I am so jaded, I never know what to believe anymore when I read these reports:
Two senior members of Al Qaeda and the son-in-law of its No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were among those killed in the American airstrikes in remote northeastern Pakistan last week, two Pakistani officials said here on Wednesday.
The bodies of the men have not been recovered, but the two officials said the Pakistani authorities had been able to establish through intelligence sources the names of three of those killed in the strikes, and maybe a fourth. Both of the officials have provided reliable information in the past, but neither would be identified because they were not authorized to speak to the news media.
American counterterrorism officials declined to say whether the four Qaeda members were in fact killed in the raid, or whether the men were among those who were the targets of it. But one American official said, “These are the kinds of people we would have expected to have been there.”
If any or all were indeed killed, it would be a stinging blow to Al Qaeda’s operations, said the American officials, who were granted anonymity because they were not authorized by their agencies to speak for attribution. They said all four men named by the Pakistani officials were among the top level of Al Qaeda’s inner circle of leadership.
If this is true, the bombing last week was certainly much more successful than I initially believed, although we still managed to take a PR hit for all the civilian casualties.
Marcus Wellby
Hmmm. Unnammed officials, no forensic proof — just in time for some good PR? Yeah, sounds VERY probable…
KCinDC
Isn’t Pakistan an ally? If there were al Qaida members in a village in Saskatchewan or Cornwall, would it be okay to bomb the village and kill a bunch of innocent people (including children)? If not, what is the logic? Because it looks very much like the consensus is that this sort of thing is acceptable as long as it’s a country populated by brown people.
neil
Well, on the one hand, we have all the evidence that has been presented to us; on the other hand, we have uncorroborated testimony from unnamed American officials. I just don’t know what to think!
Jill
If this is true? Are you kidding me? We are supposed to just take the word of “intelligence sources”? Oh yes, those trusty, reliable intelligence sources!
Steve
It’s hard to know what to believe. The first headline was “al-Zawahiri killed in air strike”; the next headline was “al-Zawahiri probably not killed in air strike.” Then we had “Senior al-Qaeda officials killed in air strike”; now at CNN I see “Senior al-Qaeda officials were NEAR air strike.” I mean, I’d really, really like it to be true, but I know how this story always turns out; we always end up taking credit for killing some previously unheard of guy who just happens to be al-Qaeda’s number 3.
Ordinarily, even if we weren’t inclined to ask Pakistan’s permission, you’d assume we’d give them a diplomatic heads up at a minimum. The fact that we didn’t kind of illustrates how tenuous an ally Pakistan is. Musharraf is our friend, but his people seem to dislike us (now, even more so), and it’s clear that we don’t even feel we can trust the people within his own government. I have a feeling Musharraf is going to go down in history kind of like the Shah of Iran.
yet another jeff
Al-Zawahiri’s son-in-law? Come on…we’ve supposedly killed #2 how many times? Now we’re saying “but we’re killing the people in proximity to #2, we’re getting closer…”
Hell, the poor son-in-law probably wanted to be a musician…couldn’t catch a break on the Baghdad circuit…and his wife kept nagging him “Daddy has a great terrorist position, we’ve got two kids, we can’t afford to wait on your dreams…”, and now he may be dead.
I guess that’s what you get for being in proximity to al-Zawahiri…two reasons to be near him…either because he’s about to kill you…or you’re about to be killed by mistake for being near him.
Ancient Purple
No bodies have been recovered, but we know they were important people because “intelligence sources” gave us names?
If it’s the same “intelligence sources” that told us Saddam had WMDs, well…
CaseyL
Third-hand info – no: fourth-hand, since we don’t know who the intelligenec’s sources sources were? JHFC, that’s not intel; that’s a game of Telegram.
And I’d love to see what kind of org chart they’re using. OBL has more “No. 2s” than a diarrhetic daycare.
Lines
havn’t we turned the corner on number 2’s?
This&That
There probably was plenty of DNA evidence left at the house when the bodies were removed. Hard to clean up a blown up building quickly….
I find it sad that everyone seems to quickly accept innocent people were killed without question (’cause we all know that Bush/USA screw-ups are never enemy lies) yet not that there might have been real bad people there. Or that if the people were forced to host the Terrorists then they might have been forced to claim the terrorists were not there….etc. etc.
No one seems to question the odd fact that why were the bodies of some so quickly removed if everyone was innoncent?
