Tiger Cubs Arrive at Baghdad Zoo
August 13th, 2008 at 09:22am Mark Noonan
Still waiting for the liberal, Bush-hating, anti-war left to admit that we’ve won:
After traveling more than 7,000 miles, two Bengal tiger cubs have finally settled into their new home in Iraq. Amid much fanfare and excitement, Hope and Riley were introduced to the Baghdad Zoo on Aug. 8.
The tigers were a goodwill gesture from the North Carolina Conservators’ Center, a breeding sanctuary for endangered species.
“We are building trust with America,” said Dr. Adel Salman Mousa, the zoo’s director. “We’re building trust with a society that trusted us to care for these animals.”
The cubs are just under 2 years old and weigh more than 150 pounds each. The Bengal tiger is an endangered species, with less than 3,000 worldwide.
“We hope to bring smiles back to the people and the children,” Mousa said. “We want to put smiles back on their faces after years of misery. In addition to the enjoyment people will get from watching them, they will present opportunities for students and the public to learn about this and other endangered species.”
Iraq is still not a bed of roses and there remains fighting to be done - but given all the news we’ve seen out of Iraq over the past month or two, it is incontrovertible that we - and the Iraqis - have won this fight…and that President Bush’s vision for a liberated Iraq building up an alternative worldview in the Arab/Moslem world has been vindicated…and, of course, that McCain’s courageous advocacy of the surge has proven far more valid than Obama’s “cut and run” approach from 2007.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, President Bush, Republicans, War on Terror
41 Comments
1. Retired Spook | August 13th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I think it’s probably safe to say that the number of Iraqis who hate us and view us as occupiers is getting smaller.
Clearly they will not end up with a representative republic like ours, and any thoughts that that was possible were not rooted in reality. OTOH, if Iraq ends up with a government similar to Turkey, that would be a good thing. My personal feeling is that the specific gravity of freedom is so strong, and the sacrifices of Iraqis so great that it’s extremely unlikely that they’ll gravitated toward an Islamic theocracy like Iran. It’s much more likely that, in the foreseeable future, the Iranians will overthrow their Islamic theocracy. Imagine what a force for change that would be to have free democracies in Turkey, Iraq and Iran across the heart of the Middle East. I’ve had my issues with President Bush, but I share his vision of peace through liberty in the Middle East, and, if the effort is successful, it will overshadow all of his other shortcomings.
2. Rasmus | August 13th, 2008 at 10:05 am
“Still waiting for the liberal, Bush-hating, anti-war left to admit that we’ve won:”
Great! so declare victory and get the hell out
look, I’m not disputing that things are going better but that doesn’t change the fact that it was a huge mistake to begin with. who is responsible for that mistake?. How many dead do you guys have now? how crippled is your economy now? how are things going in Afghanistan now?
Bush and Co took their eye off the ball and invaded a country that had nothing to do with 911.
Lets give some credit to the guy who opposed this dump war back when that was a very unpopular thing to do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9IR9DL60zg&feature=related
3. Rasmus | August 13th, 2008 at 10:16 am
……I’m not saying we should get out from one day to another because then everything would collapse, but a 16 month timetable (or time horizon if you prefer) seems fair. it will give the Iraqis time to get there act together.
I assume you are not interested in staying there 100 years.
4. Retired Spook | August 13th, 2008 at 10:37 am
I’m not saying we should get out from one day to another
What’s this “we”, kemo sabe? Did you become an American citizen when I wasn’t looking?
5. Rasmus | August 13th, 2008 at 10:48 am
“What’s this “we”, kemo sabe? Did you become an American citizen when I wasn’t looking?”
no spookie, I didnt become a US citizen…but:
Denmark, unfortunately was a part of the “coalition of the willing”.
70% of the danish population was against it but our prime minister didn’t seem to concerned with that at the time.
I do think we have pulled out our soldiers now so I suppose i should say “you” now instead of “we”.
6. freeLib | August 13th, 2008 at 10:53 am
if it is so clear that we have won. Why do most iraqis disagree with the invasion of iraq ? Why do most think that the US presence is causing more violence than it is stopping? why do the majority want the US to leave with a timetable?
