Links

Blogger is not very bright, when I try and add more to Linkfest, it skips two lines instead of one when I press enter. Retarded!

On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection
Studies Say Death Penalty Deters Crime
Stop Being Hung Up on the Term "American"
Cheese Headcases: Wisconsin reveals the cost of "universal" healthcare
Critic Takes Longer View of Warming
Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
Gore Getts Cold Shoulder
GW: Man-made or Natural?
In Defense of Income Inequality
The Soros Threat to Democracy
Dog Breeding: Proof Darwin was Right? Hardly.
First Into Nagasaki: some thoughts on A-bomb
Top Secret: Bush Told Truth About WMDs
Can a High-Fat Diet Beat Cancer?
Media Dishonesty Matters: list of 100 fabricated/false/biased stories
New Assessment of Ape Language Skills is Dramatically Scaled Back
Iraqi Casaulties, Leftist Lies
Things That Offend Muslims
Climate Change: Is CO2 the Cause? : video
The Flaws in the Iran Report
Part of Global Warming Model May Be Wrong

A Military Genius of Our Time

Victory in Iraq

It has become obligatory for both pro- and antiwar commentators to never mention the possibility of victory in Iraq. The most that antiwar people will admit is that the surge has gained a temporary military advantage in a war that cannot be won militarily. The most pro-war commentators will claim is that they see the possibility of "success" perhaps, maybe, someday, somehow.

But as of Veterans Day 2007, I think one can claim a very real expectation that next year the world may see a genuine, old-fashioned victory in the Iraq War. In five years we will have overturned Saddam's government, killed, captured or driven out of country almost all al Qaeda terrorists, suppressed the violent Shi'ite militias and induced the Sunni tribal leaders and their people to shun resistance and send their sons into the army and police and seek peaceful resolution of disputes. And we will have stood up a multisectarian, tribally inclusive army capable of maintaining the peace that our troops established.

MORE

This is most definitely a good thing:

Patraeus Helping Pick New Generals

The Army has summoned the top U.S. commander in Iraq back to Washington to preside over a board that will pick some of the next generation of Army leaders, an unusual decision that officials say represents a vote of confidence in Gen. David H. Petraeus’s conduct of the war, as well as the Army counterinsurgency doctrine he helped rewrite.

The Army has long been criticized for rewarding conventional military thinking and experience in traditional combat operations, and current and former defense officials have pointed to Petraeus’s involvement in the promotion board process this month as a sign of the Army’s commitment to encouraging innovation and rewarding skills beyond the battlefield.

Some junior and midlevel officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been particularly outspoken in their criticisms, saying the Army’s current leadership lacks a hands-on understanding of today’s conflicts and has not listened to feedback from younger personnel.

“It’s unprecedented for the commander of an active theater to be brought back to head something like a brigadier generals board,” said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former head of the Army War College. A senior defense official said Petraeus is “far too high-profile for this to be a subtle thing.”

The board, composed of 15 Army generals, will examine a pool of more than 1,000 colonels to select about 40 brigadier generals, expected to lead the service over the next decade or longer. Although each board member has an equal vote on the candidates, Petraeus will be able to guide the discussion.

Petraeus, a four-star general with a doctorate in political science, has spent three of the past four years in Iraq and has observed firsthand many of the colonels under consideration for promotion. He is well-regarded by military officials for his political skills in Iraq and at home, including winning support from a skeptical Congress for a U.S. troop increase in Iraq.

“Dave Petraeus in many ways is viewed as the archetype of what this new generation of senior leader is all about,” Scales said, “a guy . . . who understands information operations, who can be effective on Capitol Hill, who can communicate with Iraqis, who understands the value of original thought, who has the ability through the power of his intellect to lead people to change.”

MORE

Coulter: Jew hating nazi

I don't understand this. Here is what David Horowitz had to say. (he's jewish, too) It was basically what I thought when I heard it. What's the big deal?

I have received a surprising number of emails from friends basically asking "What are you going to do about Coulter?" This is a reference to her recent comment that she is hoping for the perfection of the Jews. My response is this: what else would a Christian hope for? That's the message of the New Testament: Jesus came to fulfill, complete, perfect the Law. If you're a Christian, that's what you believe. If you don't accompany this belief by burning Jews who refuse to become perfected at the stake why would any Jew have a problem?

Why do some Jews think that Christians should not really believe what they believe while it's okay for Jews to really believe they are God's Chosen People? I don't get it. Whatever happened to the pluralism of ideas? In any case, what I'm going to do about Coulter is finish her latest exhilarating book, If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans, which happens to be a hall of fame of her so-called "over the top" moments that drive leftists crazy. Right on Ann.

Gen Sanchez

I said something similar to this some time ago, and I know somebody didn't like it.

The Washington Post, the AP and others were brutally attacked yesterday by retired General Ricardo Sanchez. He accused them and their political masters of de facto treason, functioning not as journalists, but as lying propagandists bent on advancing Democrat Party power. Desperate to cover up this news before the truth of their conspiracy should be revealed to the American People, they refused to report these charges, and instead rushed to publish and promote his use of the word “nightmare” with regards to Iraq. ( A place the General has not been to in a long time, and a place where he failed to achieve the type of success that General Petraeus is now achieving. )

However, Sanchez did spend a long time watching the press lie about the war in order to support the Dems campaign for Iraq to be perceived by Americans as a defeat. In other words, he watched them do all they could to help the enemy.

The lede of his speech, the main part, was his attack on the MSM’s and Dems’ treason. The MSM hoped to kick up an anti-Bush soundbite sandstorm that would obscure the following words from notice, from ever being covered in the media. The New York Times report makes no mention, no mention whatsoever, of his attacks on them and their ilk.

Read more at PatDollard

Gen. Hagel v. the Upstart Petraeus

I just saw the headline this morning, Hagel puts screws to Petraeus, or some such nonsense. Basically Hagel is saying he doubts the general's testimony, blah blah blah etc etc etc. You know, how he got himself into this position in the first place, essentially becoming a casualty of Petraeus's winning strategy. He set himself up to lose if we win. Way to go Chuck. And he just keeps piling on. Obviously, he knows better than the good general, he is, after all, a US Senator.

I also remember reading some ridiculous story many weeks ago, John Bruning (I think) had returned from Iraq, and basically said 'uh, guys, the country really is not on fire' and of course Chucky slammed him down, saying that, since Gen. Hagel was a soldier, he knows better, and it would be best if John would just be realistic, please. While that is obviously stylized, the point was that Chuck said he knew better because he was once a soldier in a war. ok then.

Petraeus

This is quite remarkable.

Not surprisingly, Petraeus performed smoothly in his testimony to Congress. But an internal Pentagon report is expected to ‘differ substantially’ from his recommendations on withdrawal from Iraq, NEWSWEEK has learned.

( Newsweek is doing some serious sleight of hand by mentioning the “alternate” Pentagon report “differing substantially” from Petreaus’ recommendations of how to win in Iraq. It’s not a plan drawn up out of consideration for victory in Iraq, but one drawn up as a contingency in the event the Pentagon were to decide that it was more important to have a reserve of troops on hand for other possible conflicts. The so-called dispute with Admiral Fallon is not based on Fallon having a differing view of how to achieve success in Iraq, but of Fallon’s desire to have a ready reserve available for surprise conflicts. Newsweek would have you believe that there’s some report being drawn up that will claim that Petraeus’ Iraq assesment is wrong or even untrue. Not the case. )

I'm having a hard time believing what I'm seeing with regard to the general. And it is making me incredibly angry.

