I had to pull a post I was about to publish because the news has changed
Lance on Oct 29 2007 at 10:26 pm | Filed under: Foreign affairs, Lance's Page, Military Matters, Notes on the war
Luckily it is good news! I am sure most of you read about the 11 tribal leaders kidnapped in Baghdad. Frankly, I figured they were toast. What is interesting is that they were kidnapped by Shiites and identified as Shiites by…Shiites!
Hadi al-Anbaki, a spokesman for the mostly Shiite council, said the attack was carried out by the Mahdi Army, a militia controlled by the anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. “This was an ambush,” Anbaki said.
So what did the Shiite dominated Iraqi Army do? They went after them:
Just 24 hours after the capture of 11 Sunni and Shia tribal leaders in northern Baghdad, the Iraqi Army has freed eight of the sheikhs. Meanwhile, Multinational forces Iraq has identified the Mahdi Army commander responsible for the kidnappings, and has begun to name other Mahdi Army leaders as being involved in criminal and insurgent activity.
Iraqi soldiers conducted the raid in as of yet unidentified region near Baghdad, likely with the aid of US Special Forces, and killed four of the kidnappers. “We have rescued eight of the hostages and are working to free the others. We killed four of the kidnappers,” Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al Askari said.
That is from Bill Roggio. Go ahead and RTWT.
While the situation is complex, this is encouraging. Of course The WAPO puts in all kinds of confusing and misleading statements in any piece:
Violent attacks continued unabated across Iraq.
Can we please summon one of those layers of editors and fact checkers to go find Amit Paley a dictionary and look up what unabated means? Or, if he/she knows what it means can we get rid of someone who cannot resist twisting a story deliberately to mislead.
Sphere: Related Content
Why the argument that criticizes and belittles the author? Substanceless piffle from rightwingers.
With friends like O’Reilly, Limbaugh and Malkin who needs Lance and Keith_Indy?
Here’s some advice “O’Reilly”:
(1) When leaving condescendingly snide comments, always try to do so on the proper post.
(2) When quoting someone, it does not hurt to both quote and link; take extra care to link an actual quote instead of one you made up.
(3) Make some sense. Although it seems a daunting task, it really is within you powers.
(4) When in doubt about 1, 2, or 3, consider that a good time to leave the internets.
O’ Reilly,
What are you talking about?
Pretty bad when you try and insult someone, and you can’t even get your point across.
Perhaps another sock-puppet or mini-me seeking approval from glenn the grandmaster himself?
Their devotion is scary, mostly because they can’t admit their devotion.
Was that about the Greenwald post? I don’t recognize the quote.
If so, O’Reilly let me make the point. I basically ridicule two people here at this blog. Greenwald and his little friend. Given that two more poisonous pens hardly exist in the blogosphere, with some of the most vicious and misleading smears that I can imagine coming from them, I have no concern for their feelings. I may be belittling them, but all my snark is based on actual things they have said, with no points being misrepresented, nothing taken out of context, and the jabs have bite because they are true. That is a courtesy they refuse to extend to the victims of their mendacious screeds. Beneath my scorn are serious points about how they conduct themselves. If complaints about lying and smearing others are mere piffle to you so be it.