Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Salvador Option’. Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination teams in Iraq
MSNBC/Newsweek ^ | Jan. 8, 2004 | Michael Hirsh and John Barry

Posted on 01/08/2005 9:17:39 PM PST by FairOpinion

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last
I take exception with the statement that we are losing, we are winning, but I think we could certainly be more successful if we really took the gloves off.

Training Iraqis to effectively fight the terrorists sounds good to me. It's time to eradicate the vermin.

1 posted on 01/08/2005 9:17:39 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Amen! We are winning. Have been since day one. But I like the assassination squads groove.
2 posted on 01/08/2005 9:21:43 PM PST by VaBthang4 ("He Who Watches Over Israel Will Neither Slumber Nor Sleep")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Excellent idea. Terrorists should be terrorized out of their wits, for the definition and measure of victory is the collapse of enemy's will to resist. Battlefield victory is not enough; just look at Israelis.


3 posted on 01/08/2005 9:22:36 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

For my money - I like it. We have to kill these f****** m


before they can execute these dastardly IED attacks and terrorize the voting population to the degree that they will not vote.


4 posted on 01/08/2005 9:22:37 PM PST by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Oh great, esplicitly organizing "death squads".

We could lose our way here.


5 posted on 01/08/2005 9:23:11 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
Just imagine the day when frightened terrorists would be voluntarily reporting to Abu Ghraib (for their own protection) and even bring their own panties with them. That would be a true Victory day.
6 posted on 01/08/2005 9:26:32 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
It's time to eradicate the vermin.

Agreed, the most truthful part of the article is when it stated that there is no downside to supporting the insurgency. Shouldn't be any problem recruiting Shiite and Kurd fighters after what the Sunnis did to them for 30 years.

7 posted on 01/08/2005 9:27:01 PM PST by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
I noticed MSNBC used the term assassination teams instead of special forces. If we go into an area and kill a civilian leader that is a not a combatant or part of the infrastructure supporting the combatants, that is assassination. If we go into an area and kill terrorists and their supporters that are giving them aid and succor it is called war.

MSNBC, I did not know they still existed :), will try and put anything we do in the worst possible light.
8 posted on 01/08/2005 9:27:38 PM PST by cpdiii (Oil Field Trash, Pilot, Pharmacist. (Oil Field Trash was the most fun.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion; All

Disinformation...

Hook.

Line.

Sinker.


9 posted on 01/08/2005 9:28:04 PM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Paging Stephen Glass, Paging Stephen Glass.

Looks like Newsweek's online guys are stretching a bit.

Their ole buddy "unnamed source" is back with some heavy tales. My guess is we will hear, like most of the other bogus war plans they have mentioned...that this is bogus.

Their bias is evident in how they describe the war. Not to mention the "killing of innocent civilians" when going after communism.


10 posted on 01/08/2005 9:28:17 PM PST by ArmyBratproud (Ashcroft and Evans served us well....Can't Thank them enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

LOL!

That's the idea. It's high time to start terrorizing the terrorists.


11 posted on 01/08/2005 9:28:58 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

This seems like an idea whose time is long overdue.


12 posted on 01/08/2005 9:29:33 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion; All

Brent Bozell had a great piece at Townhall.com making the case that Newsweek is one of the most blatantly partisan publications out there.

Newsweek's Senators to watch
Brent Bozell
January 6, 2005

After perusing the year-end (Dec. 27/Jan. 3) issue of Newsweek, I defy any editor there to deny this magazine is a mouthpiece for the political Left. Their cover boy was Senator-Elect Barack Obama of Illinois, the "rising star," as the Democrats and so many admirers in the press have dubbed him.

But Obama wasn't the only senator profiled in the magazine's "Who's Next Issue." After the loving cover story on staunchly liberal Obama, a "news" report authored by Jonathan Alter (usually their predictably leftist in-house columnist), Newsweek reporter Howard Fineman profiled staunchly conservative Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. The contrast between the two stories, both in tone and in content, could not be more obvious.

Start with the headlines. Obama's profile was headlined "The Audacity of Hope." Santorum's was "Mister Right." One represented hope, while the other typified firm ideology. While Obama would "help his party relocate its moral core," Santorum was "hard at work spreading the GOP gospel," and his "crusades" might make him a White House contender. The divergent themes were already obvious: Obama would bring moderation and yet "spirituality" to the Democrats, while Santorum threatened the GOP and the country with religiously fervent right-wing dogma.

The photos framing the stories told a similar tale. Obama was shown on a Chicago rooftop with the caption "Skywalker." Santorum was shown in his office next to his picture of "Roman Catholic martyr Thomas More." On his office TV was a Fox News Channel graphic on schools excluding Christ from Christmas. The caption was "Bully Pulpit."