No - mark - you are just delusional. Iraq is still a complete disaster - better than it was in 2006 - but still a disaster. If it wasn’t we would be able to put a time table and leave - after all “we’ve won”
which is it Mark?
Tiger cubs - you moron
7. congressive | August 13th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Incredibly, those tiger cubs have the magical ability to raise the hundreds of thousands of dead innocent Iraqis, and pay off the trillions of taxpayer dollars poured into the region based CLEARLY on the lie of WMDs, now that Habbush has been exposed, and they’re just so darned CUTE!
Yippee! We won. Now let’s get out and let the tiger cubs take over.
8. '08ama | August 13th, 2008 at 11:18 am
We should have just sent 2 tiger cubs in March 2003 and it would all have been over in 6 days, perhaps 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months.
9. Rich | August 13th, 2008 at 11:49 am
So does the sixteen months start now that we have won the war or when Barak wanted to start pulling out two years ago when violence was at its highest point? Kind of a big difference. Your failure to grasp this difference is obvious. Barak is like the rooster that crows at the sun every morning, thinking he is the one making it rise.
10. Retired Spook | August 13th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Barak is like the rooster that crows at the sun every morning, thinking he is the one making it rise.
Well, Rich, he did say that, when he ascends to the throne, people will say:
<blockquote”This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
so making the sun rise isn’t much of a stretch.
11. Danish Artist | August 13th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
The leftists as usual continue with the debunked talking points.
BUSH LIED!
NO WMDs!
COMPLETE DISASTER!!
HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND DEAD IRAQIs!!!
..BE THERE FOR 100 YEARS!!!
Same old debunked talking points, same old solutions, same old mantra…….new salesman - they keep expecting different results.
Pathetic.
12. Upstart | August 13th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
11. Danish Artist | August 13th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
All debunke??????? Forget about the entire list, debunk just one. Most centrist Repugs now agree with this list.
BUSH LIED!
NO WMDs!
COMPLETE DISASTER!!
HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND DEAD IRAQIs!!!
..BE THERE FOR 100 YEARS!!!
13. Rasmus | August 13th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Moppets,
Barak is the rooster that told everyone all along that invading Iraq was a horrible idea. That’s called good judgment and it is a quality that any president should have, but you right wing nuts don’t seem to think that’s important. I must say you have very selective memories. All you right wingers (and quite a few dems) were tricked and manipulated into this war. The difference now is that the Dems understand this fact, but the right wingers choose to ignore it because they are so damn pathetic and ignorant. You would actually follow George no matter what he does wouldn’t you? This man can do nothing wrong. Kind of like the majority of the German population in the 30’s (and I’m not comparing George to Hitler because they are not the same. Just making a point of just how easy it is to manipulate a population little by little into doing silly things). Now you want to vote for the guy who acted as Georges side-kick throughout most of this process. Why in the name of everything that is holy would you want to do that. I think you have proven time and time again that you are lacking judgment when it comes to picking your leader. Step aside and let someone different give it a try.
Regards,
Rasmus
14. What? | August 13th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Mark,
Your candidate isn’t even claiming victory. Bush isn’t claiming victory. Are these the libs you speak of?
You realize what is going to happen in January, right? Iraq is going to have another election and this time Sunnis are likely to be a part of the government. Perhaps you should hold off judgement until you see how that works out.
Don’t worry, you can still gloat if it all works out as you claim it will.
15. Salamander | August 13th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Deleted - off topic.
16. TampaBayRayz-4-evah-don't-mess | August 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Cubs: well, with a healthy Zambrano and Hill and all the hitting, they’ll PROBABLY win the Central or be in a tossup with Mets/Phillies/Florida for the WC if they can’t hold off Milwaukee.
Tigers: With Cleveland struggling and Sabathia-less, Minnesota Johan-less, and the usual rags in the division, this should have been the Tigers year. Too bad. We’ll see what’s up with Verlander and discuss it next spring.
The spammers hit the thread on corporal punishment but it’s a good topic. I understand that corporal punishment was pretty big in Massachusetts around the time of Cotton Mather but it seems to have gone out of vogue since then.
