Ignoring the 48-hour rule (Updated)

Charles "Chuckles" Johnson, senior political expert and veteran neo-journalist writes:

Got a Big Al Qaeda Fish in Iraq

Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:49:49 pm PST

Not completely confirmed but looking good: Leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq Arrested in Mosul.

BAGHDAD — The leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was arrested in the northern city of Mosul, the Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman said Thursday.

Spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said the arrest of al-Masri, also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, was confirmed to him by the Iraqi commander of the province. There was no immediate confirmation or comment from U.S. forces on the arrest.

The U.S. military in Baghdad said “we are currently checking with Iraqi authorities to confirm the accuracy of this information.”

Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said that Mosul police “arrested one of Al Qaeda’s leaders at midnight and during the primary investigations he admitted that he is Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir.”

Link: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29876_Got_a_Big_Al_Qaeda_Fish_in_Iraq
Source: Fox News. If you read the full article however you'd notice that even it is too skeptical of the information provided to be taken as the Gospel.

Shortly afterwards on BBC news:

Iraq al-Qaeda chief not captured

The United States military in Iraq says a man detained in the northern city of Mosul is not in fact the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

An earlier statement from the Iraqi defence ministry said that al-Masri had been captured.

But an American military spokeswoman, Peggy Kageleiry, said Abu Ayyub al-Masri had not been arrested.

She said confusion had arisen because a man with a similar name to the al-Qaeda in Iraq leader had been detained.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been blamed for or has claimed responsibility for some of the bloodiest insurgent attacks in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003.

Members of al-Qaeda are believed to have regrouped in the northern city since the beginning of the US troops "surge" last year.

Al-Masri is believed to have helped Abu Musab al-Zarqawi form the first al-Qaeda cell in Baghdad. Zarqawi was killed in June 2006.

In April 2007, he was named "minister of war" in the 10-man cabinet of the Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella organisation of Sunni militant groups.

Whoops.. Any bets up to when or whether he'll post an update?

//UPDATE: The lizard king has posted an update on the matter (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29886_False_Alarm-_Not_Al-Masri). It's possible that he owes it to LGF Watch for pointing it out long in advance.. *waves*.. But then again, maybe not, so we'll never know..

Guilty before charged

LGF readers got a full dose of spin from Charles Johnson the other day when the lizard-in-chief tried to manipulate reality by presenting freed Iraqi photographer Bilal Hussein as a terror operative. Note how Johnson doesn't say Hussein is a 'terror operative'. He says Hussein is a terror operative - no scare quotes, just fact. Despite being an American citizen who should be familiar with the notion that a person is "innocent until proven guilty" Charles Johnson applies his own version of justice to a man he has never met let alone knows the full story about and decides that this man is a terror operative, i.e. was involved in terrorism. From a legal point of view you might as well say that Charles Johnson's grandma is guilty of being a terror operative. It would be equally valid.

And then Charles Johnson lies outright: he claims that Hussein had "charges against him". That is simply untrue, and it shows just how far Johnson is prepared to distort the truth. Bilal Hussein was never formally charged, neither by the US military, nor by the Iraqi prosecutor. But that doesn't matter to Charles Johnson because as far as he's concerned, Hussein was charged and found guilty by the wingnut lynch mob which took two things into account when it reviewed his case: he's an Arab and he's a journalist = guilty twice over. Never mind that this lizardoid justice system makes Sharia look like an Enlightenment court. Never mind that it goes against basic logic to describe someone who never even faced trial as guilty. In the weird world of Charles Johnson guilt and innocence are concepts that can be applied whichever way you want with no regard for truth or justice.

It must be a shocking thing for Charles Johnson to see an Arab photographer walk free without being tortured, maimed or killed. Witness the joy with which LGF greeted the death of a Palestinian Reuters cameraman. Witness the seething when an Iraqi journalist is released from detention. There is something deeply wrong, not to say outright evil, in the world view of someone like Charles Johnson that it makes him rejoice in other people's suffering and furious when other people are granted a semblance of the rights that fat fuck behind his computer in California takes for granted.

Spitting on their graves

4,000 young Americans die in Iraq, and all Charles Johnson can do is spew venom and hatred at those who mourn their deaths.

You would think that he might bring himself to say a few appropriate words about the fallen soldiers, not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died in this war.

But no. Johnson just can't do it. There's something inside that prevents him from acknowledging these deaths and asking himself whether they were really necessary for us to get where we are today.

The Truth about Charles Johnson

It's likely that at some point in the next 24 hours Charles Johnson will use his weblog littlegreenfootballs.com to condemn those who report that 4,000 US soldiers have now died in Iraq.

Why does Charles use human death as an opportunity to blast people whose job it is to report facts? Does he not believe in the First Amendment?

Why does Charles not seem to care about the losses America is taking? Does the life of a US soldier mean nothing to him?

Why does Charles belittle the genuine grief that strikes many Americans on hearing the news that another grim milestone has been reached? Doesn't he care for honest emotions and real patriotism?

There's really only one conclusion to be drawn from Charles Johnson's behaviour: He hates America.

How effective is the surge

Pay attention to what the retired officer has to say:

A different angle

Charles Johnson and his ilk have a burning hatred for the mainstream journalists reporting from Iraq, yet he endlessly pilfers their work to feed his own little green media empire.

Here's a powerful multimedia report from one of the best news organizations in the world on what it's been like reporting from Iraq over the past five years. Warning: not for faint-hearted lizards!

An open question

As we've been having some lively debate on LGF Watch lately here's an open question (or two) for you folks:

What was the original objective of the Iraq war? And how does it fit into the wider War on Terror?

Let's go back to basics before we argue outcomes, eh?

The Iraq War: 5 Years Too Many

Comment is Free - The Iraq Legacy

The Independent - This is the war that started with lies, and continues with lie after lie after lie

The Guardian - What is the real death toll in Iraq?

NY Times - Baghdad, April 9, 2003: Fear, Euphoria and Hints of Things to Come

The Independent - Our legacy is a dark and forbidding place of militias

From the comfort of their homes

Charles is boiling in rage about a Daily Kos diary talking about how America needs to feel the damage inflicted on Iraq by getting "invaded" and "occupied".

It should be noted that LGF Watch doesn't support the idea that America should be invaded or occupied, however the reactions at the little green loony bin are just rich:

#12 looking closely
I hear Al Queda in Iraq is still looking for recruits.
Maybe this diarist ought to volunteer.

To address the thin gruel of his post, the Iraqis *WANT* the US military to be there. So why should we leave?

Actually, no. They don't.

#16 Bubblehead II
re: #4 phoenixgirl

Mexico. It's already happening, The invasion, the war torn streets, the destruction of entire neighborhoods, ect.

Of course it's totally obvious that the destruction those darn mexicuns are causing all over America, even in a neighborhood near you, is legitimately comparable with the carpet-bombing of Iraqi cities during the invasion, in which a few tens of thousands have died, especially that loads of Mexicans are productive members of American society and taking up jobs that even the lizardoid army would refuse to do. Can I get a "Nuke Mexico!" now?

#30 galloping granny
re: #17 JamesTKirk

Can we start with Berkeley?

As far as I am concerned, anyone who wants Berkeley is welcome to it. Glad to hand it over. Might even pay somebody to take it. What a waste of oxygen that crew is. They spout enough hot air to be responsible for "global warming" all by themselves!

No comment needed.

#50 zmdavid
We need someone to come, kill all the violent terrorists in our country and rebuild our infrastructure at no cost to us?
I'm all for it.

Great, and I'm sure that the millions of Iraqi civilians who have lost innocent family members and are leading this kind of dandy life regard all of that as "no cost". Nice, eh?

#67 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey
We don't know what it's like to be in a war zone, prick? There were war zones in lower Manhattan, the Pentagon and over the skies of Pennsylvania on 9/11/01. Just don't question their patriotism.
/SPIT

Sure, 9/11 was bad enough, but comparing this one-time incident with a since-5-years-unresolved and ongoing conflict that has taken a few hundred-fold more lives and a much greater toll on the lives of the remaining population is a bit dishonest, no?
Now, in response to the Berkeley remark:

#77 samsgran1948
re: #30 galloping granny

But you need to make sure that the People's Republic of San Francisco is included with Berkeley.

.. and don't you dare call them racist!

And on and on it goes. It's not as if they were really opposed to the Iraq war either. Deskchair warrior-ism at its best!

Posted without comment

From McClatchy Newspapers

An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden’s al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam’s regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

Quick quiz

Who said this (re Iraq)?

The whole thing has been a gigantic fuckup, obviously.

Daily Kos? Antiwar.com? Atrios? Democratic Underground? Juan Cole? Ken Livingston? Hugo Chavez? CAIR?

The answer will surprise you. I doubt Charles will link approvingly to that assesment.

Green Footballs vs Greenspan

If anyone needs proof what a Republican Party dittohead Charles Johnson has become, take a look at his 19-word dissection of Alan Greenspan's 531-page memoir, The Age of Turbulence.

Johnson basically accuses Greenspan _ hardly the left's favorite uncle _ of pandering to "Moonbat" sentiments by saying that one of the main motivations for going to war with Iraq was because of the country's vast oil reserves.

Johnson provides no arguments for his insinuation that the 81-year-old Greenspan is making this claim in order to raise sales of his book. That, of course, would be difficult to prove. Greenspan has had a fairly lucratice career and still retains a number of very well-paid advisory positions from which he is likely to earn a lot more than from sales of his memoirs, which will only interest a tiny minority anyway.

But such considerations don't stop Johnson from parroting the Republican Party line, which is mainly aimed at drowning out another of Greenspan's key claims:

That it was Bill Clinton - above all presidents Greenspan worked with _ who maintain "a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth."

Ouch, that's gotta hurt the Bushies...

Getting round to the important stuff

After spending all day selectively posting about Wikipedia edits he finds amusing, Charles Johnson eventually got round to checking LGFWatch and must have been a little bit embarrassed, or else he wouldn't have posted about the bombing in northern Iraq.

So, how does he square this act of ethnic cleansing with the great optimism about the Iraq war he has been displaying so far? He doesn't. No analysis, no reflection, just pointless Californian platitudes...

Deadly silence

Although Charles is currently jerking himself into a lather over Wikipedia edits (what's YOUR IP, Johnson?), he did manage to write about an attempted bomb attack in Morocco, and the torching of a California mosque.

Is the great lizard finally becoming aware of the real world?

Not so. Witness his total silence on the killing of nearly 200 people in American Occupied Iraq last night.

Charles Johnson: Looking the other way

When Charles Johnson reports blogs about events in the real world, you can be sure he's only going to talk about half the story:

Schools opening in Baghdad, not schools being bombed.

Corrupt Democrats, not corrupt Republicans.

Media errors, not military errors.

For the past week or so CJ has been on the case of The New Republic and Scott Beauchamp, a soldier who apparently embellished some of his articles for the magazine.

The story is a feast for Wingnut dittoheads like Johnson, because in one fell swoop it neatly makes all bad news out of Iraq look like a lie.

Woe if anyone were to mention another series of reports from Iraq, in another 'leftie rag' (this time The Nation), which can't be so easily dismissed. Don't expect to read about it on LGF...

...and in other news.

1. Iraqi Deaths Spike 5 Months Into Surge

2. US 'Loses' 190,000 Weapons in Iraq

3. Civilian Deaths in Iraq Up One-Third in a Month

4. DC Antiwar Demonstrators Awarded $1 Million Over Unlawful Arrests

5. Violence Rages in Iraq as Sunni Bloc Leaves Cabinet

Killing kids

The story of the Afghan civilians killed by US troops in March got short shrift when it first appeared on LGF. Basically, the lizard crew denounced anyone who reported the story as a traitor and a liar.

Now a senior US commander in Afghanistan has admitted deep shame for the murder of 19 innocents, but don't expect any expression of similar sentiment on LGF. Acknowledging guilt just isn't the LGF-way.

On a related note, Charles Johnson blasts an Australian rookie preacher for comments he made about the killing of children. Tellingly, though, he consciously fails to mention an incident yesterday in which US troops in Iraq apparently did just that: kill children.

Telling (the) difference

One is a former football star who enlisted in the army after 9/11 to defend his country from terrorists and help catch the man responsible for the attacks. He died in a friendly fire accident which was hushed up for months by the U.S. military.

The other is a middle-aged ex-musician who enlisted with the Republican spin-machine to sell the war in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, and soon Iran, to the American people as a just cause and one worth sacrificing their children for. He has never been a soldier in his life and now spends his time on the celebrity blogging circuit.

Can you tell who is who?

And while we're on the subject of the war in Iraq (remember, the one of which George W Bush said four years ago 'Mission Accomplished'), here's a powerful video:

Giving up on Iraq

Legendary Iraqi blogger Riverbend has finally decided that it's time to leave the country.

Let this serve as an epitaph for the insane dreams of the neocons:

I always hear the Iraqi pro-war crowd interviewed on television from foreign capitals (they can only appear on television from the safety of foreign capitals because I defy anyone to be publicly pro-war in Iraq). They refuse to believe that their religiously inclined, sectarian political parties fueled this whole Sunni/Shia conflict. They refuse to acknowledge that this situation is a direct result of the war and occupation. They go on and on about Iraq's history and how Sunnis and Shia were always in conflict and I hate that. I hate that a handful of expats who haven't been to the country in decades pretend to know more about it than people actually living there.

I remember Baghdad before the war- one could live anywhere. We didn't know what our neighbors were- we didn't care. No one asked about religion or sect. No one bothered with what was considered a trivial topic: are you Sunni or Shia? You only asked something like that if you were uncouth and backward. Our lives revolve around it now. Our existence depends on hiding it or highlighting it- depending on the group of masked men who stop you or raid your home in the middle of the night.

Oh, but the U.S. captured an Iraqi Al-Qaeda bigwig today, so it was all worth it.

P.S.: The al-Qaida big-wig was captured last year.

P.P.S.: Charles mentions Egyptian blogger 'Sandmonkey' quitting, but not Riverbend leaving Iraq. Any idea why?

P.P.P.S: That was a rhetorical question.

Number crunching

Number of people killed in Virginia Tech massacre: 33

Number of people killed in one Baghdad bomb blast: 120

Number of people killed in 9/11 terrorist attacks: about 3,000

Number of people killed annually with guns in the United States: about 30,000