US soldier kills comrades in Iraq
A US soldier has shot dead five of his colleagues at a base in the Iraqi capital Baghdad, the Pentagon says.
Two other people were hurt in the shootings and the gunman is in custody, Pentagon officials have said.
An earlier military statement said the incident had happened at Camp Liberty near Baghdad’s international airport at about 1400 (1100 GMT).
The White House said US President Barack Obama was shocked by news of the “terrible tragedy”.
The president planned to discuss it with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said spokesman Robert Gibbs.
“Any time we lose one of our own, it affects us all” Colonel John Robinson US army spokesman
The shooting reportedly occurred at a clinic where troops receive help for personal issues or combat stress.
It is not the first time a US soldier has opened fire on comrades in recent years.
One soldier was sentenced to death in 2005 after killing two officers and wounding 14 other personnel with grenades and a rifle at a camp in Kuwait.
The BBC’s Natalia Antelava, in Baghdad, says troops at Camp Liberty had been enjoying a much more relaxed atmosphere in recent months.
She says there have been few attacks on the base recently, so the timing of the shooting will make it particularly shocking to the soldiers there.
It is the deadliest single incident involving US forces since 10 April, when five soldiers were killed by a truck bomb in the northern city of Mosul.
“Any time we lose one of our own, it affects us all,” said military spokesman Colonel John Robinson.
“Our hearts go out to the families and friends of all the service members involved in this terrible tragedy.”
Earlier this month, a man in an Iraqi army uniform shot dead two US soldiers and injured three others at a base near Mosul.
Iraqi military reports said he was a soldier also working as an imam at a mosque on the base.
US forces are due to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by August 2010.
If you want to lighten your heart, there are two pictures you must see. The first is nice, it’s the second (a zoomed verison of the first) that highlights why it’s such a touching picture.
Found via “Another Iraqi Child Being Tortured By An Imperialist U.S. Soldier” on Wednesday, July 2, 2008, by DMartyr of snapped shot.
It’s a stretch, but (Matthew 13:41-43, emphasis added):
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Things are heating up between Turkey and Iraq. At times, it seems that Iraq will give in to Turkey’s demands, preventing a Turkish invasion. At other times, it seems that Turkey is intentionally making things difficult for Iraq.
How about this for a twist: Jalal Talabani, President of Iraq, is a Kurd.
ANTE UN ATAQUE TURCO
Before a Turkish attack
El primer ministro iraquí, Nuri al Maliki, ha calificado este martes de grupo terrorista al Partido de los Trabajadores del Kurdistán (PKK) y ha ordenado el cierre de sus oficinas en Irak. El jefe del Gobierno del país árabe se expresó con esta contundencia después de entrevistarse con el ministro de Exteriores de Turquía en Bagdad. Hace una semana que el Ejecutivo de Erdogan obtuvo luz verde del Parlamento para ordenar las incursiones necesarias en el Kurdistán iraquí por un periodo de un año.
Maliki classifies the PKK as “terrorist” and orders the closure of its offices in Iraq
The Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, has classified this Tuesday the Party of Workers of Kurdistan (PKK) as a terrorist group and has ordered the closure of its offices in Iraq. The head of government of the Arab state expressed himself with such bluntness after meeting in Baghdad with the Foreign Minister of Turkey. It has been a week since the government of Erdoğan obtained the green light from the Parliament to order necessary incursions against Iraqi Kurdistan for a period of one year.
Related headlines say:
Erdogan reivindica en Londres el derecho a atacar el Kurdistán iraquí
Erdoğan claims in London the right to attack Iraqi Kurdistan
El PKK declara un alto el fuego unilateral bajo la condición de no ser atacado por Ankara
The PKK declares a unilateral ceasefire under the condition of not being attacked by Ankara (assumedly, Turkey)
Turquía advierte a Irak que no debe proteger a los terroristas kurdos
Turkey warns Iraq that it must not protect the Kurdish terrorists
From Libertad Digital.
I have always wondered: why all the hue and cry to get our troops out of Iraq?
Why not focus on Japan and Germany first? Korea? The last I knew, the Second World War ended quite some time ago. Perhaps our leaders forgot to bring them back, eh?
Maybe our most valiant patriots want to withdraw our troops from harm’s way.
Silly me. I missed the memo which stated that our troops are only to be posted where they will not be shot at.
