Iowa Debate: No Guts, No Glory

 I missed the debate Saturday night. Monday night I found it on the web, and share the link with you. The program, which began with some introductory speeches and ceremony, runs 178 minutes of which the "debate" takes two hours. 

    This debate differs from the others because the questioners expressed and exercised respect for the candidates and avoided "gotcha" questions.  Civility prevailed. 

    There was plenty of emotion in this debate, and a great deal of deliberateness.  While issues of morality, marriage, abortion, education and health care took up most of the time, I am most interested in the final subject of the night, which begins at 158:36.

    What follows is strictly an amateurish attempt at transcription.  I type very slowly, and my memory is not the best. I take in a few words, pause the video and type what I have heard before restarting the video. Due to system lag, I lose some audio in the process.   My transcription  is not perfect, but it should be good enough to give you a good idea of what transpired in the last round of answers. 

    The final question: "Every one of you talked about the importance of preserving life.  Nothing takes life more than the declaration of war. I would like to hear from you, because nothing frightens a mother more, than watching her son or daughter go off ...Their pride in their country and their fear for their child...what is--can you define the moral justification for war? ...Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria --what is the moral justification? "

• Rep. Paul:  The early church struggled with this, I mean, Christ came  and Christ taught about peace and Christ was to be the prince of peace and we were to defend that.  But early on in the church, struggled with this and St. Augustine came up with the principles of the just war.  I believe in and I think we should follow, from the religious viewpoint, that we have a Constitution that is very clear to guide us to try to prevent these wars and that is that we don't go to war without a declaration .  The wars that we have fought since World War2 were all . illegal, unconstitutional and all were un-winnable and it was tragic-- it was tragic, we did it by failing the rule of law and the tragedy let out of these wars the last ten years, that we have been so ... added ten billion dollars to our national debt, ...Americans have been killed in these wars, 44 thousand have come home wounded and crippled, hundreds of thousands are looking for help and we went to blind ourselves to this.  It is not in our national defense, it is mischief, it is getting involved where we don't need to be involved.  I think it is an utter tragedy in  what is happening.  You wanna talk about a family life --there has to have been somebody in this audience who has been the bearer of news, either a loved one lost or a loved one crippled.  It is on and on  I had one soldier come to me the other day and he was so against the wars, he spent three or four tours over there, that he says "I lost too many buddies and I don'd know why we were there. " And theres no signs of progress over there.  He says "now I'm losing my buddies to suicide."  The wars destroy the family, I'm the ...as does the economic climate-- the bad economics  -- war is the most destructive things to the family and we oughtta concentrate on it and you can't concentrate on the economics unless we look at the business cycle, why we have inflation busts and booms  otherwise we will continue on a downhill path. 
• Rep. Bachmann I am a mother and I have made  the most difficult calls of my live which has been when servicemen and women have lost their lives in my  congressional district and I have picked up that phone and I've called mothers and I've called fathers and I have wept with them over the phone because nothing is more difficult to lose than a child.  [Luntz: "So what is the definition--the moral justification for war?"]  The moral justification for war is if the United States is attacked or we are  threatened with attack, then we have a decision that we have to make because the number one duty of the commander in chief is to secure the safety of the American people, that is the duty, and in order to do that, I have to be convinced as commander in chief that we have a clearly defined American vital interest in that area and I need to know that we have a clear mission to go forward. ... have a plan and an exit strategy and we go in, I will commit overwhelming force and then we get out. Now some situations are ones where you can have special operations forces and then you have to have the tools to be able to deal with interrogation, which we don't have now under Obama.  You have to have the capacity for detention, which we don't have now under President Obama.   But we have to have a clearly defined interest and I think we also have to take advice from George Washington, who told us, rightly so, I'm not an isolationist,  but he said very carefully be very fearful of unnecessary foreign entanglements and if there is anything we have learned from the last twelve years, once you get in, its very difficult to get out.  So you go in wisely.
• Cain: In the declaration where it says "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights",  and then it delineates three of them: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It says that among these are those three, I happen to think that there is another that is implied: the right to protect yourself, your family and to protect your property. So the defense of freedom and the defense of liberty I believe, is the moral justification for going to war. Secondly, as commander in chief, I will not send our young men and women into war unless it is clear why --the mission and the definition of victory... And thirdly, I would not send them into war unless I would send my own and daughter. 
