Quotes of the day....

"This (war strategy) is not working. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. We must reverse it. We will again make a distinction ... to show a new direction in Iraq. The goal is ending it within a year and leave behind just a small force," she said.

Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker - Nov 2007

Hello? Ms. Pelosi? Pray tell, on what planet are you vacationing?

November 8, 2007
Militant Group Is Out of Baghdad, U.S. Says
By DAMIEN CAVE, New York Times

BAGHDAD, Nov. 7 — American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the “surge” to depart as planned.

Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of United States forces in Baghdad, also said that American troops had yet to clear some 13 percent of the city, including Sadr City and several other areas controlled by Shiite militias. But, he said, “there’s just no question” that violence had declined since a spike in June.

“Murder victims are down 80 percent from where they were at the peak,” and attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70 percent, he said.

General Fil attributed the decline to improvements in the Iraqi security forces, a cease-fire ordered by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, the disruption of financing for insurgents, and, most significant, Iraqis’ rejection of “the rule of the gun.”

snip

“The Iraqi people have just decided that they’ve had it up to here with violence,” he said, while noting that their demands for electricity, water and jobs have intensified.

But go get 'em Joe Lieberman has it down pat...

"There is something profoundly wrong — something that should trouble all of us — when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

Bin Laden confirms "split" strategy is working

Back on 9/28, I posted links to Ray Robison's "A Quiet Triumph May Be Brewing" - an analysis of the overall strategy to weaken the global Islamic Jihad movement at it's base.

From that article:

There are signs that the global Islamic jihad movement is splitting apart, in what would be a tremendous achievement for American strategy. The center of the action is in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the very territory which is thought to harbor Usama, and from which Al Qaeda was able to launch 9/11. Capitalizing on existing splits, a trap was set and closed, and the benefits have only begun to be evident.

There were already signs of a split, but recent events strengthen that trend. In March and again in May of this year I reviewed relevant South Asian media reporting to predict that the global Islamic jihad movement was cracking up. That theory focused on a split between the leadership of al Qaeda and the jihad groups that secure them in Pakistan such as the Taliban.

Today, the bearded one speaks again. And unlike his previous videos, filled with threats, gloats and lofty Caliphate goals, he's reduced to pleading with his jihadist buds to get their act together...

This from, believe it or not, the ABC News blogs by Brian Ross. That ought to nullify any general news slant from the content.

Showing apparent signs of concern over events in Iraq, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden urged insurgents to "unite your lines into one" in an audiotape played on al Jazeera Monday.

"Don't be arrogant," bin Laden warned. "Your enemies are trying to break up the jihadi groups. I urge you all to work in one united group."

snip

Saying he was speaking to "everyone in the Muslim community," bin Laden urged "scholars and leaders of the jihad" to take on the role of uniting the groups "right now."

Right on Mr. Robison... you called it right almost a month ago.

Reluctant mea culpa included with the ABC story? Wesley Clarke, the former "Supreme Commander" who takes his past title to heart...

"It's always good news when they are divided," said Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism adviser, now an ABC News consultant. "It's reflective that U.S. tactics are having some success."

Bet that hurt, eh Wes?

Flashback: Turkey does genocide, Year 2000Examples of "spirit of partnership"

Another media giant wakes up... Niall Ferguson of the LA Times even admits the Dem resolution won't change history, nor help the future.

The absurdity is that the genocide of 1915 was not perpetrated by today's Turkish Republic, established in 1923, but by the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed at the end of World War I. You might as well blame the United States for the deportation of Acadians from Nova Scotia during the French and Indian Wars.

"If we hope to stop future genocides, we need to admit to those horrific acts of the past," argued Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat and a sponsor of the resolution. Really? My sense is that all the resolutions in the world about past genocides will do precisely nothing to stop the next one.

And if -- let's just suppose -- the next genocide happens in Iraq, and the United States finds itself impotent to prevent it, the blame will lie as much with this posturing and irresponsible Congress as with anyone.

Interesting twist. Ferguson calls this Congress "irresponsible". I guess the honeymoon is over.

I suspect Ferguson and I disagree on Iraq in general. And I also would guess he fails to view this Congress as one that is not trying to prevent an Iraqi genocide, but instigating one by demanding withdrawals without consideration for events on the ground.

But for once, there is a bipartisan spirit. For Ferguson and I actually agree on the end result, despite the nuances.

As both left and right media slowly wakes up to the stealth "slow bleed" legislation the Dems are trying to pull - aka the Turkey-Armenia genocide resolution - it's interesting to examine history.

Now it's flashback time - to prior attempts for a similar resolution, and 2005-06 Democrat campaign promises.

Pelosi, taking the gavel as majority Speaker of the House following the mid term elections

“I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship.”

Okay. Lofty words and promises.

Flashback a little further.... to Oct 20th, 2000. It's a Republican dominated House with Hassert as Speaker.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday canceled a vote on a controversial resolution that would have recognized as genocide the mass killings of Armenians in what is now Turkey approximately 80 years ago.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, said the resolution had been pulled after President Bill Clinton said he was "deeply concerned" about the language in the document. Clinton and Hastert talked by telephone on Wednesday night about the legislation.

Hastert said Clinton had warned of "possible far-reaching negative consequences for the United States" if the House voted on the legislation.

snip

The resolution was shelved amid heightened tensions in the Middle East over the terrorist bombing in Yemen of the USS Cole, which killed 17 Navy sailors, and weeks of violent clashes recently between Israelis and Palestinians.

In a letter to Hastert, Clinton said, "We have significant interests in this troubled region of the world: containing the threat posed by East and Central Asia; stabilizing the Balkans; and developing new sources of energy.

"Consideration of the resolution at this sensitive time will negatively affect those interests and could undermine efforts to encourage improved relations between Armenia and Turkey."

Take careful note. The Republican Congress cooperated with a Democratic Commander in Chief by acquiescing to the obvious, despite a mutual dislike and an embattled political history. They put America first over partisan hatred by not muddy'ing the waters with Turkish relations.

Someone should point Pelosi's nose in the right direction and show her history. For that, folks, is genuine "spirit of partnership". Not the phony baloney spewed by this irresponsible and corrupt Congress.

_______________________________________

10/16/07 UPDATE: To demonstrate further disingenuous campaign promises, Pelosi has again shown her colors, excluding not only Republicans, but her own peer, John Dingall (chair of House Energy and Commerce Committ) from writing a new energy bill. And the Detroit News editorial page is wasting no time in pointing out Pelosi is treading on dangerous ground.

The California Democrat is determined to place the burden of climate change solely on the shoulders of the auto industry. She can't do that with Dingell in the way, so she's breaking with congressional practice and has handpicked a group of like-minded Democratic legislators to write an energy bill independent of Dingell's committee.

She is also shutting out Republicans from the process, a move worth noting since Pelosi promised Congress would be much more inclusive once Democrats gained control.

Instead of thoughtful and reasonable legislation worked out in a bipartisan session, Pelosi will likely deliver a bill that targets manufacturing, particularly the auto industry, and pleases her constituents at the expense of the rest of the country. .

Pelosi backs a bill that combines fuel economy standards for cars and trucks and increases the miles per gallon ratings by 40 percent, mandates that are unattainable for the automakers without enormous investment.

US auto makes say if the proposed legislation passes as planned, it will cost them $85 billion, and drive factory production out of the country. Again, Congress does the two face whine... lamenting outsourcing while continuing the same practices of over regulation that result in the need to outsource... or fold.

More MSM seeing "genocide" resolution as"slow bleed" stealth legislation

Back on Oct 11th, when the Armenian genocide resolution condemning Turkey passed the House on Foreign Affairs committee, I immediately saw it as another "slow bleed" attempt by the Dems. I'm sure many thought I was insane. But I put nothing past the desperation of Dems, tired of having their hands tied by the genuine Commander in Chief of the military.

It was, after all, a perfect strategy in all ways. First, they can effectively force early withdrawal for the US military in Iraq by cutting off their supply lines thru Turkey ground and air space. And all done under the moral banner of identifying "genocide".