All that armor and weapons must be for show. Shock and awe and all that, eh?
The following facts are very important to understand the Iraq War, as it is called, and the effects thereof. These facts are also important to understand the greater strategery of The United States with regard to the Middle East, Arab states, and various opponents and opposing entities.
As I do not want to give away sources and/or methods, all I will say is that the following facts have been more or less provided by a man who is currently a very powerful crown prince of an Arab statelet (not Saudi Arabia), set to soon succeed his aging and ill father. (Please remember that as seen through the eyes of Arabs and their governments, The United States unilaterally invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein and his regime.) Read the rest of this entry »
The United States have two main strategies with which to accomplish its most crucial objectives in Iraq. The creation of a professional and effective Iraqi security force goes without saying. This is needed so that we can leave Iraq in the hands of Iraqis. But establishing stability and security in Iraq, which is The United States’ primary objective, can be accomplished through one of two strategies, as mentioned before: one is for the Armed Services of The United States to establish security and stability, mainly by exterminating terrorist networks and militias, and the other is to train and equip Iraqi security forces to do it (and then maintain security and stability thereafter) themselves. The Administration chose the latter strategy, which is best strategy and the only one that will serve our interests in the long run. Read the rest of this entry »
Rather than engage in political rhetoric or insult-mongering, I will simply say that our objective now in Iraq is to help the Iraqi government establish and maintain a professional and capable force to establish and protect Iraqi national stability. Then our presence will diminish by degrees until it is practically negligible. But until that point — when Iraqi security forces can operate independently in a professional and capable manner — we cannot leave. Or, rather, we should not leave. (Our Armed Services are servile enough that if the government gave them orders to retreat, they will retreat even if they believe something else should be done.) Read the rest of this entry »
This may seem like a somewhat random post, but I’d like to point out an interesting aspect of political geography: the difficulty of grouping states together.
Consider, for example, Iran. Iran is often grouped into the “Middle East” (also known as the “Near East) but it differs markedly from other Middle Eastern states: it is Shiite rather than Sunni (Syria has a Shiite government with a Sunni population while Bahrain has a Sunni government with a majority Shiite population; Iraq has a significant Shiite demographic: but none of these is like Iran, where both the government and population are Shiite); it is ethnically Persian rather than Arab (and, consequently does not share the dominant language of the Middle East, Arabic); it has an elected theocratic government rather than the monarchies and dictatorships of most of the Middle East. Even historically Iran differs significantly in that most of the Middle East was part of the Sunni caliphate’ particularly the Ottoman Empire, while Iran had been under its own local regimes.
But where else, then, could Iran be grouped into? Iran is certainly not Central Asian or South Asian (despite the Persians’ influence on the latter). And Iran shares closer relations to and with Middle Eastern states than Central Asian or South Asian states. As such, the common inclusion of Iran in the “Middle East” makes sense.
And what of Turkey? Like most Middle Eastern states, it is Sunni. Unlike most Middle Eastern states, it has a popularly elected governmen and has little, if any, connection with Arabic culture and civilization. Yet, like Iran, it has shared close relations with other states of the Middle East: indeed, for centuries it ruled the Middle Eastern states (except for Iran, but it battled with Iran, figuratively and literally, for dominance and influence over the area). Can Turks and Arabs (or, for that matter, Persians and Arabs) be lumped together?
One example that amuses me is Egypt (and can include or be used for any of the Arab states of Northern Africa, beginning with Egypt and stretching to Morocco on the Atlantic Ocean): are Egyptians Arabs, Middle Easterners, or Africans? And as Egypt has been considered to be in Africa for centuries now, can Egyptians, as Africans, claim benefits or special arrangements for Africans or people of African origin?
And what about Mediterranean states? Should they not also be considered to be a group unto itself? Does not a state’s location on the Great Sea play an important part in its character, politics, culture, and tendencies?
And how about Afghanistan? Is it Middle Eastern, South Asian, or Central Asian? Or this a case, as some say is with Turkey, that parts belong to different areas (the Pashtun areas being South Asian; the Tajik and Uzbek areas being Central Asian; the more Persian or Dari areas being Middle Eastern)?
It is not easy to group states together into useful categories or geopolitical regions, yet doing so makes considering the world and its manifold issues easier. And, indeed, in some cases such categorization even makes sense as far as issues go. But there has yet to be a comprehensive system developed: all systems in use are debated and problematic to some degree.