• Gov. Perry: As a former individual who has worn the uniform of his country, as the commander in chief of over twenty thousand troops that are my command today,in the state of Texas with our Guard, I've been dealing with this issue for ten years.  And clearly, when America's interests are in jeopardy, there is a time and a place for us to intervene and intervene militarily.  But when we intervene militarily, we best make the decision of how we are going to win and how we are going to win convincingly and quickly.  Send those young men and women with the equipment to win.  Don't let some congressman sitting in an air conditioned office  in Washington DC decide what the rules of engagement are.  Let those war fighters win the war.  Let them come home victorious.  That is what the American military man and woman is all about.  And for us to micromanage them in a civilian way without their commanders truly being in charge, is absolutely irresponsible and as commander in chief of this country I will not let it happen.  
• Santorum: Let me maybe try to drill it down to a more practical application.  We are engaged in what many people call the long war.  Americans are known to have a rather short attention span.  As we are a young country, an antique for us is a hundred years old. In the Middle East its two thousand years old. They have a very  different view of time and history.  As a result, when we are engaged in this long war, long to us is not the same as long to them.  What we are facing right now is a, again, read our history-- is a thousand year conflict between radical Islam and the West that ended only because of the West's great technical superiority that was able to defeat them and drive them back and eventually colonize the Middle East. But that changed with one three letter word: oil.  .  Oil allowed the radical elements within the Islamic world to be able to get access to technology, and now we have in the case of Iran, to drill it down even more, a radical theocracy that has been at war with us since 1979.  It has done more to kill our troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan because they are the makers of the IEDs that are killing our troops.  They've attacked this country on repeated occasions from the Khobar Towers to ...their proxies in Beirut.  They've attempted the assassination of an Ambassador.  They have threatened  openly and repeatedly our closest allies.  They hold conventions in Tehran denyiug the Holocaust-- in fact most of the aea of the Middle East  now believes that the Holocaust didn't really occur so there is no justification for the state of Israel.  They are now developing a nuclear weapon. It is now apparent that they are doing so; international agencies, not necessarily the boldest group of folks have suggested that that is the case.  We have a moral obligation to partner with the state of Israel to make ... to assure their survival and to make sure that this radical regime that wants to spread its virulent form of radical Islam not just throughout the Middle East but throughout the world is stopped from having the ability to do so with impunity because that's the thing a nuclear weapon does, it gives you a nuclear shield.  It must be stopped.  I laid out a plan the other day and I know we are short of time that lists four major things that we should be doing: covert activities, sanctions, overturning the regime but also working with Israel right now to plan a military option to strike and destroy these facilities.  And let the Iranians know, that unless they open up their facilities [to inspection] and shut them down, that that is an option that will be used period. 
• Gingrich: First of all In Christian theology, there is a clear development of a concept of just war. which people like Augustine developed because they were seeing the rise of pagans that wee actually threatening the very survival of the country. In fact, Augustine is buried in Italy because hes body was taken out of North Africa when the Christians lost North Africa.  So these things become very real.  My Dad spent twenty seven years in the Army, I watched my mother through that whole period in WW2, Korea and Vietnam.  . I think what makes us different and what makes us in some ways... much more ruthless and much tougher ... is we don't send soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen to war, we send our children, we send our fathers, we send our brothers and sisters; we send our mothers and therefore there is a preciousness to this decision unlike any other country that I know.  I think our position historically ...the Declaration of Independence was signed by people who were going to fight an eight year war. It was  a declaration of war in effect.  Washington was in the field eight years with one week at Mount Vernon.  These people who wrote those documents understood the grim reality.  I believe we should not go to war if we can avoid it.  And when we have to go to war we should do so decisively,  with overwhelming power to seek the quickest possible victory and we should in fact be prepared to do whatever it takes to win  when we begin an engagement.  But I think that there is no question ...this is the only place where I disagree with some of my friends-- you come into our country and you kill 3100 people and we will do whatever it takes to eliminate your capacity to threaten us ever again and I would be tougher and more decisive and I agree entirely with Senator Santorum--I would say to the government of Iran today: we have a very short time to solve ... and you should solve it on your own or we will solve it for you and frankly, we couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks ; we're gonna get it done. 

