? This is not the first time bin Laden has clearly shown his role in Iraq, why don't the doubters see that? And how about this latest guy we caught?


The U.S. military on Wednesday announced the arrest of a senior leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, an insurgent who, the military said, is casting himself as a "conduit" between the top leaders of al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq.

Khalid al-Mashadani was seized in Mosul, the U.S. military says.

Khalid al-Mashadani, an Iraqi also known as Abu Shahed, was seized on July 4 in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and is in coalition custody, the military said.

"He served as the al Qaeda media emir for Baghdad and then was appointed the media emir for all of Iraq," said Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner, Multi-National Force-Iraq spokesman, who briefed reporters.

He is believed to be the most senior Iraqi in al Qaeda in Iraq.

During interrogations, al-Mashadani shed light on the workings of al Qaeda in Iraq and its connection with al Qaeda outside of Iraq, Bergner said.

He said al-Mashadani is a close associate of al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri and served as an "intermediary" (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/18/iraq.capture/index.html) between al-Masri, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second-in-command of al Qaeda.

"In fact, communication between senior al Qaeda leadership and al-Masri frequently went through al-Mashadani," Bergner said.

What's it going to take to convince people of the recent and current links between bin Laden and the chaos in Iraq?

Barak Obama is the only Dem running for Prez who makes some kind a claim that he was opposed to it FROM THE BEGINNING . For now I suppose I have to take it at his word since I have yet to hear a statement or a press release/commentary of any kind by him pre-war that makes a definitive statement of position...

Amazing isn't it, I haven't seen a word of that either - but since he was in the Illinois state legislature at the time I suppose he can get away with it.


Almost none questioned the rightness of removing Saddam from power.

As I recall most insisted on it, seeing as how not once, but twice under two presidents congress supported this by vote.

I agree with everything else you said, and even where Bush goes right in naming the enemy and defining the mission it gets drowned out by everyone else. That's why I think it needs to be hammered on as relentlessly as the left is hammering on him - and the rest of the Republicans need to stiffen their spines as well. This is about a hell of a lot more than an election.

Steve

Yeah, Bush tried to link Al Qaeda in Iraq with Osama bin Laden again. Only a few of you still believe that crap.

Apparently they believe it too. That would be the reason they call themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq" and not "Hamas in Iraq" or "Hizbolah in Iraq" or any other terrorist organizations name in Iraq.


So, who should we invade next? Iran? Pakistan? Syria? Lebanon? Gaza? Saudi Arabia?

Take your pick. They all sound like good targets to me.


Frankly, I think the Saudi's are the instigators in this whole thing, but we ain't going there. I don't know why.

Well, of all the targets you mentioned, they have been the most cooperative with us. So that takes them lower down on the list compared with all the rest of them. But I believe it is still a viable target.

Elliot

In his 1996 "Declaration of War Against the Americans," Osama bin Laden cited the U.S. retreat from Somalia in 1993: "You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear," he said. “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

Paper Tiger by Mark Silverberg (http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/papertiger.html)


The defeatists apparently want the US to be viewed as a paper tiger.
They don't remember recent hisory.
Do they want it repeated?




Grace and Peace

You may like this Op Ed by Amir Taheri also

OpinionJournal - Extra (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008154)

In his 1996 "Declaration of War Against the Americans," Osama bin Laden cited the U.S. retreat from Somalia in 1993: "You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear," he said. “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

Paper Tiger by Mark Silverberg (http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/papertiger.html)


The defeatists apparently want the US to be viewed as a paper tiger.
They don't remember recent hisory.
Do they want it repeated?




Grace and PeaceYou speak the truth. The U.S. needs to annihilate every single muslim on this earth. I'm right behind you my friend!

You speak the truth. The U.S. needs to annihilate every single muslim on this earth. I'm right behind you my friend!

No, just the Jihadists.

Screw that, it's too hard to tell them apart. Nuke all of them.

You speak the truth. The U.S. needs to annihilate every single muslim on this earth. I'm right behind you my friend!

Nope. Just the ones that attack us with bombs, guns, missiles, mortars, IEDs, poisonous gas, biological weapons, airplanes flown into buildings, cars driven into buildings, boats driven into military ships, trucks driven into military barracks, oil tankers driven into large crowds, and any other method of attacks. Also, the ones who fund, train, hide, and give comfort to the people who do the above. Other than that, I have no problems with them.

That's pretty much all of them. Why is the US such a when it comes to killing them all?

The sad part is Dark Crow is that you thought I was serious yet it's not far off from what you guys want (as you sit comfortably in your homes, never to fight a war).

The sad part is Dark Crow is that you thought I was serious yet it's not far off from what you guys want (as you sit comfortably in your homes, never to fight a war).

Wrong again NK, and unless you can offer supporting evidence of such an outrageous insinuation I'd ask you to refrain from repeating it. The sad part is that so many people can find a reason to criticze those of us that understand the threat of radical Islam...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/june2005/140605september11.jpg

... even to other Muslims. :mad:

http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/bombing%20iraq%20061404.jpg

What exactly do you think I am insinuating?

What exactly do you think I am insinuating?

I'm certain you know exactly what I'm referring to... yet to leave no doubt:

"annihilate every single muslim on this earth"

"Nuke all of them."

"Why is the US such a when it comes to killing them all?"

"it's not far off from what you guys want (as you sit comfortably in your homes, never to fight a war)."

It's a long ways off from what 'us guys' want. It may come as a shock to you but I think 'us guys' all want peace, don't care what religion you adhere to - or not - and have no interest in forcing our values on others. We're just not stupid and naïve when it comes to the threat from radical Islam.

Oh I see.

We're just not stupid and naive when it comes to the threat from radical Islam.

But the rest of the world who chooses not to declare war is?

But the rest of the world who chooses not to declare war is?

Only the appeasers and others in denial... which covers a lot of territory.

But the rest of the world who chooses not to declare war is?

Just the Russians, Germans, and French. Oh, and those who are stuck in the idea that appeasement works better than showing strength. And then there's those who deny that a problem exists at all, like Pakistan. And the countries that know that there is a problem but who are too worried about political issues to actually fight islamic terrorism, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. And then there are those who are pawns of the terrorists, like Lebanon.

Elliot