Custom Search

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Now they want to STAY at Gitmo? Gimme a freaking break!!!!

Short and sweet, now we have a Gitmo prisoner due for release, but NO, he and his lawyers are filing emergency motions to halt his release.

An inmate of Guantanamo Bay who spends 22 hours each day in an isolation cell is fighting for the right to stay in the notorious internment camp.

Ahmed Belbacha fears that he will be tortured or killed if the United States goes ahead with plans to return him to his native Algeria.

The Times has learnt that Mr Belbacha, who lived in Britain for three years, has filed an emergency motion at the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC asking for his transfer out of Guantanamo to be halted. He was cleared for release from Camp Delta in February and his lawyers believe that his return to Algerian custody is imminent.

Mr Belbacha says that if he returns to Algeria, he faces the threat of torture by security services and murder by Islamist terrorists.


Read the rest yourself, this is simply too ridiculous for me to even comment on.

More from the Jawa Report and NewsBusters and a hat tip to memeorandum for this.


Store.HBO.com


.

Critics of Bush Disappointed in Brown


In a perfect example of how insane people are these days, the fact that Gordon Brown understands the threats we face from violent, murdering extremists, disappoints people that do not like Bush.

Danger and National Security takes a backseat once again to Bush Derangement Syndrome, to these people.

Britain's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, has disappointed American and British critics of the war in Iraq by declaring that he believes the West is involved in a "generation-long battle" against radical Islamic terrorism, that he believes the American mission in Iraq is worthwhile, and that he will stand by President Bush in his efforts to promote democracy in Iraq and in the rest of the Middle East.

After a four-hour meeting yesterday, which followed a two-hour discussion with the president at Camp David over dinner Sunday night, Mr. Brown offered little encouragement to those who hoped that the departure of Prime Minister Blair from Downing Street would lead to a weakening of the traditional alliance between America and Britain or would diminish the British resolve in Iraq.

"We are at one in fighting the battle against terrorism, and that struggle is one that we will fight with determination and with resilience and right across the world," Mr. Brown said at a press conference at the presidential mountain retreat.

While repeating his aim to hand over to "the democratic government of Iraq" the administration of the southern Iraqi province that surrounds Basra when security conditions allow, Mr. Brown did not flinch from his support of Mr. Bush, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, or the wider war against terrorism.

Mr. Brown said it was "a great honor" to visit with Mr. Bush and "to be able to affirm and to celebrate the historic partnership of shared purpose between our two countries." The prime minister quoted Winston Churchill, who described the relationship between America and Britain as one of "the joint inheritance of liberty, a belief in opportunity for all, a belief in the dignity of every human being."

"Terrorism is not a cause, it is a crime, and it is a crime against humanity. And there should be no safe haven and no hiding place for those who practice terrorist violence or preach terrorist extremism," he said. "This is a battle for which we can give no quarter."

Mr. Brown ignored the political risk of associating himself with Mr. Bush Â-- who, along with the Iraq war, is immensely unpopular in Britain Â-- and showed that although his personal style is more earnest and less eager to please than that of his predecessor, he would not abandon Mr. Blair's steadfast support for the democratization of Iraq.


Read the rest...

America's most staunch ally, a partner in the war against terror and people were actively wishing the man would not work with the U.S. or understand the dangers we all face from Islamic extremists?

They have, indeed, lost their freaking minds.

.

AmericaBlog wins Most ridiculous moment award

I wish I had an award to give them for this, but just pointing it out is good enough.

AmericaBlog is claiming they achieved some sort of victory because they received an email from Home Depot stating they would not nor have they advertised on the Bill O'Reilly show... problem for AmericaBlog as well as the most ridiculous moment award is this:.... they weren't advertisers on the Bill O'Reilly show to begin with!!!!!

Big Win Aravosis!!! (Cracking up here) Even funnier yet, he calls it "breaking news". (Laughing even harder now)

Don Surber tops him:

Well, hell’s bells, I can top that. I will not advertise on Bill O’Reilly’s show or “Married … With Children.” How about them apples? Of course, I have never advertised on any TV show. But I get credit for that.


History on this whole laughable affair can be found here and here.

So, I am pleased to announce the "Most Ridiculous Moment Award" is presented to John Aravosis.

Well done John, you have just become the laughingstock of bloggers.

Others laughing at this:

Riehl World View and Macsmind.


The actual breaking news is that Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox, is seen winning in thier bid for Dow Jones.

Rupert Murdoch appeared today to have gained enough support from the deeply divided Bancroft family to buy Dow Jones & Company, publisher of The Wall Street Journal, for $5 billion.


I guess Fox and O'Reilly got the last laugh after all, huh AmericaBlog?

More from Wall Street Journal and CNBC.

More reactions about Rupert Murdoch and Dow can be found at memeorandum.



LinkShare  Referral  Prg



.

O’Hanlon: "Fight with facts, not innuendo, I say!”

Politico discusses the firestorm that the NYT op-ed piece, written by Michael O'Hanlon and Kennth Pollack, today.

We showed you quite a few examples of that firestorm yesterday and again this morning ourselves.

From Politico today:

Brookings scholars Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack used the most established of platforms, the Op-Ed page of The New York Times, to offer the most politically incorrect of arguments on Monday: “We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”

Their 1,343-word piece, “A War We Just Might Win,” instantly provoked a more furious ideological shootout than has been sparked by any recent development on the battleground or action by the Bush administration.


(Continued below the advertisement)

Netflix, Inc.


(Continued from above)


Personally I read pieces that called them lapdogs to the administration or mouthpieces to the administration, myself, and Politico points out that they have indeed been critical of the administration in the past as well as stating their credentials.

And partly, the controversy boils down to a matter of identity: Both men have been central combatants in ideological debates over the war since before it started – both wrote supportively of the idea of toppling Saddam Hussein but have been deeply critical of administration tactics and strategy, including the initial Pentagon decision to pare down the U.S. invasion force.

The trip that provoked their new article lasted eight days, and was set up by the U.S. military. It was O’Hanlon’s second visit to Iraq, and Pollack’s third.

Who are they? O’Hanlon, a Brookings senior fellow in Foreign Policy Studies who is one of the nation’s leading civilian authorities on military matters, spearheads the Iraq Index, a continuously updated, 65-page quantification of reconstruction and security in post-Saddam Iraq, from the number of registered cars to the number of Iraqis kidnapped per day.

O'Hanlon, who is the brother-in-law of Politico.com editor-in-chief John F. Harris, testified on Iraq's future before a House Armed Services subcommittee Tuesday afternoon, where retired Gen. Jack Keane, one of the main proponents and architects of the surge initiative, lauded him as "an objective, astute observer."


But O'Hanlon's last words on the Politico piece struck home:

O’Hanlon was unruffled. “I welcome the firestorm,” he said by e-mail. “Hopefully more facts will get into the debate. I know we don't have any monopoly on reaching bottom-line policy judgments. I just hope I don't get [people] calling me a propagandist for the administration. Fight with facts, not innuendo, I say!”


