This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Antiwar crowd

  • We’re winning the war at home, too (UPDATED)

    I got wind a few weeks ago that ANSWER was planning a protest in DC on March 15th. So my immediate reaction was to check the Gathering of Eagles forum – and they had already planned a counter-protest. Well, that was good news for me because protests always raise my traffic through here.

    Today, I went back to ANSWER’s website and there was no mention of the March event. Strange. So I went to GOE’s forum and lo and behold, ANSWER had cancelled their protest;

    Do you ever think that we’re spinning our wheels in fighting the America-hating moonbats? Well, consider this:

    A.N.S.W.E.R., MoveOn.org, and their affiliated purveyors of political puke have canceled their planned March 15th event! They are increasingly intimidated by the prospect of us and our allies confronting them in the streets wherever that might be, in Hometown, USA, or Washington, DC.

    Accordingly, we will not have the “Americans Standing Up” rally in DC on the weekend of March 15th, as there will be no opposition to confront, and you KNOW we love to intimidate those misguided souls and their anti-American leaders like Cindy Sheehan and George Soros!

    In a nutshell, WE ARE WINNING THE BATTLE! And we will win the war for the soul of America!

    Now you have to remember these clowns had anti-war protests in DC planned BEFORE 9-11, and now they’re canceling events during the war. They just might be getting it that they’re not accomplishing anything.

    Adam Kokesh and the IVAW haven’t gotten the news yet apparently because they still plan to have their John Kerry-style theatrics called Winter Soldier II. But it may just be that they’re is too lazy to update their websites. When I hear more, I’ll post more.

    UPDATE: Gathering of Eagles is planning on being in town for the Winter Soldier II thingie, so your blogger will be there, too. Good excuse to take a coupla days off from work. You up for it, Kate?

  • bin Laden and Reid; the view from the cave

    Much like Harry Reid, bin Laden is having problems accepting the fact that al Qaeda has lost Iraq. Writes Salah Nasrawi in the Washington Times;

    Osama bin Laden warned Iraq’s Sunni Arabs against fighting al Qaeda and promised to expand the terror group’s holy war to Israel in a new audiotape yesterday, threatening “blood for blood, destruction for destruction.”
    Most of the 56-minute tape dealt with Iraq, apparently al Qaeda’s latest attempt to keep supporters in Iraq unified at a time when the U.S. military claims to have al Qaeda’s Iraq branch on the run.

    Bradley Brooks, also in the Times, writes about the reality of the situation in Iraq that apparently eludes bin Laden;

    Iraq’s Interior Ministry spokesman said yesterday that 75 percent of al Qaeda in Iraq’s terrorist network were destroyed this year, but the top American commander in the country said the terror group remained his chief concern.
    Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf said the disruption of the terrorist network was a result of improvements in the Iraqi security forces, which he said had made strides in weeding out commanders and officers with ties to militias or who were involved in criminal activities.

    He also credited the rise of anti-al Qaeda in Iraq groups, mostly made up of Sunni fighters the Shi’ite-dominated government has cautiously begun to embrace. Additionally, an increase in American troops since June has been credited with pushing many militants out of Baghdad.

    Of, course bin Laden goes on to rave that he won’t given “even an inch” to the Jews in Palestine. How he’ll deny living room for Jews with his rapidly evaporating army is beyond me. But, like Harry Reid, bin Laden is getting his news from sycophants instead of investigating for himself. I’m sure the echo chamber inside that cave in Pakistan is just as misleading as the echo chamber in the halls of Congress.

    In the Washington Examiner, Nancy Pelosi admits that Democrats have been boneheads this year;

    It’s a painful irony for Democrats: In the space of a year, the Iraq war that was the source of party’s resurgence in Congress became the measure of its impotence.

    By the end of the 2007, a Congress controlled by Democrats for the first time since 1994 had an approval rating of only 25 percent, down from 40 percent last spring. Then the debate over the war split the party and cast shadows over other issues, spawning a series of legislative failures and losing confrontations with President Bush.

    What to do about Iraq has turned into a dissing match so far-reaching and nasty that Congress’s accomplishments are seen, even by some who run it, through the lens of their failure to override Bush and start bringing the troops home.

    “There is no question that the war in Iraq has eclipsed much of what we have done,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. “If you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well.”

    Now, if only Pelosi would wheel Reid out into the daylight.

  • Flatlander BDS in Vermont

    I lived in Saint Albans, Vermont for three years while I taught ROTC at the University of Vermont in Burlington. I actually thought about retiring there at one point. There were more cows than people, and the people were friendly and helpful. They were very civic minded (probably because the winter weather restricted travel most of the year-making us more dependent on our neighbors) and they took pride in their Town Meetings – it was a State holiday and it’s where most towns got their real political business done. Jim Jeffords was a real Republican then – his office sent me a letter while I was in the first war against Hussein. The only elected official to do so. Vermont was the perfect place to raise a family.

    What changed my mind, however, was the invasion of “flatlanders” from New York City. They started out settling in Burlington and they elected Bernie Sanders (a New York City flatlander) to mayor. Since 30% of the state lived in Chittenden County, they began to elect flatlanders to the legislature – and governor (Howard Dean is another New York City flatlander). I remember when they had a real Vermonter Republican governor and we got rebates on our state taxes every year. I remember that if you wanted your picture on your driver’s license, you had to go to the State Capitol because the DMV only had one camera.

    The State legislature was part-time and only paid $7000/year in wages – state politicians had to have a second job in the State in order to survive – which means they had to be regular joes part of the year and live with their legislation. That’s ended with the flatlander invasion, too.

    Michele Malkin reports that the flatlanders have brought Bush Derangement Syndrome to Vermont, too;

    Frustrated by the failure of the Dem leadership to carry through with impeachment, some Bush-haters in Brattleboro, Vermont want to subject President Bush and VP Cheney to arrest if they set foot in their town. Consider it sort of a do-it-yourself impeachment alternative:

    This movement in Vermont has been going on for more than a year. And the main instigator?

    [John] Nirenberg, a hearty New York City native and current resident of Brattelboro, Vermont….

    Another New York City flatlander transplant.

    This supposed warrant, is all based on HuffPo/Kos/DU talking points – all of which are intellectually vacant;

    Whereas George W. Bush has:

    1. Misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction;
    2. Misled the nation about ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda;
    3. Used these falsehoods to lead our nation into war unsupported by international law;
    4. Not told the truth about American policy with respect to the use of torture; and
    5. Has directed the government to engage in domestic spying, in direct contravention of U.S. law.

    Therefore, the voters of the town of Newfane ask that our representative to the U.S. House of Representatives file articles of impeachment to remove him from office.

    The Barre/Montpelier Times Argus highlights a glimmer of hope for sanity in Vermont;

    But support for it is far from universal, even in Vermont, where the state Senate voted earlier this year to impeach the president, anti-war rallies are regular occurrences and “Impeach Bush” bumper stickers are as common as snowshoes in February.

    “I would not be supportive of it,” said Stephen Steidle, a member of the town’s Selectboard. “It’s well outside of our ability. From my perspective, the Brattleboro Selectboard needs to focus on the town and the things that need to be done here.”

    Blutto at Jawa Report calls it treason;

    Without the will and wherewithal (and luck, or, perhaps, a beneficent Providence) to enforce the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers would have gone down in history as traitors to the Crown.

    Kurt’s little hissy fit is simply treason, without any noble purpose.

    Wyatt Earp at First In blames it on an maple syrup overdose. West Virginia Rebel on Right-thinking on the Left Coast wrote;

    Maybe Bush should visit the state. But he should speak to the state’s governor through Condi Rice, since apparently Vermont thinks it’s another country.

    When I lived there a decade and a half ago, Vermonters were suspicious of New Yorkers – it seems they had good reason.

  • Getting to sense

    The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board begins their “Review and Outlook” opinion piece this morning by comparing Congress to the famous Delta House;

    (more…)

  • Senile Reid denies his face has a nose

    According to Politico (h/t Crotchety Old Bastard) Harry Reid thinks it’s still 2006;

    But Reid, in a Monday press conference, ceded no ground.

    “The surge hasn’t accomplished its goals,” Reid said. “… We’re involved, still, in an intractable civil war.”

    A civil war, Harry? Really? Aside from the glaring statistics (like these from Gateway Pundit) you should catch the news from last week at Kuwait News Agency (h/t Dreams Into Lightening)?

    Leading Shiite cleric in Iraq Ali Sistani Tuesday banned the killing of Iraqis, particularly the Sunnis, and urged the Shiites to protect their brother Sunnis.

    Sistani bans the Iraqi blood in general the blood of Sunnis in particular. His announcement came during a meeting with a delegation from Sunni clerics from southern and northern Iraq.

    The clerics are visiting Najaf to participate in the first national conference for Ulemaa of Shiites and Sunnis.