    In my view, Frank Luntz  probed the candidates for their views  on the morality of our invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq and our intervention in  Libya.  The answers seem to center on just war theory in general and how to bring war to a good end. 

    Congressman Paul mixed just enough truth into his spiel to make it attractive to the middle range of Morons.  Its a good thing that I was not in the audience, because I would have violated the decorum of the debate by booing.  The fact that wars should be declared, for good cause and with clearly stated objectives should go without saying, it is simply too obvious.  The jerk elevates my blood pressure too much.

    As I was listening, Congresswoman Bachmann sounded good. As I review the transcript, I get a sense of disappointment.  When America is threatened or attack, the vital national interest is clear on the face of the matter, no divination is required.  Victory is the exit strategy.  Commitment o overwhelming force is the part I liked, lacking in Afghanistan & Iraq, along with a  sane definition of strategic objectives.

    Cain made the right points about cause, clarity and mission definition.  I though his answer was brief and sensible, with just the right amount of emotion, somewhat overstated. I would have omitted the part about sending my own offspring, which would have fitted better if we still had an army of conscripts.

     Gov. Perry spoke with passion and conviction, with slightly clumsy rhetoric initially.  If he brought up the issue of defining victory, I overlooked it.  Since Vietnam, the micromanagement seems to me to be Presidential, not Congressional.  President Obama instituted the suicidal rules of engagement from which our troops are currently suffering.

    I wish that Santorum would drop the R word; it does not belong in discussions of national security issues.  As the wise man said "Its Islam, stupid!".  I think that he knows it, and is pandering to the politically correct crowd.  Of course he is correct about the need to support Israel and prevent Iran's nuclear ascension.

    Like Santorum, Gingrich brought in the theological and emotional elements, adding his own historian's perspective. The good part comes at the end when he said "whatever it takes".

    We got into this bind because, when I was too young to realize what was transpiring, we were terrified of the prospect of nuclear war with Russia & China. We therefore fought a half-assed war in Korea,  unwilling either to suffer an outright loss or exert sufficient force to win. 

    In Vietnam, we got in, sank in the quagmire, and escalated, once again unwilling to risk all out conflict with Ho Chi Minh's powerful patrons.  In the end, we allowed the media to defeat us with propaganda.

    President Carter began digging our grave when he gave Iran to Khomeini. His dithering while our Embassy staff sat in durance vile and his quarter-assed rescue attempt, which cost more lives,  let the enemy smell blood.

    I voted for President Reagan once at least, probably twice, but memory has faded and there is a strong chance that I wrote in Jesus Christ in '84. The Beirut fiasco caused me to demand that my Congressman introduce articles of impeachment.  In my opinion, nothing contributed more to our present situation than
Reagan's suicidal blunder.

    Sending the Marines to save Arafat's bacon was a blunder of momentous proportions.  Arafat was an enemy and his defeat was in our short and long term national interest.  Allowing the Beirut Massacre to go unpunished signaled weakness to the enemy, a fatal error.

    President Clinton dug the grave deeper and wider by affording impunity to Iran in the Khobar Towers bombing & other incidents, Mogadishu not being the least of them. Sending the Marines without the equipment they needed was a bad idea.

    Shrub installed the vault and set up the straps to lower the coffin by failing to recognize and declare that which, with the benefit of hindsight, the debate participants hinted at but failed to openly express. 

    In view of the antagonistic media, which defeated us in Vietnam, world public opinion and the UN allied with the media and our own diminished patience for long wars, common sense dictated the use of such overwhelming force that the war would be over in a few days.  Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq & Pakistan should have disappeared from the globe in a flash of fire.  Disproportionate, overwhelming, terrifying force, signifying exhausted patience and the will to win, immediately and finally was required. 

    Victory is defined, in this conflict, as the extinction of Islam in the nations where the plot was conceived, assisted, expedited & celebrated.  So long as the populations of Afghanistan Iran & Pakistan are alive and Islamic, they will provoke, incite, promote and perpetuate terrorism. No other outcome is possible because of Allah's promise and threat. Go to war; go to Paradise or go to Hell.  For extra credit, injure or enrage the enemy and get more "virgins" & wine. If you doubt this, obtain a clue from Allah's perfected, immutable word: 8:12, 39,  57, 60 , 65, 9:5,29, 38, 39, 111, 120, 123, 33:26, 27, 59:2, 13, 61:10-12 & Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 from whence issue war & terror.  If they believe, they will terrorize to avoid Hell and gain admission to Allah's celestial bordello. 

