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

Category: Terror War

  • War against terror; the 800 pound gorilla

    Washington Times’ Christina Bellantoni writes this morning how the Democrat presidential candidates are doing their best to make the war against terror a non-issue in the campaign;

    Six years after the September 11 attacks, the Democrats running for president have drastically different ways of addressing terrorism, with one calling the war on terror a “bumper-sticker slogan.”

    Most have avoided the phrase “war on terror” because Democratic primary voters consider it a Republican talking point, but Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois each have a version.

    “Here in New York, nobody needs to tell us that we are in a war against terrorists who seek to do us harm,” Mrs. Clinton said in a foreign-policy address in October.

    “The terrorists are at war with us,” Mr. Obama said in a major policy address last month.

    As the Democrats’ 2004 vice presidential nominee, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina criticized the Bush administration for making “the wrong judgment to turn the focus away from the war on terror and the people who attacked us.”

    The closest one to getting it right is Obama – yes, they are at war with us. Too bad we can go to war against them. Edwards, apparently, isn’t even on this planet. If we aren’t killing terrorists in Iraq, then who are we killing? Why is Iran supporting a force of international thugs with training and arms?

    If no one is going to hold the Democrats’ feet to the fire on this issue we might just get a president who ignores the threat – like we did before – and just pays off their political connections with taxpayer money. While the threat remains;

    Chertoff said the bin Laden tape refuted any notion that al-Qaeda had “lost interest” in attacking Americans on their own soil. “The enemy is not standing still; they are constantly revising their tactics and adapting their strategy and their capabilities,” he said.

    Iraq is the central front in the war against terrorists, the folks who want to kill us, whether Democrats want to admit to that or not. Americans are beginning to realize that the Democrats have been fooling us;

    The case for cutting and running from Iraq has become untenable in recent months not just substantively but politically as well. Polls show that Americans increasingly believe not only that the surge is working, but also that permanent success in Iraq is possible. So the more intelligent opponents of the war have shied away from the explicit defeatism of Senator Harry Reid’s statement earlier this year that the war is lost. Instead, Democrats like Senators Carl Levin and Jack Reed are seeking to triangulate between the strategy of General David Petraeus and a complete withdrawal. The armchair generals in the Capitol want to find a course that reduces U.S. forces in Iraq rapidly but that (so they claim) does not assure defeat. Triangulation may be harmless in symbolic matters of domestic politics, but it can be dangerous, even fatal, in war.

    And from the Times’ story, we can see John Edwards inability to formulate a strategy – Hell, he can’t even admit there’s a war;

    He adds in stump speeches an accusation that President Bush uses the “so-called ‘war on terror” ” as an excuse for “trampling on our Constitution, and most perversely, for ignoring the demands of the actual struggle that exists against terrorism.”

    Those three thousand people who died about 6 years ago from the moment I’m typing this, wouldn’t call this a “so-called war”. In fact, six years ago from this very money, I stood in the conference room of this very office watching a replay of the second plane hitting the tower, when a column of smoke rose from the Pentagon out the window of the conference room. It wasn’t a “so-called war” then nor is it now. If Democrats can’t formulate an effective strategy – like the one that has kept the rest of us safe in the last six years – they’re not living in the here-and-now. They’re still living in those decadent 90s – when security was the last thing on anyone’s mind – except bin Laden;

    “So there is a huge difference between the path of the kings, presidents and hypocritical Ulama (Islamic scholars) and the path of these noble young men,” like al-Shehri, bin Laden said. “The formers’ lot is to spoil and enjoy themselves whereas the latters’ lot is to destroy themselves for Allah’s Word to be Supreme.”

    “It remains for us to do our part. So I tell every young man among the youth of Islam: It is your duty to join the caravan (of martyrs) until the sufficiency is complete and the march to aid the High and Omnipotent continues,” he said.

    At the end of his speech, bin Laden also mentions the al-Qaida leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in an U.S. air strike there. Al-Zarqawi followed in the footsteps of al-Shehri and his brothers who “fulfilled their promises to God.”

    “And now it is our turn,” bin Laden says.

    Sounds like it wouldn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

  • How NOT to support the troops

    Stevie Wunder could see it from space. Anyone who remembers the late 60s and early 70s can spot the signs. The Left is gearing up to go after the troops since they can’t change the course of the war in Congress in hopes to discourage a new, young generation from considering a stint in the military.