For those that keep trying to paint the Brooking Institute as not liberal: Here is what Wikipedia says about it:

Brookings, traditionally considered liberal,is devoted to public service through research and education in the social sciences, particularly in economics, government, and foreign policy.Its stated principal purpose is "to aid in the development of sound public policies and to promote public understanding of issues of national importance."

Since Wiki is not always the best source, below is another source with information on the Brookings Institute.

The organization is currently headed by Strobe Talbott, a former Clinton administration appointee in the U.S. State Department. Carlos Pascual, the former Ambassador to Ukraine, serves as Vice President of Brookings and as the Director of the Foreign Policy Studies program.


Here is the site for those that want to see what it is all about for yourselves.

From DiscoverTheNetWorks.Org, a guide to the political left, here is their description:

Leading Democratic Think-Tank in Washington, D.C.

The Brookings Institution defines itself as "a private nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and innovative policy solutions." Professing to be without a political agenda, it aims to "provide the highest quality research, policy recommendations, and analysis on the full range of public policy issues … for decision-makers in the U.S. and abroad on the full range of challenges facing an increasingly interdependent world."

The Brookings Institution is an outgrowth of the Institute for Government Research (IGR), which was founded in 1916 to analyze public policy issues at the national level. In 1922 and 1924, one of IGR's supporters, St. Louis businessman and philanthropist Robert Somers Brookings (1850-1932), established two sister organizations: the Institute of Economics and a graduate school (as part of Washington University) bearing his name. In 1927, the three entities merged to form the Brookings Institution. Its first Board included Mr. Brookings; Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter; Charles W. Eliot, former President of Harvard; Fredric Delano, uncle of future President Franklin Delano Roosevelt; Herbert Hoover; and Frank Goodnow, who would become the first Chairman of the IGR's Board of Trustees and President of Johns Hopkins University.

Mr. Brookings officially opposed FDR's expansion of the welfare state during the Great Depression, and then-Brookings Institution President Harold Moulton concluded that the National Recovery Administration had actually impeded recovery. The Institution assisted in the planning of World War II, providing the government with manpower estimates and price control data; it also offered suggestions on the most efficient way to carry out the rebuilding of Europe after the War.

The Brookings Institution's capacity to shape government policy increased dramatically in the 1950s, when it received substantial grants from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. President Robert Calkins reorganized the Institution into Economic Studies, Government Studies, and Foreign Policy Studies programs, and by the mid-1960s Brookings was conducting nearly 100 research projects per year for the government as well as for private industry, making it the preeminent source of research in the world.

Under the Nixon administration, Brookings' relationship with the White House deteriorated, largely because many of the Brookings staff were Democrats who identified with the policies of the Great Society, opposed the Vietnam War, and advocated America's accelerated or unilateral nuclear disarmament. Brookings became part of the Watergate investigation as a result of Nixon's decision to authorize a break-in to the Institution's headquarters in 1971, in connection with the Pentagon Papers leak; He also ordered the FBI to wiretap the telephone of Morton Halperin, a Brookings Fellow.

Brookings tipped back to the political right in the 1970s and 80s, as evidenced by the presence of longtime Republicans like Stephen Hess (one-time speechwriter for President Eisenhower) and Roger Semerad (former Assistant Secretary of Labor under Ronald Reagan) in key positions. Brookings' then-President, Bruce MacLaury, was Under-Secretary of the Treasury for President Nixon.

Brookings has in recent years shifted back to the political left, particularly in its foreign policy positions. Condemning President Bush's Iraq policy, in April 2004 Brookings hosted Senator Edward Kennedy in an event aimed at discrediting the Iraq War. As the 2004 Presidential election neared, the Institution's Fellows endorsed Democratic candidate John Kerry's call for a "more sensitively" fought war on terrorism. They have also called for the American government to permit Islamic radicals like Tariq Ramadan to enter the U.S. with work visas.

Brookings has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including the Global Governance Initiative, which aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government, based in part on economic and Third World considerations. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petition opposing President Bush's tax cuts in 2003.

The research topics addressed by the Brookings Institution include: Business, Cities and Suburbs, Defense, Economics, Education, Environment and Energy, Governance, Politics, Science and Technology, and Social Policy.

The Brookings Institution's President since 2002 has been Strobe Talbott, who served as President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State. The Board of Trustees features Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of John Kerry; Zoe Baird, failed Clinton appointee for Attorney General; and Lawrence Summers, former Harvard President and U.S. Treasury Secretary.

Brookings income derives from a wide variety of sources, including seminars run for government and businesses, and a vast array of corporate and government contracts. In recent years, Brookings has received grants from the Aetna Foundation; the American Express Foundation; the Open Society Institute; the Fannie Mae Foundation; the Carnegie Corporation of New York; the Ford Foundation; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the MacArthur Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Rockefeller Brothers Fund; the AT&T Foundation, the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Vira I. Heinz Endowment, the Heinz Family Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Turner Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, and the Verizon Foundation. In 2004, grants to the Brookings Institutions totaled $32,107,359.

Also as of 2004, the Brookings Institution's net assets were valued at $248,205,816.


So, argue facts but for those that cannot acknowledge any Good News From Iraq and take every single piece that states that good news and tries to spin it as "administration mouthpiece works", please, get over it.

To deny that this group is slightly if not more so, to the "left" than not, is to completely destroy your own credibility.

It just makes you look silly as well as shows you as a liar.

.

New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner John Burns on Iraq

I simply want to point your attention to an interview done by Hugh Hewitt for those that have not seen it yet.

A couple of teasers:

HH: How long have you been back in Baghdad?

JB: About three months. We take long rotations here, and then we reward ourselves with nice long breaks back home in the United States, or in my case, in the United Kingdom.

HH: Well, there are three things I want to cover with you today, Mr. Burns. Where are we now in Iraq, in your view? Secondly, where Iraq might be in a couple of years, depending on a couple of developments that the United States might enact? And then finally, in hindsight, what we did right and what we did wrong over the last four years. But let’s start with what you see in Baghdad today. Is the surge working?

JB: I think there’s no doubt that those extra 30,000 American troops are making a difference. They’re definitely making a difference in Baghdad. Some of the crucial indicators of the war, metrics as the American command calls them, have moved in a positive direction from the American, and dare I say the Iraqi point of view, fewer car bombs, fewer bombs in general, lower levels of civilian casualties, quite remarkably lower levels of civilian casualties. And add in what they call the Baghdad belts, that’s to say the approaches to Baghdad, particularly in Diyala Province to the northeast, to in the area south of Baghdad in Babil Province, and to the west of Baghdad in Anbar Province, there’s no doubt that al Qaeda has taken something of a beating.

[...]

HH: Mr. Burns, some anti-war critics have begun to attack General Petraeus as being not credible and not trustworthy for a variety of reasons, one he gave me an interview, he’s given other people interviews that they consider to be partisan, whatever. Do you believe he’ll be as trustworthy as anyone else speaking on the war?