Secondly, no one came accuse them of this coming out of the blue, thereby eliminating the accusation of timing in order to accuse them of a back handed Iraq withdrawal pan. They've attempted to get this resolution thru on previous occasions. Once, in 2000, it was stopped by Bill Clinton himself, with an appeal to a Republican Congress to prioritize current relations with Turkey over actions by a now defunct government almost 100 years ago.

At that time, the Republic Congress listened. But the Dem led Congress today? Pelosi's made the talking heads Sunday rounds, and insists she's sticking to her guns. And they have the chutzpah to call Bush stubborn and without compromise?

As it is a non binding resolution, there is no Presidential veto power. They vote it in, despite objections of the WH, and the deed and damage is done. No going back.

This resurrection of the genocide bill concerned me as I wasn't sure if anyone with the power of the pen or the microphone would recognized the sleazy, back door withdrawal strategy. And unless it was brought to the attention of the American citizens, how would they connect the dots?

In today's New York Post (but appearing on the Internet Sunday) is Ralph Peters "Playing Politics with Genocide".

Last Wednesday, the Democrat-controlled House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution formally declaring the Armenian tragedy what it was: genocide. Speaker Nancy Pelosi intends to bring the resolution to a vote on the floor, after which it would go to the Senate.

We need to stop it. It's a travesty and a betrayal. Of Armenian-Americans. And of our troops.

Make no mistake: I'm on the Armenian side in the court of history. When the same resolution came up in years past, I supported it. The Armenian survivors - their descendants, at this point - deserve justice.

snip

Despite all that, we've got to kill this resolution. It's not the wording - but the timing.

Legislation similar to this has come up repeatedly in Congress, yet it's always been defeated - in 2000, because of pressure from the Clinton administration. But if the resolution passes the House and Senate now, the Turks plan to evict us from Incirlik airbase in southeastern Turkey, to halt our military over-flight privileges and to shut down the supply routes into northern Iraq.

That's what the Democrats are aiming at. This resolution isn't about justice for the Armenians. Not this time. It's a stunningly devious attempt to impede our war effort in Iraq and force premature troop withdrawals.

The Dems calculate that, without those flights and convoys, we won't be able to keep our troops adequately supplied. Key intelligence and strike missions would disappear.

Today a second print journalist picked up on the suspicious timing and desired results. Jed Babbin's column in Human Events, "Pelosi's Most Dangerous Ploy" follows the same argument for "slow bleed", but with different words.

Congressional Democrats anxious to force a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq are frustrated by their inability to muster a veto-proof majority for legislation that would establish a firm date for retreat. But what they cannot do directly they are now working hard to do indirectly.

snip

On October 11, Pelosi said, “While that may have been a long time ago, genocide is taking place now in Darfur, it did within recent memory in Rwanda, so as long as there is genocide there is need to speak out against it.”

But the resolution is gratuitous and Democrats’ timing suspicious. It’s gratuitous because, in 1981, President Reagan referred to the Armenian massacre as genocide in a proclamation commemorating the Nazi Holocaust.

Why, if Pelosi is so committed to ending genocide, aren’t she and Senate Democrat leaders doing something about the ongoing genocide in Darfur or the massacres of protesters in Burma?

Speaker Pelosi said, “This isn't about the Erdogan government. This is about the Ottoman Empire." Baloney.

The Democrat leadership could write and pass legislation insisting the UN intervene to save the living instead of using the memory of the dead to score political points. In neither case should we intervene militarily. But the lack of concern for ongoing mass murder proves the Democrats’ only purpose is to enrage the Turkish government and end their cooperation on Iraq.

Babbin suggests that Congress shows it's poker hand and real agenda because it doesn't address current genocides happening with effective action. Congress did pass a resolution in July 2004, labeling the action in Darfur genocide. That and a dime won't even get you a cup of coffee today, let alone intervention from the UN. So the key words here are "effective action".

And it is the lack of tangible and actionable results from a resolution condemning Turkey that is the biggest piece of evidence that this is just not about placating Armenians around the world.

Hopefully more MSM and radio talk show hosts will jump on the bandwagon to inform those who actually believe Congress gives a whit about Armenians... other than those in their voting district. Because, as we can tell with this resolution, they sure don't care about supplying our troops in the field.

More on Congressional "slow bleed" under banner of "genocide"

In 2000, Clinton convinced a Republican Congress to withdraw a similar resolution to condemn the Ottoman empire's 100 year ago actions as genocide, saying it would further inflame tensions in the Middle East. Congress, in a rare, wise moment, did so.

Will they today? Hard to say. While claiming "credibility" for human rights stance, what the action really does is further damage a Turkish/American relationship. Perhaps to the point to throw serious speedbumps into the Iraqi front of the WOT.

Weigh the results. Condemn a government power base no longer alive for century old behavior, or risk our soldiers supply lines, drive up the cost of oil, and put another wedge into the Iraqis quest for a free nation.

Seems simple to me. Yet lobbyists and a Dem Congress, desperate to have Iraq fail under the Bush admin, have their own agendas. Or, as the Dallas News op-ed, "Now is not the Time" puts it:

It is madness for Congress to throw gasoline on this fire. President Bush wisely opposes the bill, as do eight former secretaries of state. It would put vital U.S. national security interests at risk, for no substantive gain. Idealism has real-world consequences. Congress has not fully grasped what taking this morally correct but diplomatically imprudent stance could cost this nation and its military.

My disagreement is that I believe the desperate liberal Congress *fully* grasps their consequences. Pelosi has a history of supporting this resolutions past attempts, saying recently there is never a good time to acknowledge genocide. Yet, for their agenda, the timing now could not be better because of it's effect on Iraq.

"The U.S. and Turkey have a very strong relationship," she said. "It is based on mutual interest and I with all the respect in the world for the government of Turkey believe that our continued mutual interest will have us grow that relationship. This isn't about the Erdogan government [Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan], this is about the [former] Ottoman Empire."

Pelosi dismissed suggestions of any connection between the House resolution moving forward and Turkish government plans for a possible military incursion into northern Iraq against Kurdish rebels.

"Dismissed suggestions of any connection"??? The most civil comment I can say to such an attitude is that it's a reckless assumption for a Congressional leader while we have soldiers, depending upon this country's cooperation, in harm's way.

Read more on the Congressional "whys", the lobbyists influence, and the inanity of it all here.

Do Dems really want a pull out? Or just a Bush failure....

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's request for nearly $200 billion more to fund the Iraq war will not be approved unless it is linked to a plan to bring home U.S. combat troops by January 2009, the head of the House appropriations committee said on Tuesday.

Rep. David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, told a news conference his panel would not even consider the war funding request until early 2008, by which time he estimates funding for military operations will have run out. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently outlined the request to Congress.

snip

Obey said he would be more willing to consider the money request if it would also "establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009." That is when the next U.S. president would succeed Bush, who is not allowed to run for a third, four-year term.

Excerpts from Reuters article, "House Democrats urge Jan 2009 pullout".

Make no mistake. If the Dems were genuine in their desires for a troop pullout - knowing full well Bush will not give them and that the votes overriding a veto do not exist - they would just obligate to pull the troops out immediately upon a Dem taking possession of the WH.

But nooooo... not only will they not obligate to doing what they are trying to force Bush to do, they are putting the financial choke hold on our military in the interim. It is not about a troop pullout, which they can do on their own nickel. It is about who will take the blame for the ensuing failure and likely bloodbath. Dems want Bush to take the fall for their meddling into military strategy. Ain't gonna happen, folks.

In the meantime, Pelosi makes the morning humdrum talk show rounds, appearing on The View.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck took up the challenge no one else would... asking Pelosi why she was still demanding a pull out when the surge was apparently working, and the casualty numbers were down

“Now we’re seeing a reduction in those civilian deaths and giving them the space that they do need for that political change. That is happening. In my mind and I’m sure many others, that’s seen as a success.”

Pelosi appeared to struggle with the question before finding a winning line.

“Elisabeth, if I may, with all due respect, there are still a lot of people dying,” she said.

The Politico thinks this is a "winning line"???

Poll and pol truths.....

I'm not sure what is more ridiculous... USA Today's story by Susan Page that proclaims "Poll: Public not swayed by Petraeus". Or that fact that poll opinions on Iraqi progress and the Petraeus Report were solicited from 1010 self-admitted "I dunno" types.

Asked about mid way thru the questionaire "How closely are you following the news about Congressional testimony on the situation in Iraq by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker?".... 46% of the respondents were either "not at all" or "not too closely" following the Petraeus Report and Congressional political circus of questioning.

Add to that 46% of self-admitted uninformed, the largest percentage answered a whopping 40% of "somewhat closely".

In short, only 14%, or approximately 141 people, were even educationally qualified to have an opinion. That would be those who answered "very closely".

Lordy... the whole poll questionaire was all about the latest progress in Iraq. What does anyone expect when you ask the uninformed for an opinion? You get a reflection of a lot of uninformed people who don't care enough to even pay attention. Ho hum.... Read the actual poll results...

Unfortunately, a good percentage of these uninformed people tend to vote. And they vote for whomever got the most favorable media coverage in the run up to ballot time. sigh...

We are in deep shit here, folks.

But the facts aren't about to stop the agenda driven pols or their "scientist" supporters from flapping the gums, taking advantage of a very "cherry picked" headline. No doubt this poll's results will be quoted by many a partisan Congress person somehwere in the next week on various talking head shows as "proof positive" for something. It should be pointed as as proof positive of people are idiots. But noooo...

One "political scientist" quote included in the Page article:

"In terms of public opinion, it seems like Petraeus didn't really change anyone's mind," says Christian Grose, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University who studies the impact of the war on voting behavior. "He may have bought the president some time in Washington … but not in the public's eyes."

Uh... hard to change the public's minds if they don't watch or listen to the testimony, don't you think? And this an indication of Mr. Grose's "political scientific" analysis abilities? Woe....

And how about those poll telemarketers? They continue with questions, undaunted that the respondents admit they are clueless... huh?

"As you may know, George W. Bush is adopting General Petraeus’ recommendations for future troop levels in Iraq. Based on what you have heard or read about this plan, do you think General Petraeus’ plan calls for too few U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, the right amount, or too many U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq?

Too few troops to be withdrawn 36%
Right amount 43%
Too many troops to be withdrawn 9%
No opinion 13%


9. Still thinking about this plan, do you think General Petraeus’ plan calls for U.S. troops to be withdrawn too slowly from Iraq, withdrawals to occur at the right pace, or U.S. troops to be withdrawn too quickly from Iraq?

Troops to be withdrawn too slowly 33%
To occur at the right pace 42%
Troops to be withdrawn too quickly 12%
No opinion 13%

One would think the *first* question that should have been asked is "are you paying attention". If they answer no, then hang up and find somebody who has a clue, fer heavens sake! sigh..

I repeat.. we are in deep shit here, folks....

Then again, the anti-war pols aren't in much better shape here. When this brilliant group of informed citizens were asked who they trust more to deal with Iraq

Bush 27%
Democrats in Congress (yes... DEMOCRATS in Congress, not both parties Huh?) 35%
Neither 28%
Both 9%

Democrats in Congress don't have much to crow about - considering it's a 4+ or - error rate in a poll amongst those admittedly uneducated in the subject matter. Those who diplomatically chose "both", or those who figured they were all bozos, beat out the two choices... Bush or Democrats.

Then, of course, the piece de resistance... the 411+ comments to the USA Today article who knowledgeably weigh in post article... basing all their cyber comments on Susan Page's incomplete and biased summary of the poll. Reading most over it's obvious that the "somewhat paying attention" or "not paying attention" syndrome in America is widespread. Few bothered to read the actual poll and learn that most everyone involved was dumber than dirt on the issue.

I suppose "headline and sound byte educated" is better than not paying attention. Uhhh.. maybe not. They vote too.

Can you say "deep shit" one more time?

Aftermath of Petraeus/Crocker... the big picture

For my part, it was painful and frustrating watching Congressmen and women behave so embarrasingly rude and close minded while interrogating General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. If I spoke in that tone, or used that attitude to anyone, my mother would slap me silly as a spoiled, petulant and disrespectful child.

But there's no oversight, discipline - nay, even apologetic regret - from the elected elite. As is usual with most Congressional hearings, everyone bolts when they get their own 5 minutes of fame and debasement, ignore the responses, and go elsewhere... anywhere other than the most important place they could be. God forbid they learn anything else by hanging around for others questions and answers.

I truly felt for the two prisoners of the hearing... having to repeat over and over the same points. Points, facts and issues that continually fell on deaf, (or perhaps selective hearing) biased ears. Congress has made up their minds, and nothing that Petraeus and Crocker can say will alter it. After all, our nation's security and Iraq's success are overtly triaged well behind their quest for the WH in 2008.

This AM, one would think we'd wake up to sundry newspaper headlines and talking head shows debating the Congressional interrogation. But noooo... and I wasn't the only one to notice the MSM apparent ban on front page news of the event.

The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Page nailed it perfectly.

So the two men best qualified to give an honest and comprehensive account of events in Iraq have marched through Congress to say--and show--that the surge is working and America's goals are still within reach. Yet it's a sign of the U.S. political debate that their evidence of progress seemed to make the headlines in none of our leading news sources yesterday.

Instead, the "news" seems to be that General David Petraeus has recommended that some 5,000 U.S. troops can rotate out of Iraq by the end of this year, and that U.S. forces might be able to return to pre-surge levels by next July if progress continues. That's no small matter, but it obscures the larger message of the testimony by the General and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. To wit: The U.S. is gaining ground in Iraq--often in the least expected of ways.

Yesterday, as the event was hard to ignore by the talking heads, the big issue was Petraeus refusing to speculate whether or not the nation was "safer" because we were in Iraq. Of all the data and information imparted, this is all they can focus on? A vague opinion that only God himself would know???

Why everyone insists that these two men, or anyone for that matter, must be fortune tellers is beyond me. There isn't one person on the planet that can say with certainty, nor prove, what would have happened if we did NOT go into Iraq. That path in time is lost to all, and we only have the path we have.

Certainly, had we not gone into Iraq, and those pesky chemicals from Saddam that showed up in the UN this past few weeks were applied elsewhere in the States, GWB would have had hell to pay for doing nothing... just as his predecessors did nothing. What if all that material moved out of the country in convoys were still in the hands of an intact Saddam dictatorship? Do we have any assurance none of that would be in the hands of a still alive Zarqawi - a Jordanian resident of Iraq since the late 1990s?

Or perhaps you're one of those who believe the convoys were filled with the palace patio furniture...

But guessing the what ifs is neither here nor there. To answer Lob Ball Chris Matthews and Olbermann (who's occasionally amusing, but really should have stuck with sportscasting), we'll never really know if we're safer because we're in Iraq. But we sure as hell know we won't be safer if we leave. And that's the point the duo tried to sing loud and clear to a disrespectful, pompous Congress.

More from WJS

As Mr. Crocker notes, these developments "are neither measured in benchmarks nor visible to those far from Baghdad." It's a point that seems to have been missed by Democrats on the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, as well as by such Republicans as John Warner and Dick Lugar. Their collective view seems to be that Iraq is a lost cause because the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has failed to achieve "national reconciliation," on the grounds that a series of legislative benchmarks have still not been met.

We don't know anyone who opposes "national reconciliation," though perhaps only on Capitol Hill would it be measured by the quantity of legislation passed rather than the quality of life for ordinary Iraqis. (In the U.S., these measures tend to be inversely correlated.) Yet "reconciliation" isn't something that precedes basic security. It follows from it.

Perfectly put. No progress until reconciliation, but reconciliation follows security. And Iraqis' progress to reconciliation is not measured by approved legislation. By the very standards Congress wishes to apply, the US Congress itself is an abject failure.

And speaking of the failures of the US Congress... Hand in hand with WSJ's assessment of the political circus that passed for a hearing yesterday is Tony Blankley's overview of the "War on Terror". You know what that is... that battle we must wage for survival that liberals and naysayers classify as a "bumper sticker"?

Fact is, we cannot neatly separate Iraq from this so called non existant war - Iraq, where radical Islam terrorists dash about, inciting riots between sects in order to wage the larger political, media and diplomatic battle against the West. Iraq, where most disciples of Bin Laden and ilk converge to wage jihad.

The battle is larger, and Tony Blankley slaps the truth right in our faces...

If we in the United States can't agree on the nature and magnitude of the threat, we aren't likely to agree on the means of protecting ourselves from it. Until a majority can be convinced that we face real danger from radical Islam, virulent political strife in Washington will continue to delay the design and implementation of an effective, united national defense.

The entire op-ed by Mr. Blankley is stellar... including a global view of the enemy we face. How convenient it is as a liberal election campaign talking point to address only Bin Laden and Afghanistan/Pakistan as the enemy battlefield. But it's a far cry from reality.

Vancouver, WA antiwar types just don't like the idea of victory

The Portland fringe wackos on the other side of the Columbia River just can't handle the idea that Iraq just may actually succeed.

When their Vancouver, WA US Rep, Brian Baird (yes Dem), returned from Iraq this past trip, he had a totally different perspective than what was reflected by his constant "no" votes for supporting Iraq.

Baird said earlier Monday that he based his decision on private discussions with Iraqi, Iranian and Jordanian leaders and on two observations that he said had been infrequently debated: The chance of regional chaos, should neighboring nations' troops be drawn into the conflict, and the notion that talk of a U.S. pullout has Iraqi political players "retrenching" to maintain their power rather than seeking the common ground that would be needed for a stable government.

No shit, Sherlock. The more Congress, the media and anti war types scream about leaving, and insist that their view are the majority opinions (based on polls sampling 1000 at a time....) - the more the Iraqi pols figure they'd better cover their proverbial butts and begin picking sides for when the US deserts them to the radical terrorists. Not much incentive to create a government if they know the bad guys will be coming in, gunning for those that didn't aid a radical Islam takeover of the country.

But of course, this debate is "healthy" and not "un-American" per the nay sayers. Per the liberal handbook, actively thwarting our military's progress and goals is quintessential American patriotism .... even tho the results of their chest thumping and foot stomping is documented as reflecting otherwise.

Congressional history of meddling in war strategy

Charles Stevenson **(and more on him HERE) has written an article - "The Power to End War" - that historically proves, beyond a doubt, that a Congress who meddles in the CIC's back yard is little more than a coven of arrogant fools with way too much power, and too little foresight.

The point of his op-ed? Congress does indeed have the authority to stop, restrict, limit and control America's military legislatively, and recites more than a few instances in the past as proof. Among them?

FDR was limited to sending arms to nations under assault by Hitler until shortly before Pearl Harbor. Took 'em awhile to take that threat seriously, eh? Congress, in their micro vision, also had a law prohibiting sending draftees out of the Western Hemisphere. So after Peal Harbor, that little diddy had to be altered - redefining the "Western Hemisphere" - after war was declared. Imagine... having to change a law so that troops could be deployed in self-defense.

Congress limited troops distribution in Vietnam in the late 60's/early 70s. Again, binding our military's hands for a slow bleed loss before finally abandoning the S. Vietnamese completely to mass murders.

Troops sent to Lebanon by Reagan had their own Congressionally mandated "rules of engagement", and were only allowed to engage in self defense... sounds like NATO in Afghanistan. But perhaps they were at least allowed to fight at night, unlike the current NATO troops. Who knew there were business hours for warfare?? Only a bunch of legislative suits (UN or US) could come up with such nonsense.

Congress banned Clinton from military operations in Somalia and Rwanda... and I think we remember what happened there. Nice going, elected elite. Oddly enough... most of those who aided, by their mandated taboos and inaction, in the Rwandan genocide have their derrieres' still firmly planted in their cushy Congressional seats.

Mr. Stevenson's tone suggests he wrote this article with the intention of enlightening the nation to precedents, proving Congress possesses power to manage, prevent or end war. Apparently he fears if they do nothing, it "would undercut congressional claims to broad authority in wartime".

Is this a "use it, or lose it" mentality? I hardly think Congressional elitists forget they possess such power as they've tried desperately since assuming the majority status to do just what Mr. Stevenson wishes them to do. The fact is, a majority of the two bodies are not in lock step with the more drastic cut and run leadership. They cannot micromanage because they do not have the majority support to do so.

What is quite clear is Mr. Stevenson's personal opinion - from paragraph 7:

If lawmakers care about their institution -- and about the course of the war in Iraq and the US soldiers fighting there -- they should take whatever action majorities can support, even if those are only advisory measures rather than binding law. They can even impose conditions in one paragraph and allow the president to suspend the restriction by another. Even that is better than giving the president free rein.

Would Mr. Stevenson have pushed for the WWII Congress to do the same "reining in" of FDR during the heat of conflict? Would he have desired a "kinder, gentler" Congress making nice to Hitler at the same time an assertive Commander in Chief was waging war? Somehow I doubt it.

However for a guy with an agenda, he did more harm than help to his cause with the historical facts. Obviously Congress has a history proving

a: little foresight for threats to our national security,

b: their penchant to micromanage a war into defeat, and

c: general all-purpose meddling to not only our nation's detriment, but causing immense loss of life in other nations.

Terrorists to claim victory over British military...

The prediction I made in my July 11th post, "Radical Islam sees no obstacle to Caliphate" is apparently coming true for the British. It was then I pointed out that any withdrawal will be latched on to as "victory" by the terrorists. When they can drive out the world's most powerful military (or their British allies, it appears), they have no obstacles to their desired Sharia law state in the Middle East.

Charged with the battle against the anti-free-Iraq forces (including all stripes of human scum... foreigners, Saddam loyalists, and general all purpose Al Qaeda'esqe philosophists) in the south, "British officers believe they are facing a “humiliating” retreat under fire to Kuwait or the southern Iraqi port of Umm Qasr.

It appears that while new Brit PM Gordon agrees with Bush in that no withdrawal should take place before the Sept Petraeus accounting, the British soldiers are being pulled back to a single base in Basra to wait out the order for withdrawal.

Good going, guys.... it appears the terrorists are using this as a sign of victory. And the British officers are not one bit happy about it.

“I regret to say that the Basra experience is set to become a major blunder in terms of military history,” said a senior officer. “The insurgents are calling the shots . . . and in a worst-case scenario will chase us out of southern Iraq.”

Not only are the officers dismayed at this prospect, Steven Biddle (Council to CFR and an advisor to the US commander in Iraq) says this will exploited by Iran and the Mahdi Army.

“It will be a hard withdrawal. They want the image of a British defeat . . . It will be ugly and embarrassing,” he said.

Another comment from Mr. Biddle?

“They want to make it clear they have forced the British out. That means they’ll use car bombs, ambushes, RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] . . . and there will be a number of British casualties.”

The comments coincide with British military estimates that withdrawal could cost the lives of 10 to 15 soldiers.

And how does the Brit Ministry of Defence feel about it all?

“Although the militias are trying to claim credit for ‘driving us out’, they are failing.”

Failing? If the senior officer quoted above is correct, and the terrorists factions are "calling the shots" while the military is relocating to Basra, how can it be anything BUT a public victory for them? Me thinks the Defence Ministry needs a reality check.

The Clueless finally getting a clue?

"I have come to believe that calls for premature withdrawal may make it more difficult for Iraqis to solve their problems," Baird said in an interview. "If you have some guarantee of support, you have working space to reach out and involve the other side. If you think we are going to withdraw and chaos and civil war might ensue, then the decision is different.

"It's no longer 'Let's reach out,' but 'Let's prepare for the coming war.' That's a very different mind-set."

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird WA-D

Baird has also changed his tune on the Solomon'esque division of Iraq, the baby, into three secular portions.

And finally, the logic that has been escaping the MSM for so long, encapsulated in the following sage statement.

"When people say they want Iraqis to take over responsibility themselves, that's a reasonable expectation, but they neglect the context," he said. "We dismantled their government, their police force, their military, their border protection, their physical infrastructure, and we shut down countless businesses and left millions of people" unemployed.