Politics, its all the Dems know. Soldiers dying, body armor, all of these issues, it don't matter, except how can we use it to our political advantage. How much do the Dems support the troops?

Zero. One of the most notable things about Petraeus’ testimony today was how often, and uncompromisingly, he indicted Iran for “killing” our troops. Now given this ongoing threat to our troops’ lives, and given the fact that every Dem knows, even in their own delusional fast-pullout scenarios, that many troops will remain in Iraq, it would seem to be one of the most important matters of the day. They should have clearly recognized that this threat needed to be addressed, that it was homicidally negligent for them not to step up to the plate and demand that some form of action be taken to address Iran’s undeclared war and protect our troops. But they didn’t. Because they weren’t there today to address how best our country can conduct a war, let alone to protect, let alone to support, our troops. They were there for politics. They were there to support themselves, and no one else.
Iran gets a pass. Petreaus gets libeled.

Libeled is right. These people are slandering him, calling him a traitor?? What could they possibly be thinking? These people are scum, straight up. This is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen.

Case Against the Babykillers Crumbling

It is now obvious these guys did nothing wrong.

Patdollard

And Newsmax also reports the prosecution’s main witness fell apart:…the prosecution’s star witness all but collapsed on the witness stand after a withering cross-examination.Wrote Helms: “During four hours of cross examination by defense attorney Lt. Col. Colby C. Vokey, Dela Cruz was unable to clearly explain his previous testimony. At one point he simply stopped talking and stared into the distance, seemingly at a loss for words. At other times he simply rambled on until he was ordered to quit talking.”

Richard Thompson is president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a legal advocacy group that has represented Marine Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Chessani, who was charged with failing to fully investigate and report Iraqi civilian deaths in Haditha. Thompson wrote:

Newsmax:

A video taped from a Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle – purported to show the action that took place in Haditha when 24 Iraqi civilians and insurgents were killed – was heavily edited by government investigators, a NewsMax investigation reveals.The reason, according to an inside source: to avoid showing anything that exonerates the Marines who were accused of murdering the victims.

Four Marines originally faced murder charges stemming from the Haditha incident. Charges against three of them have since been dropped, but Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich is still facing a court martial.

NewsMax can reveal that the video – which was broadcast by CNN – was a small, carefully edited part of what the Scan Eagle transmitted during its daylong surveillance flight over the battle scene on Nov. 19, 2005. And shockingly, the approximately one hour of edited footage was the only Scan Eagle footage provided to the Marines’ defense teams by the prosecution. According to CNN, “The video appears to show that, throughout that day, Marines engaged in fierce firefights and called in air strikes to level buildings - often with no definitive idea of who was inside.”

Had the entire video been shown it would have revealed that the Marines knew exactly “who was inside” - insurgents were clearly shown entering the target buildings before the structures were bombed. If CNN had been able “to review the whole video, they would see that we did indeed have a definitive idea of who was inside,’” an intelligence officer told NewsMax.The insurgents’ car parked outside the buildings “was packed to the gills with weapons, and we had just witnessed them complete an ambush on our ambulance,” the officer said. “We saw them enter the house, clapping each other on the back and congratulating themselves.”The deliberate editing of the video to show the defendants in the worst possible light, the Marine intelligence expert told NewsMax, “should have the defense screaming prosecutorial and NCIS misconduct.”

Pat Tillman

Quite frankly, I don't blame the army for covering up the fact that he was killed by FF. Why? Because apparently no-one understands what this even means. Sure, they know what it means, but apparently they think it somehow degrades Tillman's heroism. The dunces in the media are just simply too ignorant to be trusted with some things. Tillman is a hero, and FF does not diminish that. But I have to wonder, would those in high places of influence know this? I'm inclined to think not.

Taliban Admits Defeat

Taliban Admits Defeat

On a side note, strategypage has really had some good articles recently:

Politically Correct Body Armor Sucks
The Big Lies (on rewriting the USSR's history--very interesting info. here)

NYT: Surge Has Failed

They are so eager for defeat, they declare the surge to have failed when its only just begining. Frankly, I don't think they would know victory unless the bad guys held a press conference and declared that they give up and we win. Of course, I don't think they have the faintest idea what the surge actually means. I know when it was first in the news it was being reported as a random troop increase. Believe it or not, there is sound strategy behind the plan--Patraeus is a very sound military mind, he knows exactly what he is doing. And the thing is, it should work. If its allowed to. The enemy is very media savy, its probably the only reason they are even still with any influence. It is mostly illusory, thanks to the good folks at the MSM. As someone said to me just yesterday: 'As my friend who has served two tours in Iraq and I think he is over their for a third. Hardly any of the convoys get hit each day. His example was, "We run a hundred a day but only two get hit. I get home and they make it sound like everyone is getting hit."' We are talking about a media that is not 'balanced', their 'journalistic integrity' or 'impartiality' is just code language for being in the bed with the enemy. Being actively FOR the enemy and AGAINST us, because we are, after all, the greatest evil on the planet. We know how many soldiers die each day, but do we have any idea how many bad guys die? No clue. You have to really dig--I saw just recently that it was on the scale of 10 to 1 them to us. Not that you ever see that anywhere. You'd think the terrorists are just simply not dying.

As Pat Dollard stresses, but as the media seem to have a truly profound ignorance of: context 'What else are they going to do, and what else should we expecct? More crazy violence in Al Qaeda’s last corners. Endgame now?' They are not going to just go quietly, and to expect otherwise is sheer lunacy.

UPDATE: From patdollard.com:
'Only 4 of the 5 Surge brigades are in place - a stunning 69% of all IEDs have been defused since the Surge began, and Al Qaeda has lost control of the Anbar province, isolated in semi-hostile regions around Baghdad. Among many other advances. And what position will we be in regarding the Iran nuke/Afghanistan situations if we cut and run in Iraq?'

Illegal Insanity--Again, Dammit!

I read that only 25% of the American people support this insanity bill, and yet the politicians soldier on. I don't know what the freaking deal is with immigration, but the people are very clear on this one...and consistently. I think Ann Coulter is right:

We're Importing a Slave Class

This is not an exageration. What this amounts to is the creation of a permanent underclass dependent on government. And please, don't tell me we need them, that they do the jobs Americans won't do!!!! This is simply NOT supported by anything except wishful thinking. (see my previous posts for stats) The numbers DO NOT bear out this assertion, and in fact show the exact opposite. There is no such thing as 'jobs Americans won't do' so STOP SAYING THAT! *sigh* see my previous posts for still relevant info. I can't even believe this. Oh, and this is amnesty. Amnesty for criminals. I know, how about we just throw out the rule of law altogether?

The War--What Else?

Some good bits of reading out there, first, a piece by former Senator Bob Kerrey, of my state, Nebraska: The Left's Iraq Muddle

As well, and I find this important, Israelis support the Invasion of Iraq:

Most people in Israel believe the United States made the right decision in choosing to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein, according to a poll by Maagar Mochot, the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and the Anti-Defamation League. 59 per cent of respondents believe that, looking back, it was correct for the U.S. to go to war with Iraq. . . . .

As well, this remarkable bit about the concept of Taqiyya in Islam, from a website I certainly did not really expect to see it on.

Poll Numbers

I would just like to point out two things.

1. Harry Truman's approval rating was absolutely abysmal, with only Nixon being worse. Where is he now? On the top of the Presidental stack, ranking very high on the list of greatest presidents.

2. The Congressional approval rating is actually lower than the president's right now.

That is all.

Nothing Happens in a Vacuum

From PatDollard.com:

Diyala Is The New Anbar
Al Qaeda is fighting hard, but caught in it’s last refuge….as long as Al Anbar is held.