JB: I do. I can only speak for my own personal experience, and there definitely was in the, in the Vietnam war, there was a failure of senior generals and the joint chiefs of staff to speak frankly about the Vietnam war early enough. There has definitely been some Pollyannaish character to the reporting of some of the generals here over the past three or four years, although in my own view, knowing virtually all of those generals, I don’t think that that was out of fealty to the White House or Mr. Rumsfeld. It’s a difficult and complex question which we really don’t have time to discuss here. But to speak of General Petraeus in particular, General Petraeus is 54 years old. Let’s look at this just simply as a matter of career, beyond the matter of principle on which I think we could also say we could expect him to make a forthright report. At 54, General Petraeus is a young four star general, who could expect to have as much as ten more years in the military. And he has every reason to give a forthright and frank report on this. And he says, and he says this insistently, that he will give a forthright, straightforward report, and if the people in Washington don’t like it, then they can find somebody else who will give his forthright, straightforward report. He is not without options on a personal basis, General Petraeus, and I think he, from everything I’ve learned from him, sees both a professional, in the first place, and personal imperative to state the truth as he sees it about this war.


Thats enough of a teaser, read the whole interview with John Burns over at Townhall.

His words do reinforce the latest good news coming out of Iraq by those that have just retirned from there.

Shown here and here.

Lets not forget, also, that Move America forward has tens of thousands of people taking to the streets traveling across our country and stepping right up to Capitol Hill in support of our troops and for General Petraeus and the September report he will be giving.

As well as the Vets For Freedom following that.

September promises to be an interesting month.

Also, of interest: U.S. Toll is the lowest it has been in 8 months and President Bush's choice to head the military Joint Chiefs of Staff said Tuesday an increase of troops in Iraq is giving commanders the forces needed to improve security there.

Netflix, Inc.



.

Will Iraq/War on Terror or Domestic Issues Define 2008 Elections?

I have read on a consistent basis that the Democratic politicians plan on using Iraq and Terrorism and the publics dissatisfaction with this, as the key issue in the 2008 elections, but according to one poll, Gallup, that might not be the best plan of action for the far left pundits nor the Democratic presidential candidates.





Unless there is a major shift in Bush administration policy on the war in Iraq between now and next summer, that issue is likely to dominate the 2008 presidential campaign. But the poll finds none of the major candidates standing out from the others on this issue. Aside from Romney and Thompson, the five other candidates score between 50% and 55% on this measure of public confidence in their ability to choose the proper course of action in Iraq. The failure of the Democratic candidates to score higher confidence levels on Iraq is significant given the fact that a substantial majority of Americans say that the war -- initiated and supported by a Republican administration -- is a mistake, and that a majority have opposed the Bush administration surge that has been supported by both Giuliani, and in particular, McCain.


(Continued below the advertisement)

LinkShare  Referral  Prg


(Continued from above)

The public usually views the Republican Party as better on terrorism than the Democratic Party, so it is no surprise to see Giuliani and McCain well ahead of the other candidates in public confidence on this issue. Sixty-nine percent of Americans have at least a fair amount of confidence in Giuliani, widely hailed for his response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks while serving as mayor of New York City. Sixty-six percent of Americans express confidence in McCain.


The Democrats fair better on Domestic issues according to the same Gallup Poll:



While the Republicans usually have an edge on terrorism from the public's perspective, the Democrats usually do better on a range of domestic issues such as healthcare. The recent poll is no exception, finding nearly two in three Americans saying they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in Clinton to recommend the right thing for the nation's healthcare system, slightly higher than the 61% who say this about Obama. A majority of Americans also express confidence in Edwards, 54%. Giuliani is the only Republican to get a confidence rating above 50% on healthcare.


The recent successes and progress in Iraq, as well as the latest news showing even a couple of Democratic lawmakers, after having been to Iraq, are seeing amazing progress there, might have quite a bit to do with these findings, but the problem that is now presented, if other polls find these same results, for the Democratic presidential candidates, is that they have staked almost all their credibility on Iraq and their position of defeat.

Will the candidates, as well as the far left liberal bloggers, continue to assume that by using Iraq and Terrorism as their "key" issues against the Republican presidential candidates, they will fair better?

Or will they now change tactics since it is beginning to look obvious to even the mainstream media that we will be successful in Iraq?

Even if they change focus, at this point, is it too late to undo the damage that their defeatism has already done to them?

There are smaller gaps in the ratings of the Republican candidates, suggesting that Republicans rate Democratic candidates worse than Democrats rate Republican candidates. Romney's ratings show the least polarization, in part because of his lower public profile. Among the better-known candidates, confidence ratings of McCain show the smallest differences along party lines.


Quite the conundrum for the Democratic candidates, isn't it?

[Update] The political left pundits have their spin on this poll out already, it seems that the poll shows GOP having the publics trust on Iraq and Terrorism, just HAS to mean that the general public is uninformed and "confused", according to the Carpetbagger Report I just linked to.

Typical denial, distortion and spin because they cannot handle the truth.

This is good news for the Republican Presidential candidates though, because it means they will continue with their rhetoric and trying to use Iraq and Terrorism as their "key issues" for the 2008 elections and the more good news and good reports coming out of Iraq, the more that tactic is going to bite them right in the ass.
[End Update]


Tracked back and linked by:
Mortality Salience, Democrats, and Perhaps Another from Comments From Left Field (THANKS---spree)


.

Lieberman Disappointed in Democrats and Enjoys being Independent

The Hill interviewed Joseph Lieberman and published the interview today.

Excerpts from The Hill’s interview with Sen. Lieberman

The Hill: How long do you see U.S. troops staying in Iraq?

Lieberman: I think some troops will be there for quite a while to secure the country, particularly from external threats. Look, I hope that this surge, which has always intended to be temporary, gets to a point sometime next year where it has succeeded enough in quelling the sectarian violence, particularly so that some of the troops that were part of the surge begin to come home. But my direct answer is that there is no explicit answer. The answer is that the troops will come home when the mission is completed.

The Hill: Obviously, a lot of Democrats don’t feel that way.

Lieberman: I’ve noticed that.

The Hill: How dissatisfied are you with you right now with the way this debate has been handled in the Senate, especially during the defense authorization bill debate?

Lieberman: I’m disappointed that I am in so small a minority among Senate Democrats in taking the position that I have. While I obviously understand and respect that Iraq is a difficult issue, and people take different points of views, I’m surprised and disappointed that the split has followed partisan lines so much. It shouldn’t be.

The Hill: Some of this criticism might seem surprising from someone who was the vice presidential nominee seven years ago. How far away from the Democratic Party do you see yourself right now?

Lieberman: Right now, certainly on Iraq, to some extent on some other foreign policy issues, like how do we confront Iran, how do we contain Iran, how do we deal with what that threat represents in the Middle East. To some extent on some defense issues, I have disagreements with most Democrats. But I agree with most Democrats on a lot of other issues, and a lot of domestic issues particularly.