    Truth is not hate speech. Advocacy of effective national defense is not warmongering neither is it inciting violence.  Terrorism is not the enemy, it is a tactic. Al-Qaeda is not the enemy, it is a branch of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen.  Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen is not the enemy, it is a branch of Islam.  Islam is the enemy. This is a fatal fact which the candidates for the Republican nomination seem to lack the courage to clearly state.

    The strategic objective is permanently terminating Islamic terrorism against the U.S.A.  Only exterminating Islam can achieve that objective. While there is Islam, there is war.  If we eliminate Islam in those nations most directly involved, we can temporarily intimidate the remainder so that they will delay the resumption of attacks.  That would buy us some time for the vital task of inducing mass apostasy among the remainder.

    So long as Afghanistan & Pakistan are populated by Muslims, they will host terrorist training camps and export terrorism.  Installing democracy does nothing to change that. Partially defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda does nothing to change that.  Victory requires their apostasy from Islam or death. No other option exists.  They are not liberated if they are still Muslims; they remain enslaved to the demon who demands "great slaughter".

Two States: the Insolvent Solution

Rejectionism

The heads of the Arab League states met at Khartoum August 29 and on September 1, 1967, issued the Khartoum Declaration which included the three no's:

1. no peace with Israel
2. no recognition of Israel
3. no negotiation with Israel.

When Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel, she was expelled from the Arab League.

Reagan Plan

The Reagan Plan of 1982 would have Israel withdraw to the '67 border, freeze settlement and allow an autonomous government in the territories. Prime Minister Begin's response is informative.

• [...]millennia ago there was a Jewish kingdom of Judea and Samaria, where our kings knelt to God, where our prophets brought forth the vision of eternal peace, where we developed our rich civilization which we took with us in our hearts and minds on our long global trek for over 18 centuries and, with it, we came back home[...]
• [...]“Geography and history have determined that Judea and Samaria are mountainous country; two-thirds of our population lives in the Coastal Plain below. From those mountains you can hit every city, every town, each township and village, not to speak of our principal airport in the plain below. We used to live penned up into eight miles from the seashore and now, Mr. President, you suggest that we return to almost that same situation. Under no circumstances shall we accept such a possibility ever arising; it would endanger our very existence.[...]
• [...]a friend does not weaken his friend, and an ally does not put his ally in jeopardy.[...]

Yehuda Avner offers significant details about how the proposal was communicated to Begin, who was the last to learn of it.

Fez Accord

Mid East Web lists the points of the Fez Accord which was based on Prince Fahd's plan, which I will try to distill down to its essentials.

1. Withdrawal to '67 border.
2. Dismantling of settlements.
3. Guaranteed freedom of worship & ritual practice at holy places.
4. Fallestinian self-determination & right of return.
5. Short term UN supervision.
6. Independent Falestinian state with Jerusalem as it s capital.
7. Security Council guarantee of peace.
8. Security Council guarantee of implementation of these principles.

When you launch a military adventure in hopes of gaining territory, you risk losing more than you gain. That risk is a significant disincentive to aggression. Why should Muslims be exempt from it? They declared a war of genocidal intent. They lost. They demand that territory, which they had illegally seized in '48 and lost in '67 when they attacked Israel again, be returned to them. That is avarice & arrogance, with no foundation on justice or equity.

Israel was willing to return captured land in return for peace. Instead, the Arab League declared the three no's outlined above. Jews have every right in justice and equity to live in the stolen land they recovered. Israel allows Muslims to live in her territory but Muslims demand that the land be judenrein. How do you justify the double standard?

When Jordan illegally seized and annexed Jerusalem, Hussein guaranteed free access to holy sites, yet he barred Jews from their holy sites and desecrated cemeteries and synagogues. Why in Hell should Jews expect any better performance from his son and the UN?

Falestine

As pointed out earlier in Peace: in a Pig's ..., 'Palestine' & 'Palestinians' really refer to Israel & Jews. Falestinian claims to being a particular people, distinct from the mill run of Arabs with special national aspirations are entirely fraudulent. They had a right to stay put, they chose to leave in order to facilitate genocidal aggression against the Jews. Why should they be allowed to return to destroy Israel militarily or demographically?

