National Security

15 Apr 2007 04:57 pm


Sixty five years later the images of the faces smile innocently out at us, telling us a story that reminds us of our own treasured and yellowed family photos. In some of the photos, friends pose arm and arm with friends, in others, children pose with their pets.

The photos celebrate life in all of its kicking up the heels moments.

These photos were in a picture album, hidden from all sight for sixty five years, undiscovered within the walls of a house, in the town of Chelm, in Poland. They were found recently by a history teacher when her house was being demolished for renovations. She presented the photos to Zvi Lander in a ceremony.

The pictures show a large Jewish family, along with many friends.

After months of searching for clues as to the identity of the family, someone noticed, in one of the photographs, a sign above a laundromat bearing the name Boden.

Using the lists of testimonies archived at Yad Vashem, the album was delivered to Pini Beeri and Riki Ariel, the sons of Pearale Boden Berezowsky, who was one of two siblings to survive the Holocaust. The men delivered the book to their mother, six hours before her death.

From the photographs, remaining sister Marisha Weikselfish identified her brother, parents, and other relatives – all of whom perished.

Family members said that the brother, Shlomo Boden, had informed the family about hiding the album in the wall, along with silverware and silver dishware. However, the survivors did not return to the house to retrieve the photographs after the war and the photographs remained hidden for 65 years.

Many of the pictures depict classmates of the photographer, who were unrecognized by the surviving family members.

Hat tip: Instapundit

So why were the photos lost in the first place? Why were they hidden? Why the Holocaust?


In 1977, when my husband and I first landed in Augsburg, Germany for his three year Army tour I didn’t know much about the history of World War ll. I knew about the Holocaust but I didn’t understand why it had happened. Thus, I was nervous about living in the land where it had occurred just thirty some years before. (at the time)

We were assigned on-post housing in an apartment which was next to an old Jewish cemetery. I walked over to see it one day and found it in a terrible condition. Among the first German words I learned were judenschweinen, ausrotten and jüdische Ratten; for these were written on the stones and walls in the cemetery. It was a chilling experience. The ghost of Himmler seemed to hover about the place.

The following beyond chilling, words were uttered by Himmler in 1943.

At a speech in Poznan on October 4, 1943, Himmler uttered the words that Joachim Fest has described as “one of the most horrifying testaments in the German language”: 1

I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. “The Jewish people is being exterminated,” every Party member will tell you, “perfectly clear, it’s part of our plans, we’re eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, a small matter.”

So how was it that few men in the government of Great Britain were prepared for the onslaught of the likes of Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and Goering?

The times were similar to that of the present day. The Brits, excepting the great Churchill and a small minority, were living in a time of wholly irrational pacifist sentiment; the M.P.s spending most of their time in parliament, debating disarmament of Great Britain as well as all the countries of Europe except Germany.

The politicians who met in Germany with Hitler came away from the meetings with words of praise for the Third Reich.

After his first visit to Nazi Germany Lord Halifax, who had been appointed foreign secretary after Anthony Eden had quit Chamberlain’s government, told his friend, Henry (Chips) Channon: “He (Halifax) told me he liked all the Nazi leaders, even Goebbels, and he was much impressed, interested and amused by the visit. He thinks the regime absolutely fantastic.”

Neville Chamberlain believed that Germany had genuine reasons for grievances after the First World War and enacted a policy of appeasement, wanting to avoid war at all costs. If anyone in the government criticized Hitler it was considered an afront to Chamberlain as Herbert Morrison wrote in his 1960 autobiography…

I believe that in 1938 and 1939 he genuinely felt that God had sent him into this world to obtain peace. That he failed may or may not be due to the inevitable ambition of Hitler to dominate the world, but there can be little doubt that in his mental attitude Chamberlain went the wrong way about it. He decided in the early stages of his discussions to treat Hitler as a normal human being and an important human being at that. At the time of the Munich crisis I said extremely critical things in public speeches about the German Chancellor with the result that I was approached by one of Chamberlain’s more important ministers who asked whether I would be good enough to desist, as the prime minister had been informed that Hitler resented it.