The Hill
: Are you open to switching parties and becoming a Republican?

Lieberman: I have no interest or desire in doing that. I wouldn’t foreclose it as a possibility, but I hope that I don’t reach that point.

The Hill: What would drive you over to that point?

Lieberman: Well, I guess I’d know it. It’s like Justice [Potter] Stewart and his definition of obscenity: he couldn’t define it but he’d know when he saw it. I think I’ll know it when I feel it, but I hope I never get to that point.


(Continued below the advertisement)

Store.HBO.com

(Continued from above)


Joe Lieberman lost his primary with Ned Lamont but won the general overall election to hold his seat, as an independent now and he enjoys this position better because of the partisanship he sees in the Senate these days.

He has been consistent with his stance on Iraq. He understands the ramifications of a premature withdrawal and he has no qualms about speaking his mind on the subject, to the disappointment of the Senate Democrats.

Ever since Connecticut Democrats refused to back him for a fourth term in Congress, Joe Lieberman has been burnishing his independent credentials in the narrowly divided Senate while becoming increasingly critical of the Democratic Party on the war in Iraq.

Lieberman, the Democrats’ 2000 vice presidential nominee, insists he is not actively considering joining the Republican Party. But he is keeping that possibility wide open as his disenchantment grows with Democratic leaders. The main sticking points are their attempts to end the war in Iraq and their hesitation to take a harder line against Iran.

“I think either [Democrats] are, in my opinion, respectfully, naïve in thinking we can somehow defeat this enemy with talk, or they’re simply hesitant to use American power, including military power,” Lieberman said in a wide-ranging interview with The Hill.

“There is a very strong group within the party that I think doesn’t take the threat of Islamist terrorism seriously enough.”


He sides with the Democrats on issues he agrees with them on and with the Republicans on issues he agrees with them on, he is truly bipartisan in his efforts and he votes in a principled manner by not walking in lockstep with either party but by voting with his own "gut".

I do not agree with all Lieberman's stances, but I have to give him the respect he deserves for doing what he thinks is right for this country and "party lines" be damned.

Good work Joe!!!

I wonder whether their is a Democratic candidate running that he would even consider endorsing for President in 2008?

From what I have seen of their rhetoric, I don't think so.

.

Democratic Lawmakers Provide the "Left" with an Out for Iraq

Will they take it? Or will go on the attack as they did with yesterdays article from the NYT, from two men that said "We Might Just Win in Iraq"? They are still attacking that article today.

Ever been in a room and have something happen where the people in the room suddenly go totally quiet? Where a "hush" falls over the crowd?

I am seeing something very akin to that happen on memeorandum this morning with an article explaining how Keith Ellison, a Democratic lawmaker, along with Jerry McNerney, a California congressman, have just returned from Iraq after having witnessed some of the incredible progress that is being made since General Petraeus took over operations there.

A hush, in regards to this latest article, has fallen over the left side of the blogosphere.

(Continued below the advertisement)


Netflix, Inc.


(Continued from above)

Maybe they are trying to figure out how to "spin" it, or distort the words, but as of now, the far left liberal websites are silent about this piece.

Ellison, a vocal critic of the Iraq war, said he still believes it was a mistake for the U.S. to invade Iraq.

"But there are 150,000 American soldiers there now, and I care very deeply about them," said Ellison, one of six members on the all-freshman trip led by Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif. "I also care about the Iraqi people. I don't want to see them suffer."

The group met with Iraqi and U.S. military officials, including Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Ellison said that local leaders in Ramadi told him of how they partnered with U.S. and Iraqi military officials to virtually rid al-Qaeda from the city. Although the lawmakers had to travel in flak vests and helmets, "we did see people walking around the streets of Ramadi, going back and forth to the market."

There have been fewer anti-U.S. sermons as the violence has been reduced, Ellison said, and religious leaders meet regularly with U.S. military officials.

"The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership," he said. "So they're not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they're doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives."

Ellison said he was particularly impressed watching Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, U.S. commander in the Anbar province, greeting people with "as-salama aleikum," meaning peace be upon you.

"And they would respond back with smiles and waves," Ellison said. "I don't want to overplay it. There were no flowers. There was no clapping. There was no parade. But there was a general level of respect and calm that I thought was good."

McNerney, the California congressman, also said he saw signs of progress in Ramadi and was impressed by Petraeus, who argued in favor of giving President Bush's troop surge strategy time to work.


I said yesterday that good news for Iraq is bad news for the Democrats and what we have here is a very narrow window to which they Democrats could, I repeat could try to minimize the damage that their careless words about "Iraq is lost", despite all the progress that is being made now, have caused them, in terms of credibility.

Will they seize this opportunity that Ellison and McNerney are giving them or will they, out of habit, attack anyone, including their own, because they dared speak the truth by saying things are looking up in Iraq, the surge is working where it has been implemented and the General needs the time to continue with these successes.

Your guess is as good as mine.

NRO points out that he suspects the Democratic presidential candidates are too heavily invested in failure and will not seize this opportunity to say "we were wrong".

Kathryn noted that comment from Rep. Jim Clyburn that good news in Iraq would be a "problem" for the Democratic caucus. I suspect that the Democratic senators running for president would have no hesitation in fighting members of their own party tooth and nail to force a withdrawal from Iraq. It would be catnip for anti-war Democratic primary voters.


He may be right because although the left side of the blogosphere is quiet now, as soon as one of the bigger liberal sites give them the talking points to dispute this article, and Ellison and McNerny, they might just be off and running to do whatever they can to "spin" it.

QandO amused me greatly with this line:

Heh ... I wish I could be a fly on the wall in John Murtha's office right now. I've always wondered how red-faced he could really get. Maybe he'll redeploy to Okinawa and become their congressman.


Captain's Quarters makes a few of the same points I just did:

When Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution wrote in yesterday's New York Times that Congress should give General David Petraeus more time in Iraq to expand on the progress he has already made since the beginning of the surge, critics reacted by painting them as stooges of the Bush administration. What will they do when Democratic Representatives Keith Ellison and Jerry McInerney talk about the progress Petraeus is making? McInerney even spoke of adjusting his demand for a withdrawal deadline:


I have no doubt that right about now Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, both, are stomping their feet and having a temper tantrum because Ellison and McNerney did not come back saying "all is lost".

It will be interesting, to say the least, to see how the Left reacts to this news, how the Democratic politicians spin this news and react to it, and if by any chance they show the intelligence to take this information to heart and decide all is not lost and start trying to help us win in Iraq, how they will dig themselves out of the hole of defeat they have gotten themselves into?

Will they try to grab some credit for sending General Petraeus over to Iraq at the same time completely ignoring the fact that they tried to pull the rug out from under him before he even had a chance to begin?

Will they throw the Code Pinks and Cindy Sheehan's and the complete anti-war crowd of this country under the bus to try to save some shred of credibility for themselves and their party?

