3 U.S. soldiers missing. Al Qaeda claims to have them.

[Spence]

Hopefully, AQ is lying:

An al Qaeda front group said Sunday that it had captured three U.S. soldiers in the attack a day earlier south of Baghdad that killed five and left three missing.

Four other American soldiers and their Iraqi interpreter were killed in the pre-dawn attack on their patrol Saturday. The U.S. said 4,000 troops were searching for the three missing soldiers.

In a statement posted on an Islamic Web site, the Islamic State in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attack in Mahmoudiya on Saturday and said it held an unspecified number of U.S. soldiers. The group offered no proof to back up its claim.

The U.S. said 4,000 troops were searching for the three American soldiers who were missing after their patrol came under attack in an explosion that killed four other U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi army translator.

On Sunday, U.S. spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell confirmed that the Iraqi interpreter was among the dead — and that all the missing were Americans.

Source

[shally]

they know just how to get our nation's attention

[WackyJacky]

Gawd, this is terrible. I hope they can find those boys soon. My thoughts and prayers go out to them and to their families.

[WarEagle]

Eight additional GIs have been killed since this incident, bringing the total American dead to 3,401.

Now I'll go back to the basketball finals and pop open a beer, while my countrymen are dying for a hopeless, ill-conceived adventure half a world away.

[redskin_rich]

I don't have a link currently but I read on my Comcast homepage news today that based on our own military intelligence, one of our Generals has stated that it is indeed believed to be true that the Islamic State of Iraq or whatever they're called (it's a combined group of insurgents and Al Queda) do have the soldiers they are claiming.

[shally]

any further word ?

[Spence]

AQ has them. We haven't found them yet. Still looking. Hard to be optimistic.

[BurgundyNGold]

Originally Posted by Spence

AQ has them. We haven't found them yet. Still looking. Hard to be optimistic.

Countdown to Maliki making a statement for the US to withdraw from the search, no?

[Spence]

Originally Posted by BurgundyNGold

Countdown to Maliki making a statement for the US to withdraw from the search, no?

If we rattle enough cages, yes.

[BurgundyNGold]

Originally Posted by Spence

If we rattle enough cages, yes.

I'd level the whole *** CENSORED BY YOU *** town to find those soldiers, civilians be damned. They know where those AQ thugs are. I'm afraid that I'd probably have a hair trigger on a flame thrower if I were involved in the search.

[shally]

Originally Posted by BurgundyNGold

I'd level the whole *** CENSORED BY YOU *** town to find those soldiers, civilians be damned. They know where those AQ thugs are. I'm afraid that I'd probably have a hair trigger on a flame thrower if I were involved in the search.

i am with you on that one...

[Spence]

9 more U.S. troops killed in Iraq yesterday. All in Baghdad or Al Anbar province. At least 6 by IED attack. No names released yet. Worst day since...well, Saturday, when 9 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq. So far, 80 dead American soldiers in Iraq this month, with 8 days to go. 104 of ours died in Iraq last month.

You might not want to know this stuff, but you probably should know it anyway. Same here.

[shally]

Originally Posted by Spence

9 more U.S. troops killed in Iraq yesterday. All in Baghdad or Al Anbar province. At least 6 by IED attack. No names released yet. Worst day since...well, Saturday, when 9 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq. So far, 80 dead American soldiers in Iraq this month, with 8 days to go. 104 of ours died in Iraq last month.

You might not want to know this stuff, but you probably should know it anyway. Same here.

terrible stuff.

but where are the dems going with the war funding bills ? nowhere, they are wimping out again..

[Spence]

Originally Posted by shally

terrible stuff.

but where are the dems going with the war funding bills ? nowhere, they are wimping out again..

It's not a matter of wimping out, it's a matter of what our constitutional system is. We have a President. There is no getting around that. A previous Congress approved this war and Bush wants to keep the troops in Iraq. Short of cutting off funds, the Dems can't do anything but continue to send bills to be vetoed or they can give Bush what he wants. Those are the choices when faced with a stubborn President who is willing to fight to the last drop of somebody else's blood. It's

1] cut off funding for the troops;
2] continue to send bills to be vetoed;
3] give the prez what he wants.

I have a feeling, Shally, that'd you'd rip the Dems if they opted for 1 or 2. SO what would you have them do? They argued with Bush. They tried to get him to go another way. Bush will not be swayed. He's going to pursue this thing no matter how many 20-year-old Americans get killed and no matter what it does to the Republicans in 2008. This is Bush's obsession and he can't see anything else.

I'm not happy with sending Bush a bill to continue the war, but our Constitution invests the CinC with enormous powers. If we had a Westminster system he could just be toppled with a no-confidence vote. [And that would have happend a long time ago, as William Buckley has written.] But we don't have a Westminster system. We have what we've got. So what would you have the Dems do?

[shally]

Originally Posted by Spence

It's not a matter of wimping out, it's a matter of what our constitutional system is. We have a President. There is no getting around that. A previous Congress approved this war and Bush wants to keep the troops in Iraq. Short of cutting off funds, the Dems can't do anything but continue to send bills to be vetoed or they can give Bush what he wants. Those are the choices when faced with a stubborn President who is willing to fight to the last drop of somebody else's blood. It's

1] cut off funding for the troops;
2] continue to send bills to be vetoed;
3] give the prez what he wants.

I have a feeling, Shally, that'd you'd rip the Dems if they opted for 1 or 2. SO what would you have them do? They argued with Bush. They tried to get him to go another way. Bush will not be swayed. He's going to pursue this thing no matter how many 20-year-old Americans get killed and no matter what it does to the Republicans in 2008. This is Bush's obsession and he can't see anything else.

I'm not happy with sending Bush a bill to continue the war, but our Constitution invests the CinC with enormous powers. If we had a Westminster system he could just be toppled with a no-confidence vote. [And that would have happend a long time ago, as William Buckley has written.] But we don't have a Westminster system. We have what we've got. So what would you have the Dems do?

this is exactly what i would do...

i would set a specific date for funding cutoff. 6 months, 9 months, 1 year.. whatever. i would get the best research possible and then pick a date. far enough in advance that there can be no issue that we are taking bullets out of the hands of our soldiers.

then i would send it up with a message to bush and say..." mr president, if those troops are not somewhere safe by that date then the blood that follows will be on your hands.."

the american people would understand that kind of message and would not tolerate bush grandstanding after that. they would know exactly who is responsible. if the dems have the will of the people behind them to end this war or if that is what they truly believe, then that would be the way to go.

the way it is shaping up is exactly the way the medicare soc security debate was framed during clintons second term. the dems didnt want the problem solved, they wanted an issue to beat the gop over the head with. same here. t hey want it both ways and you cannot have it both ways.

either you are pro war and give bush and the generals a free hand to run it as they see fit.. or you pull the plug on it and let the chips fall where they may. the public can smell political grandstanding when they see it or demagoguery when they hear it.

it is time to **** or get off the pot, democrats !!!! lead, follow or get out of the way. you cannot stand in the middle of the road just waving your hands

that is what i would do, spence