That Hitler was a mad man, bent on world domination, was ignored by many in the west even though the writing was on the wall years before when Jewish citizens lost all rights under the Third Reich.

Answer: The first measures against the Jews included:

April 1, 1933: A boycott of Jewish shops and businesses by the Nazis.

April 7, 1933: The law for the Re-establishment of the Civil Service expelled all non-Aryans (defined on April 11, 1933 as anyone with a Jewish parent or grandparent) from the civil service. Initially, exceptions were made for those working since August 1914; German veterans of World War I; and, those who had lost a father or son fighting for Germany or her allies in World War I.

April 7, 1933: The law regarding admission to the legal profession prohibited the admission of lawyers of non-Aryan descent to the Bar. It also denied non-Aryan members of the Bar the right to practice law. (Exceptions were made in the cases noted above in the law regarding the civil service.) Similar laws were passed regarding Jewish law assessors, jurors, and commercial judges.

April 22, 1933: The decree regarding physicians’ services with the national health plan denied reimbursement of expenses to those patients who consulted non-Aryan doctors. Jewish doctors who were war veterans or had suffered from the war were excluded.

April 25, 1933: The law against the overcrowding of German schools restricted Jewish enrollment in German high schools to 1.5% of the student body. In communities where they constituted more than 5% of the population, Jews were allowed to constitute up to 5% of the student body. Initially, exceptions were made in the case of children of Jewish war veterans, who were not considered part of the quota. In the framework of this law, a Jewish student was a child with two non-Aryan parents.

With all these warnings the world stood by, doing nothing to stop Hitler until it was too late for six million European Jews and millions of others. Appeasement was a dangerous policy which as Daniel Pipes writes, “invariably resulted in increased demands, heightened tensions, and threats of war.”

We are faced with this spirit of pacifistic appeasement today in many quarters but it’s not the making of concessions to German fascists, it’s attempts to understand the whys and wherefores of Islamic terrorism. It’s the acceptance of demands by Islamic cab drivers in Minneapolis to turn down riders who offend them. It’s publishers throughout the world refusing to publish anti-Jihadist cartoons out of fear of Muslim reaction, it’s the banning of piggy banks from government offices in Great Britain, it’s the whole world turning away from the inevitable confrontation with Islamists who want to force their will and ways on all of us.

Paul Jackson writes in The Calgary Sun,

A remarkable document came into my hands the other day from a Republican friend in Washington and it is something that should be read by all patriotic Americans and Canadians.

It should also be read by lib-lefters, appeasers, sell-out artists and cowards in all western democracies who want the U.S. and Britain to pull out of Iraq, and the U.S., Britain and Canada to pull out of Afghanistan, and the West to just give in to the demands of fanatics such as Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korea’s Kim Jong Il.

It’s entitled Europe — Your Name is Cowardice and was written, strangely, by a German, Mathias Dapfner, CEO of the huge publishing house Axel Springer (AG) and published in Germany’s largest newspaper Die Welt.

As most know, Germany, like France, has been one of the great nations of appeasement against Islamic terrorism

But our own country, though led by a president bound and determined not to be beaten by the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, is gradually settling into a comfortable state of denial of the threats of Ahmadinejad and other terrorist organizations.

The American people were encouraged by President Bush to get back to celebrating the American way in the days after 911. We were encouraged to go about our business by working, shopping and raising our children.

The president’s first duty was to defend our national security as well as revive the economy. President Bush just couldn’t fathom the political deceit of those, who like Chamberlain, refused to accept the reality that evil still abounds in this world.

It’s much easier to ignore problems that seem not to be at ones’ door step than to have the courage to confront them before they become overwhelming. That’s human nature but history has taught us that there is a tremendous price to pay for such naive behavior. Supporting this conflict is not just supporting our troops, nor is it simply supporting the war.

It is, in reality, confronting evil. An evil whose philosophy denies freedom and often, life from those who dare to believe in a different manner. Any one who celebrates the death of one human being in the name of religion is evil.