I will keep my eye out today for reactions from the left to this story and bring them to you as they come out, because they will offer us a glimpse at the answers to the questions I have just put forth.

For now though, the silence is deafening.

[Update] More good news from Iraq.
.

Monday, July 30, 2007

Good News for Iraq Will be Bad News for Democrats

[Major Update below]

We said this, multiple times, even earlier today, Democrats are too invested in failure to be able to survive success in Iraq, and now Wapo basically reports the same thing.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.


Ya think????? Is Wapo just discovering this?

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."


I also remember pointing out in the past that those Blue Dogs were gonna be trouble for Pelosi, Reid and crew.

If we continue to see the success on the ground in Iraq that we have been seeing the past couple of months, then not only will there be no time lines set, but the Democrats that have made it a point to publicly state that we have lost Iraq, will never, NEVER, live it down.

Their supporters will always try to spin it, but thanks to the internet, words like Reid's "Iraq is lost" is forever documented.

Power Line states it this way:

As significant as what Clyburn said is the way he said it. According to Clyburn, a strongly positive report by Petraeus would be "a real big problem for us." Clyburn's candor may be commendable, but it's unfortunate that the Dems regard strongly positive news from Iraq as a problem.


It is unfortunate but they backed themselves into that corner and deserve what they get.

Related:
(They also seriously regret ever uttering the words "Listen to the Generals", to Bush.)

[Update] Additional thoughts: Isn't it sad that we have a whole group, a political party that is actively wishing for our failure in the war on terror? What is wrong with this picture? How can someone even consider supporting a party that bases its whole philosophy on defeat and failure and panics at the sight of any success and progress our military is achieving?

How do these people even look at themselves in the mirror?

Disgusting.

[Update] 7/31/07- Keith Ellison and Jerry McNerney, two democratic lawmakers, just returned from Iraq with Good News about progress there. Meaning: More bad news for the Dems.


Tracked back by:
Torn between two loves… from Thinkin'bout Stuff...



Netflix, Inc.



.

Pamela from Atlas Shrugs Flips Mother Sheehan Off.

She also posts the picture...LOL




She just became my hero.

Now go see all the rest of the pictures.... they are great. That middle finger got quite a bit of exercise.

Tracked back by:
Mamma Dweeb The Sheehan from Take Our Country Back...

.

Reid/Pelosi Lied Again

So much for Open and Honest.

Remember all those promises before the elections? HEH.

Porkbusters obtained the latest version of the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007’’, and as expected, the Democratic leadership has worked some funny business to dilute some of the Act's key provisions.

Based on what we're hearing from those who would know, key changes include:

  • The old version (passed by the Senate) required conference / committee reports to list all earmarks and required the chairman of the relevant committee to distribute the earmark list. But the new version of the bill allows the Majority Leader (as opposed to the Senate parliamentarian, a more objective judge) to determine whether or not a conference report complies with the disclosure requirements.
  • The new version removes the requirement for earmark lists posted online to be in searchable format.
  • The new version removes the provision that prevented any bill from being considered at all prior to the disclosure of earmarks; now the text only prohibits a formal motion to proceed, which leaves open a procedural loophole that would allow bills to slip through without disclosure.
  • The old version prohibited earmarks which benefit a Member, their staff, or their family/their staff’s family. The new version waters that down and only prohibits earmarks that would “only” affect those parties --- which means so long as you can make a case that your shiny new project affects at least one person other than you positively, you’re all set.


PDF can be found here, take a look for yourself at how "open" or "honest" this was.

Tapscott's comments:

Some of my Senate sources have gotten a copy of the 107 page "ethics and earmark reform" bill crafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

What they are finding in it confirms what I've suspected for months - Reid and Pelosi are for the most gutting concrete earmark and ethics reform while preserving just enough of the appearance of reform to be able to claim to have fulfilled their 2006 campaign promises.

Put another way - it's all a charade.


No big surprise actually, except to those that believed their lies were promises that would be kept.

Analysis from Captain's Quarters is, as usual, excellent.


Netflix, Inc.


.

Veteran Suicide Hot Line Established

Thanks to Cassy for the email!!!

Folks, to the left you will see a number to the newly established Veteran Suicide Hotline.

Details:

Share the Information with Veterans and their Families

More Info Visit this page:
http://capwiz.com/ncoausa/utr/1/GYUBHMDUSU/GPKVHMDUWL/1329539516]

The Department of Veterans Affairs has established a Suicide Hot Line
to ensure veterans with emotional crises have round-the-clock access to
trained professionals. NCOA applauds this action with the regret that
the Suicide Hot Line was not established sooner! The NCOA Executive
Director for Government Affairs Richard Schneider stated that veterans
seeking professional mental health services must be taken care of
24/7(any hour of the day or night).

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson wants every veteran and
their family members to know that VA Mental Health Professionals are
just a phone call away and that for many who experienced the stresses
of combat may have wounds on their minds as well as their bodies.

The toll-free hot line number is 1-800-273-TALK (8255). VA's hot
line will be staffed by mental health professionals in Canandaigua,
N.Y. They will take toll-free calls from across the country and work
closely with local VA mental health providers to help callers.


If you are a blog owner, please add that number on your blog in a highly visible spot.

Thank you---spree

LinkShare  Referral  Prg


.

Vets for Freedom Week 4: Sign up Today to Show up in September

In September, General Petraeus will report to Congress on the status of the mission in Iraq. At that time, members of Congress will decide whether to continue the mission and defeat Al Qaeda, or abandon the mission and surrender to America’s enemies. The stakes could not be higher.

It is absolutely crucial that veterans have a voice in September's debate. And therefore we're asking every Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who believes in the mission - and supports our fellow soldiers and Marines still serving - to converge on Washington, DC on Tuesday, September 18th.

We plan to have hundreds of veterans on Capitol Hill ... and hope you'll be one of them.

We will not be the only group on Capitol Hill in September. At this website you can read about anti-war protesters - and anti-war veterans - who plan to confront members of Congress on September 18th. There will even be Iraq war veterans staging a "die in."

Unlike our opponents, we will not stage protests, chant slogans, or impede the work of government. We will meet constructively with as many members of Congress as we can to express our first-hand experiences and explain why it is important that the sacrifices of our brothers-in-arms not be in vein.


(Continued below the advertisement)

Store.HBO.com


(Continued from above)


And remember, if you're on active duty - you can still participate. Current DOD regulations allow you to participate as long as you are: 1) out of uniform; 2) not speaking on behalf of "the military"; and 3) not protesting. The same goes for National Guard and Reserve troops. So please join us.

What You Can Do This Week!

WEEK 4: Sign up Today to Show up on September 17/18

Over 40 Vets for Freedom members joined together on Capitol Hill in July and helped stop Congress from voting to undercut the troops. Don't miss your chance to do the same on September 17 & 18 ... on a much larger scale.