    Of course, the early signs were that huge, stupid poster we all witnessed out in California or Oregon or some-damn-where hippies are allowed to be as stupid and smelly as they like that read “We support the troops when they kill their officers”. That was about as lame and intellectually vacant as anything the Left has ever written – encouraging soldiers to volunteer for life imprisonment.

    Last year, Joshua Sparling, an amputee soldier, was spat upon by an anti-war protester in DC. They can’t even be original sometimes.

    We’ve had politicians like Dick Durbin, John Murtha, John Kerry, John Edwards who have all taken turns slandering the troops and minimizing their sacrifice to this country. That sets us up for this coming weekend.

    Crotchety Old Bastard reports that the whole Haditha thing might be a complete fabrication from the NCIS investigators. (I never trusted that Mark Harmon anyway) It was the whole reason Murtha used on ABC to justify bringing the troops home (or redeploying them to Guam or some-damn-where).

    Robin at Chickenhawk Express has trolled the depths of the Democrat, anti-national security websites and assembled quotes from the various commenters that all seem to disparage General Petraeus – who, by the way is one of the troops. Notice his uniform? That’s how I recognize the troops whom I thank for their service around this town – regardless of their rank.

    Dadmanly goes after the ACLU and Time Magazine for blowing US committed atrocities out of proportion to turn the public against our sons and daughter.

    Gateway Pundit, Hang Right Politics’ Kathy and Michele Malkin catch MoveOn.org calling the good general a traitor. A traitor to what, for Pete’s sake? How utterly vacuous to call a general a traitor for merely reporting on the war. The same group of alleged people (alleged because I’m not sure they’re from this planet anymore) who were formed to prevent a president from being impeached on real and damning evidence has now stooped to calling a general a traitor BEFORE HE’S SPOKEN A WORD OF HIS REPORT!

    Pete Hegseth at The Weekly Standard reminds us that no general is an island;

    Let’s be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has ‘betrayed’ his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his ‘on the ground’ experience does not align with MoveOn.org’s political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America’s military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.

    General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is “cooking the books,” then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, ‘betray[ing] us.’

    They, the Left, just picked General Petraeus as their target because they think they did a clever job of misspelling his name so the sheep can bleat it in unison. They have trouble remembering stuff if doesn’t rhyme apparently. And he wears a uniform.

    The Left likes to use the Old Europe concept of generals being rich, connected royalty-types, when in fact the United States armed forces has always been made up of the kids in your neighborhood, the kids who played with your kids, the kids who delivered your newspaper (the VFW has put together a video on that very same subject). There’s no secret farm somewhere upon which are bred secret super-soldiers. They’re bred in your hometown. 

    Yeah, I see the Left getting ready for major league troop-bashing. Chickenhawk Express warned me to take my spit shield this weekend – I think I’ll bring my spit bat instead.

  • The surge comes to Washington

    The surge against the Administration has begun in earnest this week. Smelling a political defeat (instead of the military defeats they enjoy), the Democats have begun clinging to their only remaining weapons – deceit and the media. Eric Pfeifer in the Washington Times reports this morning that Joe Biden on Meet the Press yesterday, changed horses in midstream and declared that we need a date certain withdrawal;

    “I really respect him, but I think he’s dead flat wrong,” Mr. Biden said when asked about Gen. Petraeus’ expected recommendations. “I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops, and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out.”

    Mr. Biden voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq and previously advised against setting a specific timetable for the withdrawal of American forces.

    If he figures that Gen. Petraeus is wrong, why’d Biden vote for his confirmation a scant few months ago? Why is Biden bothering to listen to Petraeus?

    According to the Wall Street Journal’s Neil King and Greg Jaffe, Biden has been beseiged by reality, though;

    Senate Democrats, propelled by strong opposition to the war within their party, have tried for months to force a swifter withdrawal of U.S. forces. Those efforts won some Republican support, but not enough to overcome a presidential veto. Democrats now acknowledge there is little to no chance that enough moderate Republicans will defect to force a major change in strategy.

    “Unless we get 67 votes to override a veto there is nothing we can do to end this war,” said Sen. Joseph Biden, (D., Del.) on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    Nothing he can do except keep talking down the war. The Washington Times’ Sharon Behn reports that the troops in Iraq say the surge is working but only barely;

    Many U.S. soldiers on the ground in Baghdad caution that improved security in the capital city will last only as long as the surge. If American troops were to leave, they say, the insurgents could be back within hours.