In the United States, where we have a heritage of free religion there should be widespread condemnation of any religion or philosophy that celebrates the murder of thousands of people. Whether you call it Nazism or Islam, there is no justification for murder. However, the defense of one’s family and nation is the only reason to enter in any conflict. The American people may have forgotten this, but our ancestors never did.

Now that winning is still very much an option in Iraq many Americans are demonstrating their support for the troops in effortless, anemic ways such as putting bumper stickers on cars but support requires much more than that as Euphoric Reality writes.

Supporting the troops means living your life in a manner that is worthy of their death. It means ensuring, every minute of every day, that the words you speak, the actions you take, the beliefs you hold, are ones that honor them and honor the freedom they have provided to you. It means carrying yourself proudly, ethically, and with purpose.

It means never backing down, never giving up, never quitting. It means taking the time to make a difference in someone’s life—after all, did a soldier not make a difference in yours?

It means teaching your children that places like Normandy, Iwo Jima, and Bastogne are sacred, almost holy phrases that encompass all that we are and all that we must remain. It means getting off your chair and doing your part—whether that be reading to a double amputee fresh from the dusty hell of Iraq, packing granola bars into a box to be sent to the front, or just not ignoring those who are ignorant any longer. How many times have we all just sighed and rolled our eyes when we hear “I support the troops but not the war?”

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing…or say nothing.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

Supporting our troops also means standing up to the politicians who are doing everything they can to retreat in the face of Islamic aggression, appease our enemies and slow-bleed our troops.

In the nineteen forties peace in our time led to World War ll. Can the same philosophy prosper in todays environment of weapons of mass destruction? Weapons that a few individuals can use to destroy cities? Therefore, losing cannot be an option because if we don’t confront the evil at every turn, the price exacted will be tremendously more than World War ll. Giving up and handing Iraq over to Iran would be the same as giving Hitler an atomic bomb. In essence, a deliberate suicide of western civilization. The left would like us to forget this fact.

Will we one day be hiding our own photo albums inside the walls of our own homes?

17 Dec 2006 03:28 pm


Syrian President Bashar Assad, left, receives Sen. Bill Nelson in Damascus, Syria.

I think the reason why we have Democrat Senators trying to rewrite America’s foreign policy by going to visit Syria and Iraq….(Senators Kerry and Nelson have been in Syria and Iraq recently) can be traced back in history to decisions made by President Harry S. Truman.

According to some arguments in history, the reason why Truman didn’t declare war on North Korea was that the Soviets had nuclear weapons which could be used on us and he feared that they would enter the war on the side of the North Koreans. The CIA had given Truman reports (which later turned out to be wrong) that the Soviets had the capability of delivering Nukes to the United States and there was some belief that if war was declared the Soviets would use those weapons against us.

President Truman would not take that chance due to the horrific nature of a nuclear war. This was understandable, but by making this decision, Truman inadvertantly abolished the declaration of war from our political system. This act meant that the legal, moral and economic aspects of bringing a nation into armed conflict were reduced and subsequently not as focused nor as effective as what was conceived by our constitution.

We have had undeclared wars prior to Korea, mainly against the Indians, the Chinese in the Boxer Rebellion, the insurgency in the Philippines in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the punitive expedition in Mexico and others. However, these actions only used an extremely, finite portion of our national strength and were in no way meant to defend against an enemy who was a direct threat to our way of life.

General Douglas MacArthur was relieved for stating that our decision to fight an undeclared war with an enemy who had the resources and support of nations could never result in a final victory. His relief by President Truman was the right of our President and MacArthur understood this. However, in ending his military career he did try to give voice to some of the dangers of fighting an “undeclared war”.


MacArthur conceived of the Korean war as a holy war; he kept talking about “unleashing Chiang Kai-shek,” then holed up in his island fortress on Formosa, and launching atomic strikes, all of which made Truman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the other UN countries involved very nervous. For Harry Truman and the Joint Chiefs, Korea was an exercise in containment, but that made it a very frustrating war for many Americans. It meant that in this war the United States was not aiming for total victory, but for more limited, and more ambiguous, results.