United Nothing!

When and where has the UN been of any real benefit? Have they stopped any wars or prevented any genocides? Have they prevented Hezbollah from re-arming and firing rockets? Have they stopped Hamas rocket fire?

Jerusalem was divided from '48 to '67. During that period, Jews were barred from the Temple Mount and their cemeteries & synagogues were desecrated, in contravention of King Hussein's promise. Why should she revert to that condition?

The Security Council can't guarantee anything. It is a useless appendage, with Russia & China exercising veto power in support of their Arab dependencies.

Oslo, Road Map & Wye River

When did the Falestinians cease propagation of propaganda for war & incitement of terrorism? When did they take active & effective steps to stop terror attacks? When did they close the revolving prison door? When did they recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state? When did they quit chanting "from the river to the sea"? When did they quit honoring terrorists as martyrs? What makes anyone but a deluded fool think they ever will do any of those things?

Peace through victory

Victory: the Path to Peace exposes the foundation of Islamic aggression: Qir'an, hadith & Shari'ah. In the end, it all boils down to this.

Only a total, absolute military and ideological victory; one which destroys Islam completely, can put an end to Jihad. This is the fatal fact of Islam which none dares contemplate. Nixon & Kissinger could not force peace. Reagan & Baker could not force peace. Clinton & Albright could not force peace. Bush , Powell & Rice could not force peace. Peace must come from total and absolute victory over Islam, it has no other source. While there is Islam, there is Jihad.

You who believe that reforming Islamic governments, introducing democracy, educating the populace and abolishing poverty will end Jihad are blind, ignorant fools. Jihad is a mandatory sacrament, an eternal commandment of Allah’s perfected, immutable word. Jihad; holy fighting in Allah’s cause, is an intrinsic part of Islam; it is the Muslim’s "original religion", and they are cursed if they abandon it.

The victory must be so complete, total, intense and extensive that the remaining Muslims will recognize Islam for the fraud it is and abandon it completely. Until that happens, any peace will be partial, insecure and temporary.

Cries of Desperation

The Jihadim mouth piece Al Jazeera has an English version of the OBL's woeful plea to the survivors of the families he and his kind destroyed all in the name of the Caliphate and the 12th Imam.

He blames his minions and not himself, OBL does. Sounds JUST like our very OWN Democratic Party Leadership. Never accept personal responsibility. ALWAYS bounce the blame elsewhere. Cowards act in this manner.

Does the below sound familiar?

[...]

"Some of you have been lax in one duty, which is to unite your ranks," bin Laden said. "Beware of division ... The Muslim world is waiting for you to gather under one banner."

[...]

Where else have we heard similar tones?

[...]

It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few by the few, and for the few. Time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own’ society and to replace it with a shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together society.

[...]

Words of desperation?

[...]

"The interest of the Islamic nation surpasses that of a group," he said.

[...]

Sound familiar?

[...]

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

[...]

Same Playbook? Who is listening to whom?

[...]

"The strength of faith is in the strength of the bond between Muslims and not that of a tribe or that of nationalism."

[...]

And...

[...]

“We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground.”

[...]

Wow? Yes, WOW!!

Gee. I wonder which one is instructing the other in the rhetoric?

America Wins Once Again!

The Reed-Levin Amendment goes down in flames thanks to the efforts of many Americans joining with the Grassroots organization such as Families united and Vets For Freedom.

We specifically addressed these upcoming amendments and so far, we are 3 for 3 in defeating the defeatist rhetoric of the Losers of the Leftinistra.

The Leftinistra and those which "own" them in CONgress will soon grow accustomed to being defeated time and time again. Actually, one would think that since they are so vested in defeat, their being defeated can actually be considered a victory...for them.

They have ended this week in defeat. Catch the wave at meme.

Over at macranger, we will read, "...they came, they saw, they fell on their ass..." very well stated.

Wake Up America has the low-down and checking with memeorandum, all sides are chattering about this. Reading the Kosmonoffs and the other idiot loser rags, one will be able to detect their bubbles bursting on the ground because they can get no altitude. Their momentum has come crashing down and there is nowhere to hide.