This website beat the MSM by many a mile in informing you that a U.S./Sunni military operation had ejected Al Qaeda from its base in Al Anbar Province. In fact, the MSM was almost keeping that fact a secret until they were forced into full disclosure last week by reports that former Sunni insurgents, now working as U.S. allies, had killed two Al Qaeda leaders.

Terrorists are parasites. They rely on a host body to support them. Now they can terrorize a host body into providing them support, but that will only go so far. Ultimately, the host body must be somewhat sympathetic to the terrorists, or else, by sheer dint of numbers, the members of the host body will be able to reject the terrorists. These two principles explain the entire history of Al Qaeda’s reign over Al Anbar. Al Anbar, like Al Qaeda, is a Sunni entity. The people of Al Anbar were sympathetic enough to Al Qaeda that they provided them sanctuary, support and even manpower - which is to say, the very lifeblood that this parasite required. Finally, the Sunnis of Al Anbar had enough of the bleak and empty future, and very bloody present, that comprised the entirety of Al Qaeda’s offerings. And so the host body rejected the parasite. The parasite is now in its last possible refuge, the mixed Sunni/Shiite Triangle of Death & Diyala Province areas, just south and northeast of Baghdad, respectively. My time in Iraq started there, and will likely end there. Along with Al Qaeda’s.

There is a reason neither Al Qaeda or the Iranian Shiite Insurgents have no traction in Kurdistan. There is no sympathetic and compliant host body. There is a reason Al Qaeda has no traction in the southern/eastern Shiite areas of Iraq. There is no compliant, sympathetic (which is to say, Sunni) host body. There is only one place left with enough of a sympathetic, compliant host body for Al Qaeda to keep itself alive in. This is the mixed Sunni/Shiite Triangle of Death. An appropriate appellation for the battlefield of Iraq’s Apocalypse with its Public Enemy #1. Iraqis,Al Qaeda, U.S. forces. A triangle of death,
indeed.

In the short term, Al Qaeda will need to reopen its supply lines from Syria, which flow through through Al Anbar. They would also love nothing more than to reestablish themselves as the masters of Al Anbar. It is critical we keep our alliance with the Al Anbar Sunni tribes intact, and deny Al Qaeda both a home and its critical supply lines. And yes, the elephant in the room cannot be ignored as well: Syria must be forced to stop feeding Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is comprised of Jihadis from around the globe. For example, in Fallujah, I lived in a Chechen barracks. ( Fallujah is not in Russia ). During the battle of Fallujah, the Marines recovered passports from 18 different nations on the Jihadi dead. Most of Al Qaeda’s fighters come through Syria. Syria must be made to heel. Nancy Pelosi wearing scarves and whispering sweetly will not do the trick. In fact, she has only encouraged Syria and Al Qaeda to stick to their ways, to keep up the fight against us. Why should they quit when the Democrats keep promising them victory? When Pelosi lied, our soldiers died. And they still do. If we are allowed by the Leftists, the mainstream ( which is to say Leftisist ) media, and the career-coward Republican lawmakers to get tough with Syria, we can defeat Al Qaeda.

Petraeus has a three pronged agenda, whether he knows it or not, and I’m sure he does. 1. Hold Al Anbar. 2. Defeat Al Qaeda in it’s last possible home in Iraq, the Triangle of Death/Diyala areas, by simultaneously attacking them aggresively and winning over the local Sunni tribes to help us in that effort - - just as we did in Al Anbar. 3. Break the back of the Shiite/Iran Baghdad to Basra insurgency by maintaining a ruthless military campaign; by further marginalizing or killing Al Sadr; by co-opting as many Shiite tribal leaders as possible; and by forcing Maliki to appropriately support us in all this; and lastly by rooting out as much evidence as possible to finalize the case against Iran.

Just like today’s story of the loss of U.S. servicemen, and the spectacular Baghdad/Diyala bombings of the last three weeks, you will continue to see many more Al Qaeda horrors. But these may just be the terrorist organization’s death throes. It is an historical maxim that every empire becomes more violent in it’s final, beleaguered days. We live with the conundrum that there is as much good news as bad in this current carnage. But it will become all bad if we let this opportunity for final conquest slip through our fingers.

As Jim Morrison sang, this is the end. One way or another.

Taliban Leader killed. And what about that spring offensive they've promised?

Everyone is still waiting for the Taliban Spring Offensive to start, but nothing is happening. Well, that's not true, a lot is happening throughout southern Afghanistan. NATO and Afghan troops are all over the place, killing dozens of Taliban at a time and arresting hundreds. The Afghan army believes they have at least two hundred Taliban surrounded in a mountain village, along with a senior Afghan leader (Mullah Dadullah). On the down side, if its only Afghan troops involved, Mullah Abdullah has the financial resources to bribe his way out.

The Taliban insist they are on a roll, and threaten attacks all over Afghanistan. But so far, the Taliban have used mostly terror attacks with suicide bombers and roadside bombs. These are the weapons of someone who is losing. The increased terror attacks on Afghan civilians are another indicator of Taliban distress. More of the rural Afghans have turned against the Taliban. That, coupled with battles between al Qaeda and Taliban forces back in Pakistan, do not translate into good news for the Islamic radicals trying to regain control of Afghanistan.

Being dead, I think he'll have a hard time bribing his way out of that one.

Women in Combat

Does that picture say anything to you?
I think I posted something about this some time ago...
Recently I've been seeing a lot about this issue, in various forms, and it is really pissing me off. In fact, its getting to the point where I have to wonder if having women in the military is a good idea at all, mostly because of the slippery slope it seems to entail. There are reasons, dammit, why women should not serve in combat, and they are not scurilous reasons, they are very real. I think anyone who has read much military history, especially ancient, will know what I mean when I say that unit cohesion is important, and injecting women into that environment radically changes it, even today. Not to mention women are more likely to get injured, not up to the physical challenge, etc. See my linkfest entry for more on that. I would just like to put up a few further things:

No one seems to understand that it is not the primary purpose of our armed forces to provide employment opportunities for women and young men. Our armed forces exist for the single purpose of defending the nation by destroying any enemy that threatens our national security. Clearly, women can contribute to the nation's defense, but not as warriors.

and

Has our nation sunk so low that we are willing to send our daughters and young mothers into battle? Is chivalry completely dead? Breathes there a man with soul so dead that he will not rise up and defend his wife, his sweetheart, his mother and his daughter, against those who want to wound or capture them, whoever they may be?

I get very uneasy whenever I see anything about women in combat, and its starting to make me uneasy about women in the military in general, even though they can surely do somethings.