I think any adult who hits a child deserves prison time myself, so neither my ex nor I ever hit our son. We established clear rules and were firm but fair in granting and taking away privileges.
I taught the boy how to box when he was three so while he’d never have the size because my ex and I are small or the violence, hate and bitterness in his heart that the corporally-punished kids would, he’d always be the best fighter.
Hasn’t lost a kid fight yet. If he gets sent to the principal he does what we told him to do: “keep quiet, nod, say ‘yes sir’ a bunch of times and wait until one of us gets there. DON’T GIVE AWAY ANY INFORMATION. AND NEVER TELL ON YOUR FRIENDS. Just take the heat.”
Isn’t it nicer to play board games with your kids and read to them than it is to hit them?
Sorry, wrong rhetorical question. Forgot which site I was on for a second.
Hasn’t
17. mn libertarian | August 13th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Blah, blah, blah….I get a little tired of reading comments from those with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
The other day, my Father in Law with BDS was over spouting about stuff. I told him that he needs to consider other things before making his statements that make him feel good, but aren’t necessarily practical in the real world. He immediately goes off on how I get all my info from FoxNews (I don’t…I don’t even watch FoxNews).
I then had to remind him that both Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager have stated on the record that Fox was the FAIREST of all news networks throughout the Democratic Primaries (and the reason suddenly all Democratic candidates had a love fest with Fox after spending a full year treating Fox like the antiChrist).
It is time for those with BDS to move to Canada, Europe, or anywhere else that will take them. I am tired of the Alec Baldwin types that promise to move and then don’t.
Grow up and get a grip. You guys are pathetic.
18. jayhay | August 13th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Deleted - off topic.
19. Rich | August 13th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Rasmus- Care to explain Obama’s view on the war in 2003 as stated below?
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/special-preview-br—obama-s-war-11263
Almost as soon as the war began in March 2003, Obama had second thoughts about his opposition to it. Watching the dramatic footage of the toppling of Saddam’s statue in Baghdad, and then the President’s speech aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, “I began to suspect,” he would write later in his autobiographical The Audacity of Hope (2006), “that I might have been wrong.” And these second thoughts seem to have stayed with him throughout the entire first phase of the occupation following our initial combat victory. As he told the Chicago Tribune in July 2004, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”
20. Dennis | August 13th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Deleted - slanders members of the United States Armed Forces.
21. jayhay | August 13th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Rich - If you’re actually interested in that quote, go here for some fact checking: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/284/
And what’s your point anyway? That Obama secretly supports the Iraq invasion? Good luck with that.
I can’t wait to come back here early November for the finger-pointing, post-mortem, “I always hated McCain” revisionism to start - as usual with Republicans, no one will take responsibility - it will all be McCain’s fault or some low-level staffer fall guy. Then the document dump will begin ala Hillary’s staff and we can agree we all dodged a bullet…
Seriously, it’s time for McCain to retire. He’s got tons of energy, gotta give him that, but the ol’ noodle is on the decline.
22. jayhay | August 13th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Rich - P.S. your comment is lifted from commentary magazine…
23. jayhay | August 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Point being you should check the source…
24. Rich | August 13th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Jayhay- You did not explain why Obama was suddenly for the war when things were going good in 2004 as it undermines his “staunch” anti-war theme. Maybe you will take the L.A. times as a source? Just an example of Obama at the time trying to tie himself to the popular position, just like he is now for the surge( for a surge in Afghanistan now as well) now for drilling, now for tapping the strategic reserves, and voted for the fisa bill. Am i leaving any out?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/obama-speak.html
Obama did hedge his Iraq war opposition at times
Barack Obama has made a lot about his outspoken opposition to the Iraq war, even before it started. And he has used his opponents’ initial votes in support of the war against them frequently as proof that he has the judgment to be president.
…Russert also inquired about inconsistent quotes by Obama about the Iraq war, leading to this exchange:
RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Sen. Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ‘04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.
OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” during the (2004 Democratic National) convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.
25. bongoman | August 13th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Deleted - off topic.
