Good news. We got one of the big guys in al-Qaeda today during a missile strike in Pakistan:
Al-Qaeda chemical weapons expert Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar was believed to have been killed Monday in a suspected US missile strike in Pakistan, security officials told AFP.
“We believe he was killed in this strike,” a senior intelligence official based in the northwestern city of Peshawar told AFP on condition of anonymity.
“It was his hide-out and information that has been shared with us says he was targeted in this strike,” the official said.
The Egyptian, 54, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, had a five-million-US-dollar bounty on his head and allegedly ran terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.
Ed Morrissey notes how a video of Khabab doing chemical weapon tests on dogs shocked the world:
Khabab may be most remembered for his experiments with chemical weapons. In video that shocked a world grown somewhat used to terrorism, the AQ terrorist exposed dogs to chemicals used for weapons and watched them die horrible deaths.
Which is a bit perplexing to me. Show pictures of Kurds being gassed, mass graves, rape rooms and acid baths and we got shrugs from the left. But dogs being hurt? Damn them!
But whatever, the five million dollar man is now dead and we have one less terrorist to deal with.
See author page
Isn’t this what BHO was excoriated for by the Right? Saying he would authorize attacks against terrorists within the sovereign nation of Pakistan on the basis of actionable intelligence. Always sounded like a good idea to me.
Of course. But it’s different and much, much worse when Obama does it–showing no understanding of the uses of military might or the role of commander-in-chief or of the implementation of foreign relations. As to why: well, some rationalization will surely pop up.
It is a little bit different. We are going in there with Pakistan’s knowledge, Obama said he would go in there and not tell Pakistan what we are doing.
Actually he said he would do it with or without Pakistani approval. He didn’t say he wouldn’t let Pakistan know we were doing it. Knowledge and approval are two different issues. Please provide a source for your assertion that the Pakistanis knew about the strike beforehand.
I wasn’t too perplexed at the differentiation. Americans love their family pets with a passion, and dogs especially are seen as participating family members – unlike elsewhere and throughout the Mid-East and Asia where dogs are regarded quite less fondly, or even as food.
The Kurdish gassing was viewed later, as resultant effects – and the Left generally disbelieved rape-rooms (unless the Marines or US Army were said to have been involved) and among torture chambers only Abu Graib got the Lefty nod – the rest was claimed as the propaganda machinations of Karl Rove – just like the faked Moon Landing. 😉
Dogs-getting-gassed was shown in the proccess of them dying – of being killed, that’s something Nazi-like, such as beheading videos that are violently more disquieting and less easy to disbelieve (although many Lefties made a sincere effort to ignore, disbelieve, rationalize and equivocate). Murder for show-off, that’s vile… I’m glad the miserable bastard is dead.
Per the Dawn report, it has much the same language as in the Yahoo news story linked above, Dave.
If NATO/coalition forces aren’t responsible, perhaps the CIA is. And while the Pakistan officials did not say specifically they cooperated, they did say his hid out was “information that has been shared with us”. Does that mean they shared that info with the CIA?
One thing for sure… when the US does stuff without their knowledge, they are quite verbal about it publicly with their condemnations. And they been somewhat benevolent with drone and air strikes in the past. Lacking an official outcry of rage, I suspect they knew and passed on the info.
Dave, the uproar for many re BHO was that he was picking up the same policy as GWB, and the L wasn’t ranting and raving (proving once again that opposition is mostly BDS based). The same thing holds true now that BHO is proclaiming that any timetable, timeline, or schedule for withdrawing troops in Iraq would be “CONDITIONS-BASED”. For years the L ranted against GWB saying that, and now…silence.
The uproar from the right is outrage at the lack of silence that proves so much “patriotic dissent” was just Bush opposition.
Dave, Obama said that he might send U.S. ground troops into Pakistan without Pakistan’s permission.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/
A missile is one thing. A missile with Pakistani approval is even less. But boots on the ground is an invasion, and would be an example of the same kind of “recklessness” that the left accused Bush of.
Just one more example of how ignorant of the world Obama is.
Dave Hussein Noble points out that Obama claims HE would do something that we ALREADY DO!
It’s not the first time.
I can’t wait until he declares the surge in Iraq was his idea all along.
When Saddam gassed the Kurds he was our friend fighting against the Iranians. And I remember that the left was against this alliance. Perhaps you have forgotten the famous Rumsfeld Saddam handshake photo ? well here is a link to ithttp://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blsaddamrumsfeld.htm Where was the “outcry” from the right ?
He was also the “friend” of Britain, Germany, Russia and France, so we were hardly alone in picking Iraq over Iran in that era.
However your use of the word “friend” is deceiving, John Ryan. In light of the Iranian hostage situation just a year or two earlier, it didn’t take rocket science for the US to favor Iraq as the best counterbalance to Khomeni. Iran presented a more obvious clear and present danger to US security. So the US supplied Saddam with military assistance and satellite intel on Iranian troops movements.
It surprises me not that you’d take pride if the DNC then favored the Ayatollah, in effect, by refusal to support Saddam… altho I find very little in that era of the “outraged” DNC Congress you allude to. Perhaps you’ll point to some of that “outrage” for us? But I warn you, a “none of the above” in that conflict will not play in your favor. Disengagement, and allowing the potential for Iran to gain power over Iraq, was not an option.
Saddam’s persistent use of chemical weaponry in his battles with Iraq (and later the Kurds) did *not* earn the favor of the US, nor the int’l community. The US instead strengthened export controls on chemical weapons to both countries.
Even the int’l community only made half-hearted condemnations during that time. The UNSC basically ignored Iran’s multiple formal complaints to that body about Saddam’s use of chemical weapons. But finally, in 1984, the UNSC issued a general presidential statement, condeming the use of chemical weapons, but refused to name Iraq specifically. A vague slap at best, and another statement that the world, while not impressed with either leader, bet on Saddam over Khomeni.
It was then, and remains today, the choice between two evils. The US and other free nations all picked the same horse to bet on. A decision that remains fraught with what ifs, and pros and cons. Which brings me to your desire to whitewash the DNC as some sort of pure entity in all this.
You might want to congratulate them on the firm stand they took a few years earlier. It can be argued that if their beloved Carter didn’t target the Iranian Shah – a US ally against the Soviet Union – and give rise to the Ayatollah (who makes the Shah’s violation of human rights games at a company picnic), the Iraq/Iran battles may not have been fought. So add that to one of your moments of liberal pride and history rewrites…
Excellent, MH; too bad John Ryan does the occasional “drive-by” commenting, and never appears to benefit from responses.
Which is something a number of folk- generally liberals- can’t seem to understand. Living in the real world, you’re forced to make choices between imperfects.
Alliances are formed out of convenience, not permanence. Should we still be at war with Britain, Germany, Mexico, Spain, and Japan because at one time in history, we weren’t “shaking hands and doing business with them”? Because we are doing so today, in the event that future circumstances drives them into violent conflict with the U.S….does that invalidate our decision to form friendships and alliances now?
President Bush Addresses American Legion National Convention
Salt Palace Convention Center
Salt Lake City, Utah
August 31, 2006
“Second, we have made it clear to all nations, if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists; you’re an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to account. (Applause.)”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060831-1.html
That is unless you’re an ally of the United States, then you’re an enemy-ally.
And regarding which horse to have backed in the eighties, it appears that plan didn’t work out so well. We had to invade Iraq twice in fifteen years, Iran is if anything a larger threat now, and we have two majority Shiite governments in the Middle East.