Gun Control

Lots of articles recently, they were starting to clutter up my favorites, so here goes:

Why Economists Tend to Oppose Gun Control Laws
Feeling Safe Isn't Safe: VT's "gun free zone" was not a gun free zone
Anti-gun Nonsense
Gun Control Isn't Crime Control
Utah Mall was Gun Free Zone
Arming Professors and Students May Not be Such a Far-Fetched Idea
Gun-Free Zones Fail; Concealed Carry Laws Work
Multiple-victim Shootings Worldwide: list
Guns Gone Wild
Gunning For the Wrong People
Bans Don't Deter Killers: Look What Happened at Columbine and VT, both "gun free zones"
Unarmed and Dangerous
Gun Laws Disarm the Vulnerable, not Killers
Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech: boortz
Why You Should Own a Gun

On these kind of shootings:
Psychiatry's War On Our Children

This is pretty horribly ironic
Unarmed and Vulnerable

News From the War

Plenty of interesting reading recently:

The Twisted Lessons of Vietnam

May 3, 2007: One of the more annoying aspects of the war in Iraq are the comparisons to the Vietnam war. The problem there is the two great myths of theVietnam war that keep getting brought up, and misapplied to Iraq. Myth Number One is that the communist Tet Offensive of 1968 was a U.S. defeat. At the time, even reporters on the scene described the great damage that had been done to the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces. Analysts noted that the attack accomplished nothing, for the communists, in real terms. After a few years, it was clear that Tet was a disaster for the Viet Cong. We know that because, after Tet, the United States implemented a counter insurgency plan that finished off the Viet Cong. By the time American troops left in 1972, the only threat to South Vietnam was invasion by the North Vietnamese army. That happened twice. First, in 1972, North Vietnamese tanks and infantry divisions crossed the border. With some U.S. air support, that invasion was thrown back. The second invasion, in 1975, succeeded. The reason for that was not just a lack of any American air support, but the absence of much U.S. support at all. Congress had cut off nearly all American aid to South Vietnam. This included things like ammunition and spare parts. By 1975, American troops were gone for several years. The pictures of American helicopters evacuating people, showed American citizens and diplomats being taken out, along with South Vietnamese who could expect harsh treatment from the communists.

The U.S. didn't lose the war in South Vietnam, the South Vietnamese did. Tet was a victory for the United States, and a major defeat for the Viet Cong. For years, you had to go dig up old newspapers, or obscure books, to find the evidence that Tet was an American victory and Vietnam was not an American defeat. But now you can just use Google. All the facts are there. All you have to do is go look. Many prefer not to, which is another problem.

That said, it should be noted that the Iraq and Vietnam situations have little in common. In Iraq, the enemy is largely a Sunni Arab coalition (of secular Baath Party diehards trying to regain power, and Islamic radicals like al Qaeda, trying to make Iraq the first conquest of a global Islamic empire), not a broad coalition trying to unite a divided country under a communist dictatorship. Vietnam was all about nationalism and politics. Iraq is about supporters of tyrants who won't accept defeat, and religious zealots who believe they are on a mission from God. The degree of irrational behavior is much higher in Iraq, but it's not politically correct to dwell on that, at least not in the West. The Iraqi media dwells on the irrational elements of their political situation, and they do it quite a lot.

In Iraq, it's popular to blame the United States for everything, but most Iraqis understand that the Sunni Arab violence is basically an Iraqi problem. The Iraqis most intent on keeping the American troops around are the Sunni Arabs, who know that the years of Sunni Arab terror (both before and after Saddam fell) have made the Sunni Arabs an endangered group in Iraq. For some reason, Westerners have a hard time accepting that.

The United States won its war in Iraq. What's happened since is Iraqis working outwhether they want a democracy, or a return to tyranny. This is a bloody argument that the United States is trying to ameliorate. The majority of Iraqis would prefer to deal with the Iraqi Sunni Arabs in the traditional fashion. They still might, even with the presence of U.S. troops, and definitely will if the American forces leave soon. That would be an American defeat of ethical proportions.

I said this before, and I know some people didn't like it.

Media Is Murder
And so is the Democrat Party.

When I first got back from Iraq and I reported that the mainstream media were literally killing our troops, the mainstream media and leftist bloggers shrieked hysterically that such a claim was nothing short of laughable. When I said that the insurgents’ morale was largely shaped by the reportage and editorial bent of the U.S. media, I was also dismissed for making such “ridiculous” statements. Back home these issues are theoreticals. When you are in Iraq, and are still being blown up because the enemy has been led to believe that the Democrats may yet hand him victory, these issues are a matter of life and death. And they make a man very, very angry indeed.

From Victor Davis Hanson on April 26, 2007:

“Sometimes no comment is needed. So it was of Vietnam when victorious Gen. Giap later remarked that that the American Left was “essential to our strategy.” He elaborated to the Wall Street Journal: “Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement.”

And Giap added that anti-war activists, “Gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war.”

And...

Anbar Awakens, So Does the NYTimes

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently got into trouble for saying
aloud what many in his party undoubtedly believe--that Iraq is "lost."

This weekend brought fresh and powerful evidence of why he is wrong.

The story begins last fall when, according to a front page article in the Washington Post by Fiasco author Thomas Ricks, the chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq wrote a report concluding that Anbar province--long the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency--was "lost." As the Post reported then, "there are no functioning
Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by
the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force... Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair."

Flash ahead to yesterday's New York Times, which carried a cover story on the situation in Anbar. The paper says Anbar province is now "undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat."

"Last summer, the American military recorded as many as 25 violent acts a day in the Ramadi region, ranging from shootings and kidnappings to roadside bombs and suicide attacks. In the past several weeks, the average has dropped to four acts of violence a day, American military officials said.

"'There are some people who would say we've won the war out here," said
Col. John. A. Koenig, a planning officer for the Marines who oversees governing and economic development issues in Anbar. "I'm cautiously optimistic as we're going forward.'"

Will the Democrats hail this dramatic turnaround in Anbar--or even acknowledge it? Or will they keep on arguing the same premature defeatism that would have had us abandon Anbar to Al Qaeda?

And finally, an excellent Iraq Update from Bill Roggio:

Iraq Report: Anbar Awakening Spreads, Petraeus Connects Iran to Attacks in
Iraq

The city of Baghdad continues to see a drop in sectarian violence, while suicide car bombings remain al Qaeda's most deadly tool. After the car bomboffensive by al Qaeda two weeks ago, which included 11 major suicide attacks over just five days, the past week inside the city has been relatively free of major attacks. Although roadside bombs, mortar attacks, and small arms fire remain a regular occurrence inside Baghdad, al Qaeda was unable to pull off any further large scale attacks--which threaten to reignite the sectarian bloodshed.

While it is difficult to assess al Qaeda's capabilities in sustaining suicide attacks inside Baghdad proper, it seems the terror group possesses enough resources to conduct several high profile attacks at a time. Coalition and Iraqi operations are putting a dent in al Qaeda's capacity nationwide; however, al Qaeda is still able to assemble enough car bombs to carry out the attacks, which are designed to split the Sunni and Shia communities and create a media frenzy.

Part of the Coalition strategy to cut down on the deadly car bomb attacks and reduce the sectarian violence is to segment the city with physical barriers. These barriers stem the flow of traffic through checkpoints and prevent the infiltration of death squads through back alleys and side streets. The news of the creation of the "Adhamiya Wall" sparked protests and the temporary halting of the barrier's construction. Opportunists likened the barrier to the fence separating Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank.

But, as Omar Fadhil noted early last week, "Work to construct similar walls started weeks ago in the Amiriya and Ghazaliyah districts. The 'news' went utterly unnoticed then." Mr. Fadhil noted the barrier has had some effect in Amiriya and Ghazaliyah, and speculated that insurgents might have stirred up the local protests in an attempt to halt the building of the wall.

Dave Kilcullen, the Senior Counter-Insurgency Advisor for Multi-National Force Iraq, explained that Prime Minister Maliki restarted the project after he was briefed on the need for the barrier and how the protests had come about. "As I understand it, once the reasons for the project and the likely benefits in terms of lives saved were explained to the PM, he was happy for it to continue. I understand that the evidence of extremist manipulation was also a factor." Kilcullen likened the barrier to an "urban tourniquet," and explained that the propaganda campaign to disrupt its construction came from none other than al Qaeda in Iraq.

While Baghdad remains the focus of attention, some real gains have been made in Anbar, once the most violent province in Iraq. The progress in subduing the insurgency in Anbar province has finally reached the front pages of the New York Times and other outlets. The process in standing up the Anbar Salvation Council, a group of local tribes and former insurgents opposed to al Qaeda's harsh brand of Taliban-like sharia law, has been ongoing since the summer of 2006. The Anbar Salvation Council has had such success in Ramadi, which was once the most dangerous city in Iraq, that attacks have dropped to as few as two per day after spiking to as many as 50 a day last summer. Markets are reopening, children are returning to school and Iraqi and American security forces are conducting patrols throughout the most dangerous neighborhoods in the city.

Part of the success of the Anbar Salvation Council is that it provides the Sunnis in Anbar with a political voice as well as security against al Qaeda. The Anbar Salvation Council's political component is the Anbar Awakening. Seven new tribes have just joined the political party. The Awakening is now expanding beyond Anbar province, and is becoming a national movement. The Anbar Awakening is facilitating the creation of the Iraq Awakening, a national political partywhich would "oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq and reengage with Iraq's political process." The Iraq Awakening is scheduled to meet in May, and will be the first Sunni political party to openly oppose al Qaeda in Iraq.

Sensing that the Awakening movement was gaining steam in Iraq--branches are said to be forming in Salahadin and Diyala--I asked Omar Fadhil, and Iraqi blogger living in Baghdad, about the perception of the movement inside Baghdad and prospects of the Awakening expanding into the capital. Omar responded that the tribal dynamics were different, and that it was difficult to draw conclusions about Baghdad based on trends in Ramadi.

The following day, Omar noted a report in As Sabah on the creation of the Adhamiya Awakening. "Some community leaders in Adhamiya are working on forming a salvation council for their own district they will be calling The Adhamiya Awakening," reported Omar. "Sources close to the leaders said they [the leaders] have managed to win the support of some hundred people who agree with the new position. The sources asserted that the goal of the Awakening is to rid Adhamiya of the terrorists."

During last week's Pentagon press briefing, General Petraeus stated that al Qaeda in Iraq remains the primary threat to security, but also highlighted Iran's role in the insurgency. General Petraeus noted that the Iranians were backing Sunni and Shia groups alike, but focused on two examples of Iranian backing of Shia violence--the Karbala raid in January 2007 and the capture of major players in the Sheibani group.

General Petraeus outlined Iranian Qods Force's involvement with the February 20 attack on the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, which led to the aborted kidnapping and subsequent murder of five U.S. soldiers. Qods Force armed, trained, and advised the Qazili network, which carried out the attack. U.S. forces detained several senior leaders of the Qazili network, and captured a "22-page memorandum on a computer that detailed the planning, preparation, approval process and conduct of the operation that resulted in five of our soldiers being killed in Karbala," said Gen. Petraeus.

Petraeus also discussed the Sheibani network, "which brings explosively formed projectiles into Iraq from Iran," as well as other deadly weapons from Iran. A senior leader of the network was detained by U.S. forces. An American military intelligence official informs us the Sheibani network is one of Qods Force's foreign networks in Iraq, just as Hezbollah is an Iranian arm in Lebanon.

This latest news of Iranian complicity in the Shia insurgency came as the U.S. announced the capture of Abn Al-Hadi Al-Iraqi, a senior al Qaeda operative responsible for coordinating al Qaeda's networks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran. Abd Al-Hadi was captured crossing the border from Iran into Iraq. He was a major in Saddam's Army, ran al Qaeda training camps, was a military commander in Pakistan and Afghanistan, set up Zarqawi's network in Iraq along with Saif al Adel, who was in Iranian custody at the time, and served on al Qaeda's senior military and political shura, or councils. Abd Al-Hadi was reported to have been captured sometime late in 2006.

U.S. and Iraqi security forces have been pressing hard against al Qaeda's network nationwide. A single raid against a "constellation" of targets over the weekend resulted in the capture of 72 al Qaeda operatives. Coalition forces killed Abu Abd al-Satter, a senior al Qaeda leader during a raid northwest of Baghdad on April 20. Satter is described as "a known al-Qaeda terrorist leader known to operate in Karmah and Ameriyah areas and was the al-Qaeda in Iraq Security Emir of the eastern Anbar Province." Satter's car bomb cell "used 12- to 13-year-old children as VBIED drivers" to conduct its attacks.

Multinational Forces Iraq still has two infantry brigades to deploy in support of the Baghdad Security Plan. Three have already deployed, and the fourth, the 4th Special Brigade Combat Team of the 2nd Infantry Division (Strykers) was reported to have entered Iraq in mid April, however there has been a reporting blackout on any information on the brigade. General Petraeus and the Iraqi government have made some positive moves in the tenweeks since the kickoff of the Baghdad security Plan. However, he cautions it is still too soon to draw definitive conclusions. The proper time to make a preliminary assessment will be in September. But, increasingly, the war is being fought in the halls Congress. Senior politicians have declared the war lost, and the delay in the supplemental funding bill is preventing the training of the Iraqi Army. It would behoove the Bush administration and the Department of Defense to speed up the deployment of the remaining U.S. combat brigades into Iraq to smash al Qaeda's sanctuary in Diyala but a lack of political support at home is likely to hamper any such effort.

DJ Elliott and CJ Radin also contributed to this report.

'Benedict' Harry Reid?

I can't really say that I disagree...

INVESTED IN DEFEAT. INVESTED IN AMERICA'S HUMILIATION

How's this for supporting our troops? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat (of course) has now declared that the United States has lost the war in Iraq. He told President Bush that the war could not be won through military force ... in effect saying that the U.S. military is incapable of defeating the Islamic fascist enemy.

Know this ... there is no way in hell that you can say you support our troops when you say that our troops cannot win the battle. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell put it well: "I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost,"

I might put it a bit differently. What do you call a political leader in this country who declares a war to be lost while our men and women in uniform are putting their lives on the line to win that war. What do you call a highly placed political leader who puts a smile on the faces of the Islamic terrorist bastards who are out there trying to kill our soldiers. There's a word for it .. and it's a word that those of you who listen to my show will know that I don't use. That word is traitor. Dictionary.com has a few definitions for the word. See how you like them:

1. A person who betrays another, a cause or any trust.
2. A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

So ... what is treason? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war. Did Reid's comments give aid to the Islamic fascists trying to kill our soldiers? How can anyone not say that Harry Reid's words did just that? The only question then is whether, in the definition of treason, we can be said to be at war.

This may be Reid's escape. For my part, he has not only given aid and comfort to the enemy, he has emboldened them. I feel certain that American men and women in Iraq will die as a result of Reid's words encouraging the people who want to kill them.

Bastard.

Know this .... Democrats are absolutely invested in our defeat at the hands of the Islamic insurgents in Iraq. Good news in Iraq is bad news for the Democrat Party MoveOn.org crowd. They watch the news every day looking eager for more stories of violence in Iraq aimed at innocents and our soldiers. The absence of those stories makes them sad. The presence of those stories lift their spirits.

Never in the history of this country has a political party been so dedicated to our defeat in armed conflict.

Taliban Resurgent?

This is quite interesting:

Testy Tribes Trash Taliban TacticsApril 3, 2007:

An example of how development projects can defeat terrorism occurred in western Afghanistan recently. On March 24th, in Farah province, some Taliban gunmen attacked a group of Afghan and Indian engineers examining a dam, in preparation for work to be done on the facility. Hearing the gunfire, over a hundred armed men came from a nearby village and attacked the Taliban, killing three of them and driving the rest away. One villager was wounded. The villagers knew that the engineering team meant jobs, and economic progress for them. All the Taliban brought was bullets and threats.

The gun battle at the dam was not unique. Since late last year, when more villagers got angry at Taliban attacks on their new schools (which weren't religious schools, the only kind approved by the Taliban), and began meeting the Taliban with gunfire, there has been increasing armed resistance to Taliban gunmen. Groups of Taliban gunmen roam the countryside, demanding that villagers support them, and adopt conservative Islamic customs. The Taliban don't like to get into gun battles with the villagers, because the tribal code in Afghanistan calls for revenge if a villager is killed. Threats and coercion are the preferred Taliban tactic. But if the villagers grab their guns and resist, then the Taliban either have to lose face, back off, and abandon the area, or fight and risk a blood feud with this village, and their tribe (which may be a large one.)

The Scandal That Wasn't

This story about the 8 attorneys is surreal, you'd think it's out of 1984 or something. I find it to be simply bizzare.

To its enemies, the most endearing quality of the Bush administration must be the frequency with which the Bushies act as if they've done something wrong, even when they haven't.

President Bush caused himself no end of grief when he apologized for saying in his 2003 state of the union address "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," even though every word of it was true.

That blunder may have been topped by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at his news conference last Wednesday. The "senior Justice Department official" who told reporters Mr. Gonzales' performance was "disastrous" was being kind.

Mr. Gonzales called the news conference to respond to the manufactured "scandal" of the administration's decision to fire eight of the 93 U.S. attorneys.

"Mistakes were made," Mr. Gonzales said, without explaining what those mistakes were, or who made them. The Justice department has issued shifting explanations for why these U.S. attorneys were dismissed. The Attorney General said he supported the firings, but was unaware of the specific details of how they came about. Which is curious, because his chief of staff was heavily involved in them.

More

Give Victory a Chance?

Apparently Drudge got death threats for posting something showing the surge is working.

From Boortz:

Here's some good news: the troop surge in Iraq is working. The killing of U.S. soldiers is way down. You would think Democrats would be happy about this development, but you would be wrong. They have been invested in American defeat in Iraq for quite some time. It doesn't matter how well things are going...we must surrender.

Not only is the killing of our troops way down, so are the deaths of civilians. Since the new operation began 30 days ago, civilian deaths in Iraq are down from 1,440 to 265. That's a huge drop. Murders and executions are off by 50%. Car bombs have decreased as well. And this is without the full 21,500 troop surge in place. Think how well things will be going once we're firing on all cylinders over there.

But don't expect to hear about this from the mainstream media. The press doesn't particularly like to report good news from Iraq. In an effort to elect Hillary Clinton president of the United States, the media will continue to report that the war in Iraq is a failure and that we should surrender immediately. They have bought the lie that the war can't be won...and are intent on convincing the American public of the same.

Maybe somebody could stick a microphone in Nancy Pelosi's face and ask her what she thinks of our new successes in Iraq.

The Cowardly Vote for Defeat

Some thought from various places. Personally, seems to me a dark day. We are heading down a very dangerous path.

The first is particularly good.

Cowards Give up on GIS - & Give in to Evil
by: Ralph Peters

February 17, 2007 -- PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason.

And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."

The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.

The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.

The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."

We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage.

Yes, some members voted their conscience. But does anyone believe they were in the majority?

This troop surge might not work. We can't know yet. But we can be damned sure that the shameful action taken on the Hill while our troops are fighting isn't going to help.

And a word about those troops: It's going to come as a shock to the massive egos in Congress, but this resolution won't hurt morale - for the simple reason that our men and women in uniform have such low expectations of our politicians that they'll shrug this off as business as usual.

This resolution has teeth, though: It's going to bite our combat commanders. By undermining their credibility and shaking the trust of their Iraqi counterparts, it makes it far tougher to build the alliances that might give Iraq a chance.

If you were an Iraqi, would you be willing to trust Americans and risk your life after the United States Congress voted to abandon you?

Now that Donald Rumsfeld's gone, the Democrats are doing just what they pilloried the former Secretary of Defense for doing: Denying battlefield commanders the troops and resources they need.

Congresswoman Pelosi, have you no shame?

As a former soldier who still spends a good bit of time with those in uniform, what infuriates me personally is the Doublespeak, Stalin-Prize lie that undercutting our troops and encouraging our enemies is really a way to "support our troops."

As for bringing them home, why not respect the vote the troops themselves are taking: Sustained re-enlistment rates have been at a record high.

And our soldiers and Marines know they'll go back to Iraq or Afghanistan. And no, Senator Kerry, it's not because they're too stupid to get a "real" job like yours or because they're "mercenaries." Some Americans still believe in America.

If our troops are willing to fight this bitter war, how dare Congress knife them in the back?

On Thursday night, I was in Nashville as a guest of the 506th Regimental Combat Team - with whom I'd spent all too brief a time in Baghdad.

The occasion was their welcome-home ball, complete with dress uniforms spangled with awards for bravery. Proud spouses sat beside their returned warriors.

Of course, those soldiers were glad to be home with their loved ones. But they also know they'll go back to one theater of war or another - and no one complained.

They share a value that Congress has forgotten: duty. They're willing to bear the weight of the world on their shoulders. Because they know that freedom has a price.

As you entered the ballroom for the event, the first thing you saw was a line of 34 photographs. A single white candle softly lit each frame. Those were the members of the 506th who didn't come home.

Soldiers honor their dead. It's the least Congress could do to honor the living men and women in uniform.

You don't support our troops by supporting our enemies.

This is despicable:

The Democrats' 'Slow-Bleed' Strategy
A disgraceful moment in Congress.
by William Kristol
02/26/2007, Volume 012, Issue 23

Politicians often say foolish things. Members of both parties criticize cavalierly and thunder thoughtlessly. They advance irresponsible suggestions and embrace mistaken policies. But most of our politicians, most of the time, stop short of knowingly hurting the country. Watching developments in Congress this past week, though, one has to ask: Can that be said any longer about the leadership of the Democratic party?

President Bush is sending reinforcements to join our soldiers fighting in Iraq. Democrats are entitled to doubt this will work. They are entitled to conclude the whole cause is hopeless or unjust--and that we should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible or on some other more responsible timetable. They are entitled to move legislation in Congress to compel such a withdrawal, on a schedule and with provisions that seem to them appropriate.

But surely they should not fecklessly try to weaken the U.S. position in Iraq, and America's standing in the world, by raising doubts as to our commitment in Iraq without advancing an alternative. That is precisely what they are doing with the nonbinding resolution condemning the dispatch of additional troops to Iraq. The fact that some Republicans have embraced this resolution does not excuse the Democratic party for its virtually monolithic support of it. The GOP has its share of fools and weaklings. But it is the Democratic party that now seems willing to commit itself, en masse, to a foreign policy of foolishness and weakness.

For the nonbinding resolution passed by the House Friday is merely the first round. What comes next are legislative restrictions and budgetary limitations designed to cripple our effort in Iraq. As Politico.com reported Thursday:

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options. . . . The House strategy is being crafted quietly. . . . [Rep. Jack] Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels of adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet. . . . Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha.

