Remember this summer when Democrats admitted that good news in Iraq was bad news for their party?

Well, it’s that good news that has Democrats suddenly talking less about Iraq and focusing more on things like healthcare and taxes…

Because they obviously don’t want to talk about this:

In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 — down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004.

During the first 12 days of October the death rates of Iraqis and Americans fell still further. So far during the Muslim month of Ramadan, which began Sept. 13 and ends this weekend, 36 U.S. soldiers have been reported as killed in hostile actions. That is remarkable given that the surge has deployed more American troops in more dangerous places and that in the past al-Qaeda has staged major offensives during Ramadan. Last year, at least 97 American troops died in combat during Ramadan. Al-Qaeda tried to step up attacks this year, U.S. commanders say — so far, with stunningly little success.

…and most definitely not this:

The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq.

So yeah, let’s ignore the war now and talk about healthcare instead…

Was the latest bin Laden tape a fake?

Could be. Looks like al-Qaeda’s taken some editing tips from Michael Moore… clip, snip and cut until you’ve created a new reality.

Why not? Afterall, the transcript read like a Michael Moore Oscar acceptance speech.

Remember how tough officials from the Clinton administration claimed to be about getting Osama bin Laden?

Albright told the 9/11 commission the Clinton administration did everything it could to defeat al-Qaeda and would have killed Osama bin Laden if officials had better intelligence. “President Clinton and his team did everything we could, everything we could think of, based on the knowledge we had, to protect our people and disrupt and defeat al-Qaeda,” Albright said.

Then again… maybe not so much.

# U.S. spy agencies, which were overseen by Tenet, lacked a comprehensive strategic plan to counter Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. The inspector general concluded that Tenet “by virtue of his position, bears ultimate responsibility for the fact that no such strategic plan was ever created.”

# The CIA’s analysis of al-Qaida before Sept. 2001 was lacking. No comprehensive report focusing on bin Laden was written after 1993, and no comprehensive report laying out the threats of 2001 was assembled. “A number of important issues were covered insufficiently or not at all,” the report found.

And we’ll still never know just what classified information Sandy Berger stole and destroyed to protect Clinton administration officials…

Of course, President Bush also bears some blame here… for keeping holdovers like George Tenet from a do-nothing administration.

hat tip: Bryan

The day people who think like this get into power, we’re doomed.

Richardson: It’s very effective to take into account what your enemy is thinking. As we’ve found out, if you don’t try to understand terrorists, you may well just be playing into their hands. A purely military response might only exacerbate the perceived grievances that motivate terror attacks. It’s unbelievable, but the public diplomacy budget of the United States is only two-thirds of one percent of its military budget — even though public diplomacy could be an effective way to combat the impression of the United States as an imperialist power.

Yeah, unbelievable that we don’t use debating teams and Wal-Mart door-greeters to defend our interests at home and abroad from enemies that would use military-level power to attack us.

By the way, since it’s apparently “our image as an imperialist power” that’s driving these wackjob jihadis, how do you explain the bombings and plots in London, Spain and elsewhere?

And then the kicker…

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You’ve mentioned the possibility of setting up talks with groups like al-Qaida. How would such talks be set up?

Richardson: Well, I’m not suggesting that President Bush sit across a table from Osama bin Laden. They would be informal, set up through back channels. These sorts of efforts from the British government were instrumental in the successful resolution of conflict in Northern Ireland. And it’s conspicuously lacking from the United States right now. Talks wouldn’t have to be negotiations. Sometimes diplomacy is just a matter of feeling the other side out, of finding out what they actually want. If we could find splits within the organization of al-Qaida, we could play them off of each other for our benefit, isolating the most radical elements. Some people say that setting up talks with terror groups would grant them too much legitimacy. But, in my view, declaring war on a terror group is actually the most effective way of granting legitimacy.

Finding out what they actually want? They actually want you and me and everyone else to convert to Islam or die…

…oh and don’t forget the total and complete elimination of the state of Israel.

But yeah, we should chat with ‘em sometime. Great idea, ivy league genius.

Here’s a report from ABCNews on the connection between Iraq and al-Qaida…

Maybe they became interested in this story after the Clinton Justice Department reached the same conclusions…

Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development.

Or maybe their source was Richard Clarke, Clinton’s National Coordinator of Counterterrorism and Computer Security Programs, who said this in 1999:

Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton’s decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden’s role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is “sure” that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president “would have been derelict in his duties if he didn’t blow up the facility.”

George W. Bush sure put forth a lot of effort in the years he was Governor of Texas to concoct the tie between the two in order to launch a war when he became President…

al-Qaeda is on the run in Iraq:

There is good news from Iraq, believe it or not. It comes from the most unlikely place: Anbar province, home of the Sunni insurgency. The level of violence has plummeted in recent weeks. An alliance of U.S. troops and local tribes has been very effective in moving against the al-Qaeda foreign fighters. A senior U.S. military official told me—confirming reports from several other sources—that there have been “a couple of days recently during which there were zero effective attacks and less than 10 attacks overall in the province (keep in mind that an attack can be as little as one round fired). This is a result of sheiks stepping up and opposing AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] and volunteering their young men to serve in the police and army units there.” The success in Anbar has led sheiks in at least two other Sunni-dominated provinces, Nineveh and Salahaddin, to ask for similar alliances against the foreign fighters. And, as TIME’s Bobby Ghosh has reported, an influential leader of the Sunni insurgency, Harith al-Dari, has turned against al-Qaeda as well. It is possible that al-Qaeda is being rejected like a mismatched liver transplant by the body of the Iraqi insurgency.