I will enjoy their obscurity.

Big Tent Democrat / TalkLeft: Phony Reed-Levin Iraq Bill Defeated In Senate

Todd Beeton / MyDD: Levin-Reed Amendment Fails Too

Pat Dollard / Young Americans: Dems End Week With Third Resounding Failure
Mcjoan / Daily Kos: Where's Congress? — The NYT's editorial page is on a quest …

Prairie Weather: Why are the Democrat's committing political suicide? …

New York Times: Iraq Bill Backed by Democrats Blocked in Senate

This has been a GREAT week for True Patriots and for those which truly support our troops.

Soldier On!

Rounds Out or Just The Beginning

There are 4 pieces in the New York Post today that are "Rather" informative. Here they are in all of their Glory...nothing is sweeter than the scent of Victory...that is why the Fruit Loop Brigades smell so bad...they revel in defeat.

TORA Battle heating up...

August 16, 2007 -- BAGRAMI, Afghanistan - Hundreds of U.S.-led troops have launched an offensive against al Qaeda and Taliban militants in an area of eastern Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden once hid, officials said yesterday.

A bomb near the capital, meanwhile, killed three German police officers assigned to protect their country's embassy, and a British national was shot dead in Kabul.

The offensive involving ground troops and airstrikes in the Tora Bora region of eastern Nangarhar province is targeting "hundreds of foreign fighters" who are using dug-in positions, said a coalition spokeswoman, Capt. Vanessa Bowman.

General Petraeus Eying Troop Draw Down (due to the successes, naturally)

August 16, 2007 -- BAGHDAD - The top American commander in Iraq said yesterday he was preparing recommendations on troop reductions before he returns to Washington next month for a report to Congress. He predicted the U.S. footprint in Iraq would have to be "a good bit smaller" by next summer.

But Gen. David Petraeus cautioned against a quick or significant U.S. withdrawal that could surrender "the gains we have fought so hard to achieve."

He declined to offer specifics on upcoming recommendations. The report, expected next month, is seen as a potential road map for U.S. military and diplomatic policies in Iraq.

Petraeus also said the "horrific and indiscriminate attacks" that killed at least 500 Yazidis, an ancient religious sect, in northwestern Iraq on Tuesday were the work of al Qaeda in Iraq fighters. The suicide bombings occurred near the Syrian border, and U.S. officials charge the Damascus regime has not done enough to police the frontier against infiltration by foreign fighters who dominate al Qaeda.

The attacks, Petraeus added, bolstered his argument against moving too quickly to draw down the 30,000 additional U.S. troops deployed in the first half of the year.

Killing For Congress

August 16, 2007 -- TWO days ago, al Qaeda det onated four massive truck bombs in three Iraqi vil lages, killing at least 250 civilians (perhaps as many as 500) and wounding many more. The bombings were a sign of al Qaeda's frustration, desperation and fear.

The victims were ethnic Kurd Yazidis, members of a minor sect with pre-Islamic roots. Muslim extremists condemn them (wrongly) as devil worshippers. The Yazidis live on the fringes of society.

That's one of the two reasons al Qaeda targeted those settlements: The terrorist leaders realize now that the carnage they wrought on fellow Muslims backfired, turning once-sympathetic Sunni Arabs against them. The fanatics calculated that Iraqis wouldn't care much about the Yazidis.

As far as the Thieves of Baghdad (also known as Iraq's government) go, the terrorists were right. Iraqi minorities, including Christians, have been classified as fair game by Muslim butchers. Mainstream Iraqis simply look away.

But the second reason for those dramatic bombings was that al Qaeda needs to portray Iraq as a continuing failure of U.S. policy. Those dead and maimed Yazidis were just props: The intended audience was Congress.

Al Qaeda has been badly battered. It's lost top leaders and thousands of cadres. Even more painful for the Islamists, they've lost ground among the people of Iraq, including former allies. Iraqis got a good taste of al Qaeda. Now they're spitting it out.

The foreign terrorists slaughtering the innocent recognize that their only remaining hope of pulling off a come-from-way-behind win is to convince your senator and your congressman or -woman that it's politically expedient to hand a default victory to a defeated al Qaeda.

Whacking Iran...interesting bit of analogy

August 16, 2007 -- THE media missed a big one yesterday.