"All of that happened just three years ago. We haven't been able to build Louisiana, and we aren't taking on sectarian fire."

No shit, Sherlock. One might also point out that the Iraqis have not had a gov't since 2003, as so many like to say. The current permanent govt officials have been in place less than two years.

Not to mention how ludicrous it is for the US Congress to be hurling barbs at the Iraq body of legislators about inefficiency and lack measureable success. Talk about pot-kettle ....

Kudos, Mr. Baird. I hope we find more of your strength in your party.

More Congressional idiocies, polls & misc

Just when you think you've seen an elected body behave as badly as possible, a new dawn hits. Now the omnipotent Congress intends to introduce a House bill by Barbara Lee (ho hum...) that will forbid the US from establishing permanent bases in Iraq.

Now that's bright. Why would a rational mind believe that Congress in 2007 is capable of determining the need for base locations in the future? And oh, BTW... foreign policy and command of troops is, and should remain, under control of the CIC.

But, it's all just part of their "hate Bush/isolate Bush/gain power in the WH again" strategy.

_______________________
UPDATE - JULY 26th, 2007

The bill overwhelmingly passed the House 399-24. Boehner (R-OH) voted for it, but had a few choice words on the absurdity of it all.

"Instead of wasting time with meaningless stunts and undermining our troops overseas through harmful rhetoric, members of Congress should be united and focused on preventing al Qaeda from establishing permanent bases in Iraq and using them to stage terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies," Boehner said.

"`No permanent bases' is already the policy of the United States, and there is no such thing as a `permanent' U.S. military base in foreign countries," Boehner added. "All U.S. military bases abroad are subject to cooperative agreements with the respective host countries. The agreements can be altered or eliminated at any time."

Yet another do-nothing, BS waste of time...
____________________________________________________


Bad part is, there appears to be considerable signs of success with the dreaded "surge". Tho the common citizen is hard pressed to hear many details about the operations as the MSM has managed to ignore most of it. I guess if it's not a leak that favors the terrorist bad guys, or hints of a potential GOP scandal, it just ain't worthy of reporting. Instead substitutes for surge "news" is merely the constant negative Dem quotes which the press delights in parroting daily.

Oh, and more good news/bad news for the anti-war types. It appears Pew Research Center will be releasing their latest int'l Muslim poll results. In a "polls are God, man!" world, this oughta shake 'em up too. It appears that the undying love and respect for Bin Ladin and other radical Islamic warefare tactics of jihad are falling out of favor by considerable percentage points worldwide. And it also appears that this decline in support for jihadi violence just might have some relation to the improving conditions of some of the nations' economies.

A wide ranging survey of international attitudes in 47 countries by the Pew Research Center also reported that in many of the countries where support for suicide attacks has declined, there has also has been decreasing support for al-Qaida leader Osama bin-Laden.

The 95-page survey found that surging economic growth in many developing countries has encouraged people in these countries to express satisfaction with their personal lives, family income and national conditions, said Andrew Kohut, the center's director.

Oh my... democracy and capitalism as a deterrent to radical Islam? Now where have I heard that before...

For All You Poll Worshippers...

My oh my... have out one little NYTs/CBS poll from 7-20/22-07, and the anti-war crowd starts crying foul.

Lavish some pity on the unwary reporter, Megan Thee, who was saddled with serving up this bad news to their traditionally liberal NYTs readership.

In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq.

Support had been at all time low in May, when only 35 percent of Americans said the United States’ involvement in Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out.

BUT... she tries to save the day for the anti-crowd nonetheless with this ensuing paragraph.

Still, the latest poll made clear that a two-thirds majority of Americans continue to say the war is going badly. However, the number of people who say the war is going “very badly” has fallen from 45 percent earlier in July to a current reading of 35 percent, and of those who say it is going well, 29 percent now describe it as “somewhat well” compared to 23 percent just last week.

Okay... the tides have temporarily turned away from the progressive liberal's cause. But Megan wants to make sure you know that even if some are seeing validity in an Iraq not run by radical Islam, that the quest to do so is still being done badly. Gotta have a "hate Bush" agenda in there somewhere. Like who has run a perfect war to date?

So sorry the military hasn't got a swift, perfect win up their sleeve to impress you and ilk, Megan. But urban warfare can't be anything but messy. Especially when the enemy is virtually undistinguishable visually from ordinary citizens... and that includes women and children.

Point is, with Megan and other MSM slapping us silly with gloom'n'doom daily, studiously avoiding prominent mentions of US coalition/Iraq forces successes, it's no surprise the 2/3rds think the war is going badly. But let's not confuse the issue with facts and logic.

Now, so that some of these numbers may boggle you further, here's a look at the respondees' beliefs not pointed out in this article... most specifically on Iraq and it's relationship to the WOT.

32% believe Iraq is a major part of the WOT. 14% think it's a minor part. For the public schooled/math challenged... that's 46% in this poll who think the battle in Iraq is related in some way to battling radical Islam (which not all are named AQ, BTW...) I guess some heard the bad guys loud and clear when they said Iraq was the central front in the WOT.

By contrast, most others ignore Bin Ladin's line drawn in the Iraqi sand. 46% think Iraq has nothing to do with the battle with radical Islam terrorists. Add the 8% who either don't know, don't think the question is applicable, or don't give a whit. 54% still think the enemy is only Bin Ladin and his merry men, and the not Caliphate ideology.

Considering a majority of participants in this poll think Iraq has nothing to do with battling radical Islamic terrorists, the upswing in support % by the respondees is nothing short of amazing. We've either got folks who can't hold a train of thought from one question to the next, or that "it's just a civil war, folks" BS isn't taking hold.

Ms. Thee's eyes are probably glazing over with the ever-building comments to her article. Truly those most laughable are the liberals who religiously spout poll results for leaving Iraq now as the absolute will of "the American people", now blustering indignantly while questioning the poll's authenticity. A poll, BTW, conducted by two of their own liberal toadies, to boot.

A few samples of the comments to the article - what an example of the mind power of the US voter...

3.July 23rd,
2007
3:33 pm This administration is so evil and insidious that they cynically use the terrorist threat as a tool to keep the public afraid and on their side. The terrible part is that there probably will be another attack at some point. No matter what happens though, I will never support Bush.

— Posted by Patricia Barry

HUH? The threat is merely a tool of the evil WH, but she believes there will be another attack? Heads up, Patricia... Bush ain't on the ballot in 2008.

Below... a group who thinks that the poll results might be rigged or something. Obviously Americans can't possibly be opting to consider striving for victory in Iraq...

11.July 23rd,
2007
3:47 pm These polls aren’t probing enough. I’d like to know how many of the people who believe the war is going well are Haliburton employees and stockholders. I’d like to know how many of the people who think the war is going well and include themselves as informed about the war get all of their “news” from Fox. I’d like to know how many of the people who think the war is going well have ever been scammed into buying beachfront property in Arizona.

— Posted by gadfly

Mata Musing: To which another had to do the predictable counter reply. Why am I reminded of two kids battling in from of Mom... "You did it... no YOU did it!"... sigh

38.July 23rd,
2007
4:21 pm I agree that these polls aren’t probing enough.

I’d like to know how many of the people who believe the war is going poorly are Hippies and Blame-America-Firsters (Hi, gadfly!). I’d like to know how many of the people who think the war is going poorly and include themselves as informed about the war get all of their “news” from Michael Moore and MoveOn. I’d like to know how many of the people who think the war is going poorly have ever been in the military, or know anyone currently serving, or have an agenda other than rabid Bush-hating.

— Posted by Dan

_______________________________________

Mata Musing: But the questioning of the poll's legitimacy doesn't stop there...

22.July 23rd,

2007
4:07 pm These types of polls show that American people do not answer based on independent thought. Rather, in general, they side with those who they feel loyalty to.

— Posted by Adam

______________________________

24.July 23rd,
2007
4:08 pm I am not surprised by the results—-a fickle public that is easily manipulated by the press. I won’t be surprised to read that the war in going beautifully as the Iowa Caucuses and primaries get closer.