    U.S. forces broke up insurgent networks and curtailed the ability of terrorists to strike, said Sgt. Gregory Rayho, 30, of the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the recipient of three Purple Hearts during his time in Iraq.

    His overall assessment is upbeat: “It is my opinion that the surge is working.”

    But he also said continued success in the Dora neighborhood of Baghdad, where his fellow soldiers patrol, depends on the continued presence of American troops. Should they be withdrawn, the future could be deadly.

    Why would the terrorists flow back into the void left by Americans? Is it because they anticipate a military victory? Of course not – they know the desparation of the situtation would only encourage the fifth columnists here in the US to whine and wring their hands and work against our victory with deception and lies.

    All for the sake of politics, according to Biden as quoted in the Washington Post;

    “What we have done is made it very difficult for Republicans to continue to hide on whether they agree with the president or not on Iraq,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), describing the political gain Democrats think they have achieved since the beginning of the year. “Whether or not they’ll take that final step and actually break by actually overriding a veto, if we ever get to that, or break by supporting very tough language that constricts his movement, remains to be seen.”

    They haven’t made it difficult for terrorists in Iraq or terrorists in Afghanistan, or terrorists in Guantanamo – they’ve made it difficult for Republicans in Washington.

    And the Iraqis are asking us to stay, asking us for more time (hardly sounds like an occupation by “crusaders” does it);

    Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told lawmakers Monday that Iraqi forces were not ready to take over security from the U.S. military across the country.

    “There have been tangible improvements in security in the recent period in Baghdad and the provinces but it is not enough,” he told parliament.

    “Despite the security improvement, we still need more efforts and time in order for our armed forces to be able to take over security in all Iraqi provinces from the multinational forces that helped us in a great way in fighting terrorism and outlaws.”

    But the Democrats would rather heed the advice of bin Laden (who sounds more like Al Gore everytime he broadcasts a new video, by the way) and leave the Middle East – the source of most of the world’s problems for decades. The Washington Post puts more emphasis on Ambassador Crocker’s report – because it will show less progress in the last three months;

    Yet despite the spotlight focused on what has become known as the Petraeus report, the testimony of the man sitting beside Petraeus at the witness table, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, may carry far more import for the long-term future of Iraq and the U.S. presence there. With little progress to recount in how the Iraqis have used the political “breathing space” that Bush promised his war strategy would create, Crocker’s inevitably more nuanced appeal for time and patience is likely to be the tougher sell.

    Yeah, cuz three months of piecing together a political solution for Iraq is an eternity, right? Petraeus will give the good news that the first part of the plan for Iraq is working - the part that needed to be accomplished first.

    According to Kamangir’s translation, the Democrats have already succeeded in emboldening the Iranians;

    The newly-assigned commander of the IRGC stated, “If the enemy succeeded in securing Iraq, they would definitely attack Iran. Fortunately, and thanks to Muslims of the region, they failed in this conspiracy.” He added “If they are not sure about their plans, that’s because of their failure in Iraq”. “The Islamic Iran has turned into a great regional power…and all world powers are anxious about the power of the Islamic Republic of Iran”

  • Washington Post; Petraeus “dismayed” and “disappointed”

    On the front internet page of the Washington Post this morning, it announces that General Petraeus is “dismayed” at the political state of Iraq. Click to the story and he changes from “dismayed” to “disappointed” in the Michael Abramowitz and Karen DeYoung (hereafter referred to as “the usual suspects”) story;

    In a preview of his report to Congress next week, Gen. David H. Petraeus yesterday expressed disappointment in the lack of progress toward political reconciliation in Iraq. Administration officials said he wants to return to Washington for another assessment in six months to allow more time for Iraqi politics to catch up with what Petraeus regards as rapidly improving security conditions.

    Writing to his troops, the top U.S. commander in Iraq emphasized that violence there had diminished in eight of the last 11 weeks. But while “many of us had hoped this summer would be a time of tangible political progress,” Petraeus said in a letter addressed to “Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Civilians” serving in Iraq that “it has not worked out as we had hoped.”

    Well, luckily for those of us who actually pay attention, the Washington Post includes a .pdf file of the actual letter – but the average reader will just let the usual suspects explain the story to them.