We need you to sign up early. By signing up this week, Vets for Freedom can do the following:


1. Schedule meetings for you with your Senators and Representative. In July we had to "walk in". On September 18th we want participants to have appointments.
2. Reserve high-profile speakers to address all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans on Monday night (September 17).
3. Raise money to support the travel and lodging for ALL veterans. We plan to cover all air and ground travel costs, and lodging for the evening of September 17.

So, if you are an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran and are ready to take a stand and join us on Capitol Hill on September 17 & 18, please send an email to events@vetsforfreedom.org. Include the following information:

1. Name and contact information (primary email and phone number)
2. Brief military bio
3. Your home state (and other states in which you have claimed residence)
4. Your probable means of transportation to Washington, DC
5. If you will be able to arrive on the evening of Monday, September 17 for the formal in-brief and dinner with guest speakers.
6. Any questions you might have

Once we receive your information we will schedule meetings with representatives on your behalf and as the date approaches, confirm your lodging in Washington, DC. We are planning on conducting the in-brief on the evening of Monday, September 17 and all the meetings on Tuesday, September 18. For a tentative timeline, see the end of this email.

What Else You Can Do?


If you're not a veteran, but would like to help - here's how:

1. Donate. In July, thanks to the generous support of hundreds of Americans, we were able to cover the travel of everyone who attended. We hope to do the same in September, but with more veterans, we’ll need more support. We hope you’ll consider a large gift, but we always appreciate any size donation. It was hundreds of smaller donations that covered our July event, and we’d love to do that again.

2. Get involved in your home state. Last week we asked for State Captains and local volunteers. We still need help. If you’re interested, please review our Week 3 email and get involved. Congress needs to hear from pro-mission veterans and supporters in August - when they’re home meeting with constituents.

3. Forward this Email. Send this email to everyone you know. Post it on your blog. Print it out and hand it out to friends. Get the word out, so we can get as many veterans on Capitol Hill as possible. Our goal is hundreds of veterans from all parts of our country.

Tell your buddies. Meet them in Washington, DC. And together, tell your representative where we stand.

Don't miss your opportunity to join Vets for Freedom on Capitol Hill and do your part to support our fellow soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Regards,

Pete Hegseth
Iraq War Veteran 2005-2006
Executive Director, Vets for Freedom

Click here for more information on Vets for Freedom's "10 Weeks to Testimony."

Basic Timeline for September 17-18

September 17 4-6pm: Reception and Lodging assistance
6-9pm: In-brief & dinner (with high profile speakers)
9pm: Social Event
September 18 9am-12: Meetings on Capitol Hill
12pm-1: Lunch
Afternoon: Large Press Conference
1-5pm: Meetings on Capitol Hill



Please do not forget that it will be a busy week in Washington because tens of thousands have already signed on with Move America Forward and they too will be converging in Washington to tell congress that they must SUPPORT our troops and work for Victory in Iraq instead of actively trying to force defeat.

.

War Critic Sees Tide Turning in Iraq: UPDATED & Bumped with more Reax

[Updated and bumped, more reactions below the original post]

A man who has been very critical of the war in Iraq as well as a man that was for our actions in Iraq, before he was against them, having now visited Iraq, both men come back to report in the New York Times an excellent article, titled "A War We Just Might Win".

The two men are Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack and it is this type f news, finally being brought to Americans that are responsible for American support slowly inching up. We are finally seeing the good news about how the surge is working that even the liberal MSM cannot hide anymore.

Continued below the advertisement)

Entourage free shipping 468x60

(Continued from above)


VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.


The writers of this piece also make the comparison of troop morale from the previous visits to this last one.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.


Ramadi:

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.



Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood:

In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.



Other areas:

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.


Read page #2 of the article to see for yourself, the progress, the challenges that still face our troops and the overwhelming feeling of succeeding.... at least until they look to Washington, the only place that still has not gotten the memo: The surge is working better and faster than imagined by even those implementing it.

The buzz is full of those that cannot accept that we may, indeed have a chance to succeed in Iraq, those that are so heavily invested in defeat that no amount of reality can check their disturbing hatred.

Whether they admit or ignore it, or try to distort it or distract from it, it doesn't change the fact that after all the work, suffering and death, we now have a formula that is working in Iraq.

I will bring you reactions to this article shortly.

If you are one of the people that criticize this NYT article, perhaps you could answer four little simple questions that I pose in my followup piece.

[Update with reactions]

Hot Air states:

Read the whole thing. There is good news coming out of Iraq, but unfortunately the cacophony in Washington may drown it out.


Villainous Company
points out that the reason news of the surges success hasn't gotten to the American people is because the media has worked to undermine and refute that message...until now. (Read it, she really lets the media have it)

Just One Minute says:

Wow. Combine that with the NY Times poll results and one might infer that the Dems need to pin down Bush's defeat before it slips away from them. WILLisms has more on this.


The Moderate Voice points out that those that do not like the message of this NYT article would rather shoot the messenger because of the message:

So, when even critics concede rays of hope, are others willing to follow suit? Some might, though certainly not all. From TalkLeft:

I have a new litmus test for the Dem Presidential candidates - they must promise not to have Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollock in their administration.

And there we have what’s wrong with today’s politics in a nutshell: Someone doesn’t like the message, so they shoot the messengers.



Captain's Quarters has his usual wonderful analysis of the information in the NYT article.

Michael Goldfarb points to Power Line, who is saying what we have been saying for a couple months now:

This analysis--that the military is making significant progress in Iraq, and that the political situation remains the major hurdle to success in that country--conforms well with much of the reporting that has come out of Iraq recently. But as Powerline's John Hinderaker points out this morning, the real fear is "that the leadership of the Democratic Party sees progress on the ground in Iraq as bad news, not good. I think many Congressional Democrats are committed to defeat, for political and ideological reasons."


That is it in a nutshell, as we showed you the other day, the Democratic politicians are so heavily invested in failure that any good news from Iraq is ignored or treated with disdain becauss they instinctively understand that Good News from Iraq is definitely bad news for them, as a party.

Jules Crittenden points out that with this latest article in the New York Times, someone from that paper obviously didn't get the memo...LOL

Definitely head over and read Dean Barnett at Townhall with "If They've Lost Brookings..."

The buzz from the left is exactly what we have come to expect whenever good news from Iraq comes out in the MSM, they attack, they distort, they try to distract and they will never admit that we may just have a chance to succeed in Iraq.

[Update #2] NewsBusters points out that it is not just this NYT article, but other liberals are starting express points we have been mentioning since the inception of this blog as well as other blogs and sources have been expressing for quite a while now: Optimism and consequences of a premature withdrawal:

On Sunday, NewsBusters reported a shocking discussion that ensued on "The Chris Matthews Show" wherein five liberal media members actually debated why America shouldn't withdraw its troops from Iraq.

Maybe more shocking, the following day, an op-ed was published in the New York Times claiming that "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, "morale is high," and, as a result, this is "a war we just might win."