The Republicans have already begun trying to torpedo the Democrats, and the press will side with Bush on the war.

— Posted by Marjorie Kearns

Mata Musing: Manipulative press, I buy. However Ms. Kearns shows she's pretty clueless on the sheer percentage of anti-Bush/anti-Iraq war coverage. Frankly, I can't remember a "press" being on the side of Bush since 911.

_______________________________________


Mata Musing: And this one below is a gem! I thought all those low/moderate income types were Dems??

87.July 23rd,
2007
5:06 pm It’s kind of sad to realize that all these low/ moderate income people support the Republican agenda with the feeling thay they are part of something bigger than their ordinary existence.
In truth, they are just head count.
Without them and the false inclusivness of religion and nationalism, the real Republicans could not protect the family fortunes.
Oh yeah, most importantly Bush and Cheney need you, the head count, to fight the war.
You can peek through the fence, but your never coming to the party.

— Posted by Bill Curtin

_______________________________________

Here's one of those "love the one you're with/party of tolerance" members unwittingly demonstrating his bias hatred for his fellow Americans based on state residency...

88.July 23rd,
2007
5:07 pm Wow, it’s amazing what kind of results you can end up with when you call 889 idiots in Kansas, Kentucky, North Dakota. Oh don’t be jealous Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Oklahoma. I’m sure they’ll get to you next time.

— Posted by Alex

____________________________________

Mata Musing: Lord B evidently doesn't realize that almost all the polls conducted by well-known, established pollsters (are based on 1000 responses or thereabouts. Including the polls he probably prefers to believe from Zogby, etal. I'd wager that never once has Lord B questioned the "credibility" of a poll that states most Americans are for a quick withdrawal with a similar sampling.

113.July 23rd,
2007
5:33 pm Honestly, Megan, your polling “story” is not news! And I don’t find it credible in the least for the New York Times to say that after sampling less than 900 people “42 percent of Americans said taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do.”

Try phoning those 900 individuals in the San Francisco/Bay Area or for that matter, Seattle, WA or for that matter Austin, TX or New York City, or anywhere Vermont! You’d get a much different percentage. I seriously question the credibility of this poll as I question the credibility of all these poles done by the NY Times.

I don’t find the New York Times polling credible enough to be able to assert figures that speak for the country as a whole. This is a non-story.

— Posted by Lord B

_____________________________________

Mata Musing: Saved my favorite for last... concur, 'cepting that "100%" bit. Don't agree with Bush on many issues, but I do on fighting radical Islam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

But yep... polls are BS. Even when they are swinging the same direction I believe.

70.July 23rd,
2007
4:52 pm I always laugh at these “polls”. How can they possibly be accurate? No one asked me what I think! Did they ask you? Doubtful… By the way, for the record, I support President Bush 100%!

— Posted by A. Murphy

Mata Musing: What's scary is, unlike 27% of this poll's respondees, most of the authors of these above comments probably not only vote, but consider themselves well educated on current issues...

Will cowardly Congress ignore yet another general on the ground?

Unlike Petraeus, Maj. General Rick Lynch didn't mince words about the situation in Iraq, nor the repercussions of abandoning Iraq before the new Iraqi government was ready (as opposed to willing to "take responsibility" for Iraq's security) to take over from US coalition troops.

Will Congress ignore yet another general on the ground merely to insure their political careers? Probably....

BAGHDAD, July 15 — An American general directing a major part of the offensive aimed at securing Baghdad said Sunday that it would take until next spring for the operation to succeed, and that an early American withdrawal would clear the way for “the enemy to come back” to areas now being cleared of insurgents.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commanding 15,000 American and about 7,000 Iraqi troops on Baghdad’s southern approaches, spoke more forcefully than any American commander to date in urging that the so-called troop surge ordered by President Bush continue into the spring of 2008. That would match the deadline of March 31 set by the Pentagon, which has said that limits on American troops available for deployment will force an end to the increase by then.

“It’s going to take us through the summer and fall to deny the enemy his sanctuaries” south of Baghdad, General Lynch said at a news briefing in the capital. “And then it’s going to take us through the first of the year and into the spring” to consolidate the gains now being made by the American offensive and to move enough Iraqi forces into the cleared areas to ensure that they remain so, he said.

The general spoke as momentum is gathering in Congress for an early withdrawal date for the 160,000 American troops, as well as an accelerated end to the troop buildup, which have increased American combat casualties in the past three months to the highest levels of the war. In renewed debate over the past week, Congressional opponents of the war have demanded a withdrawal deadline, with some proposing that Congress use its war-financing powers to end the troop increase much sooner, possibly this fall.

General Lynch, a blunt-spoken, cigar-smoking Ohio native who commands the Third Infantry Division, said that all the American troops that began an offensive south of Baghdad in mid-June were part of the five-month-old troop buildup, and that they were making “significant” gains in areas that were previously enemy sanctuaries. Pulling back before the job was completed, he said, would create “an environment where the enemy could come back and fill the void.”

He implied that an early withdrawal would amount to an abandonment of Iraqi civilians who he said had rallied in support of the American and Iraqi troops, and would leave the civilians exposed to renewed brutality by extremist groups. “When we go out there, the first question they ask is, ‘Are you staying?’ ” he said. “And the second question is, ‘How can we help?’ ” He added, “What we hear is, ‘We’ve had enough of people attacking our villages, attacking our homes, and attacking our children.’ ”

General Lynch said his troops had promised local people that they would stay in the areas they had taken from the extremists until enough Iraqi forces were available to take over, and said this had helped sustain “a groundswell” of feeling against the extremists. He said locals had pinpointed hide-outs of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an extremist group that claims to have ties to Osama bin Laden’s network, that had been used to send suicide bombers into Baghdad and they had helped troops locate 170 large arms caches. The general said the locals had started neighborhood patrol units called “Iraqi provincial volunteers” that supplied their own weapons and ammunition.

The general declined to be drawn into what he called “the big debate in Washington” over the war, saying American troops would continue to battle the enemy until ordered to do otherwise. But he made it clear that his sympathies were with the Iraqis in his battle area, covering an area about the size of West Virginia, mostly between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, that extends about 80 miles south of Baghdad and includes 4 of Iraq’s 18 provinces. The offensive he commands is part of a wider push by American and Iraqi forces in the areas surrounding Baghdad, and in the capital, that began in February.

“What they’re worried about is our leaving,” he said. “And our answer is, ‘We’re staying,’ because my order from the corps commander is that we don’t leave the battlespace until we can hand over to the Iraqi security forces.” To hold on to recent gains, he said, would require at least a third more Iraqi troops than he now has, and they would have to come from other battle areas, or from new units yet to complete their training. “Everybody wants things to happen overnight, and that’s not going to happen,” he said.

General Lynch’s outspoken approach contrasted with the more cautious remarks made recently by other senior American officers, including the top American commander here, Gen. David H. Petraeus. General Petraeus has said in recent interviews that the troop buildup has made substantial gains. But he has declined to say whether he will urge a continuation of it when he returns to Washington by mid-September to make a report on the war to President Bush and Congress that was made mandatory by war-financing legislation this spring.

General Lynch said he was “amazed” at the cooperation his troops were encountering in previously hostile areas. He cited the village of Al Taqa, near the Euphrates about 20 miles southwest of Baghdad, where four American soldiers were killed in an ambush on May 12 and three others were taken hostage. One of the hostages was later found dead, leaving two soldiers missing. Brig. Gen. Jim Huggins, a deputy to General Lynch, said an Iraqi commander in the area had told him on Saturday that women and children in the village had begun using plastic pipes to tap on streetlamps and other metal objects to warn when extremists were in the area planting roadside bombs and planning other attacks.

“The tapping,” General Huggins said, was a signal that “these people have had enough.”

General Lynch also challenged an argument often made by American lawmakers who want to end the military involvement here soon: that Iraqi troops have ducked much of the hard fighting, and often proved unreliable because of the strong sectarian influence exercised by the competition for power between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political factions.

“I don’t know,” he said, how American war critics had concluded that the new American-trained Iraqi Army was not up to the fight. “I find that professionally offensive,” he said, after noting that there were “many Iraqi heroes” of the fighting south of Baghdad. “They’re competent,” he said. “There’s just not enough of them.”

General Lynch said that he and other American commanders were worried that extremist groups under attack by the buildup might retaliate with a spectacular, focused attack on American troops aimed at tipping the argument in Washington in favor of withdrawal.

RADICAL ISLAM SEES NO OBSTACLE TO CALIPHATE

The above headline should be the lead the day after a cowardly, US Congress mandates withdrawal from Iraq by refusing funding for our military in Iraq. For indeed, the day the US admits with actions that we cannot halt the insidious, murderous thugs attempting to wretch control from the duly elected Iraqi government, AQ and ilk have no obstacles standing between them and their desired Muslim caliphate, and strict Sharia law over all denizens. After all, they can, and will, claim defeat of the most powerful nation in the world on all fronts - economically, militarily and political will and endurance.

The enemy is an ideology that has already proven they can hit our shores and kill thousands of civilians. Remember 911? Do you also remember that we were not in Afghanistan or Iraq then?

Or is it okay with all of you to trade a few 911's scattered here and there as a substitute for returning fire to the enemy now, where ever the battleground? And do you really believe that it will only be a "few" 911's in the future?

It is beyond me why Congress is so bent on repeating the complacent NIMBY attitudes displayed in the 80s and 90s, as the rise of Bin Laden, and others sanctioning his jihadist beliefs (do not believe the Dem perception that it is only AQ and Bin Ladin), increased unchecked and unaddressed. Instead of looking to the future of increased attacks, including on our own shores, we cut our military, and cut our foreign intel capabilities.

What is possibly more distressing than a Congress filled with selfish career politicians, with one eye on the polls and the other on the campaign funds, is the media. This would be the media that has spoon fed defeat to the masses for years, then loves to trot out their polls that reflect nothing but the doom and gloom they've served up. This would be the same "impartial, unbiased" media that addresses only the successes of the enemy, and reports shame on our successes by salaciously recounting trials of soldiers accused of murder and the activities at Abu Ghairab.

But as the 4th branch of power, who loves to say they are the gov't watchdog, they are missing the all important question... what happens when we abandon Iraq? To them it is as simple as stay, or go. They make no bones about their position in each and every story.... go is the only path.

Why oh why are they not holding politicians' feet to the fire about what happens after we leave? Occasionally someone asks. The pols answers are empty and without thoughtful substance... manifesting in an absurd assumption that belies historical actions of the enemy. "We are exacerbating the enemy by our presence in Iraq", they say (paraphrased).

Really?? Are we this stupid and gullible? By feeding up this this pat, assured answer,they expect us to believe that if we pull out of Iraq, the enemy will magically be pacified and leave us alone - content merely to devour only the Middle East. The media doesn't question this Pollyanna answer by politicians? Some watchdog they are....

Would a Middle East caliphate console any of us? Outside of the fact that it is the world's largest oil supply, thereby allowing powerful leverage to a brutal enemy and makes it an important reason to care... let's go for another. Would we like the Middle East to be nothing more than a huge Taliban/Afghanistan? Another staging ground for the future 911 terrorists?

Put it that way in the famous polls we live by, and I doubt the nation would be so "divided". Does any of your neighbors believe that if we leave Iraq, 911 will not be repeated in the future? Do they really believe that we don't remember Iraq and Afghanistan was not a war front when the twin towers fell?

Now what, Congress? We have no choice but to sit back and watch you bulldoze your agenda thru, and then live... or die... with the consequences. But not without a loud protest. And when you do succeed in handing defeat to the enemy, they will proclaim there is no power in the free world that can stop them from their caliphate. After all, our American elected Congressmen and women will have just proved it to them... and to the world.

Only a rare few media is asking the "aftermath" questions. In the last couple of days, I've posted a two stories, both citing the US Envoy to Iraq and the Iraqi FM warning our blind/deaf/self-serving Congress against a US pullout and the carnage to ensue. Today, I'll post another editorial from the Washington DC Examiner that goes a step further.

The editorial reminisces the parallels of Bush and Iraq to an isolated Lincoln, also besieged by a peace-at-all-costs Congress who was willing to split the nation to end the Civil War and remain popular. The DC Examiner points out the dire consequences of the bloodshed between the Shia/Sunni warring factions - echoing the matter of fact statement of the US envoy and Iraqi FM - reiterating the fact that radical Islam bases (Iran, AQ or any other radical/political Islam jihadist organization) will be staging grounds for assaults against infidels.

_______________________________________________

UPDATE: 7/12/07: WSJ OpinionJournal editorial, "Crocker & Petraeus speak some truths, if Senators are listening". Another no nonsense, accusation that Congress and their withdrawal quest thwarts legislative progress in Iraqi parliament, and that they are putting their own political butts over success in Iraq. Good to see it!

... it's becoming increasingly clear that the issue of reconciliation has become a smokescreen for American politicians who care for their own political fortunes far more than they do about the future of Iraq or the consequences of Iraq's collapse for U.S. interests in the Middle East.

_________________________________________________

Below, an extraordinarily bold op-ed (DC Examiner) in the beltway. This is about 2/3rds of the editorial. Read in entirety at the link above.

snip

Like Lincoln, who faced politicians in both parties demanding peace even at the price of permanently splitting the Union, President Bush now must contend with Democrats and Republicans who for whatever reason lack the will to remain firm in Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for example, unilaterally announced that the “war is lost” before most of the additional troops involved in the surge Bush authorized earlier this year had even arrived in Iraq.

Since then, more U.S. troops on the ground inevitably has meant more casualties, but only the willfully blind cannot see that the surge is making a huge and positive difference in our favor. D-Day also meant more casualties, but in the end it ensured freedom. That is why we cannot be swayed now from the task before us in Iraq.

To do anything less will ensure consequences more horrific than anything yet seen in that deeply wounded country. Shia and Sunni will shed each other’s blood with abandon. Turks and Kurds will struggle to the death, and al Qaeda will plant roots possibly lasting for centuries.

The effects on the region will be just as dire. Iraq will become the staging area for wave after wave of jihadist terrorism against Western Europe and the United States. Iran, with its nuclear ambitions, will likely emerge as the region’s dominant power, endangering the very existence of Israel.

Worse still will be the consequences for us here at home if the voices of withdrawal are heeded. Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad and the rest of the bloodthirsty servants of jihad have made their aim to destroy America at least as clear as Hitler made his aims in “Mein Kampf.” Why do the Neville Chamberlains always among us never learn the lesson that appeasement of a totalitarian monster is, as President Reagan said of the Soviets, simply bribing the alligator to eat you last.

Like many others, we have been harshly critical of Bush many times on other concerns. He may well be the loneliest man in Washington. But he is right on Iraq, and he deserves America’s support.

Yin & Yang over fate of Iraq - the sequel

It's now printed in the NYTs... front page. "U.S. Envoy Offer Grim Prediction on Iraq Pullout". Therefore it *must* be true for liberals, progressives, anti-war advocates and the election campaign, poll driven Congres, right? Is the NYTs not their god of truth?

Adding his voice to Zebari's (the Iraqi FM - see below post), Ryan Crocker (US Envoy to Iraq) also made his opinion clear - that despite the violence we see in Iraq today, and the admission of more loss if life by staying, the alternative of implementing the Congressional cut and run policy would be far worse.

In the interview, Mr. Crocker said he based his warning about what might happen if American troops left on the realities he has seen in the four months since he took up the Baghdad post, a knowledge of Iraq and its violent history dating back to a previous Baghdad posting more than 25 years ago, and lessons learned during an assignment in Beirut in the early 1980s. Then, he said, a “failure of imagination” made it impossible to foresee the extreme violence that enveloped Lebanon as it descended into civil war. He
added, “And I’m sure what will happen here exceeds my imagination.”

On the potential for worsening violence after an American withdrawal from Iraq, he said: “You have to look at what the consequences would be, and you look at those who say we could have bases elsewhere in the country. Well yes, we could, but we would have the prospect of American forces looking on while civilians by the thousands were slaughtered. Not a pretty prospect.”

And did this beacon of truth deter Harry Reid? Of course not...

Although Senator Warner said he was inclined to heed the president’s request to delay a vote, the Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid, of Nevada, said Monday afternoon that he would not wait. Indeed, hours later, the Senate began debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, the main military spending bill for the next budget year — and a vehicle for trying to force the administration to change its policy.

The bill calls for the military to balance the amount of time American troops spend overseas and on American soil, a measure that would limit troop deployments to Iraq.

Like their Dem Congressional peers in Vietnam history (of which far too many of those are STILL around in Congress....), they too will have blood on their hands for the aftermath they cause merely to appease poll numbers in a pre-election run up. Poll numbers that, BTW, reflect opinions formed after reading nothing but "failure" media reports for years. Of COURSE everyone thinks we're losing and it can't be won. That's all we've heard from these bozos for years.

Bush should stand with Australia and be firm on not leaving. If the Dems wish to inflict the afermath bloodshed on the Iraqis who've given their all to form a freely elected gov't and their own form of democracy, then it should happen under their watch and under their CIC. This President has not been bullied into change of course for political popularity yet.

And I hope he doesn't start now. I don't care if the GOP is ripped to shreds. Frankly, they ought to be. They are a poor alternative to the unthinkable progressives anyway.

Iraq Parliament making progress?

Uh... remember the highly disputed "surge", troop funding battles and the "it ain't working" pols? Well, the purpose of tightening security was to lessen pressure on a Parliament who was probably wondering if they'd even be in existence after the anti-war crowd succeeded in abandoning them to radical elements.

And, of course, one of the big issues was how to distribute the wealth of Iraqi oil.

Seems like they're making some progress. Result of less sectarian violence and the Aussie's assurance they weren't going to leave Iraq in the lurch? And where's the press on Iraq progress? Busy with Scooter, of course....

For months, Washington has pressed its ally al-Maliki to quickly pass the oil law and other pieces of legislation, considered vital to President Bush's attempts to end Iraq's turmoil - alongside a security crackdown by an increased U.S. military force.

But the law, which is to define the distribution of Iraq's oil wealth, has been tied up in bickering among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties in al-Maliki's deeply divided ruling coalition, frustrating U.S. officials as American support for the war wanes.

The prime minister announced Tuesday that his Cabinet had unanimously approved the oil draft and that the parliament would begin discussing it the following day. He called the bill "the most important law in Iraq."document.

Twenty-four of the Cabinet's 37 members were present for the vote; ministers from the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front and the Shiite Sadrist movement boycotted over separate political disputes with al-Maliki.

Still, despite the weakened coalition, the approval means parliament is likely to pass the measure. Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Cabinet approval came after amendments
prompted by the Accordance Front. He did not give details on the changes or the bill's final version.

read in entirety at link/headline above

There's more than numbers for those who want to understand

One thing I hope the decision-makers and the media do when they read the report is to not isolate the war in Iraq from the war on terror and al-Qaeda as a whole, and at the same time put in mind the difference between war and nation-building. The latter takes much more time than winning a military conflict but requires different tools.

The results so far have been astounding, and please allow me to say that I'm proud of the change in attitude many of my fellow Iraqis are showing. Even if numbers don't suggest so because the change is happening but it will take time-perhaps beyond September-before this change will show in numbers.

A nation is not a corporation and when we deal with a nation we are dealing with a society; a mass of people with ever changing hearts and minds and that's why numbers alone can't be enough to assess the situation—thoughtful insight and looking at the bigger image are also required.

excerpt by Omar, Iraq the Model

SEND THIS TO YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES!!!
CLICK HERE to find your legislators contact info!

Frankly I think Iraq the Model should be required reading daily for our Congress. But as an elitist body - consumed only with their own political careers and future, poll numbers and other popularity indicators - it seems doubtful they look past statistics to actual progress. Especially since they have made it abundantly clear that positive progress is the last thing they desire.

Omar doesn't stop with the plea to look at changes in humanity, but also addresses the effect the chicken little lying media has had on the Iraqi population for the past few years. Obviously they have contributed mightily to the slow progress with their ominous op-ed headlines masquerading as "news".

For over a year the media and many officials were spooking us with the exaggerated ghost of civil war. I wonder what they have to say now! I think their silence is more telling than anything they would've said.

You may hold your breath with the rest of us, Omar. Our "free press" ranks are filled with those who crave your defeat and failure because it makes for bigger press circulation, ad numbers and "gotcha Bush" propaganda.

But we can always hope... and those of us coddled here in America should be inspired by those like Omar and Mohammed who live at the heart of the battle for freedom in Baghdad.

Iraq Surge - it's all about selfish politicians & re-election

There's something inherently wrong with elected ones putting their careers in Congress over the fate of Iraq, stability in the Middle East, and our own security. To boot, statements made are so condescending they are mind boggling. Do they really think the voters memories are that short term???

i.e.....

Senator Lugar, the Indiana Republican and former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this week demanded a new strategy from the White House for Iraq. Meanwhile, the White House itself is quietly approaching disgruntled Republicans in the hope of coming up with a compromise Iraq solution for the fall.

Uh... don't help here. Isn't this "surge" a new strategy? And before this new strategy can even be given the opportunity to come to fruition, they are already demanding yet another "new strategy?

Ya just can't please some, can you now?

But it's no surprise this push for a fast, perceived win is nothing but political posturing for the 2008 election.

General Petraeus, who commands Multinational Forces Iraq, has explicitly lowered expectations in this regard, suggesting that the work of the surge will not be completed by September, that it may be too soon to make a judgment on the next strategy, and that he would need up to nine years to defeat the insurgency fully. One American officer familiar with early drafts of the assessments of the surge says that it will emphasize that Iraqi Security Forces are still at risk for infiltration, particularly if American soldiers withdraw.

For now, it appears that Republicans in Congress do not want to hear this sort of thing.

"People want to have some sense that this is not without end. Nixon beat McGovern because Nixon was leaving and McGovern wanted to surrender. Right now you have Bush saying we are not going to leave. If the president can stick the word ‘leaving' into the strategy, he will be fine," the president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, said Monday. "He cuts his problems in the Republican party in half, if people believe there will be fewer troops in six months than today."

Yep... all about votes and nothing to do with actually winning. Our Congress and their self-absorbed attitudes are despicable. As evidenced by historically low Congressional approval numbers, few of us commoners out here think the elitist in the beltway have nary a grip on reality. Albeit that low number includes those like myself - disgusted with their cut and run cowardice - combined with thew numbers on the opposing viewpoint - the anti-any-war advocates. Oddly enough, it's one of the few things we can all be united on.... Congress is as worthless as the UN, but infintely more dangerous.

T'would be nice to "take back the country"... the best way being to fire pretty much all of Congress and start over with fresh blood, sans obligations and career politician intentions. However all too many of us are led around by the nose, herded by an opinioned media and their influential headlines. So any new choices are likely to be as dismal as the players in the game now.

Perhaps the most disturbing element of this to me - the WH is apparently caving on their convictions, already willing to make Iraq and their future (as well as ours) the sacrificial lamb in order to boost GOP numbers. Feh... However I'm not the only one disturbed about this "throwing in the towel" 'tude.

These signs suggest General Petraeus may be walking into a collision with the president who chose him to command the theater in Iraq in January. "We have been asked to bleed for this," one American officer said on condition of anonymity. "And we think it's a good cause. But we have no intention of being screwed over by this president."

Mr. Kagan, who said he was still persuaded Mr. Bush supported the war, also warned that Mr. Bush could be choosing to assuage his party at the cost of his best general: "If the president, driven by his advisers or congressional confrere, try to find some way of defining victory down, well at some point he will have to make a decision about whether he is prepared to ignore the advice of the most talented commander who ever served under him."

Indeed. And as CIC, who has not fallen to the poll popularity contest heretofore, I would be sorely disappointed to see him do so at this late date, merely for votes.