Warning! Bozos and Liars in Power!

MATA MUSING: Been awhile, I see. My last post was in December. Mind you, it's not that I haven't been paying attention to the surrounding madness the pols have wrought since the election. I've just been holding my own in my small sphere of living with personal stuff. So the thoughts (and ire) have piled up, and "I'm baaaaack" to unload.

Let me say first that I must be some of the very few citizens to have read The Iraq Study Group Report. Read it on the plane on an east-west, Sea2Sea flight just a week ago. Have to say, there's alot of humour in there... can we say doublespeak? i.e.

Executive Summary, pg xvi (repeated pg 71, Military and Security Forces)

"The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. While this process is under way, and to help facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq.

Uh... isn't this indeed what the admin is now attempting to do? In fact, on pg 71, it even states "such a mission could involve 10,000 to 20,000 American troops instead of the 3000 to 4000 now in this role.". Hummmm.... does that number ring a bell with anyone?

And oh, BTW, "consultants" on this ISG report include Ms. Pelosi herself, who now publicly cries she wasn't consulted on the new surge strategy.

Huh? How quickly she forgets in her excitement of assuming power.

Other guffaws found in the book are the much touted "must do diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria" BS. Yet plainly stated in the ISG report is that this talk of diplomacy between the chasm of ideology...

... must include direct talks with, by and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel's right to exist), and Syria.

Let's see... Israel's right to exist. That obviously leaves out Iran and Syria.

Another joke... Congress refuses to help supply the Iraqi Army and police with weapons, stating instead they much purchase thru a military program. Tough to do when the fledgling gov't doesn't even have a banking system. And even tougher for street cops and Iraqi infantry to curb violence... nae, even defend their own arses... without working weapons and ammo. Talk about setting them up to fail!

Add to that, Congress whines that our own military equipment (tanks, etal) are wearing out quickly with the environment. Yet read on further, and they state they are more than willing to leave this worn out junk for the Iraqi's to use as our troops redeploy/bolt/cut and run. I'm sure the Iraqi's will be forever grateful to inherit our junk for their own use. What a slap.

This little ditty is an eye opener. Especially in light of the Senate Foreign Relations non-binding "finger shaking" at Bush INRE the troops surge. Biden, Levin, Pelosi... all listed as consulants on the ISG report... are aware that the report suggested exactly what's being done. Yet they are correct in assuming that the average voter doesn't read and will believe whatever lies pass their lips on the latest MSM sound byte news.

Bunk.

And 'nother thing... this "surge" has been going on since December. One need only scan thru Iraq The Model blogspot's posts beginning Jan 10th... well ahead of the "surge" announcement.

And if James Lewis at America Thinker is correct in his information, this surge and Iraqi clean up campaign is yielding results early on.

While the MSM and Democrats are too busy gazing at their navels to figure out the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, things are moving very fast in Iraq. The famous "surge" started in December, a month before it was announced in public, and it is having concrete results. A battle has taken place in Baghdad's infamous Haifa Street, which used to be bandit territory. The challenge is to hold that territory.

snip

The most significant new development is the arrest in Iraq of the operational director of Ahmadinejad's storm trooper (Al Quds) brigade.


If the MSM were doing its job, this would be big headline news. First, the Al Quds brigade is Ahmadinejad's own unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, which he helped grow in order to conduct terrorist operations abroad, in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq and even Mecca.


They are the SS stormtroopers of the Islamic revolution.


The idea that a top officer of the Quds brigade would be caught with his pants down in Iraq is simply astonishing. It tears the veil from all the Iranian denials of direct involvement in arming and funding Iraqi death squads.

What's this? Ahmadinejad's pet warriors in Iraq? How can that *be*? Flashback to the ISG language INRE cajoling Iran to help with Iraq, and it's absurd claim on pg 51 that...

Some of the possible incentives to Iran, Syria, or both include:

1: An Iraq that does not disintegrate and destablize its neighbors and the region

Gosh darn... ISG authors believe Iran does not benefit from a failed or chaotic Iraq. If that were true, why are they in there, actively (and obviously ineffectively) muddying the waters? Fact is, they'd like nothing more to annex Iraq's oil and fresh water supply as their own. And that would not be possible with a standing, elected and successful democratic Iraqi gov't.