So the nonbinding resolution is only the first step in the slow-bleed strategy. The Murtha plan intends to block further relief and reinforcement for American troops, leaving them exposed and unable to succeed. Surely Democrats (and fellow-traveling Republicans) will turn back from this path while they still have time to save some of their honor. But the antiwar groups won't make it easy. John Bresnahan's Politico.com report continues:

Anti-war groups like [Tom] Mazzie's are prepared to spend at least $6.5 million on a TV ad campaign and at least $2 million more on a grass-roots lobbying effort. Vulnerable GOP incumbents . . . will be targeted by the anti-war organizations, according to Mazzie and former Rep. Tom Andrews, D-Maine, head of the Win Without War Coalition. . . . Mazzie also said anti-war groups would field primary and general election challengers to Democratic lawmakers who do not support proposals to end the war. . . . Andrews, who met with Murtha on Tuesday to discuss legislative strategy, acknowledged "there is a relationship" with the House Democratic leadership and the anti-war groups, but added, "It is important for our members that we not be seen as an arm of the Democratic Caucus or the Democratic Party. We're not hand in glove." . . . "I don't know how you vote against Murtha," said Andrews. "It's kind of an ingenious thing."

No, the Democrats and the antiwar groups shouldn't "be seen" as "hand in glove." But they are. The national Democratic party has become the puppet of antiwar groups. These groups do not merely accept-reluctantly--American defeat in the Middle East. They seek to hasten it. Some seem to welcome it.

The leaders of those groups believe their slow-bleed strategy is "kind of an ingenious thing." In truth, it's not really so "ingenious." But it is disgraceful. In our judgment, it will fail as a political strategem, it will fail to derail the president's policy--and we will ultimately prevail in Iraq. The slow-bleed strategy will, however, stain the reputation of its champions, and of the useful idiots in both parties who have gone along with it.

See also: OpinionJournal

See also for some soldier comments: MRC

More to come later, I'm quite sure.

Letter from Iraq

Letter from an airman in Iraq, posted on Rushlimbaugh.com

(on a side note, how can you "support the troops" while trying to destroy the armed forces? And how exactly does "bring them home" show any support? We support you, but not what you're doing...? Non-sequitur, it seems)

Hey Rush,

I am scratching my head here. None of this makes any sense...but I wonder what you think about all of this...

The national news media shows lots of our American servicemen and women dying over there in Iraq and getting killed, helicopters being shot down, roadside bombs going off...etc...etc. Yet, when you are there, when you work with Americans and Iraqis who are actively engaged in re-building the country, who are out going after the enemy...there’s this ever-present sense of optimism, this prevailing upbeat mood of doing good. Just go talk to the wounded servicemen at Brooks or Bethesda. [RUSH: And I have. He's right.] They’ll tell you the same. Likewise, the Iraqi gentlemen (civilians) I worked with were excited about their economic prospects. They were eager for their families to experience a better life than the life they had under a totalitarian regime.

Rush, there’s an upbeat mood out there in Iraq.

The country and its new democracy are moving forward. And the enemy hates it. On the subject of “civil war” or “civil strife” in Iraq... From what we can tell...there’s no “civil war” or “civil strife” as the news media puts it. The terrorists are coming from outside the country and killing civilians – as many as possible – to gain a foothold in Iraq. And they play this stuff on TV to make us sick. It’s working. We are getting sick, but Iraq is getting strong. If there really is civil strife in the country...then WHY don’t WE hear statements in the news about Shia leaders taking responsibility for Sunni killings, and vice-versa? WHY? This is why: Because they aren’t doing that Rush! THAT’S WHY we NEVER hear news reports from the so-called “civil strife” combatants themselves. Because there aren’t any. The IRAQIS are trying to build-up their country and make it work. MEANWHILE the enemy comes and kills everyone they can, and they run away from the scene (or die in the blast themselves).

One more thought...

I hate doing math, but think about this…

Rush...there’s anywhere from 500 to 1,000 road vehicle convoys per day in the country of Iraq. [RUSH: Five hundred to 1,000 road vehicle convoys per day in the country of Iraq.] One or three of these vehicle convoys (at most) get hit by an IED each day, which destroys maybe one or two vehicles. Most convoys have anywhere from 20 to 100 vehicles. NOW, what are your odds (e.g. CNN reporter) of being tagged by an IED????

In Summary... I remain confused, amazed, and dumbfounded by the news media view on the war. And yet Americans are buying it. WHY??? How can we believe only one side of the story without seeing the whole picture, the whole story as it unfolds? Does ANYONE really know (other than those who are there) what’s REALLY happening in Iraq??? Is there any chance of getting any of this news reporting being done right???

America is doing good things over there. Our troops are awesome. They are an inspiration, a model of courage and of selfless patriotism. Why don’t people back home trust them?

Mega Dittos Rush.

Very Respectfully,

Tazz

A Little Sense on Illegals

From Boortz:

CRIMINAL ALIENS?

Yeah .. you heard me right. Though it will take me time to get my tongue trained .. I've decided to join the politically correct crowd when it comes to referring to the invasion force from South of the border. The politically correct left wants to call them "undocumented workers" or "immigrants."

I'm part of the politically correct right ... so the "undocumented" thing doesn't work for me. I was "undocumented" right up until the time I got my hideous Social Security number from the Imperial Federal Government.

They're also not "immigrants." Immigration is a legal procedure. The "immigrant" title is given to those who follow this procedure. The Mexican invasion force has decided not to follow the law. They come across the border illegally. They get jobs illegally. They remain here illegally. That's why we've been calling them illegal aliens up to this point. But when you think about it, what do we call people who violate our laws? What do you call people who engage in a pattern of continuing illegal behavior? Why, we call them criminals!

The gall of these people waving signs saying "I am not a criminal"! Why hell yes you are! You broke the law coming here. You're breaking the law staying here. You break the law by working here. You break the law .. .you're a criminal!

So ... to the extent to which I can remember .. from now on the Hispanic invasion force shall be known as and referred to as "criminal aliens" on the show and in my writings.

Global Warming Hysteria

Just take a moment and settle down...the world isn't ending because the UN says so.

First, the report coming out today is just a summary for policymakers, created not by scientists, but by bureaucrats.

Consider...

Senator Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, also exposed how the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.

Senator Inhofe pointed out to CNN’s American Morning anchor O’Brien that the international media buzz surrounding the new UN Summary for Policymakers fails to note that this week’s final draft of the UN release was not approved by scientists but by politically motivated UN bureaucrats. [Note: The UN’s political agenda prompted one of the most respected experts on hurricanes, Dr. Christopher Landsea, to resign as one of the lead authors of the IPCC process. Landsea accused the UN of pursuing a political rather than a scientific agenda. In addition, Richard Lindzen, a prominent MIT meteorologist, who was a contributing author to a Chapter in the IPCC’s third assessment, among others has said that the Summary for Policymakers did not reflect the scientific work he conducted.

“What you're going to get on Friday is not the fourth assessment of the IPCC. You're going to get the summary for policymakers. Now, you won't get the report from scientists probably until May or June,” Inhofe said on CNN Wednesday morning.

Get a load of this....

Inhofe then went on to quote an excerpt directly from the IPCC guidelines. The “Principles Governing IPCC Work” clearly states in its Appendix A on page four that the scientific work will be altered to conform to the media-hyped Summary for Policymakers:

"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter," the IPCC guidelines on page read.

In other words, you will make the scientific findings say what we want.

Further...

Other critics of the IPCC process like Steve McIntyre (one of the individuals responsible for debunking the Hockey Stick temperature graph) agree with Senator Inhofe and have already pointed out the serious problems with the UN mandating that the scientific work be altered to fit its political agenda.

“So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me,” McIntyre explained.

Harvard University Physicist Lubos Motl also slammed the UN.

"These people are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations. If they find an error in the summary, they won't fix it. Instead, they will "adjust" the technical report so that it looks consistent," Motl said.

NOTE: Links to most of these in the original document up at the top. Also, I suggest reading the entire document.