The tactic seems to be to claim that Bush is lying or if not the people were really not that important or if that fails innocent people were killed & thus Bush is a child-killer. Anything but give Bush the slightest credit that something might have been actualy accompished with the strike.
Sigh, I am one of those people who would be happy to vote Dem if they would at least appear to be against someone/something besides Bush. I left the Dem’s after 9/11 but only because of the terroris issue. And it does not seem like the Dem’s are going to win me back anytime soon.
For example, Gore’s last speech sure was fired up about the NSA (ok, fine and dandy) and all but why can’t Gore give a passionate speech like that about the terrorists? Has ANY dem leader ever given a passionate speech against the terrorists without bashing Bush or at least with something close to the same level of passion they have when attacking Bush/Rep’s? I can’t remember one….
I suggust that a good Dem speech would be one where s/he doesn’t bash Bush at all (or make it a joke like ‘see how you terrorists suffer when we have a drunk frat boy in charge, just imagine what sort of hell will happen when the adults get back in charge’), and just lets me know that the Dems take the terrorist threat seriously and are passionate about that too. That would help win me back but endless ‘Bush Evil/Bad & Dem’s Nice/Good’ statements will not.
Don’t do what Hillary just did and blame Bush for letting the EU talk to Iran instead of her actually taking on what to do about Iran.
Not that I think the Dem’s will do anything to change so I am stuck with the Rep’s, corruption, incompetence, and all because, in my mind, Bush you see, “At least he fights” the terrorists. Dems appear to only want to fight Bush.
This&That
StupidityRules
Obviously Al Qaeda doesn’t have to worry about not being able to get any nukes from Iran. They will instead get them from Pakistan after Musharraf gets overthrown…
If there was an uprising in Pakistan, would we support the dictator? Or would we support the people trying to get rid of a dictator? Is Freedom(tm) just for Iraq?
DougJ
Now that Zarwawi is dead, let’s hope that things calm down in Iraq. He thought he could hide in Pakistan but we showed him.
Git R Done!
StupidityRules
This&That uttered:
Exactly, there were no innocent people killed. The children killed has now been all identified as the #3 guy in Al Qaeda. Obviously they have lately had some problems with the recruitment for that spot, so they now give it away as a prize in cereal boxes.
Mike
Well, this&that, it is too bad so you have been foolishly deceived into thinking that Bush actually fights terrorists. He does no such thing.
This&That
Let me see…
One response is a mock that the children killed were really evil terrorists. Perhaps they were forced into the situation by parents who supported terrorists? Forced into the situation by the terrorists themselves? How is this Bush’s fault? If the Allies in WWII could have killed Gobbels AND his no-doubt innoncent kids, should we not have done that? That response is just an excuse for not attacking terrorists.
The second response is merely a snark (I’m a fool if I support Bush…) and exactly not what is going to convince me to vote for the Dem’s. After all, isn’t the Afganistan front one of the good/correct responses to 9/11 by Bush (according to what is left of the sane left) and it is merely the degree with which he has pursued it to be the complaint? Thus again Bush at least fights while the Dem’s whine about how bad he is at fighting.
Of course, I don’t expect any real responses from a blog comment section so go back to wailing over the evil Bush. I certainly could be wrong and that tactic will sweep the Dem’ into power 2006/2008.
This&That
VidaLoca
This&That —
agreed, it’s certainly an unresolved question. Unless you want to count the clouds of gas..
But is seems to me that the corruption and incompetence of his approach so seriously compromise whatever desire or intent he might have to fight the terrorists that in the end, it’s not much of a fight. By the time he finally leaves office the terrorists will still be where they are, as entrenched as ever if not more so, and we (you, me, the public generally) will be faced with the issue of how to clean up the mess he made both there and over here (e.g. see the thread above on the medicare health benefit).
And they don’t do that well.
DougJ
No one is happy that these children were killed, least of all president Bush. But if terrorists use children as shields, they need to know that those children will be killed as well. The bottom line is this: we got Zarqawi. He’s killed thousands of civilians in Iraq. Isn’t that worth the lives of a few civilians in Pakistan? Seems like a pretty good trade-off to me.
StupidityRules
Yes, exactly it’s the parent’s fault. Or maybe the terrorist, knowing that they might be bombed anytime , travel around with children to be used as propaganda if they would be attacked.
BTW, where did I say it was Bush fault?