26. jayhay | August 13th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Rich - The mistake the right makes in regards to Obama is that he’s “far-left” or “anti-war”, and then try to show him as being inconsistent. Well go ahead with that, because anybody who’s genuinely listening (and not just looking for tricky out-of-context gotcha quotes) knows that just not who he is. He’s anti IRAQ war, yes, but he’s consistently been nuanced about that, actually to the chagrin of more fervent anti-Iraq war elements of the left. You’re fighting someone that doesn’t exist, and because of that your salvos will miss. “Reality has a well known liberal bias.”
Obama will out-play the Republicans this fall. The Atwater/Rove slash & burn era is over (though the McCain campaign is still betting on it) and a new one has begun. If you didn’t learn anything about the Obama campaign from the primaries, or from what is happening now if you look closely, well, you’re just not paying attention. See you in November!
And P.S. Is McCain’s foreign policy adviser/lobbyist still in bed with Georgia/Saakashvili? Makes McCain’s cane-rattling kind of weak. Is that what we have to look forward to?
27. neocon | August 13th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
jayhay,
Tell me what you feel is inappropriate about Scheunemann’s consulting work with the fledgling democracy of Georgia. And how would that conflict with their support of the democracies current struggle with the Russian incursion?
Obama will lose in November. Historically, the Democratic candidate has enjoyed a significant summer lead only to lose that lead in the fall. Currently McCain and Obama are neck and neck:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/obama_mccain_ne.html
and that just doesn’t bode well considering he is losing independent suppot and more division will occur amongst the Democratic ranks when Hillary’s name is placed on the convention ballot.
See you in November in deed.
28. Jay Gaultieri | August 14th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Deleted - off topic.
29. ho-hum | August 14th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Neocon,
If you don’t see anything wrong with McCain’s top foreign policy advisor being in the pay of ANY foreign government then you are retarded.
30. Rich | August 14th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Ho-HUm- How much money did the Clintons recieve from China? Retarded indeed.
31. Some Assembly Required | August 14th, 2008 at 7:34 am
#20. Dennis | August 13th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
“Deleted - slanders members of the United States Armed Forces.”
Mark, I have to hand it to you, your normally pretty good with what you allow, but deleting this post (particularly the reason you cited) is truly pathetic. Dennis pointed to a news article from 2003 in which a drunk US soldier shot and killed the prized tiger in that zoo. Sure the soldier was attacked by the tiger, but he was attacked because he went into the tigers cage. What Dennis did was point to the absurdity of your argument in viewing this as a sign of things getting better. We only replaced something we destroyed. He in no way shape or form slandered the troops. I think an apology is in order for saying that he did.
32. Retired Spook | August 14th, 2008 at 8:06 am
SAR, I don’t remember whether or not Dennis provided a credible link to the story about a drunk soldier shooting a tiger in an Iraq zoo because his post has been deleted, but an extensive search of FactCheck.org and Snopes yields nothing even close to that. The apology in order may be Dennis’. I wouldn’t put it past someone like Dennis’ to make something like that up or simply cut and past it from a Leftist web site without questioning it. When it comes to denigrating our military, the current administration and Republicans and Conservatives in general, you Lefties aren’t very selective when it comes to facts.
33. Some Assembly Required | August 14th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Spook, it was from a SKY NEWS article. A foreign but highly credible news Organization. For the article, please check here
Just for the record, it’s war. Soldiers need to unwind somehow and instances such as these are bound to happen. What do you expect when you send young men to war? Our troops are very well trained and have handled the situation very honorably when compared to other occupational forces throughout history. That is something which cannot be denied.
34. Goof Balls | August 14th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Lame. Scared of the truth; pretty pathetic. Oh well, you know how much you suck.
35. Goof Balls | August 14th, 2008 at 8:36 am
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030920.wmaul0920/BNStory/International/
36. Goof Balls | August 14th, 2008 at 8:37 am
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1419194,00.html
37. Retired Spook | August 14th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Well, it wasn’t all that hard to find a slightly different version of the event.
Red-faced military officials, led by a U.S. Army general, apologized to zoo personnel. Sgt. Mitchell, who hasn’t heretofore been publicly identified as the tiger’s victim, was demoted. The Army launched multiple investigations of the incident.