See also this WSJ section for more thoughts.

Senator Webb

I hadn't really planned on saying anything, but I stumbled across some comments in a few quite unexpected places I thought I'd share:

Senator Jim Webb: Clueless
DaveScot

As I was watching the Democratic response to President Bush’s State Of The Union speech tonight Senator Jim Webb played the United States Marine card three times (for himself, his brother, and his son all Marines). I take it personally when someone does that.

The first thing Webb does is claims to know better than the president and all the president’s advisors how to effectively fight terrorism because, well, Jim was a Marine in Vietnam. Well Jim, I was a Marine at the end of the Vietnam war. I didn’t go, it was mostly over by then, but one thing I noticed was that all the non-commissioned officers senior to me were real combat veterans. They knew how to survive guerilla warfare in an Asian backwater. Me and my generation of Marines, all we did was play at wargames 4 weeks a year in the Mojave desert. No one was trying to kill us, no foreign language was spoken by the natives, no guerillas in civilian clothes running around, none of that. After 30 years of that kind of experience our military was virtually without anyone in any rank who’d had actual combat experience. Here’s the deal Jim. In order to have an effective force in fighting guerilla and urban wars in Arab countries we need actual combat veterans seasoned in that type of warfare leading the unseasoned troops. Use your head, Jim. Now we have an effective force led by NCOs who know how to survive urban and guerilla wars in Arab countries. And Bush managed to build that force without losing 58,000 American lives as were sacrificed in Vietnam but rather limited the losses to 3,000. Use your head for something other than a place to put your hat, Jim. We needed a veteran ground combat force for the Middle Eastern theater. Now we have one. Now what happened to Russia in Afghanistan won’t happen to us.

The next bit of cluelessness was Webb on the economy. He said "When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it’s nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day."

This is just utter dreck. The average CEO salary in the United States today is $1.2 million according to a survey by Pearl Meyer & Partners mentioned on Money Central. What Webb failed to mention is that at the largest 50 companies the average is $10.7 million. Meanwhile the average worker salary in the U.S. was $37,000 in 2002 according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. I don’t know about Senator Webb’s calculator but when I divide 1,200,000 by 37,000 the answer is 32. The average CEO salary today is 32 times the average worker salary. That’s up from when Senator Webb and Elvis Presley were serving in the armed forces but it’s a long ways from the 400 times that Webb gave in his speech.

Even worse, the average CEO loses 50% of his salary in state & local income taxes while the average worker loses 20%. So it’s really $600,000 vs. $30,000 which is a factor of 20. Wow. When take-home pay is compared the average CEO makes 20 times the average worker. Just like when Elvis was singing in the Army. How about that. And speaking of fair, the average CEO pays almost 100 times as much in taxes ($600,000 vs. $7,000) as the average worker. Some people might not call that fair as it’s unlikely the CEO is using 100 times as much in government services as the average worker.

Color me disgusted. I expect most politicians to lie and be stupid about how to create a seasoned, finely tuned military but I expect my fellow Marines to have a bit more integrity and military savvy than most politicians. What a letdown. Drop and give me 500 Webb, then issue an apology to the public you tried to deceive.

Also, someone pointed out they had used the Korea example back in July, coming to the opposite conclusions as the senator:

Iraq alternatives: Vietnam - or North Korea?
Those advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq cite as their rationale a fear that Iraq conflict may turn into another Vietnam - that is, into a war without end, but with mounting American casualties.

But there is another side to the Vietnam story: after Americans withdrew from Vietnam, nothing particularly terrible happened: Vietnam turned into an innocuous, stagnant Communist state that didn’t threaten anyone. In Vietnam, there were no major consequences to leaving the job undone.

Not so in the Korean conflict: the unfinished job festered into a major problem, all
complete with nuclear weapons and development of their delivery systems. Iran was left to its own devices - to the similar effect.

Which facts should make us pause and think about alternatives we are now facing in Iraq. If Americans withdrew, what would be the result? Would Iraq follow the Vietnam model, or the North Korea one?

The guarantee of Vietnam-type consequences of American withdrawal would warrant a Vietnam-type withdrawal - and that is why the “Vietnam“ argument is so popular. But we should know by now that such outcome is far from assured, because there can be other kinds of consequences too: the North Korean one, or the Iranian. Which should give a pause to those shouting “Iraq is the next Vietnam!” Because what if, after the American withdrawal, Iraq turns not into a post-withdrawal Vietnam, but into the post-war North Korea?

We Do Know One Thing That Doesn't Work

No Exit in Somalia
This time the U.S. stays on the anti-terror offense. Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

It may be some time before we learn whether Sunday's air strikes by an AC-130 gunship in southern Somalia succeeded in killing the terrorists who were the intended targets--particularly Abu Taha al-Sudani, reportedly an al Qaeda explosives expert, and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, mastermind of the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings. But the attacks--along with the deployment of a carrier battle group off the African coast--are welcome evidence that the U.S. has learned the lessons of May 19, 1996.

That's the date Osama bin Laden and his associates left Sudan for Afghanistan on a chartered plane. The Clinton Administration was aware that Sudan intended to expel bin Laden, and the U.S. might have easily tracked and destroyed the flight en route. The consequences of its failure to do so is only too well known, and the Bush Administration is right to be determined not to let terrorists get away again, whether by land, air or sea.

The strikes in Somalia are also a reminder that in the war on terror there is no "exit strategy" short of victory. The last U.S. military venture in Somalia is broadly remembered as a military and political fiasco, particularly after the notorious "Black Hawk Down" battle in which 18 U.S. servicemen were killed, in part for want of adequate armor.

Yet America's sheepish withdrawal from the country had consequences. Bin Laden viewed it as yet another sign that America can't take casualties and will retreat when hit hard. Somalia descended into anarchy and became a haven for al Qaeda operatives and affiliated terrorist groups. Last June, the capital of Mogadishu fell into their grip, and the rest of the country surely would have fallen as well had it not been for the timely military intervention of neighboring Ethiopia.

That intervention has been criticized by some for running the risk of fueling regional conflict rather than checking it. Thus a British newspaper report from December frets that Ethiopia's invasion offers "Islamic jihadists the chance to establish a new front in Africa after Iraq and Afghanistan, and to wage another proxy war between East and West." Maybe.
Then again, a Taliban-style regime on the horn of Africa, capable of harboring, training, financing and equipping terrorists was an intolerable threat to global security. By contrast, the main risk now is that some Islamists will escape to fight another day, an excellent reason for the U.S. to take action when they are dispersed and on the run. Our forces were able to hit the terrorists this week because Ethiopia's offensive had pushed them out of their safe houses and into the open. It is a useful reminder to other terrorists that the U.S. can hit them anywhere in the world.

None of this requires the U.S. to deploy militarily to Somalia. Our security interests in the region are already well-served by our military deployment in neighboring Djibouti, from where we can monitor the region and, when necessary, rapidly deploy force.

What the U.S. can do for Somalia is offer meaningful logistical, military and humanitarian assistance to the Transitional Federal Government, which the CIA previously eschewed in favor of financing local warlords. TFG President Abdullahi Yusuf may not be a model democrat, but he showed his stripes well enough when he said of Sunday's air strikes that the U.S. "has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania." If only we received the same level of candid cooperation from Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

The story of Somalia is far from over, and America's involvement in the area will not soon end. But U.S. interests are well-served by putting terrorists on the run, wherever they may be. We will be better served still if we take the lesson that the only exit for us in the war against terrorists--whether in Somalia, Afghanistan and especially Iraq--is to make sure there is no exit for them.