KCinDC
This&That, so the most important characteristic in determining who you vote for is how tough their talk about terrorists is? It doesn’t matter how corrupt they are, how much they undermine civil liberties and American values, whether they respect the rule of law, what their domestic policy or non-terrorism-related foreign policy is, or even whether they’re actually making the problem of terrorism better or worse?
Well, if that’s true, maybe it would be pretty easy for the Democrats to get your vote. But my bet is that anyone who’s so under the spell of the Resolute Terrorist-Fighting Commander-in-Chief isn’t really open to voting for a Democrat, so I’m hoping they don’t go too far out of their way chasing after you.
This&That
Stupidityrules: You did not say that Bush was at fault. I generalized from your snark to that. My bad, sorry.
However, I did not mean to say that the dead children (assuming there are any) were not innoncent. They might be but they might not be. How old are these children? Or if they are innocent, laying the deaths of them at Bush’s feet (not you perhaps but various lefties) is an odd assumption to make right after the event. For example, if these people were forced by the terrorists to throw the party then why could not the terrorists simply kill the children post-event to stage a progaganda event? Etc.
KCinDC: It would be nice if some Dem would give a passionate speech against the terrorists, yes. Is that too much to ask for? Or can only passions be arroused against the evil Bush? And mere talk would not do it, some how the Dem’s are going to have to convince me that they will actually fight the terrorists and not just the conservatives. Saying that they will in a dramatic way (instead of just attacking Bush’s mistakes) would be a great start, in my mind at least. They don’t have to STOP attacking Bush or policies they disagree with but the do have to START attacking the terrorists.
My word, I voted for Dukikas in ’88 (!) yet I am written off as potential Dem support by you ’cause I dare ask for some actual noticable anti-terrorist speechs from the Dems. I agree with the Dem’s on abortion, on religion, on min. wage, on health care, etc. yet they STILL have lost me since 9/11. I am willing to forgive the Rep’s on a lot (the Dem;s are not saints either by any measure and don’t think I will forget that simply ’cause the Rep’s are muddy too) since they are willing to kill terrorists. Badly perhaps, poorly or in such a way the more are created, perhaps, but still they are willng to fight the terrorists. If the Dem’s will demonstrate that they are also willing to do that with the same energy they attack Bush, why golly gee, I would be over on their side in a second.
Simply put, all the other issues mean diddle if we can not defeat the terrorists in the long run since if they win, we lose ALL the freedoms that we had/have. We can correct excesses and violations of our freedoms after the war. I am just trying to express how I feel/think and am not saying that this is the best or only way.
What I don’t understand is why that is so hard for my various lefty friends to grasp.
Who knows, maybe Hillary will convince me in 2008. At least she has the right idea with Iran.
This&That
The Other Steve
Bin Laden is in Canada!?
Quick, call out the Marines! We must invade now!
JohnTheLibertarian
Osama bin Laden says:
Sounds like this last airstrike in Pakistan was a little too close for comfort. bin Lyin is capitulating awfully easily.
Krista
May as well…that’s all this circus of an election needs right now.
CaseyL
Nah. It’s psy-ops.
Nobody’s heard from Osama for a while. People were saying he died in the Pakistan earthquake, or in a bombing run, or of kidney failure. Bush supporters, esp., wanted rumors of OBL’s death to be true, so people would stop asking why Bush hasn’t hunted him down yet.
So here OBL (reportedly, OBL; don’t know how or if the identity’s been confirmed) pops up again, going “Hey! I’m still alive! And still planning more attacks! Neener neener!”
KCinDC
This&That, all I can do it hope that the number of people like you is small, because I can’t see that you are reachable. Kerry did address the issue of terrorism, repeatedly, but you were too busy listening to the Republican spin about how the terrorist-loving Democrats were going to surrender the country and welcome a new Islamic republic.
I can understand that 9/11 affected you deeply — it affected me too. But I didn’t cry “Save me, President Bush!” and decide from that point that no one but him could fight terrorism. I didn’t decide to ignore all Republican flaws and listen only to Republican spin. And I didn’t decide that terrorism was a worse threat to the United States than the World War II Axis powers or the Cold War Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons and thus justified ignoring every other consideration and following the person who claimed to have the solution, whether his solution was actually working or not (even, as you say above, if his “solution” is worsening the situation), and regardless of what other damage he was doing to the country.