They ran with the story that the Bush administration will soon designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps - a major troublemaker in Iraq - as a terrorist organization. But they didn't look past the public-consumption explanation that the move lets our government go after the Revolutionary Guards' finances and the international companies that cut deals with Tehran's thugs.

The real reason for the move is to set up a legal basis for airstrikes or special operations raids on the Guard's bases in Iran.

Our policy is that we reserve the right to whack terrorists anywhere in the world. Now we have newly designated terrorists. And we know exactly where they are.

This doesn't mean we won't go after their money, too. The Revolutionary Guards have built up a financial empire - they're religious fanatics, but, in their version of Islam, "greed is good." Hurting Iran's assassins in the pocketbook reduces their ability to export terror.

But watch that space: We've long delayed taking action against the Iranians who provide Iraq's Shia extremists with the sophisticated IEDs that kill and maim our troops. We fell into the Vietnam-era trap of allowing the enemy a sanctuary - this time, in Iran. The Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds subsidiary helped butcher hundreds of our troops - and got away with it virtually scot-free.

Looks like those days are nearing an end.

Good News From Iraq...Bad News for Dummies

August 15, 2007 -- News out of Iraq continues to be encouraging: High-profile attacks have fallen nearly 50 percent since the start of the troop surge, USA Today reported this week.

Gen. David Petraeus, commanding the war in Iraq, says hundreds of al Qaeda fighters were killed or captured in just the past month alone.

Tips about the enemy are up fourfold over the last year - to some 23,000 a month.

"Tribes and people are starting to stand up and fight back," said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, deputy commander of the U.S. division north of Baghdad, in the USA Today report. "They are turning against al Qaeda."

It's a sign of the preliminary success of a number of operations now under way, as troop strength has finally reached the maximum planned by the surge.

To think that just a month ago, Democrats were trying to pull the plug on Iraq.

Maybe they feared exactly what is happening: The tide in Iraq seems to be turning in America's favor - and that spells bad news for the Dems, who've pinned their own political fates on the White House failing in the war.

Democrats aren't the only ones who have suddenly gone mum: Little by way of saber-rattling has been heard from the mullahs' motor-mouth in Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The shifts, in rhetoric and on the ground, could portend, well . . . anything.

The enemy may be laying low, figuring they can't bear - at the moment, anyway - the high cost of additional attacks and confrontations.

Or they may be re-arming for a major offensive.

Surely they've by no means ended their violence completely, even temporarily: Yesterday, suicide bombers killed at least 175 people and wounded 200.

But Coalition forces aren't letting up, either: This week, they launched a third major campaign, Operation Phantom Strike, aimed at disrupting al Qaeda and Iranian-backed operations.

The verdict is still out on Iraq. Far-left Democrats may yet force a premature pullout.

But Americans can hope for the best. There's no reason to cut this war short.

Remember the Food For Oil Scandals? The S-L-O-W wheels of justice churn on...

August 15, 2007 -- A Texas oil baron facing trial for his role in the United Nations' oil-for-food scandal may have also committed treason by secretly giving the Iraqi government advance warning of U.S. plans to invade, court papers allege.

The feds have evidence Oscar Wyatt Jr. told Iraqi officials "when the United States would begin bombing Iraq, when the army would invade Iraq and how many soldiers would be sent," Wyatt's lawyers claimed in a bid to keep a potentially incriminating diary out of the trial.

The diary, by a former Iraq oil official, also suggests Wyatt "convinced Sen. Edward Kennedy to deliver a speech against the war with Iraq," say court papers filed by the defense. But a Kennedy spokeswoman insisted he "based his decision to oppose the war on briefings by experts, insight from military personnel and testimony and briefings from the administration."

Wyatt, 82, founder and ex-chairman of Coastal Corp., is set to go on trial next month for allegedly paying Saddam Hussein kickbacks to reap illegal profits through the U.N. oil-for-food program.

How many feet does Obama have, anyway? And who gave him more bullets?

August 15, 2007 -- Rivals of Sen. Barack Obama slammed him for saying the U.S. needs to have more troops fighting Taliban forces in Afghanistan so "we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."

Obama made the comments during a campaign swing in New Hampshire.

"Now, you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so we've got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there," Obama was quoted by the Nashua Telegraph saying.