As such, while we ought to consider a state’s location, we should not put all of our understanding of a state’s problems or issues solely in the context of geopolitical location. In some ways, each state is an entity unto itself or may involve issues, characteristics, or aspects common or dissimilar to the states around it.
How are the mighty fallen!
(King David; 2 Samuel 1:19.)
Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti has been executed for his crimes against the Iraqi people, for his crimes against humanity.
I remembered when Arafat died: many customers who came through the place I worked in at that time expressed joy at his death. They saw him as a terrorist, one who was a threat to the Israeli and Jewish people despite his apparent change of spots.
It may seem easy to believe that this event, the execution of a man who unflinchingly send uncountable people to their deaths, would be an occasion for joy and rejoicing. After all, if people rejoiced when Arafat died of (supposedly) natural causes, how much more ought we to rejoice when the sword of justice in mortal hands avenges the blood of the many, many slain.
But I believe differently. This is a moment for us to remember the many killed by Saddam. This is a moment for us to reflect on how such obvious tyrants and homocidal despots seem to be able to rule without any opposition by the supposedly enlightened and humane international community.
And let us contrast the ways of the West with those of the Rest. After the liberation of Iraq, coalition forces expended much effort to track down and find Saddam. There were attempts to take him out, but ultimately he was found by American troops when a person in the know basicallly revealed where Saddam was hiding. Saddam was not harmed, hurt, tortured, or otherwise violated. He was arrested and put on trial. He had a big-name lawyer. His side was able to make its case and points. The judge had to examine the evidence and arguments. It was a genuine trial.
Now, what happens in the Rest? People and their families are simply “disappeared”: no one knows anything about them, until one day their remains are found in a mass grave. No trial, no attorney, no defense, no justice. Whole villages are simply wiped out. Families live in fear that at any moment the despot’s forces, legal or not, with or without proper documentation, will sweep in and either take them away or slaughter them all at once.
For all of our talk about justice, human rights, liberties, and responsibility, we do let many despots get away. And there is something ironic when tyrannous and blood-stained despots are brought to justice through an actual just process. The very right Saddam denied to so many in the end undid him.
There will be those who will lament that Saddam’s trial was not fair. Let them lament. Their lament can now do nothing. Those who lament might very well be the same people who would have opposed liberating Iraq from Saddam’s talons to begin with. Let them whine and moan and lament. Let their got air rise to the skies. Their words are impotent.
Notice that I have not said that his execution has justified or completed the liberation of Iraq. It’s tempting to say so, but to say so would be to misunderstand why we went in to liberate Iraq. Our campaign–and by “our” I refer to the coalition led by The United States–was against Saddam Hussein and his regime. Were it against Saddam, we could have perpetuated Iraq’s “stability” (unjust as it was) by installing another Sunni general (or, as the British did when they created Iraq, a king). Our goal was to establish an entirely new regime, which we did. (I use the word “regime” in its academic sense, meaning a system of government.) Whether Saddam survived or how he would die are irrelevant for our purposes.
And this is not our victory or our gain. This is a victory for the Iraqi people; this is a victory for justice; this is a victory for history. So let us not think this occured for us Americans or by us Americans. We helped, yes, and without it this would not have been possible, but Saddam was tried by the Iraqis in an Iraqi court for crimes against the Iraqi people: the victory is theirs.
Yet we can share the relief of the Iraqi people and their accomplishment by virtue of the fact that this was a victory for humanity. It is very rare indeed for one such as Saddam–in Jewish parlance, a Haman (genocidal conniver)–to face justice. More often, such people succumb to nature or to internal politics. It is not a sad time when someone like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Jinggez Khan, or Arafat dies, but their death at the hands of nature rather than the sword of justice leaves something to be desired. Furthermore, we can take comfort in the fact that this victory by the Iraqi people, a true victory in that this was through a just process, could not have happened without our intervention. Whereas we may not have executed justice ourselves, we established the foundation, framework, conditions, and environment within which justice could be served. As such, the world (and justice and history) are indebted to the Armed Forces of The United States and of their allies and to the presidency and administration of President George W. Bush. While many clamored for diplomatic solutions and giving a blood-stained regime more time, these proactive forces set events into motion which would result, among many notable events, in Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti facing justice for his abominable crimes against humanity.