The Other Steve
This&That – Have you noticed that the Republicans spend a lot of time talking about making you safer. They whine endlessly about crime and national security.
Then when they get in power things become worse.
Just curious. I wonder why that is?
DougJ
Is This&That for real? I don’t know why, but I get a sensation of me from him. The name in particular is fishy.
Lines
I have to agree DougJ, the typical troll-baiting clone seems to always start out with “I used to be a Dem/Rep but now I….”
Regardless, if This&That thinks that terrorism is the only issue facing the US and will only base his voting on that ideal, he/she/it isn’t going to be able to contribute to the state of politics or any discussion of it, it will always come back to that paranoia about terrorism.
Have any of you seen a bird or a rabbit get so worked up from fear they either bash their head in or their heart stops? To me, thats what the obsessive fear of terrorism is doing to a large portion of the voting public.
Sojourner
Bin Laden’s a happy boy these days. W is doing exactly what he wants.
Stormy70
DougJ – you know I enjoy the snark, but it would help if you got some essential War on Terror facts correct.
Ayman Al-Zawahiri is not Zarqawi. I know the War on Terror is too complicated for most of you, beyond babbling about Bin Laden and Iraq. These guys were directly linked with Sept. 11th, but still you guys bitch about it. Pakistan has no options, but to cooperate. After Sept 11, Pakistan would either give us what we wanted, or we would consider them an enemy, too. Pakistan is basically our bitch, now. If it has taken you this long to figure it out, then that explains the overall ignorance here.
chef
Wait! I hear they’ve just found John Demanjuk in the ashes. The ORIGINAL no. 2 is dead, just before he got deported as “Ivan the Irrelevant.”
Steve
I accept that going after the terrorists may result in the deaths of innocent people, and maybe that shouldn’t change what we do, but it should at least enter into the equation at some point. After all, we wouldn’t nuke an entire city even if we were 100% sure that bin Laden was there (I assume).
I’m open to a rational argument that it was necessary for innocent women and children to die in this air strike. But I really can’t comprehend the mentality that dismisses the whole issue by saying “Pakistan is our bitch now.” At least pretend that it bothers you a little.
Shalimar
You think the media lies about this sort of thing? I guess we’ll know for sure when each of the senior officials are identified as Al Qaeda’s #3 in separate news reports later this week. It seems like we kill the #3 every other week already.
Vlad
According to unnamed intelligence sources, the bodies of the slain Al-Qaeda operatives were spirited away by creatures of traditional folk belief, possibly pixies or elves.
This&That
Good Lord.
First, I am now faced with a mind-reader (KCinDC) who thinks I mindlessly listen to the Rep’s spin. I want the Dem’s to put the same passion they have in fighting the Reps into fighting the terrorists. They might have it, I just don’t see much evidence of it & I ain’t going to leave the Devil I know for one I don’t know. If you want to believe that I am a mindless Bushbot, hey your right.
Next a sort-of reasonable comment from ‘The Other Steve.’ I suppose but instead of blaming Bush for the terrorism I blame, oh the terrorists. As for crime stat’s currently we are at a decreasing rate of crime for several decades if I remember correctly:
link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5987531/
“WASHINGTON – The nation’s crime rate last year held steady at the lowest levels since the government began surveying crime victims in 1973, the Justice Department reported Sunday.
The study was the latest contribution to a decade-long trend in which violent crime as measured by victim surveys has fallen by 55 percent and property crime by 49 percent. That has included a 14 percent drop in violent crime from 2000-2001 to 2002-2003.
“The rates are the lowest experienced in the last 30 years,” Justice Department statistician Shannan Catalona said in the report. “Crime rates have stabilized.”
‘DougJ’s’ comment is….errr a joke?
‘Lines’ suggusts that I am a “…typical troll-baiting clone…” (oh well, I believe that means I am not a normal troll but one who is trying to get trolls to respond but then I am newish to blogs) and dismisses my terrorism concern as due to my ‘paranoia.’ So thus I will be unable bring anyting useful to political matters due to my reducing everything to terrorism threats.
Sure, I am a single issue voter (right now) but to dismiss me and the “….large portion of the voting public” that follow this logic seems like political stupidity. When I post a thought on how to get me away from Bush/Reps that is really something as simple as getting Gore to loudly, forcefully, and repeatedly attack the terrorists, why can’t that be accepted as what I really mean? I know that the Dems and Reps are happy to pander to single issue voters loudly and repeatedly (e.g., abortion or Right-to-die), so why not this issue? Don’t the Dem’s want my vote?
But then the Dem’s have so much political power they can afford to dismiss, “”….large portion of the voting public.”
Anyway this was fun and Thanks for the exchanges. Sorry to disturb the regulars here from their normal posting & I will go back to lurking.
This&That
The Other Steve
This&That – I’m not saying that the terrorists or criminals aren’t responsible. What I’m saying is that the Republican policies don’t work to stop it.
You can quiver in fear if you like, but I’d rather solve the problems.
Mac Buckets
Yeah, that’s be nice, but how would passionately opposing terrorism help the Donks get their political power back? Bush owns the terrorism chip — it’s out-of-play. So the Democrats don’t play a card they can’t win with…not that they’ve proven McAuliffe/Dean’s “I Hate Bush SO MUCH!” card is any better.
Read DailyKos sometime. He explains clearly that the left isn’t about terrorism, or America — they’re about getting power and committee chairs. Doing a heckuva job, I must say.
KCinDC
This&That, as I said before, Kerry did “loudly, forcefully, and repeatedly attack the terrorists”, but that apparently wasn’t enough to convince you that he wasn’t a secret al Qaida sympathizer. Obviously there’s something else going on, and it certainly looks like 9/11-fear-inspired Bush worship.
You may not be mindless, but it’s a natural conclusion when you say things like “I am willing to forgive the Rep’s on a lot […] since they are willing to kill terrorists. Badly perhaps, poorly or in such a way the more are created, perhaps, but still they are willng to fight the terrorists.” You’re admitting that even if their efforts are making you less safe, that’s okay with you because they’re … what? being macho?
Kazinski
KCinDC:
Come on, he said it, but who believed him? Everybody right and left knew what Kerry really thought. That rhetoric was for a few thousand idiots in the middle that might make the difference. Kerry only voted for the war because he thought it would help him become president. The man would say anything he thought would get him elected. John Kerry deep down believes there is no situation that wouldn’t be made better by cutting and running. Even Al Gore had a lot more cojones, the only reason he is against the war now is because Bush is for it. After all he is credited by Gary Scheuer (the originator) as being the patron of the policy. Hillary Clinton is the only man in the entire Democratic party.
But despite my admiration for Senator Clinton’s fortitude, I’m not reachable either, like all the other Democrats she too, alas, is an incremental socialist.
Mitchell
There is some deep denial here.
Most Americans don’t forget things like the fatuousness of “voting for it before I voted against it” nonsense of the do-nothing, have-no-program, Democrats.
Mr. Kerry told us in August ’05 (look it up like Mr. This & That did–facts do matter, you know) that we needed more troops, before he told us we needed less at the end of ’05.
And you show your true colors when you go into hysterics about the NSA program–sorry, guys, but monitoring international terrorist phone calls is popular with the real folks in the real world.
But in this little blog, the real world doesn’t often intrude. I’ll not waste my time like This & That.
Steve
Another clueless Bushbot who believes the NSA program only monitored “international terrorist phone calls.” As if there would be any reason to go behind the back of the rubber-stamp FISA court when all you’re doing is monitoring “international terrorist phone calls.” Because the FISA court has historically turned down so many applications to monitor “international terrorist phone calls.”
I really think the reason we have such trouble getting smart conservatives in here any more is that you have to be a total idiot to buy the crap this Administration has been reduced to peddling. “We only monitor international terrorist phone calls… yes, of course it would be positively routine to get a warrant to monitor international terrorist phone calls… but just trust us, that’s all we do!”
Mitchell
Steve, you don’t seem to want the facts, just the ability to bray about Bush.
If you bother to inform your “obviously” exalted understanding of the law and the facts (so far, we don’t have much, so you are largely speculating, as am I, but I trust the Admin’s word), you’d find this to be more worthy than a trite shot at us Reps.
Unlike a lot of you here, I have read the Constitution, understand its application (I’m a lawyer), and believe you are sadly mistake, if not out of your depth. I also know that if we don’t use signal intelligence, we are doomed to another attack.
I’m not going to lay down my life and my family’s so that you can feel smug about your “civil rights,” as if they were unlimited. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Yeah, I know, I’m brainwashed by Bush/Chimp/Hitler. Is that all you got, bud?
Sad.