    The tone of the letter to his troops (I’ve uploaded the .pdf to this website in the event that WaPo takes the link down as is their wont) is quite different than that portayed in the usual suspect’s story. The letter praises the troops accomplishments over the last two months, and warns them of the difficulty in the days ahead – moreso than an expression of “dismay” or even “disappointment”.

    It appears that the Washington Post and specially these two usual suspects are worried that the reports we’re going to hear next week will change public opinion about the progress in this war, and the opinion of this President’s conduct of the war in particular, so they’re getting out ahead of the report to undermine the truth with their weasel words. 

  • Democrats’ cut-and-run strategy failing

    The Washington Post’s lead story this morning is General Petraeus’ impending recommendation of drawing down one combat brigade from Iraq. The Weisman/Wright written piece begins;

    Army Gen. David H. Petraeus has indicated a willingness to consider a drawdown of one brigade of between 3,500 and 4,500 U.S. troops from Iraq early next year, with more to follow over the next months based on conditions on the ground, according to a senior U.S. official.

    The pullouts would be contingent on the ability of U.S. and Iraqi forces to sustain what the administration heralds as recent gains in security and to make further gains in stabilizing Iraq. President Bush signaled the possibility of drawdowns after visiting Anbar province earlier this week. After meeting with Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, Bush said he was told that “if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces.”

    Meanwhile, the Democrats have hit a brickwall in their “redeployment” scheme – the Republican Administration. From the Washington Times’ S.A. Miller;

    Rank-and-file Democrats in Congress are criticizing the party’s leaders for allowing the White House to sap momentum from the antiwar movement during the August recess.

    “The White House is taking great advantage of the Democrats not pushing back,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, California Democrat and co-founder of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus.

    “We need bolder steps from the Democrats,” she said. “The people of this country are waiting for some leadership — some bold leadership — from the people that they elected to be the majority of the House and the Senate.”

    Um, the people also elected the Republican Administration, Ms Woolsey, because they don’t trust Democrats to protect us and the country. I don’t know what bolder steps you can take – neither does the Democrat Leadership as quoted by the Washington Post;

    “Clearly, we don’t have the numbers to override the president’s vetoes, as has been clearly demonstrated,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), “nor do we expect to for a long time.”

    Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said that he could drop his demand for a firm troop withdrawal next spring to win GOP votes. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this week that she will allow a vote on bipartisan troop legislation that, without requiring a redeployment, would force the administration to begin publicly planning for a withdrawal.

    So while the Democrats try to make the withdraw from Iraq look like their plan and their idea, the President is actually getting ahead of them and doing it without a time schedule from Congress and as the tactical situation permits – like he has planned to do all along. And the Democrats can’t keep their promise to force an immediate withdrawal of troops so they can have photos splashed across the front pages of newspaper of people climbing on the last helicopter out of the Baghdad Embassy in time for the election next Fall.

    But the Democrats are cherrypicking which reports they want to believe from WashTimes’ Miller;

    Democrats planned to seize upon other war studies presented this week that, in part, highlight failures of the fledgling Iraqi government, including a report on Iraqi security forces yesterday by an independent commission headed by retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, former U.S. commander in Europe.

    The report, however, did not support calls for a speedy troop withdrawal, which Democrats say would extract U.S. forces from a civil war and force the Iraqi government to take charge.

    Commission member John Hamre, president of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, told a House panel that continued U.S. military presence in Iraq safeguards the United States’ many strategic interests in the Middle East.

    “Every one of those interests would be seriously diminished if we have to crawl out or run out of Iraq,” he told the Armed Services Committee.

    The report concluded that Iraqi security forces would not be ready to police their country alone for at least 18 months. It recommended giving Iraqis a lead role but with substantial support and training by U.S. forces.

    Frederick Kagan in The Weekly Standard why the Post is cherrypicking and leaking the Jones report in “What the Jones Report Really Says“;

    SOME IN THE MEDIA have been remarkably quick to report on leaked copies of reports about Iraq before the average person has a chance to read them. There is a reason, apart from the usual journalistic desire to be first with a story. The reports often don’t say what the reporters want them to. First leaks about the National Intelligence Estimate and the report of the Government Accountability Office turned out to have painted them darker–and in the case of the NIE much darker–than they actually were. That is even more true of the report of Retired Marine General Jim Jones about the state of the Iraqi Security Forces. 

    Roy Blunt, House Minority Leader, farting in a hurricane, asked Democrats to be objective;

    House Minority Whip Roy Blunt urged members to take a “broad, objective look” at the reports, noting that the Jones report showed “that real progress is being made in raising a reliable Iraqi army.”

    “As Congress continues to take in these reports and evaluate the merit of their recommendations, we owe it to our men and women fighting abroad to take a broad, objective look at the conditions in the field, the progress they continue to make, and the ways we can come together as an institution to help — not hinder — their continued success,” said Mr. Blunt, Missouri Republican.

    Here’s the farting in a hurricane part;

    Democrats have attempted to discredit Gen. Petraeus ahead of his delivering the administration’s war assessment.

    Mrs. Woolsey said Gen. Petraeus’ report would be “packaged spin” from the White House, echoing early criticism of the report from Democratic leaders.

    Mr. McGovern also took a pre-emptive swipe at the progress reports.

    “What the president has to say doesn’t carry much water here,” Mr. McGovern said. “I don’t trust the president on this war any more. I know those are strong words. I just don’t [trust him].”

    Yeah, well, when you talk like that, Congressman, we don’t trust your party with the keys to the White House. The Post quotes McGovern as threatening a revolt from the hairy-armpit crowd;

    The new effort at compromise by the Democratic leadership could alienate liberals. “You may end up with a revolt from my wing of the party if we do something that doesn’t pass the smell test and, quite frankly, infuriates our constituents,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a firm opponent of the war.

    Sorry, but your constituents don’t have a say in a representative Republic – they voted for you they didn’t vote for the other 334 representives. They only get a voice once every two years – pity they continue to waste that vote on you, Mr. McGovern.

    The Purple Avenger at Ace of Spades reminds us that Petreus had not one nay vote for his confirmation. Including Schumer.

    COBDanny (who, by the way has first hand experience with General Petraeus’ briefings) says this won’t sit well with the peace-at-any-cost Left.

    Robin at Chickenhawk Express trolls the depths of Democrat.com and comes back with trophy gems like this;

    General BETRAYOUS told the conservanazi republikan caucus what he was going to report BEFORE HE EVEN WENT TO IRAQ. GEN. BETRAYOUS IS A CONSERVANAZI STOOGE THAT WANTS TO KEEP THE conservanazis IN POWER.

    Gateway Pundit explains their derangement – apparently 42% of Democrats think President Bush had something to do with the 9-11 plot.

    The NY Sun wants Petraeus to run for President. (h/t Micheal Goldfarb)

    Sweetness and Light catches Schumer’s edits to his anti-troops statement earlier in the week. Shades of Orwell’s Winston Smith.

    Wordsmith at Flopping Aces tempts the Paulians in with red meat.

  • Petraeus report dismissed as “Bush Report”

    When I made the public comment days after 9-11 that Democrats would end their charade of supporting this country and it’s national security in short order, I was criticized and chastised. But that’s why I made the comment, I suppose.

    Since then, we’ve had recorded incidences of wounded soldiers being spat upon, we’ve had Little Dick Durbin calling them SS Nazi camp guards, John Murtha calling them murderers, John Kerry telling us that the troops aren’t very smart, John Edwards calling the war against terrorism a bumper sticker phrase, Harry Reid told us the surge had failed before it even started…well, I could go on, but you get the idea.

    Today, the Washington Times’ S.A. Miller writes that they’ve already dismissed the upcoming Petraeus Report;

    Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus’ credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can’t be trusted.

    “The Bush report?” Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

    “We know what is going to be in it. It’s clear. I think the president’s trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious,” the Illinois Democrat said. “I expect the Bush report to say, ‘The surge is working. Let’s have more of the same.’ ”

    The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general’s briefing as the “Bush report.”

    Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Gen. Petraeus’ report was potentially compromised by the White House’s involvement in drafting it.

    Imagine that – the Executive Branch actually cooperated among the various agencies to produce a report to the Legislative Branch. Van Hollen, you’re an idiot. That’s what the Executive Branch should be doing. Where did you take civics? In space?

    Robin at Chickenhawk Express sums the current variation of BDS very well;

    These moveon morons can’t see anything because they are just totally consumed with hatred for President Bush and anything Republican. They are still smarting from President Bush’s trip to Iraq this week and the overwhelming support for the CIC demonstrated by the troops.

    Rather than embrace the report from the General that is up to his armpits in the situation in Iraq, the Dems would rather pick their own little reports to refer to. No surprise here – the reports they are banking on are less than optimistic. But why would we expect anything else from the Defeatocrats?

    Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive targets my favorite imbecile, Little Chuckie “the Putz” Schumer who says that the surge is working despite our troops;

    Wow Senator, really. So the Sunni tribes that before had either helped Al Qaeda, tolerated them, or were intimidated into submission by them, decided to fight them on their own. And somehow they chose to show this by allying themselves directly with us and conducting operations with US troops. Hmm go figure, but noted military expert Chuck Schumer wouldn’t just be running his mouth would he? Just standing on the Senate floor flappin’ his gums about things  he is woefully ignorant about, this is the US Senate for cripes sakes.

    And yet there he is, lying in that disgusting tone those collegial jagoffs use.

    Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters disputes “The Putz”;

    The Iraqis aren’t fooled. They named the police station after the man who masterminded the liberation of Ramadi from al-Qaeda. They named it after US Army Captain Travis Patriquin.

    Peejz at Right Voices points out that they haven’t read the darn thing yet, so who are they to judge?

    What is it that they do believe? Well, the GAO report, of course, and why is that? The Democratic Congress ensured that the report would deliver negative “grades” for the Iraqi government by asking the GAO to evaluate whether or not the benchmarks have been met now–just two months after the major combat operations of the surge began.

    And me? Well, the surge working was inevitable – the reason Iraqis are stepping up is they were certain that if the Democrats won the Congress last November, they’d pull US troops out – just like the Democrats told us they would. Instead, Bush sent more US troops – the Iraqis realize that our support to them isn’t hinged on political rhetoric, but genuine commitment. The reason they didn’t step up before was that they were pretty certain that Americans would cut and run and leave them hanging – like we’ve left Vietnamese, Somalians, Haitians, Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians and Cubans hanging. And the iraqi Shi’ites in 1991. Why would Iraqis commit to hanging thier own asses out after we’ve become famous worldwide as cut-and-runners?

    George Bush proved to them that the US is there to win despite the political climate here. And they responded in kind. The Iraqis cowboy’d up.

    My buddy, Kate, likes to quote Jose Marti; Man loves liberty, even if he does not know that he loves it. He is driven by it and flees from where it does not exist. We just needed to show the Iraqis that we are willing to point the way to liberty.

    And Gateway Pundit has all of the good news from Iraq in one neat, handy package. Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs posts pictures of US atrocities in response to Schumer.

    Curt at Flopping Aces, in “The New Democrat Offensive“, parses two articles from WaPo’s Karen Young on the subject “Iraq Army Unable to Take Over in a Year Report Says” and “Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq“. She might have a shred of credibility or at least the appearance of journalistic integrity if she’d ever written an article on the other side.

    Brings to mind Spiro Agnew’s comment about the “nattering nabobs of negativity” from our Viet Nam Era.

  • Malcontents focus on Europe

    I guess the terrorists haven’t taken time off from their escapades. There was a report of an attempted ETA attack in northern Spain on Sunday, the day after four ETA members were arrested. Monday, Denmark scooped up a couple of the sociopaths and today Germany halted an attack  still in the planning phase on the German Frankfurt Airport and US’ Ramstein Air Base. Swedish Muslims (what are they doing in Sweden, for Pete’s sake?) are gearing up for protests there. The Dutch have their own problems with Filipino communists as well as Muslims.

    So, I guess the Danes, Germans and Spanish are all in cahoots with Bush these days to spread the fear of terrorism. That’s what the Left says whenever a fledgling terrorist group gets scooped up here in the States – that the President is just trying to terrorize citizens into voting Republican (you’d think he’d get the timing a little better, though, and schedule the arrests near elections or something).

    Yeah, the terrorists are fairly incompetent – but look where they come from, look at their ideology. They’re living in the 7th Century, they’re witing for a 1200-year-old Imam to rise from his magic well – you can’t expect them to be very competent when they have the minds of childrens. Yeah, they’ll get successful occasionally and they’ll probably get better (luckily, the few who live to learn from their failures are in Guantanamo) it’s inevitable. That’s why it’s best to kill them before they get much better – in droves – in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    But Europeans should be asking themselves why they’re the targets when we all know that those radicals want to target the US. It might be because it’s too costly to strike the US these days. The terrorists can just bide their time until next fall when they might get a President of the US likely to strike at real targets and do real damage to their operations.

    The Europeans, in the meantime, have proven to be handwringers who won’t face the truth or the problems in their own countries. I suggest that their terror problems stem from their weak-kneed reactions to pointless protests and “youths” who burn cars in their streets.

    I dunno – just thinking outloud.

    Just ventured out on the net for the first time today and it seems everyone’s talking about the “homegrown” German terrorists;

    Ace of Spades;

    Once again terrorist attackers in the West are linked to Al Qaeda in Pakistan, and not, notably, Al Qaeda in Iraq. Our very tough, strong liberal war critics may argue this indicates that Al Qaeda in Iraq won’t “follow us home” if we stop fighting in Iraq, but this seems a farcical claim. Of course the Arab branch of Al Qaeda would be plotting against us at home were they not engaged with us more directly on what they consider more friendly ground.

    Baldilocks:

    Under the stating-the-obvious heading, the suspects are said to have a “profound hatred of U.S. citizens.”

    Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive;

    America-hating is a long popular pastime around the world, but we need to focus on any of these folks who decide to take action. I haven’t seen any indications that there has been an overall increase in terrorist acts around the world, outside of Iraq. In Iraq we have had the privilege to return thousands of America-hating fanatics back to room temp, and none of them are back home now bragging to their buddies about how coll it is to go Crusader hunting along the banks of the banks of the Euphrates.

    Pamela Geller from Atlas Shrugs:

    The three Islamic terrorists busted today in Germany fiercelynhate America. How long before Pelosi and Reid ask them to lunch?

    All stuff I’d say if I didn’t have to work so durn hard today.

  • ACLU; US Military hides attrocities in plain sight

    Yes, the AMERICAN Civil Libeties Union is busy bashing our troops again. I emphasized the AMERICAN part of their moniker because they’ve lost sight the fact that their stated purpose is to protect AMERICAN civil liberties, yet they want to interject themselves into Iraqi civil rights. From an Associated Press article;

    New documents released Tuesday regarding crimes committed by U.S. soldiers against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan detail a troubling pattern of troops failing to understand and follow the rules that govern interrogations and deadly actions.
     
    The documents, released by the American Civil Liberties Union ahead of a lawsuit, total nearly 10,000 pages of courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports about 22 incidents. They show repeated examples of soldiers believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens.

    Wow! 22 incidents and 10,000 pages – that’s a lot. And the government is hiding this from us? Well, no.

    In the suffocation, soldiers covered the man’s head with a sleeping bag, then wrapped his neck with an electrical cord for a “stress position” they insisted was an approved technique.

    Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer was convicted of negligent homicide in the death of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush following a January 2006 court-martial that received wide media attention due to possible CIA involvement in the interrogation.

    Oh, so he was convicted in a publicized court martial. That’s hardly being secretive.

    But even after his conviction, Welshofer insisted his actions were appropriate and standard, documents show.

    “The simple fact of the matter is interrogation is supposed to be stressful or you will get no information,” Welshofer wrote in a letter to the court asking for clemency. “To put it another way, an interrogation without stress is not an interrogation — it is a conversation.”

    Oh, I see it’s the government’s fault because this fellow didn’t know that the military frowned upon strangling people. I guess he’s the first person in history to deny culpability in his actions by appearing to not know the difference between right and wrong.

    Considered against recent cases, including soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division convicted of killing detainees in Samarra, Iraq, last year and the ongoing courts-martial of Marines accused of killing 24 civilians in Haditha, these new examples shed light on the frequency soldiers and Marines may disregard the rules of war.

    Nasrina Bargzie, an attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, said the documents also show that theres an abundance of information being withheld from public scrutiny.

    Oh, so how do I know about the incidents in Samarra and Haditha if this is all being witheld from public scrutiny WHILE THE INVESTIGATIONS AND TRIALS ARE ALL ONGOING, you pinheaded dorks? Oh, and by the way, most of the Marines in the Haditha incident have been cleared of wrong doing – I guess you just failed to mention that for the sake of space, huh?

    “The government has gone out of its way to hide the human cost of this war,” Bargzie said. Releasing the documents now “paints at least a part of that picture so people at least know what’s going on,” she said.

    They’ve gone out of their way? Then why are they releasing the documents to you? Seems they didn’t can’t go far enough out of their way, does it? ACLU must be having a fund drive this month and they can’t find any US citizens being abused so they’re fishing for some Iraqis to represent.