Although we have contained the North Koreans for over fifty years, this outcome for a limited war is the exception in history and not the rule. It set a dangerous precedent whereby our country and people have been lulled into a false sense of security.

Douglas MacArthur’s words contained the truth of the limitations of a purely military response and his concern is something that has never been addressed.

Since World War ll, our nations’ reluctance to admit the existence of an indirect global threat to our nation has been enhanced by our success, even in failure, in using limited military force to keep our more direct threats at bay.

President Bush has identified a new threat whereby nations, through the guise of indirect support of terrorism, have become our enemies. His words about “holding nations who support terrorism as guilty as the terrorists themselves” specifies the import of this new danger.


At former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s retirement ceremony this past Friday Rumsfeld made this very important point….

Ours is also a world of many friends and allies — but sadly, realistically, friends and allies with declining defense investment and declining capabilities — and I would add, as a result, with increasing vulnerabilities — all of which requires that the United States of America invest more.

Today, it should be clear that not only is weakness provocative, but the perception of weakness on our part can be provocative, as well. A conclusion by our enemies that the United States lacks the will or the resolve to carry out missions that demand sacrifice and demand patience is every bit as dangerous as an imbalance of conventional military power.


Our inability to act with one voice in the War in Iraq can be as devastating as an outright military defeat in any war we have ever fought.

The laws and special acts allowed in a declared war result from an acknowledgement of our own human tendency to respond in humane ways with others. In some cases our survival depends on defeating a nation’s or people’s will to wage war against us. If this requires the destruction of a country’s war-making capability, it also will result in the inability of that country to feed itself. In addition it will result in horrific civilian casualties, for the target of these actions is the people themselves. War is never an option that should be seen as anything but the very last resort, however, it is still an option.

Our forefathers knew that any war would result in privation and loss to both sides and therefore, gave us a capability to focus our efforts in such a way as to destroy our threats in as small a timeframe as possible. These actions include a structure that forces the will of the nation to be focused through legal, moral, and in some cases, a reduction of personal freedoms. These actions are a danger in themselves and should never be entered upon lightly. However, the necessity of national survival does provide a reason where this is required.


Himmler wanted to negotiate

In World War ll any American who wanted to “talk” to Japan or Germany would have been seen as a traitor. At the end of World War ll, Heinrich Himmler offered to surrender to us on the condition that we use the ten million German troops still fighting to attack the Russians. Some politicians thought that this might be a good idea but the powers of the War Act as well as our own mobilized national will would have quickly silenced anyone who attempted to do what the Democrats are doing today.

We must ask ourselves why “the greatest generation” succeeded in World War ll? Why didn’t we send peace overtures to Hitler? Why didn’t we recognize that Japan was only demanding the raw materials that it so desparately needed to fuel its economy? Why didn’t we recognize that the rape of Chinese cities and the annexation of Manchuria by Japan were simply isolated events done by some rogue elements of their military? We already know that the Holocaust never happened according to Ahmadinejad, and that the invasion of Poland was a simple need by the German nation to take back what was taken from them after World War l.

One can always justify any action one takes by looking through other peoples eyes but we should never forget that those other eyes might see our own freedom as a threat and therefore want us destroyed. Those that always want to see the other side of the argument are in danger of compromising their own goals and ideals. Listening to others sounds innocuous but those who do so must steel themselves to ensure the survival of their own free will.

Compromise has a place in political thought but not in survival and those that believe that listening to murderers is worth any time and effort, lend credence to the reason the murders were committed. These individuals who voice this argument might be misled, but their thinking is similar to those who have let convicted felons commit 80 percent of our felonies in our own country today.

This time however, the crimes that the poor, misunderstood, underprivledged, mentally troubled souls commit can kill thousands and has the capability to destroy our nation as a whole.

There are safeguards against this type of compromise but they reside in the powers of a declared war. We are at a point in history where those that hate our country and others who are sorely misled are refusing to allow the rest of us to protect our way of life. It is sad to note that these dangerous individuals are within our own government and hide under the guise of seeing the “truth” from all sides.



The word, traitor is defined as One who betrays one’s country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.

But it is rarely used when we are not in a declared war. Our trust is that our representatives want our freedoms and way of life to endure but how can we stipulate that these intangibles require our utmost vigilance as well as our own courage to defy and destroy those who would threaten us when they have already stated that this is a war we cannot win. Do they want to understand the terrorists who would kill us or do they understand that the only way to stop this insanity is to ensure that the price of sheltering, condoning, or aiding our enemy is unacceptable and will be met with the full focus of our national might.


We cannot fight the whole world is what many of our politicians would say. This argument, if accepted in 1775, would have kept us under British rule. But sometimes we require a faith in ourselves and our own ideals that will not countenance this type of compromise. How does one compromise with those who want us dead? Do we just allow them to kill a few thousand of us?

Are John Kerry and Bill Nelson negotiating this compromise or are they simply making sure that our enemies understand that they and others in our own government are willing to trade our country’s security for their own personal quest for power.

When faced with an external threat from an invading army, the people of Rome listened to those who said that the enemy could not take the city. They refused to see the threat. They, therefore, refused to allow their Senate to pay the required bribe, nor would they take up arms in defence of their beloved city. For this crime, Rome fell.

Robert R. Donoho

10 Sep 2006 12:16 pm

During the 1996 Presidential Election I wrote a letter to the editor of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and it was published Oct. 2, 1996. My husband was attending the Army War College and we were living in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

I was deeply distressed and disgusted by Clinton’s presidency and especially, by his treatment of the U.S. Military. Many may not recall today but during the eight years of Clinton’s presidency the U.S. military was cravenly used by Bill Clinton to accomplish political ends and strategic, national security purposes were considered secondary at most. I was digging through an old cedar chest earlier today and found a copy of the letter. Here it is……

Publication: Patriot-News, The (Harrisburg, PA)

Date: October 2, 1996
Page: A8

The headline the editors of the paper gave it was………

“How many more will bleed for Clinton?”

I appreciated Robert A. Hall’s commentary, “Who served in place of Clinton?” (Sept. 16). This question has bothered me for a long time. I’m an Arkansas native who has watched Clinton sidestep and prevaricate for many years.

Butch Cecil wasn’t the only friend from Arkansas who died in Vietnam, but his death was
devastating to me as an idealistic teenager. The letters he wrote to me and my family the 45 days he was in Vietnam are full of heart break, fear and grit. When he was drafted, he served, without thought of running.

I believe that of all the scandalous “gates” that have followed the president, “Draftgate” itself is the shame that will endure as an indictment of the American people.

In 1974 I met Bill Clinton. He was running for Congress. He noticed my engagement ring and
asked who I was marrying. When I told him about my soon-to-be graduating West Pointer, he gave me a look of distaste. It was obvious that military service was something he disrespected.

During the Gulf War Clinton claimed he did and claimed he didn’t support it. My brothers, who are in the Arkansas Army National Guard, were deployed out of Fort Sill, Okla. On the day they were due to depart for the Gulf, the Oklahoma governor met with the troops to farewell them. he invited then Gov. Clinton to come along because the unit was comprised of Arkansans.
Clinton declined.

After the Gulf War, Clinton invited the troops to a picnic at the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion. Ever the politician.

I was astonished when in 1992 Clinton ran for the presidency and people took him seriously. It is really disheartening that our moral standards are so low that we now have a poltroon in office.

Who served in place of Clinton? Maybe it was my friend, Butch Cecil. Perhaps it wasn’t, but you can be sure that many battalions of Arkansas-bred boys bravedly served and bled for our country. Mr. Clinton now sends young Americans in harm’s way to serve, not the nation, but his own political ambitions.