Adding to the shock is that this piece was written by two members of the Brookings Institution, which even Wikipedia acknowledges is "widely regarded as being politically liberal." The authors - Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack - described themselves as "two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq."

Not anymore. Better prepare yourself for an alternate reality


It seems that the more the MSM is being forced to acknowledge the progress and success being seen in Iraq, the more the moderates of the liberal or "progressive" party are not wishing to be left out in the cold and jumping the defeatists ships.

The tide is not only turning in Iraq, it is starting to turn here in America.

Victory and success are not such dirty words after all, except to the Democratic politicians.

[Updating with more reactions]

Times Online now has a piece out with the title "Leaving now not the way out of Iraq"

It discusses the failures and challenges, but it ends on yet another high note:

“So many of us have great Iraqi friends now,” he says. “We know their families. As soldiers, we go there and we’re at risk but nobody complains. These people are caught in the violence; they don’t deserve it. The war will not stop if we leave. It will get worse. We can’t allow that to happen.”

If there had been more McMasters in Baghdad in the beginning, and less US hubris, Iraqis might be in a far better position.



QandO points out the Democratic "plan" to counter the success being seen on the ground:

I've mentioned before the huge difference a strong commander can make, and despite the nonsensical and baseless mutterings of Harry Reid concerning Petraeus' competence and veracity, he has made a huge difference in the fight in Iraq. However, as most have surmised, the evolving plan among many on the left is to destroy his credibility so that no matter what he says in September, they can dismiss it. When you can't fight the facts, resort to character assassination.


The Telegraph speaks about Maliki and Petraeus.

America's top general in Iraq yesterday quashed reports of a breakdown in his relationship with Iraq's prime minister over American support for Sunni Muslim fighters battling al-Qa'eda.

General David Petraeus poured scorn on a claim by an Iraqi politician that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki requested his dismissal after bitter rows. "I don't know where that is coming from," Gen Petraeus said. "He and I have truly had frank conversations but he has never yelled or stood up. This is really, really hard stuff, and occasionally people agree to disagree."

Colonel Steven Boylan, a spokesman for Gen Petraeus, said Mr Maliki had not complained directly to President George W Bush about the highly regarded American commander overriding his government. He said: "Gen Petraeus and other key staff has sat in on every video teleconference with PM Maliki and President Bush and never has this been even hinted at."


Urban Grounds points to the fact that the words from people that have only gotten their "news" from our MSM, often change their minds once they have been to Iraq and see the "whole truth" instead of the cherry picked items that is often shown.

Most of the people claiming that the war in Iraq is not winnable fall into two camps (many of them fall into both camps): 1) they’ve never been to Iraq (and definitely haven’t been to Iraq since 2003), and 2) have never served in the military, yet somehow still have a better understanding of military strategy and warfare management than our Nation’s top battle-proven Generals.

But, funny things can happen when those same skeptics and naysayers actually go to Iraq and see with their own eyes what is happening, and talk to the actual soldiers with boots on the ground.


Sister Toldjah imagines that all this good news is going to spin the heads of the collective left.... personally I think we should be hearing explosions as their heads simply implode from these MSM stories.

Joe Klein, by no means a fan of the administration nor the Iraq war, but all the same knows what the consequences of failure will be, comments on the piece here.

Wow - in one day, three prominent lefties are agreeing that the Iraq war is worth winning and winnable. The far left’s collective head must be spinning around on its neck a la Linda Blair in The Exorcist.



INDC Journal points out Greenwald's knee jerk reactions and points to the flaws in those arguments.

UPDATE: And we must note the inevitable and predictable Glenn Greenwald pushback on the op-ed, where he seeks to undermine the credibility of the authors by painting them as "yes-men." He starts with quotations of an interview done with O'Hanlon in 2003, where the analyst asserts that the counterinsurgency is going "fairly well" and minimizes the violence. Problematically for Greenwald, at various times the Iraq war has gone better than others - the bombing of the Al-Askari Mosque in 2006 being the real turning point for the road to hell-in-a-handbasket - and this Greenwaldian ignorance of context (sometimes willfull, sometimes not) sets one's teeth grinding. The descent of the policy was not irrevocably obvious in the first year of the occupation, except to those who had predetermined Iraq's fate as a hellish one spurred by US intervention.


Too much reaction coming in too fast to list it all here, but Take Our Country Back accurately describes the effect it is having on the left, its making them more insane, so head over to memeorandum and watch the buzzzzzzzz.

[Update number...whatever] Thanks for the email from Coalition of the Swilling for pointing out one of their posts:

But major dad and I already knew his opinions had taken a remarkable turn because of his appearance this weekend on CNN's This Week at War. My immediate reaction was, "Has CNN lost their collective minds broadcasting something this positive?"
...FOREMAN: So what's the real situation on the ground? Arwa Damon is in our Baghdad bureau. CNN military analyst Brigadier David Grange, U.S. Army retired joins us from Chicago and here in Washington Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, just back from Iraq. Michael, let me start with you. The basic question, is the surge working?

MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: In military terms, yes. Two big reasons, one, we are doing very well against al Qaeda in Iraq. I don't want to jump into this whole debate about whether they're taking orders from Osama bin Laden or not, but they have an extreme ideology and they have gone so far that the Sunni-Arab tribes are now fighting against them. I walked through the streets of Ramadi a couple of days ago without body armor. That city is turned around, 95 percent reduction of violence because the Sunni sheikhs and tribes are with us now against al Qaeda. That's going great. The sectarian violence much less well resolved so far, but at least we've put a bit of a cap or a lid on it with our greater troop strength. So that's the more long-term problem.

But the fight against al Qaeda is going brilliantly at the moment.

Wow and I mean WOW. We guessed CNN had not completely given up their agenda, as the actual CNN Baghdad correspondent (ARWA DAMON) was trying mightily to throw cold water on everything O'Hanlon said.


Finish reading that piece, it is that good.

Thanks for the email Beege!!!!!



.

Gordon Brown Praises George Bush

The Sun Online characterizes Brown's words as stunning critics by praising Bush, but by all accounts the meeting between Gordon Brown and George Bush went well.

GORDON Brown last night praised George Bush for leading the global war on terror — saying the world owed America a huge debt.

The Prime Minister vowed to take Winston Churchill’s lead and make Britain’s ties with America even stronger.

Mr Brown stunned critics by THANKING President Bush for the fight against Islamic extremism, and insisted the UK-US relationship will be his No1 foreign policy priority.

He said on his first visit to the President’s US retreat at Camp David: “Winston Churchill spoke of the ‘joint inheritance’ of our two countries.”

The PM said that meant “a joint inheritance not just of shared history but shared values founded on a shared destiny”.

He added: “America has shown by the resilience and bravery of its people from September 11 that while buildings can be destroyed, values are indestructable.

“We acknowledge the debt the world owes to the US for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism.”


The AP characterizes it as Bush and Brown reaffirming shared values.