    Sistani called on the Shiites to protect their Sunni brothers, according to Sheikh Khaled Al-Mulla, head of the authority of Ulemaa of Southern Iraq, noting that the Fatwa of Sistani would have positive impacts nationwide.
    “I am a servant of all Iraqis, there is no difference between a Sunni, a Shitte or a Kurd or a Christian,” Al-Mulla quoted Sistani as saying during the meeting.

    Sistani warned the Sunni clerics from the plans of the enemies to plant seeds of discord among the Iraqis.

    The visiting delegation voiced relief for the meeting and said they backed Sistani’s stance.

    Threats Watch explains the significance of Sistani’s fatwa;

    Western observers should note the significance of Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Among the world’s Shi’a, he is seen as a direct (and rational) competitor to Iran’s radical Ayatollah Khameini for the true leadership of the Shi’a ummah (community). Many in fact have already seen him as the true leader of the Shi’a. Unlike Khameini, Sistani sees room for democratic governance and a separation between the mosque and government.

    So, Sistani (al Sadr’s mentor, if anyone is keeping track) has forbidden Iraqis to kill each other – that kind of puts to rest the whole civil war thing, doesn’t it? I mean Murtha had to concede last week, for cripes sake. It’s as plain as the nose on your face, Harry.

    UPDATE: Brian Faughnan at The Weekly Standard Blog writes that Reid is prepared to cave on funding the war but Rollcall says the Democrats plan on using the short session to blackmail the Republicans into caving by holding their Christmas break hostage.

  • Final chapter of the Scott Thomas Beauchamp saga

    Franklin Foer has written the final chapter of the “Shock Troops” saga. Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee fame writes at Pajamas Media;

    It takes him fourteen pages, but Franklin Foer finally makes an admission regarding Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s posts in The New Republic.

    …in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.

    Foer’s opus begins 13 pages earlier and attempts the impossible feat of justifying his editorial leadership at The New Republic from the time period leading up to the publication of Beauchamp’s work to the fourteen-page long screed that culminated in the pained retraction above.

    It’s beyond me why it has taken this long – except that I know the Left has taken a page from the Clinton book. They wait a sufficiently long time hoping no one is paying attention, or sick and tired the whole thing, when they finally admit they were wr…uh…wr…uh…wr…uh…wrong.

    Spree at Wake Up America has the transcripts and background leading up to this point. Bloggers are declaring victory, once again. Of course, this blogger said it was BS back when it began – I took a personal interest when I found out it was my last company, A 1/18th Infantry, and wrote a piece that is still one of the highest traffic posts on this blog though it was written back in July. In August, Beuchamp recanted, but we already knew it was a fantasy because GI Jane posted an email she’d gotten from Beauchamp’s First Sergeant.

    Michele Malkin says “Buh-bye, Franklin Foer“. Jimbo at Black Five says “Please fire Foer“. DrewM at Ace of Spades says;

    I’ve read it all now and it’s a sad story about people who should have known better but were blinded by their faith in The Narrative. TNR was like Fox Mulder, they wanted to believe.

    Actually, it’s more than that. Everyone who had spent more than a day in the infantry was telling these guys they were wrong, but they’re so steeped in their elitist bullshit culture that tells them everything they need to know is in books, they disregarded people with actual experiences similar to Beauchamp’s fantasies.

    If they’d stopped and swallowed their pride for a moment and asked actual authorities, instead of the gumballs that tell them what they want to hear, they could have avoided this whole mess from the start. And apparently, according to Michele Malkin’s transcripts, Foer knew Beuachamp was lying back in August. By not apologizing back then, he needs to lose his job.

    Now Foer calls it “The Fog of War“, invoking Tzun Tzu as an excuse for his own journalistic failures. The last four months have had nothing to do with war, Franklin. You should have called the “Fog of Leftist Manipulation”.

    Patterico quotes Foer;

    When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that.

    Horseshit. Your magazine has no standards – especially if you’re blaming your writers for your own shortcomings. Beauchamp gave you exactly the stories you were looking for – you used him just like you used the entire military for sensationalist journalism. Maybe Mad or Cracked can use your brand of journalism.

    See Blue Crab Boulevard‘s “Fouteen Pages and Run For Cover” for more links and a perfect cartoon. Allahpundit writes;

    On the very first page, Foer introduces Beauchamp’s pieces as exercises in “how war distorts moral judgments.” That’s what they wanted to hear, that’s what they got. Their explanation for why they have to cut Beauchamp loose now: War distorts mental judgments, too. Perfect.

  • BDS at Columbia

    Just perusing the usual sources, I ran across an article at The Weekly Standard this afternoon by John McCormack entitled “Columbia’s Concern” about a group of professors at Columbia University who’ve expressed their “concern” about the tone of University President Bollinger when he had the opportunity to question the president of the Islamic Republic, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad back on September 24th. Their letter to the university president reads in part;

    3) The president’s address on the occasion of President Ahmadinejad‘s visit has sullied the reputation of the University with its strident tone, and has abetted a climate in which incendiary speech prevails over open debate. The president’s introductory remarks were not only uncivil and bad pedagogy, they allied the University with the Bush administration’s war in Iraq, a position anathema to many in the University community.

    4) In the name of the University, the president has publicly taken partisan political positions concerning the politics of the Middle East in particular, without apparent expertise in this area or consultation with faculty who teach and undertake research in this area. His conflation of his own political position with that of the University is unacceptable.

    At the New York Sun link is also a list of the numerous professors who signed this letter back on Novemebr 12th, in case anyone is interested. The real intellectual vacancy here is the line that accuses Bollinger of aligning with the Bush Administration simply by asking tough questions of the half-pint mahdi-worshipper. Excuse me?

    Well, over at the Huffington Post, Alan Dershowitz explains it;

    It all seems so inconsistent unless you understand what the real agenda is, and then everything becomes completely clear and totally consistent. The agenda is Israel. If you’re against Israel — as Matory, Foner, and their ilk are — then they want you to have complete freedom to speak against the Jewish state (as they certainly should and do). If, on the other hand, you’re perceived as pro-Israel (or pro-American, for that matter), then suddenly you have no right to free speech. It is so transparently cynical that I’m amazed that any reasonable person actually falls for it.

    Well, Alan, were not talking about reasonable people. Eric Foner is the guy who wrote “He’s the Worst Ever“, the Washington Post piece last December explaining why Leftist history professors want to impress upon us that President Bush is the worst president in our history – the article the Left drags out everytime they want to show us their authority for making such an idiotic claim – it ends with this line;

    It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history.

    McCormack writes that about 60 Columbia professors have come to Bollinger’s defense;

    Bollinger’s defenders appear to have most liberal foreign policy observers on their side, according to Andrew Grotto, a senior national security analyst at the left-wing Center for American Progress. Grotto says it’s simply a fact that Iran is “financing and cooperating” with “certain Shia insurgent groups” in Iraq. “I’m not aware of any serious debate that Iran is not meddling in Iraq,” he says.

    “Serious” is the operative word in that sentence, of course. Grotto is a critic of the Bush administration, but he says, “We need a serious debate about Iran policy, and we can’t have that unless we’re pretty straight on the facts.” Grotto also thinks it’s unproductive for people to argue that “if Bush says it, it must be false.”

    So I guess Columbia nor the entire Left are completely awash in BDS. But to simply state that criticism of the Islamic Republic should not be allowed because it is a political position is incredibly intellectually vacant. Has Foner or his fellow boneheads seen what goes on in Iraq and Iran? Or are they just being willfully blind.

  • Verdict first; trial afterwards

    The Democrats are scurrying trying to squeeze some bad news out of Iraq, but it doesn’t seem to be working for them. They’ve painted themselves in a corner that they can’t escape. George Bush proved to the Democrats and to al Qaeda that he won’t back down from them, but the autopsy of the anti-democracy movement in the US has begun. In the December 3rd edition of The Weekly Standard, Noemie Emery begins recounting quotes from last November in The Stab That Failed;

    “Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried, and that has already failed.” The surge was “a sad, ominous echo of something we’ve lived through in this country,” according to Illinois senator Richard Durbin. “I’m confident it will not work,” said John Kerry at a Senate hearing, a sentiment echoed by Barack Obama.

    Having Kerry’s seal of disapproval, coupled with Barack Obama, was almost like adding another 20,000 troops on the field, I suppose. Neither has been right about anything in the whole time they’ve been in the Senate.

    Gaius from Blue Crab Boulevard quotes the Financial Times’ Clive Crook calling the current Democrat situation a “trap”;

    Opposition to the war has been [Democrats’] chief theme. This still commands broad and strong support, of course, but the intensity could continue to fade. Republicans will seek opportunities to accuse Democrats of wanting the US to fail, or of wishing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory – and those charges will acquire some force if the view that the surge has worked takes hold. For Democrats, even putting the recent fall in violence in its correct context poses a political risk, because it can be portrayed as failing to recognise the military’s efforts and achievements. If the Republican presidential contenders have any sense, they will tread very carefully here – while hoping that Democrats fall into the trap and helping them to if the opportunity presents itself.

    On cue, LauraW at Ace of Spades records the Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum hand-wringing opinion piece about our stature in the world;

    Though I don’t especially want to perpetuate any stereotypes about the mainstream media, I have to say that this optimism is totally unwarranted. Not because things aren’t improving in Iraq — it seems they are, at least for the moment — but because the collateral damage inflicted by the war on America’s relationships with the rest of the world is a lot deeper and broader than most Americans have realized. It isn’t just that the Iraq war invigorated the anti-Americanism that has always been latent pretty much everywhere. What’s worse is the fact that — however it all comes out in the end, however successful Iraqi democracy is a decade from now — our conduct of the war has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence. However it all comes out, the price we’ve paid is too high.

    Probably not as high a price as we’ve paid for foreign policy failures like Somalia and Viet Nam, though. The reason we paid such a high price in Iraq is because everyone expected us to cut and run from Iraq like we’ve done nearly everywhere else in the last 60 years. the fact that there’s a peace conference scheduled in Annapolis with all of the major players would have been impossible last year at this time. President Bush has shown a determination to see the process in the Middle East continue – regardless of the chatter from the left…and the Right , by the way.

    And our “image” in the world is just that – our cosmetic appearance. However, it’s clear that our “image” is backed by stalwart military power and a decisive, unwaivering commander (for the time being). From Curt at Flopping Aces;

    Problem is, we have always been hated, and loved.  It was the same 50 years ago and will be the same 50 years in the future.  Some hate how successful we are.  Some hate Democracy.  Some hate our ideals.  You can count al-Qaeda in that group and the question is, should we care?

    Crotchety Old Bastard writes that the Democrat candidates are cutting and running from the cut and run strategy;

    This is not at all surprising to anyone with a brain.  Of course that eliminates almost all Democrats who constitute the most mindlessly uninformed voting block in history.  But they have decided to surrender from surrendering.  From no less than the New York Times:

    That’s not leadership – that’s politics. The two major candidates for leader of the free world are sticking their finger in the air to determine what they think. COB sums up;

    These people are so pathetic that it is beyond comprehension.  Having championed the cause of defeat while pandering to their leftist base, they now face the very real possibility that we (America) may actually win.  Win in spite of their treasonous undermining.

    The Daily Kooks and so on will raise all kinds of hell and then vote for them anyway.  Why?  Because they have the same level of principles as their socialist candidates.

    Don Surber writes what I’ve been saying all along – they refuse to compromise and still they don’t understand why Republicans want them to fail;

    It is the line of the day from Carolyn Lochhead of the San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington Bureau. Writing about the inability of a Democratic Congress to do anything this year, Lochhead wrote: “Bewildered Democrats have concluded that Republicans simply want them to fail.”

    Just like Democrats want our soldiers to fail in Iraq.

    Unlike our soldiers, Congressional Democrats have poor leaders. Instead of legislating and compromising, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi bull forward.

    At Western Hemisphere Policy Watch, the anonomous author detects leftist lip-licking among our allies’ diplomatic missions here in DC at the prospect of being able to once again fleece the American taxpayers when Democrats take over both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue next year;

    The international left can barely contain itself. The prospects of a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House too good to pass up or wait for the election results to confirm the outcome in November 2008. WHPW Editors have yet to notice too much of this sentiment in and about town with the locals (i.e., Washingtonians), but the foreign diplomatic corp is buzzing even in Europe.

    Take for example the following program being hosted by the leftist Chatham House in the U.K. (i.e., Royal Institute for International Affairs, uncle of the Council on Foreign Relations based in New York City) next month: America and Europe: From 9/11 to the 2008 Presidential Election with Guest Speaker James P. Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Chief Spokesman for the State Department and senior policy adviser to Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright (1997-2000). The program is described thusly:

    The speaker will reflect on European attitudes towards American foreign policy, the loss of American prestige in recent years, the role of foreign policy in the 2008 elections, and what a Democratic foreign policy would mean for the transatlantic partnership.

    And, in the meantime, since they can’t attack the war, they can’t attack the troops, they have no effect on our foreign policy so they still pursue impeachment of the policy maker, according to Michele Malkin;

    Democrat leaders might have thought they put the impeachment circus to rest on November 6. But as I noted, the nutroots are gearing up for a stage production of a Beltway impeachment play that’ll open after New Year’s–and over this Thanksgiving holiday, Denny K’s peeps have been pounding the I-drum and hounding Democrats over their reluctance to go with the impeachment flow.

    I guess they don’t figure that this little drama doesn’t hurt our “image” in the world a bit – or they don’t care.