Since Jan. 20, 1993, Americans have shed their blood in Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Bosnia. How much more blood is America willing to sacrifice?

Laura Lee Donoho

Edition: FINAL

Copyright 1996, 2005 The Patriot-News Co. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission.

How many more did bleed for Clinton? An administration that considered the political implications of every action over the impact on our nations national security did not take terrorists threats seriously although they were evident and ever present from 1993 on.

It’s a fact that all the braying, threats and intimidation by the Democrats won’t be able to shout down.

And now that a few shards of truth of the era of Clinton are about to be broadcast on ABC his faithful hounds are howling.

20 Jun 2006 08:31 pm


Before North Korea can launch an inter-continental ballistic missile at us (or Japan) we need to take preemptive action. A surgical strike with a B-2 may be called for. This situation is scary. I recall the letter my Uncle Max wrote to my grandparents right after Hiroshima. He was in the Army-Air Corps serving in the Pacific and flew over Nagasaki.

Here is what he wrote…….

Thank God the Japs didn’t have the atomic bomb. One bomb can do as much damage as six million infantrymen can do in four to five months. I know. I’ve seen what they can do. Nagasaki looks like a big black flat piece of slate.


South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday it was unclear whether Pyongyang had put fuel in its long-range Taepodong-2 missile but it was apparently on a launching pad.

U.S. officials say evidence such as satellite pictures suggest North Korea may have finished fuelling a ballistic missile for a test launch — which Washington, Seoul and Tokyo have said would present a grave threat to regional security.

It is not sure that they have put the fuel in the rockets but it seems to be sure that they have assembled these missiles in the launching pad,” Ban told reporters in Geneva.


Must break in here to make a comment. I’m so thankful that Cousin It managed to go under cover in North Korea although I am unsure how all that hair didn’t attract attention.


Ban called on North Korea not to carry out reported plans to test the long-range missile and return to six-party talks aimed at dismantling its nuclear programs.

North Korea’s motive might be that it wanted to show it could deliver potential nuclear weapons by ballistic missile as a “bargaining chip” in the talks, particularly with the United States, he added.


It’s a good thing President Bush ignored the wails and cries of the Banshee Democrats and continued the Missile Defense System………


The United States has moved its ground-based interceptor missile defense system from test mode to operational amid concerns over an expected North Korean missile launch, a U.S. defense official said on Tuesday.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed a Washington Times report that the Pentagon has activated the system, which has been in the developmental stage for years.

It’s good to be ready,” the official said.


Breaking in again. That has to be the biggest understatement ever uttered.


U.S. officials say evidence such as satellite pictures suggests Pyongyang may have finished fueling a Taepodong-2 missile, which some experts said could reach as far as Alaska.

“There’s real caution in how to characterize it so as to not be provocative in our own approach,” the defense official said of the move to activate the system.

The Pentagon and State Department have said a North Korean missile launch would be seen as “provocative.”

While military officials also note the United States has a limited missile defense system, they have so far declined to comment on any details about the capabilities or potential use of the system to intercept a North Korean missile.

(Additional reporting by Kristin Roberts)


At least send them a scare through the message traffic. And for once use the MSM for the good of our country.

08 Jun 2006 06:54 am


Graphic from Fox

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is Dead. Dead as a doorknob. The Prince of Al Qaeda is dead. Death becomes him.

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Al Qaeda in Iraq leader who led a brutal insurgency that included homicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings, was killed in an airstrike on a building north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials announced Thursday.

Officials said the terror leader’s identity was confirmed by fingerprints, facial recognition, and known scars.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki said Al-Zarqawi was killed along with seven aides Wednesday evening at around 6:15 p.m. local time in a bombing raid on a building in a remote area 30 miles northeast of Baghdad in Diyala province.

Loud applause broke out as Al-Maliki, flanked by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and U.S. Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, made the announcement at a news conference in Baghdad Thursday that al-Zarqawi was “terminated.”

In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the death of Al-Zarqawi “a strike against Al Qaeda in Iraq and a strike against Al Qaeda,” but added that there were no illusions that the insurgency in Iraq would immediately crumble.