CAMP DAVID, Md. - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told President Bush Monday he shares the U.S. view that there are "duties to discharge and responsibilities to keep" in Iraq.

"Our aim, like the United States is, step-by-step, to move control to the Iraqi authorities," Brown said, joining Bush at a news conference at the president's Maryland mountaintop ranch.

Brown hinted that a decision about troops levels would be made soon, while assuring that such a determination would be based "on the military advice of our commanders on the ground," thus echoing language often heard from Bush.

Indeed, minutes later, in response to a question, Bush said: "The decisions on the way forward in Iraq must be made with a military recommendation as an integral part of it."


CNN characterizes Brown's words as Britain Britain "absolutely" shares President Bush's philosophy on the war on terror.

By all account, although some differ on nuances, the meeting went well and Britain will remain a friend of America as well as a partner in the Global War on Terror.

Good for Brown and Bush.

[Update] The Prime Minister has a written statement in Wapo.

Go. Read it. Its good.

[Update #2] The White House has the comments from the Bush/Brown press conference.

Also another Wapo article "Bush/Brown present United Front on Iraq"



.

Critics and commenters: 4 Simple Questions

I have noticed since my piece titled the Good News From Iraq, in which has become a series for this blog, that nothing brings out the anger of the far left liberals more than seeing any good news coming from Iraq.

So, here is a few questions for those people.

#1. We have often presented the challenges that face us in Iraq to succeed... when was the last time you found yourself able to acknowledge any of the progress in Iraq?

#2. We have often pointed out the mistakes of our administration in regards to Iraq, and other things... when was the last time you were capable of acknowledging what has been done right?

#3. We have often disagreed with certain points of the administrations policies, like the immigration reform as just one example... when was the last time you agreed with anything the admin has done or said, even when it was a wonderful idea?

#4. We have often acknowledged the bad news coming from Iraq... when was the last time YOU acknowledged the good news from Iraq without trying to belittle it, distort it or just ignored it completely?

I am going to leave it at these four simple questions for now because these represent the mindset that shows that Bush Derangement Syndrome far outweighs being able to see realities for "certain" individuals on the far left side of the aisle.

If anybody reading this cannot give an example to these four questions, then perhaps your blind hatred is the reason you cannot see what is happening with any clarity.

Now, back to regularly scheduled programming....

.

War Critic Sees Tide Turning in Iraq

This post has been updated and bumped and the new one can be found here.


A man who has been very critical of the war in Iraq as well as a man that was for our actions in Iraq, before he was against them, having now visited Iraq, both men come back to report in the New York Times an excellent article, titled "A War We Just Might Win".

The two men are Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack and it is this type f news, finally being brought to Americans that are responsible for American support slowly inching up. We are finally seeing the good news about how the surge is working that even the liberal MSM cannot hide anymore.

Continued below the advertisement)

Entourage free shipping 468x60

(Continued from above)


VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.


The writers of this piece also make the comparison of troop morale from the previous visits to this last one.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.


Ramadi:

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.



Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood:

In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.



Other areas:

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.


Read page #2 of the article to see for yourself, the progress, the challenges that still face our troops and the overwhelming feeling of succeeding.... at least until they look to Washington, the only place that still has not gotten the memo: The surge is working better and faster than imagined by even those implementing it.

The buzz is full of those that cannot accept that we may, indeed have a chance to succeed in Iraq, those that are so heavily invested in defeat that no amount of reality can check their disturbing hatred.

Whether they admit or ignore it, or try to distort it or distract from it, it doesn't change the fact that after all the work, suffering and death, we now have a formula that is working in Iraq.

I will bring you reactions to this article shortly.

If you are one of the people that criticize this NYT article, perhaps you could answer four little simple questions that I pose in my followup piece.

[Update with reactions]

Hot Air states:

Read the whole thing. There is good news coming out of Iraq, but unfortunately the cacophony in Washington may drown it out.


Villainous Company
points out that the reason news of the surges success hasn't gotten to the American people is because the media has worked to undermine and refute that message...until now. (Read it, she really lets the media have it)

Just One Minute says:

Wow. Combine that with the NY Times poll results and one might infer that the Dems need to pin down Bush's defeat before it slips away from them. WILLisms has more on this.


The Moderate Voice points out that those that do not like the message of this NYT article would rather shoot the messenger because of the message:

So, when even critics concede rays of hope, are others willing to follow suit? Some might, though certainly not all. From TalkLeft:

I have a new litmus test for the Dem Presidential candidates - they must promise not to have Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollock in their administration.

And there we have what’s wrong with today’s politics in a nutshell: Someone doesn’t like the message, so they shoot the messengers.



Captain's Quarters has his usual wonderful analysis of the information in the NYT article.

Michael Goldfarb points to Power Line, who is saying what we have been saying for a couple months now:

This analysis--that the military is making significant progress in Iraq, and that the political situation remains the major hurdle to success in that country--conforms well with much of the reporting that has come out of Iraq recently. But as Powerline's John Hinderaker points out this morning, the real fear is "that the leadership of the Democratic Party sees progress on the ground in Iraq as bad news, not good. I think many Congressional Democrats are committed to defeat, for political and ideological reasons."


That is it in a nutshell, as we showed you the other day, the Democratic politicians are so heavily invested in failure that any good news from Iraq is ignored or treated with disdain becauss they instinctively understand that Good News from Iraq is definitely bad news for them, as a party.

Jules Crittenden points out that with this latest article in the New York Times, someone from that paper obviously didn't get the memo...LOL

Definitely head over and read Dean Barnett at Townhall with "If They've Lost Brookings..."

The buzz from the left is exactly what we have come to expect whenever good news from Iraq comes out in the MSM, they attack, they distort, they try to distract and they will never admit that we may just have a chance to succeed in Iraq.

[Update #2] NewsBusters points out that it is not just this NYT article, but other liberals are starting express points we have been mentioning since the inception of this blog as well as other blogs and sources have been expressing for quite a while now: Optimism and consequences of a premature withdrawal:

On Sunday, NewsBusters reported a shocking discussion that ensued on "The Chris Matthews Show" wherein five liberal media members actually debated why America shouldn't withdraw its troops from Iraq.

Maybe more shocking, the following day, an op-ed was published in the New York Times claiming that "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, "morale is high," and, as a result, this is "a war we just might win."

Adding to the shock is that this piece was written by two members of the Brookings Institution, which even Wikipedia acknowledges is "widely regarded as being politically liberal." The authors - Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack - described themselves as "two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq."

Not anymore. Better prepare yourself for an alternate reality


It seems that the more the MSM is being forced to acknowledge the progress and success being seen in Iraq, the more the moderates of the liberal or "progressive" party are not wishing to be left out in the cold and jumping the defeatists ships.

The tide is not only turning in Iraq, it is starting to turn here in America.

Victory and success are not such dirty words after all, except to the Democratic politicians.


Tracked back by:
Driving The Leftinistra INSANE from Take Our Country Back...


.