But a year later, Sgt. Mitchell has been at least partly exonerated. According to a copy of an Army report given to Sgt. Mitchell, the military concluded he was not drunk and that he was on zoo premises with the permission of superiors as part of a unit barbecue. Sgt. Mitchell admitted drinking beer that night - he says one beer, while a witness told investigators Sgt. Mitchell said he had had three. He was found in violation of an Army order against consuming alcohol in Iraq. But his rank recently was restored after a three-month probationary period.
The Army even dug up the tiger and performed an autopsy, to check on reports that Sgt. Mitchell was trying to feed the creature. The autopsy found nothing but zoo food in its digestive tract. In addition, no foreign food was found near or in the tiger cage.
“It was a freak accident,” said Sgt. Mitchell last summer on the porch of his house here in Charlotte, N.C. Lean, with close-cropped dark hair and a long-sleeve shirt covering his dangling right arm, Sgt. Mitchell spoke about what the injury means to his 14-year military career. “It’s gone. Over. I can’t believe this happened.”
An Army spokesman says Sgt. Mitchell has been treated fairly. “The soldier was involved in misconduct, he got injured, an animal was destroyed in the process, and he got in trouble,” says Lt. Col. Hans Bush. “That’s pretty much what happens in these cases.”
The interesting human aspect of the story that was left out of most left-wing news accounts was this:
38. Some Assembly Required | August 14th, 2008 at 10:45 am
37. Retired Spook | August 14th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Yes, thats fine and dandy. The soldier should not have been strung up for what happened. Whether he was drunk or not could not be validated without a breathalyser and personally I really don’t think it matters. now a days the mention of even a single beer is enough for the charge. It’s just the world we live in.
I believe the right punishment occurred. Considering of course the tiger would have been in a cage and the solider would have had to enter the cage. Drunk, not drunk, regardless it was just a stupid mistake. It’s commendable that he was there to help Iraqi’s re-build infrastructure but lets be honest, that does not excuse what happened.
However the fact remains the tiger was killed by a soldier and we have only now replaced it. Thus making Mark’s argument here rather disingenuous and also futher proving that Dennis’ post was not by any means slandering the men and women of the US armed forces.
So I kindly ask Mark to apologize (for the comment, not for deleting the post).
39. Danish Artist | August 14th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
SAR put down the bong, you are streched beyond what is natural.
Would an animal, here in the states, that has mauled a human being, not be killed because it had tasted human flesh?
Yes, destroying any animal is an indication of failure in Iraq.
Put down……put down the….no…put….put….put down the bong!
40. Some Assembly Required | August 14th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
DA, not the point… the point was the soldier went into the tigers cage. Furthermore, I doubt a zoo would kill an animal after attacking a customer who willingly enters there cage.
“Yes, destroying any animal is an indication of failure in Iraq.”
Mark’s trying to argue bringing two animals in is a sign of success in Iraq. So killing one prized one would effectively be a sign of failure. A better argument would be that we are finally starting to take responsibility for some of our mistakes in Iraq. I guess that talking point memo hasn’t been circulated yet, maybe later this week!?!?
41. ho-hum | August 14th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Look, in the puff piece posted above the soldier in question does not deny or offer any reason why he was in tiger’s cage. He admits to having been drinking, claiming he had only 1 beer - though drinking of any alchohol by armed service members in Iraq is forbiddent).
How does Mark possibly claim the guy was slandered? This was all over the media, I remember reading about it at the time. A quick google finds two stories relating the original incident on Ruport Murdock’s Sky News and The New York Times.
So deleting the post for slander was just wrong. It was instead an act of censorship.
It’s amazing how Mark likes to play the patriot by deleting any post that’s remotely critical of specific actions by US armed forces members while he himself is so quick to recommend that those same soldiers should be placed in harms way for absolutely no good read.
Witness his recent insane post stating that US forces should be moved in to Georgia’s capital and war against Russia should be threatened on the very day that Russian forces invaded. Mr. Noonan is s real friend to US troops indeed, he’s always ready to volunteer them for pointless and treacherous conflicts: