I wonder whether any of these "Al Qaeda linked insurgents" were either "insurgents" or "Al Qaeda linked" prior to GWBs illegal invasion of Iraq. All GWB has accomplished by invading Iraq is create a future generation of Arabs who despise the US.

As for the fallen soldiers, God bless them and RIP.

The video offered no proof for its claims that the soldiers had been killed and buried. The voice over blamed their deaths on "the American Army and their leaders, who do not care for the feelings of the soldiers' mothers."


"And as you refused to deliver the bodies of our killed people, we will not deliver the bodies of your dead, and their end will be beneath the ground, Allah willing," the voice said.

According to the article.



Well,.....BULL-F*******-SH*T!!
!!!


You and your terrorist brothers were raised from day one to hate all infidels and want to kill us, or make us submit to your religion, or join your religion!! Well, I don't what to do any of those!! So,...;....KMAAFY!!!



God Bless our soldiers and their families!!!!

I wonder whether any of these "Al Qaeda linked insurgents" were either "insurgents" or "Al Qaeda linked" prior to GWBs illegal invasion of Iraq. All GWB has accomplished by invading Iraq is create a future generation of Arabs who despise the US.
...

Posted by moder8 at 2007-06-04 09:19 PM | Reply

Good point. There were no al Qaeda in Iraq as Saddam found them to be a threat to his dictatorship and didn't want his country run by a group of Islamo religious fanatics so he never let them get a toehold anywhere in Iraq.

As for the insurgency, Saddam squashed any insurgents that may have popped up within the first hour of them showing their faces. So we can all thank King George for the civil war and the mess that exists in Iraq.

I often think that Bush wanted this civil war to occur and is more than happy to let the Sunnis and Shiites conduct genocide on each other, thereby saving Bush the trouble of having to kill all the Iraqis himself.

I posted this story about the 2 soldiers being found dead on a userblog about 12 days ago. I found the story about the 2 soldiers being dead in only ONE media source and I looked around for another one to back this up but this was the only source that had it -- www.Iraqslogger.com


Wednesday, May 23, 2007

3 Missing U.S. Soldiers Found Dead

Reported 4 hours ago: ""Babel police patrols today found two [more] bodies believed to be ... the two [remaining] kidnapped U.S. soldiers near the Euphrates bank in al-Masayab area," the source, who asked not to be named, told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI)."

read more

Posted by califchris at 02:40 PM | 38 COMMENTS | permalink

At the end of the 10-minute 41-second video, the identification cards of the two missing soldiers were shown, with the headline: "Bush is the reason of the loss of your POWs" written on the screen above the cards

".....and their cabal of crooks."

Posted by dethspud

Go ahead and say it..........anyone that voted for it in Congress!

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq after Saddam was toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States is creating permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.

Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.

To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

"Go ahead and say it..........anyone that voted for it in Congress!"

Congress and the Senate are corrupt no doubt about it but this effort in the ME was hatched and excecuted by a very small circle of Neo-Cons.

Only a coupla people are out and out against the war.

Obama, Paul and Kucinich.

The rest, are all supporters but in order to even have half a chance to fix all of the fuck-ups this admin has gotten the US mired in, there must be at least 8 years of Dem rule.

Conservatives should recognise that the Dems are more realistically the party of fiscal conservativism than the Reps are.

Simply put America can't afford another two terms of these "war eternal" corporate rethuglican whores.

The unsustainable borrowing and spending caused by the war may yet drive the US into the worst economic crisis it's faced since the dirty thirties, no matter who gets into power.

But electing Mitt or Rudy or McCain would guarantee it.

The voice of the people has been drowned out by the louder voices of lobbyists and corporate controllers.

America can claim to be a democracy on paper but in practise it's become an oligarchy.

A very oily oligarchy.

Be Well.

Too bad Kucinich is Not Attractive cause He would make a GREAT President. BUT Because He is "Ugly" and therefore unelectable like I am UnErectable.

Larry

"Conservatives should recognise that the Dems are more realistically the party of fiscal conservativism than the Reps are."

Posted by dethspud



PLEASE tell me you are kidding?



First, it's the Congress' job to build and decide where to spend money and how much. Then the President can either sign it or veto it. The President can submit a budget for approval, but Congress has to OK it first.

Second, from the '60s forward the Dems., which usually controlled both the House and Senate, in Congress ran, with the signature of the President, up to the point in the '90s that many on the Left and Right said that the debt couldn't possibly be paid down/off and we were just putting it off on our Grand-kids.

Third, however, the Reps. won control of the Congress in 1994 and, even though Clinton didn't think it could be done in even 5 to 7 or 9 years and resisted at first, the Rep. controlled Congress, with the signature of Clinton, did it much sooner than ever thought.



I don't understand how anyone could make a statement like that. To me, it doesn't make any sense.

Al Qaida shows such compassion for their captives.

sarc/

They don't even set up a prison to hold them because their captives have only a few days to live. Oh where, oh where is Amnesty Intl?

chirp, chirp

AnAmerican:



AMEN!!

AMEN!!
Posted by JustMe13

Give me a "Hosannah!"

How about a "Glory, Hallelujah!"

Two...four...six...eight...tim e to transubstantiate...

Yahooooooo!

Now, pass the collection plate and make sure Mr. Bush tosses some more of those troops he likes to lay on the altar of worthless sacrifice into the mix. Remember, a little child shall lead them.

Oh yeah, let's believe everything Amnesty Intl has to say. I'm not.

So, are you saying that it's OK the way the terrorists treat their captives?

I think I would last much longer with our troops!

The question, JustMe13, was "Where, oh where is Amnesty International." I cited an AI statement that pointed out some of the human rights abuses on ALL sides in the current insaanity in Iraq. You don't want to believe that? Fine, go find a sandbox in a playground and dig your head into it, real deep.

"So, are you saying that it's OK the way the terrorists treat their captives?"

If you think that's the meaning of what I said, then you need to get yourself enrolled in a Reading Comprehension class...and I mean, pronto.

It's completely unacceptable that we did't have the manpower in Iraq to support a rescue mission.
We should have turned Iraq inside out looking for these men.
Our Commander-in-Chief is AWOL and our troops have been abandoned without propper support.

I thought Edwards said there was NO terrorist

I thought Edwards said there was NO terrorist

Posted by jjdj1187

*****************************


I'm sure you did "think" that.....probably dreamed it too. You might want to check that against facts. It's all of the internet if you care to do the research.

of=over

Anamerican apparently wanted Amnesty International to rescue them. I'm guessing he and the other chickenhawks would have gone in, but their new "I support our troops" bumper stickers hadn't cleared Customs yet.

Tell me again how many hostages died while the terrible guy Carter was President?

""""So, are you saying that it's OK the way the terrorists treat their captives?""""


I'm confused. Are you refering to how the u.s. treats prisoners in guant, the rendering strategies used by the cia, the systematic torturing of prisoners or the poochfucking we all witnessed at abu grab ass?

Everything the democrats/communists (Is there any difference?)complain about, they did themselves in WWII. Roosevelt used the census information of 1940 to identify Japanese Americans which he promptly rounded up and threw in prison without any charges ever made against these 110,000 people.

...The official story on Iraq has never made sense

Because it was all lies in the first place.

democrats/communists (Is there any difference?)

Of course not, Burt, same as GOPiggies and Nazis.

What a maroon.

Edwards says terrorist are not real