In other pictures, Obama was seen interacting with staff, back-slapping with John Kerry, practicing a speech next to his wife, and kissing his 3-year-old daughter (to a caption titled "Family Man"). In the only other picture accompanying his profile, Santorum is pictured in the darkened frame of his office door, with the caption underlining his admission he smoked pot in the 1970s, but is now "in the front ranks of the new faith-based GOP." (In his 1993 memoir, Obama noted his youthful use of marijuana, and even cocaine, but Newsweek had no room for that item in their early valentine.) Santorum's wife and six children were mentioned, but not pictured or quoted. Santorum is a champion of family values, but not a "family man."

Obama's article was full of praise from family and friends. His wife declared he was not a politician, but was instead a "community activist exploring the options to make change." Black leaders in Illinois applauded his talent, including Emil Jones acknowledging that he cried during Obama's keynote speech at the Democratic Convention. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid hailed him as "a gentleman and a scholar," and an "honest, God-fearing man." Rep. Rahm Emanuel claimed he was a "bridge from the left to the center." Alter the "reporter" also added his own praise, with lines like "his expert grasp of foreign policy helped him bolt from the pack." In Santorum's article, there were no wives or friends or favorable colleagues. Only one fellow GOP senator was quoted, anonymously chiding Santorum that he'll need to say no to the conservative base to make legislation.

Obama was lauded as the "incredibly pragmatic" soul of civility who is "uniquely qualified to nudge the country toward the color purple" (merging the red states and blue states). He was all about "embracing our hybrid origins and transcending our often narrow-minded past." But Santorum was consistently described with violent undertones. His career has been a "bruising crusade" supported by anti-abortion "shock troops." He is a "cultural militant" and a "heat-seeking missile" with a "combatively devout approach." His ascent to power was helped when his "knee-capping style" (as in, a thug viciously shooting the knees of someone in need of punishment) caught the eye of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Santorum's faith, when it's not presented as overtly frightening, is painted as a political tactic: "professions of belief have been his ticket to the top." Obama's Christian faith is presented without cynicism, and his thanking his minister in his victory speech is underlined as a hopeful sign for his career and party. While Santorum can be clearly defined as a religious conservative, is Obama really a "bridge to the center" or "purple" on social issues? Obama fought to allow partial-birth abortion in Illiniois, and even fought the idea that a baby accidentally born alive in an abortion has a right to life. He was endorsed for election by the biggest gay-marriage lobby, the Human Rights Campaign. This, to Newsweek, is moderation.

Barack Obama is just another ultraliberal legislator from a blue state, another Teddy, another Hillary -- another politician only the liberal media wants to usher into power. And "News"-week is leading the charge.


Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a Townhall.com member group.


13 posted on 01/08/2005 9:29:58 PM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Wait a minute. We have lost; The New York Times, the final arbiter of winners and losers of military conflicts, has decreed so. The hallowed newspaper declared the Nazis to have defeated the Americans in World War II; however, by the time a copy of the newspaper's surrender order reached the front lines in Germany, the defeated soldiers had already so annihilated the Nazi army that they roam Germany to this day seeking someone to whom we might surrender. So it will be in Iraq: we have lost the war, but the enemy shall exist no longer when the surrender orders reach the troops from New York.
14 posted on 01/08/2005 9:34:07 PM PST by dufekin (Four more years! Liberals, learn: whiners are losers every time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

We should have started this as soon as the first car bombs started going off. I also don't believe that we're losing, but by fighting a PC war with gloves on we are losing a lot of brave troops needlessly.


15 posted on 01/08/2005 9:34:36 PM PST by Mr. Keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion; All

do you think Newsweek is trying to invent a scandal?

Does Abu Ghraib + "Death squads" = 2nd-term scandal???

Rush Limbaugh has been swearing up and down for 6 months that if Bush won the Democrats would try and turn Abu Ghraib into some sort of impeachmetn movement.


16 posted on 01/08/2005 9:35:08 PM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
No hand wringing aloud.
17 posted on 01/08/2005 9:35:14 PM PST by VaBthang4 ("He Who Watches Over Israel Will Neither Slumber Nor Sleep")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Keys

This is a media trick. By acknowledging the need for these types of operations, we also UNINTENTIONALLY cede the point to them that Iraq is a "quagmire", a ridiculous claim I might add.


18 posted on 01/08/2005 9:37:09 PM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
In the immortal words of Hedley LaMarr:

"Kinky. But I like it!"

19 posted on 01/08/2005 9:43:37 PM PST by GVnana (If I had a Buckhead moment would I know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

agreed


20 posted on 01/08/2005 9:45:21 PM PST by wildcatf4f3 (out of the sun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson