How Much Remembrance Is Too Much and Who Is AQI?

There will be more bloggers, writers and journalists sure to follow this topic. Suffice it to say, the topic is among the most reviled by the Defeatocrats of all makes and models.

Among the reputable, we find the following:

Al Qaeda In Iraq is part of the global al Qaeda movement. AQI, as the U.S. military calls it, is around 90 percent Iraqi. Foreign fighters, however, predominate in the leadership and among the suicide bombers, of whom they comprise up to 90 percent, U.S. commanders say. The leader of AQI is Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian. His predecessor, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, was a Jordanian.

Because the members of AQI are overwhelmingly Iraqis--often thugs and misfits recruited or dragooned into the organization (along with some clerics and more educated leaders)--it is argued that AQI is not really part of the global al Qaeda movement. Therefore, it is said, the war in Iraq is not part of the global war on terror: The "real" al Qaeda--Osama bin Laden's band, off in its safe havens in the Pakistani tribal areas of Waziristan and Baluchistan--is the group to fight. Furthermore, argue critics of this persuasion, we should be doing this fighting through precise, intelligence-driven air strikes or Special Forces attacks on key leaders, not the deployment of large conventional forces, which only stirs resentment in Muslim countries and creates more terrorists.

Over the past four years, the war in Iraq has provided abundant evidence to dispute these assertions. (click the link provided as well as following the buzz here)

The Captain has a few choice words as to how much we should remember about 91101 and the buzz can be followed here:

It's doubtful that any newspaper outside of New York City could raise this question, but the Times asks whether we should set aside the anniversaries of 9/11 as a collective mourning date for the nation. How long should the remembrances dominate the day, and how many years should the city and nation conduct the familiar ceremonies of grief?

It's a difficult question, one framed responsibly and thoughtfully by N. R. Kleinfield. Some anniversaries stay in the national consciousness for decades, such as December 7th, Pearl Harbor Day, and June 6th, D-Day. Others tend to fade with time; as Kleinfield points out, no one recalls the date of the sinking of the Maine (February 15th) or the Kent State Massacre (May 4th). Is six years too soon to ask that the official grieving come to an end?

I find it appallingly sad that all in the name of The Almighty Political Office, there are politicians feeding the frenzy of those adhering to the Bash America inanity. 91101 WILL be one of those vents which WILL be remembered in the hearts, minds and souls of True Patriots, True Americans.

In a previous post I penned here, I have reposted it below:

As many of us have known from the onset, Al Q'aida was in Iraq long before we ever got there, the second time. The only ones that dispute that are the uninitiated, the uneducated and the Haters Of America and the Blame America First Fruit Loop Brigades. They have no proof of their allegations. They have attempted to show that AQM is not really AQ and that AQ showed up in Iraq after we arrived, the second time. This is simply untrue.

I saw them in Iraq in 1991. I saw the terrorist training camps in Iraq in 1989. I watched AQ flee from Afghanistan as the Taliban was getting trounced.

In this post here, there is ample proof the detractors of the real threats we face refuse to believe. Why do they refuse? Because they would have to admit that their rhetoric is wrong and they just might lose what credibility they have left and, that isn't much. Just look around you. The Conservative Tsunami is over-taking them and the swell and smell of Victory is in the air. Victory In Iraq is unacceptable to the losers in this country and others.

In another post here, one can find further documentation of AQ in Iraq BEFORE we got to Iraq, the second time.

To where did they run off to? "We" watched them flee through the mountains of the "Stan" countries to the northwest and northeast of the "entry" points. "We" watched them run west. "We" watched them run east. The majority ran nearly due west...Iraq. About as half as many ran west...Pakistan. The remaining stood their short-lived ground in Afghanistan. They did not expect the United States to fulfill the bluff. To cover for their mistakes, they began their propaganda machines and said that the United States took the bait. If anyone believes that, I can show them that a dead gnat has more brain power and common sense than they do.

One can find a very watered down "story" here.

I have seen my fair-share of elephants and I wouldn't want to see any here, on American soil.

The moonbats cannot accept the Victory In Iraq unfolding before our eyes...and theirs. Why is this? The reason(s) are this...the Fruit Loop Brigades are comprised of members of the Ignorant Electorate. Here is my message to the moonbats.

Christopher Hitchens over at Slate has a fantastic article in support of which I have known for years and most do not. It is either they don't know or they refuse to accept the facts as they are.

The founder of al-Qaida in Mesopotamia was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who we can now gratefully describe as "the late." The first thing to notice about him is that he was in Iraq before we were. The second thing to notice is that he fled to Iraq only because he, and many others like him, had been driven out of Afghanistan. Thus, by the logic of those who say that Afghanistan is the "real" war, he would have been better left as he was. Without the overthrow of the Taliban, he and his collaborators would not have moved to take advantage of the next failed/rogue state. I hope you can spot the simple error of reasoning that is involved in this belief. It also involves the defeatist suggestion—which was very salient in the opposition to the intervention in Afghanistan—that it's pointless to try to crush such people because "others will spring up in their place." Those who take this view should have the courage to stand by it and not invent a straw-man argument.

Popcorn anyone?

Popcorn indeed.