For once, goodness and justice have prevailed against evil and injustice. This can only give us hope.
As geoff noted, we were prematurely jubilant upon the news that Shiite politicians had formed a bloc and sought as-Sistani’s blessing for it. As-Sistani refused to do so, on grounds that he could not endorse a measure that would divide Shiites. This was an oblique reference to as-Sadr.
Frankly, I was disappointed but not all that surprised. If he endorsed the bloc, the potential for a civil war between Shiites would increase. As Iraq’s Shiites’ leader, it seems he felt this would not be something he could in good conscience do.
What this means is that rather than forcing as-Sadr to give up his militia-mongering, Shiite politicians would have to pander to as-Sadr and what conditions he would set.
Undoubtedly, one of these conditions would include a guarantee from the government that attacks on Shiites will stop and that perpetrators would be severely punished. It is to be expected that another sick condition would include some guarantee of autonomy to his militias and to Shiite areas. Thus, although anti-Sunni attacks may stop, as-Sadr would be able to continue to exercise armed hegemony over his areas.
And we must not forget one of as-Sadr’s prime sponsors: Iran. It may also be possible that as-Sistani refused to endorse the bloc so as to avoid a confrontation with Iran or its proxies.
A major problem with allowing as-Sadr autonomy is that then he would become Iran’s Iraqi equivalent to Lebanon’s Nasrollah.
[Saying that I wanted to see how the meeting went with as-Sistani turned out to be the right approach. I suppose it pays to be cautious when it comes to developments in world politics.]
And as much as the Shiites have suffered, it is time for permanent measures to be emplaced to protect their security, otherwise this militia-mongering will become endemic to Iraqi Shiite society, as has happened among the Palestinians, which would not be good at all.
Contrary to memes that Iraq is going to heck in a handbasket, the Shiites are getting their…stuff together.
When I first read the headline, I assumed a Shiite delegation would be going to Muqtada as-Sadr, the Shiite militia leader, to ask for a ceasefire. But I was wrong. The Shiites wanted the blessing of the senior-most Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatullah as-Sayyid Ali al-Husseini as-Sistani, for a ceasefire. They then plan to speak with as-Sadr about him joining the mainstream, whereby the Shiites would be able to get him to reign his militias in.
Meeting as-Sistani is a significant step because if he gives his blessing, not only will the Shiite bloc in the Iraqi government gain legitimacy but it would be incumbent upon Shiites to support the bloc. After all, as a cleric, the Grand Ayatullah is acting in persona Imami, on behalf of and in the person of the Hidden Imam. To disobey or go against the Grand Ayatullah would be to disobey or go against the Imam, which is tantamount to apostasy from Islam as far as Shiites are concerned.
This is also significant because this means that Shiite politics may be swinging from militant Irani-backed Sadrists to quietist stability-promoting Iraqi Shiites.
I don’t know how as-Sadr would respond, but it would be quite difficult for him to maintain his legitimacy and popular support if he essentially spurns an endeavor blessed by the Grand Ayatullah himself. Although as-Sadr has significant issues with the clerical authorities, for reasons of religious legitimacy he cannot splinter off explicitly or blatantly. I hope Shiites use this as a tool to bludgeon him into submission.
By the way, the author of the article – (قاسم عبد الزهراء, qāsim ‛abdu-z-zahrā’) Qassim Abdul-Zahra – you can’t get a more Shiite name than that. In fact, it would be considered blasphemous by Sunnis. (عبد, ‛abd) means “servant” or “slave,” and (الزهراء, az-zahrā’) is a feminine adjective meaning “the radiant” and is an epithet of (فاطمة بنت محمد, fāTimah bint muHammad) Fatimah, Muhammad’s daughter and Ali’s wife, whom Shiites revere. Technically, one can only use one of God’s 99 names in Islam after (عبد, ‛abd), otherwise it would be considered idolatry or polytheism.
Let’s see how this plays out. In any case, that a political coalition is forming among Shiites that rejects as-Sadr’s militancy is a significant development indeed. Now if only the Sunnis would follow suit.
Iraq is a disaster.
Later, Mark in NJ chimes in:
Maybe there’s a simpler explanation: no books because there’s nothing good happening there to write about.
How is it a disaster?