Doublespeak... I repeat... doublespeak. What bozo can read the ISG, and not fall out of their chair laughing with it's lofty and idyllic notions? Can think tank elites truly be this stupid??

I've come to the conclusion that I should be shopping for a hybrid soon. Here's my thoughts, worthless as they may be received. I suspect our new do-nothing, pacifist Congress will "stay the course" by funding the existing troops, and refuse to fund the surge. This will result in a slow, cancerous death/defeat as they did with Vietnam. They have neither the balls to truly get them out, and they won't allow them to win. And for that, I find them the lowest of the low.

Thus, when Iraq cannot stand up to the thugs seeking to overthrow an elected gov't, and the country (and it's oil supplies) falls into the hands of the sundry radical groups (they're all alike) battling for control, the US will pay dearly in oil prices. So I think I'll get that hybrid now, while the getting is good! LOL

Then, of course, there's the "baby killer" Kerry, backing out of the Presidential mob in order to stay in the Senate and help end the war. I guess he still hasn't figured out that there's only one Commander in Chief yet. And with his numbers, it could be questionable if he even stays in the Senate.

BTW, doesn't anyone remember that it was a Dem President who got us into Vietnam, a Dem President who escalated it, and finally a Rep President who commenced getting us out? All, of course, thanks to a Congress who made sure to financially tie our troops hands behind their back, making it impossible to win... just as they are planning on doing now. I guess, in that aspect, Iraq is rather like Vietnam.

Personally, my fave column on the State of the Union speech was by Lori Byrd at the Examiner, who aptly pointed out that the Dems really had a hard time applauding any notion of attempting victory in Iraq.

During his speech, President Bush spoke with conviction about the importance of achieving victory in Iraq:

“This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.”

The majority party’s response to that statement, and others, made more of an impression on me than anything the president said. In response to his call to “turn events toward victory,” the majority of congressional Democrats sat on their hands.

President Bush went on to speak of the consequences of failure in Iraq: “Nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East … to succeed in Iraq … and to spare the American people from this danger.”

But most congressional Democrats’, led by their new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, remained seated and did not applaud.

Body language often says much more than any words. Even my 6-year-old daughter can immediately detect which of the apologies her older sister is occasionally ordered to make to her are sincere — and which are not. I am not an expert in body language, but I can identify basic signs such as smiles, frowns and applause. During the State of the Union speech, it appeared to me that almost every time the president made a reference to victory in Iraq, the majority of congressional Democrats had a visible negative response.

snip

Bryan Preston, who recently returned from Iraq where he reported as an embed, also reacted to congressional Democrats’ response to the president’s speech: “Still, it’s revealing that the Democrats stand up when the president mentions Darfur, where there are no U.S. troops and won’t be any U.S. troops — but sit on their hands when he mentions Iraq, where there are U.S. troops and where there will be U.S. troops fighting hard for a while to come. What possesses a group of people to take Sudan more seriously than Iraq … to rank the importance of international crises in an inverse relationship to those crises‚ effect on U.S. national security?”

Preston went on to ask congressional Democrats “why is it that many of them seem to believe the U.S. is capable of addressing the conflict and genocide in Darfur, yet is not considered capable of achieving victory in Iraq?”

Why indeed, Bryan. Because it's easy to feign concern, but very difficult to make the sacrifices necessary to aid those in dire straits. And evidently, the pacifist Congress prefers to wring their hands over Darfur and ignore the plight of struggling Iraqis... a place where we really can do some good.



And another thing... I'm tired of hearing the flap about the Dakota Fanning movie. Were it my daughter, I'd never let her take the part. Nor take her to see the movie. But it isn't my daughter, and Hollywood has never demonstrated taste before. Why start now? However Brook Shields didn't degenerate into a massively screwed up human after acting in Pretty Baby. Get a grip, folks. Worry about your own kids, and let the free market take care of the rest.

And speaking of Hollywood "much ado about nothing" flap, what's all this bru'ha'ha of the Grey's Anatomy star, Isaiah Washington, having to grovel and do penance over using the word faggot at the Oscars? Receiving counseling or entering rehab?? For what? A poor choice of words? Here I thought the libs were all for free speech... guess not.

Okay... I've aired enuf for now. Almost feel better... until I turn on the evening talking heads. You all take care. And you'd better check into those hybrids, I'm tellin' ya!