The Taliban is petering out:

The Taliban’s much-vaunted spring offensive has stalled apparently due to lack of organisation after dozens of middle-ranking commanders were killed by British troops in the past year, according to military sources.

The death last week of the key Taliban leader Mullah Dadullah at the hands of American special forces has harmed the Taliban’s morale to the point that local commanders are having to tell their troops to “remain professional” despite the loss.

…and Democrats have retreated:

Democrats conceded yesterday that their demands to begin withdrawing from Iraq can’t be included in a war-spending bill because President Bush would veto it, and they prepared to give him the money largely on his terms.

Though the attacks have been vicious on all three fronts, the good guys appear to be winning.

From WaPo:

Mohamad al-Janabi, a reputed al-Qaeda member in the nearby city of Salman Pak, said in a telephone interview that he was unable to contact his comrades in Mahmudiyah to determine whether they were responsible for the attack.

But he added: “I can assure you that we will start pressuring Bush in a new way at the same time he is facing pressures from the Democrats and the American people. And there will be no problem to sacrifice 10 soldiers in order to abduct a single American soldier and get him on television screens begging for us to release him.”

Uniting, not dividing.

Has he deployed troops to Iraq? Has he detained Muslims in a military prison? Has he occupied Islamic land? No, the Dalai Lama is now a target because… are you ready for this?

Because he’s not Muslim.

SECURITY surrounding the Dalai Lama has been tightened after reports of an attempt by the al-Qa’ida-linked terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Toiba to assassinate the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader.
[…]
In a recent document, Osama bin Laden denounced “pagan Buddhism” as part of his general attack on anything not Islamic.

The assassination threat picked up by Indian authorities is thought to be based on bin Laden’s denunciation and the extremist jihadi movement’s hatred for anything and anyone that is not Muslim.

But wait… I thought it was cowboy Bush and his Halliburton foreign policy in Iraq that made the terrorists want to attack us.

Religion o’ “peace” strikes again.

Still don’t know if the attack was aimed at Cheney, specifically, but it sure looks like the Left is disappointed their allies missed.

Judging from these comments at the cesspool known as Democratic Underground, it’s clear we’re not on the same team.

23. Thank God Cheney was fine. I couldn’t deal with it if that man was made a martyr.

In fact I wish that the black hearted thug would stick around for the next 50 years so that he can see what the history books say about him, but that ain’t gonna happen.

and…

25. Cheney Unhurt; World Disappointed.

Of course, then there are the requisite comments stating that this is a manufactured story from the Bush administration to justify attacking Iran. Man, they’ve just got it all figured out.

UPDATE:
The hits keep on coming…

49. Oh dear
I hope he’s alright

UPDATE 2:
For those of you claiming I picked a few comments that don’t represent the Left, here are some more from other sites:

Huffington Post

DailyKos

It’s a sickness.

UPDATE 2:
It’s really sad when the only praise you can bestow upon liberals is that they weren’t as mean-spirited, vile and vulgar as some other liberals. It’s like praising Britney for not being quite as slutty as Paris…

UPDATE 3:
John found a liberal blogger who was happy Cheney was unhurt… only because if he had been, it would’ve hurt the Left politically!

Can you tell them apart?

1. “What the United States tastes today is a very small thing compared to what we have tasted for tens of years. Our nation has been tasting this humiliation and contempt for more than 80 years.”

2. “Here in the United States, we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent. This country once looked the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human. And we are still paying a price today,”

3. “They champion falsehood, support the butcher against the victim, the oppressor against the innocent child.”

4. “There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud?”

5. “Our men and women in uniform are still paying with their lives for this misguided war in Iraq. No president who misleads the country on the need for war deserves to be re-elected.”

6. “Bush alleged that his troops have spread freedom in the world, that Iraq had achieved democracy thanks to his coalition forces, that his government has crushed more than two-thirds of al Qaeda and that…Afghanistan is secure,. The leader of the most powerful country on earth is not embarrassed to say these deceptions and lies. It’s gotten to the stage that he can ridicule his listeners to this degree.”

7. “There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can’t think it can’t be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is, but the trouble is that by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and then eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the clear, the key information that needs to go to the Kean commission.”

8. “The president was the one who dragged our troops to Iraq, which apparently has been a factor in the death of 200 Spaniards over the weekend,”

9. “What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.”

10. “Can’t you be honest at least once in your life and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq under the pretext of the presence of nuclear weapons there and under the pretext of al Qaeda’s connections with Saddam Hussein, following which evidence proved that you intentionally lied and misled?”

11. “Iraq can not be won militarily.”

12. “Why don’t you tell them how many million citizens of America and its allies you intend to kill in search of the imaginary victory and in breathless pursuit of the mirage towards which you are driving your people’s sons in order increase your profits?”

13. “We won’t allow you to take anymore money out of social programs to finance Halliburton to rebuild the Gulf States: there is no money. Our bank account is empty. George, this is our rainy day and you have failed us miserably. Stop pouring money into the pockets of the war profiteers and into building permanent bases in Iraq.”

» Continue Reading..