It’s so easy to say it, isn’t it? Well, prove it. The burden of proof is on your side.
Where is the exhaustive analyses of the progress in Iraq compared to what trouble areas there are?
Where are you getting your impressions, from the pictures on the television?
What about what the soldiers have to say? What about what Iraqi politicians have to say? What about what quietist Iraqi Shiites have to say? What about what the Kurds have to say?
All I hear is such-and-such Sunni claiming this, that-and-that Shiite militia proclaiming that…what about the rest of Iraq? Is Iraq made up of two groups, militant Sunnis and militant Shiites? What happened to the rest?
What about the schools, hospitals, medicines, electricity, water, roads, airports, homes, apartment buildings, businesses, cars, oil, telephone connections, internet, libraries?
Iraq is a disaster.
I challenge you: prove your ridiculous assertion. If you can’t, then desist immediately from your gross misrepresentations (and consider this: if you know you can’t prove it, you know you’re wrong, and if you continue to assert your claim knowing you’re wrong, you’re blatantly lying).
To those online who seem to not appreciate the fact that Iraq is free:
You armchair commenters and bloggers, who probably have never seen what a Muslim state is like from the inside, cannot know what the liberation of Iraq means.
I am not an Iraqi. I am not a Sunni or a Shiite – I’m not even Muslim anymore. I am not an Arab or a Kurd. But I rejoiced when Baghdad fell to coalition forces and Iraq was, for the first time ever, liberated from the claws of tyranny. April 9, 2003. I was so happy, I could sing. My heart soared the whole day. It was the best day of my life.
Because I knew then, just as I know now, that millions — millions who had only despair to expect from life and the future, millions who lived in fear, millions who were abandoned by the world to suffer from the consequences of their unelected leader and his inhuman regime — could now breathe free.
And because I knew that the Armed Forces of The United States had toppled yet again another inhuman dictator, whom the rest of the world tolerated. Evil had been defeated. Good had triumphed. In a world as lone and dreary as ours, any such victory ought to be celebrated with much gusto and thanksgiving.
And the consequences! Dictators trembled in their boots! Tyrants shivered in fear! Oppressed people sighed in envy! Oppressing people whispered in anxiety! Who would be next? Which oppressing people, with their dictator, would these seemingly unstoppable legions of angels defeat? Which oppressed people will be able to stand confident amid the fresh, healthy breeze of freedom?
You really don’t know what freedom is until you have seen — even if only a glimpse — what a land without freedom is like.
I mean, really: one day the Kurds had to fear being attacked with chemical weapons, and the next they are free. I cannot understand how anyone can refuse to rejoice in the freedom of any people. I cannot understand how anyone can even think of claiming that their situation before their liberation was better. You have freedom and enjoy it; but when others get it, do you get jealous? Why must you be so sour? Why must you insist on fabricating false impressions in order to spoil a people’s freedom or the efforts of those who bring it to them? Freedom is good.
Frankly, you disgust me.
Never mind that before the U.S. invaded Iraq that the Sunnis and
Shiites were living in relative Peace even to the point of inter-
marrying, just like Catholics and Protestants. What Dubya should
have done was gone in to Iraq, took out Saddam, arrested him
and charged him with crimes against humanity in the International
It is my fondest hope that one of the first items on the Democratic
agenda should be the impeachment of both Dubya and Cheney.
Buy the way, feel free to publish my e-mail address. Since I don’t
have an official web-site and I’d like to continue this discussion
One of my biggest pet peeves is when people mischaracterize the situation in Iraq prior to its liberation in such a way as to suggest or explicitly claim that the liberation thereof resulted in an Iraq far worse off than it was under Saddam Hussein and his regime. Read the rest of this entry »
We should have taken out Muqtada as-Sadr (سيد مقتدى الصدر, sayyid muqtadā aS-Sadr; titled: حجة الإسلام, Hujjat al-islām, meaning “proof or expert on Islam,” meaning he’s a middle-ranking Shiite cleric).
Within Iraq, one may say that there are two prominent factions: the activists, under as-Sadr, and the quietists, under Grand Ayatollah as-Sistani (السيد علي الحسيني السيستاني, as-sayyid ‛alī al-Hussaynī as-sīstānī; titled: آية الله العظمى, āyatullāh al-‛uZmā, meaning “Great Āyatullāh,” referring to the senior-most level of Shiite clerics).