President Bush was expected to address Al-Zarqawi’s death in the Rose Garden around 7:30 a.m. EDT.

Waking up to news like this is tremendous. May our troops take heart from this news and may the death of this monster wake up the American people to the need to defeat all the monstrous terrorists within and without our land and especially in Iraq.

My son called me just a few moments after I learned about Zarqawi’s death. He is training at Fort McCoy for his deployment to Iraq and at the time didn’t have internet access and wanted to know the details. He told me that another soldier in his unit had learned the news from his cellphone. Our son said the troops were tremendously excited.

Even more good news ……Al-Maliki announced two more additions to his cabinet today, one being the defense minister. Maliki promised to stop the sectarian violence recently. He now has big momentum. This may not be a tactical win in the war but it’s a big moral victory.

Loud applause broke out as Al-Maliki, flanked by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and U.S. Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, made the announcement at a news conference in Baghdad Thursday that al-Zarqawi was “terminated.”

U.S. President George W. Bush said al-Zarqawi’s death “is a severe blow to Al Qaeda and it is a significant victory in the war on terror.”

“We have tough days ahead of us in Iraq that will require the continuing patience of the American people,” he said in an address from the White House.

The one night I sleep all the way through I miss the news that Zarqawi is “terminated.” Terminated is a succinct way to put it. Seven of Zarqawi’s fellow terrorists were also killed. Think of the intelligence our forces are sifting through and discovering. Michelle was up early.

Iraqis and Jordanians played a role.

A Jordanian official said that Jordan also provided the U.S. military with information that helped in tracking al-Zarqawi down. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was addressing intelligence issues, would not elaborate, but Jordan is known to have intelligence agents operating in Iraq to hunt down Islamic militants.

Some of the information came from Jordan’s sources inside Iraq and led the U.S. military to the area of Baqouba, the official said.

Baqouba has in recent weeks seen a spike in sectarian violence, including the discovery of 17 severed heads in fruit boxes. It was also near the site of a sectarian atrocity last week in which masked gunmen killed 21 Shiites, including a dozen students, after separating out four Sunni Arabs.

“Those who disrupt the course of life, like al-Zarqawi, will have a tragic end,” Al-Maliki said. He also warned those who would follow the militant’s lead that “whenever there is a new al-Zarqawi, we will kill him.”

“This is a message for all those who embrace violence, killing and destruction to stop and to (retreat) before it’s too late,” he said. “It is an open battle with all those who incite sectarianism.”

Iraq the Model is rejoicing.

MilBlogs have the pictorial proof.

Welcome Instapundit readers. There is big time rejoicing here at Wide Awake Cafe.

Lorie Byrd asks this question……..Anyone want to bet how long it takes before we hear something about Zarqawi not being the one who planned 9/11, or a reminder that we have yet to capture or kill Osama?

It didn’t take long before Lorie got an answer to her question….but the left no longer even pretends to care about the War on Terror.

Wizbang has more.

The Anchoress has a post full of insight.

The prescient Sissy Willis wrote about Mujahideen blood sport just yesterday.

Welcome Hugh Hewitt visitors.

Also blogging about the demise of Zarqawi with much panache: Villainous Company

Benning’s take will put a smile on every viewer’s face.

Hot Air has the airstrike remix.

Jeannette at Hang Right Politics and Oh How I Love Jesus has beaucoup updates.

In Search of Utopia has an interesting take.

Sister Toldjah is rejoicing and has many interesting links.

Musing Minds has more information about the new Iraqi cabinet ministers.

Blue Crab Boulevard has links to the video of the strike that killed Zarqawi.

Blue Star Chronicles has a link-fest going. This day is going down as a big day in history. Osama is next.

Merri Musings has more on the military news conference in Baghdad.

Basil has a question.

Hugh Hewitt writes that a good day got even better.

UPDATE: It gets even better. The sweep’s not over. Counterterrorism Blog has the scoop.

« Previous Page