After a period of time, the activist Shiites, who are organized in political parties and militias, gained control of and prominence in Iraqi politics. As-Sadr is certainly a person to consider. He’s no small fry. But one needs to also see why he seeks this attention. Read the rest of this entry »
Many people in the Middle East…in fact, many people throughout the world believe that Israel is a puppet under the command of The United States. It is believed that Israel does nothing without The United States’ orders or, at the very least, permission. Such characterizations are most evident in anti-Israeli propaganda when Israel makes the unforgivable mistake of trying to save itself from hostile forces. Consider, for example, how the recent Israeli-Lebanon war was characterized as one between Israel and The United States on one hand and poor, amateurish, ill-equipped freedom fighters (that is, the terrorists of Hezbollah) on the other hand. Except for supporting Israel and agreeing to speed up arms deliveries, The United States had no role with or upon Israel whatsoever.
Shortly before the near-miraculous Six-Day War, Israel consulted with the government of The United States regarding its situation. The Government made it perfectly clear, with no unmistaken terms, that The United States would not support any preemptive strike whatsoever. Were Israel to be attacked by Arab forces (Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were mobilizing to attack Israel), The United States would rush to Israel’s support; but were Israel to strike first, Israel would be in the situation alone, without any help, assistance, or support from The United States. All this notwithstanding, Israel struck first, in essence discarding the stern warning from The United States’ government. Read the rest of this entry »
Redeyed_Wolf: I approved your despicable comment because unlike other places, I believe in free speech. Indeed, I have lived many years in countries where “free speech” is considered to be blasphemous and anti-Islamic. So I appreciate free speech, for I know what it is like to not have it. Furthermore, I consider myself an American who is devoted to American values, one of which is letting others have their say, no matter how horrid or stupid they may be.
But I would counsel you to read a little more carefully. Regarding the little girl in Chief Master Sargeant John Gebhardt‘s arms, you wrote:
Incidently, if you would like to see more on this little girl, here it
That’s from “Urban Legends Reference Pages,” but then you probably
don’t believe anything that an American tells you unless they are of
It is true that Snopes – a wonderful website indeed – investigates urban legends. But I am quite aware of how Snopes works, which perhaps you may not know so well.
After having Chief Master Sargeant John Gebhardt‘s name in clear, large letters, the website writes:
Claim: Photograph shows a U.S. soldier comforting an injured Iraqi child.
What you perhaps did not read is:
This means that the claim is true. In other words, the photograph and the story behind it are true. Not that this matters to you, as you would dismiss this as yet another American propaganda site.
To my friends who support America (some of whom may not be Americans themselves): Ignore the ranting and rambling of these fools. Paying attention to them will only unnecessarily raise your blood pressure. Why, were I conspiracy-minded, I might think these idiots were planted by the pharmaceutical industry to drive up their anti-hypertensives sales. But the truth is that these people are blind to reality and to common sense.
These people let us know what kind our opponents are. In other words: we cannot reason with them. We should realize how we’re clearly intellectually and rationally superior, and so not waste time on them.
To the Democrats:
Congratulations on your gains. There is one thing you must realize, which you must remember. The war in Iraq is as much your war as it is our war. The Armed Forces of The United States do not belong to The Republican Party or to you; they belong to The United States and to their people. As such, every military engagement is done for the sake of The United States, not for any party or politician or government or administration.
Be honorable in this issue. Do not disappoint the American people. Do not betray The United States’ Armed Forces. Be strong and patient. Remember, this is your war also. Its outcome will reflect on you as well.
If you fail, you may remain and survive for a season or two. But history will not be so forgiving. It will haunt and hound you relentlessly, forever inscribing your names onto the plaque of shame for all peoples and generations to read and scorn. Your names will become a hiss and a byword.
I just watched a video on YouTube of Second Lady Dr. Cheney when she went on CNN, meeting with Wolf Blitzer, ostensibly to talk about her book (which I assume is Our 50 States: A Family Adventure Across America). She did an excellent job. I found out about this video by watching a video of Vice President Cheney at “Cheney On Kerry” by Dan Riehl of Riehl World View. In turn, I found out about Dan Riehl‘s video at “Hitchens on Kerrygate” by AllahPundit of Hot Air.
I must say, seeing both videos has justified my admiration for the Cheneys. Strong people, and principled too.