Aides to GOP hopeful Mitt Romney told the Washington Examiner that it reflects inexperience and is "an entirely inaccurate condemnation" of the U.S. military in the Mideast.

But Obama supporters pointed to comments from military leaders and others acknowledging the civilian deaths, including comments from President Bush at a press conference last week, where he said he'd apologized to Afghanistan's president for civilian deaths.

This Socialist Party called the Democratic Party is self-imploding. It is both sad and funny but funny in a sad way.

Move America Forward "Fight For Victory Tour"

Please help in any way you are able!!

ALERT: It's hard to believe but the launch of Move America Forward's historic "Fight for Victory Tour" is in just 20 days!

The surrender/retreat/defeat crowd has announced they are mobilizing for a giant September offensive to pressure Congress to force our troops to quit and allow al-Qaida to claim victory in Iraq.

But this time the anti-victory activists will be met by an outpouring of pro-troop supporters as part of MAF's "Fight for Victory Tour" that will cross this nation with 27 pro-troop rallies.

We have a huge amount of money we need to raise to pay for all the expenses to cover this effort. We now only have 20 days to raise that money.

Please help us a financial contribution. The donations are tax-deductible and there are no contribution limits. Corporate contributions are allowed as well.

** CONTRIBUTE ONLINE **
http://www.MoveAmericaForward.org/Contribution

Or mail in a contribution to our headquarters:

Move America Forward
ATTN: Fight for Victory Department
P.O. Box 1497
Sacramento, CA 95812

Vets For Freedom: Call To Action Update

Reality will be setting in, in short order for the Defeatocrats. Prepare for the fall-out...the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

GET OFF YOUR BUTTS AND GO...(if you can).

My fellow veterans,

This week, the response to the September trip to Washington, DC has been nothing short of outstanding. However, we still need more veterans to sign up early and join us on September 17-18 at our nation's capital.

It's very simple to sign up-and it costs you nothing. Just send an email to events@vetsforfreedom.org with your name, military bio, your home state, and contact information. Once we receive this information we can start the process of arranging your travel and scheduling your appointments in Washington, DC.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are starting to make an impact on public opinion, not only with our fellow Americans, but also with members of Congress. Through our efforts, more Americans are willing to listen to our commanders on-the-ground who want victory, rather than politicians in Washington who seek re-election.

When General Petraeus arrives in Washington to submit his report to Congress in September, Vets for Freedom will be there to support him and the troops that he commands. We will demand that members of Congress listen with an open mind to the progress that his strategy is achieving.

We all know first-hand what the stakes are: victory in Iraq or defeat at the hands Al Qaeda and America's enemies. We, as veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, can provide the best, and most accurate, accounts of what is really happening on the ground. Congress needs to hear from you-and all veterans that support victory.

For more detailed information about September 17 & 18, go to: http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/tenweeks

Please contact us with any questions that you may have. We are honored to join you in leading the charge for victory.

Regards,


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

Driving The Leftinistra INSANE

A blurb from the NY Slimes:

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.

Read the rest at the NYT

Wake Up America

UPDATE:
Moonbats and normal folk discussing this issue:

New York Times:

A War We Just Might Win — 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.

Link Search: Google, Ask, Technorati, Sphere, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: TIME: Swampland, The New Republic, Tapscott's Copy Desk, Los Angeles Times, Think Progress, The Newshoggers, The Huffington Post, The Atlantic Online, Times of London, Lawyers, Guns and Money, Reuters, Commentary, Election Central, Power Line, The Independent, Anything They Say, Weekly Standard, Gateway Pundit, The Tank, Townhall.com, The Swamp, Shakespeare's Sister, NewsBusters.org, Althouse, The Agonist, No More Mister Nice Blog, Winds of Change.NET, TigerHawk, Angry Bear, The Heretik, Right Wing Nut House, Thomas P.M. Barnett, Political Punch, baldilocks, The Carpetbagger Report, A Chequer-Board of Nights …, The Belmont Club, rubber hose, ComMITTed to Romney!, BBC, Villainous Company, Wake up America, Hot Air, WTF Is It Now??, Bluey Blog, JustOneMinute, USS Neverdock, Taylor Marsh, BLACKFIVE, Donklephant, The Strata-Sphere, Middle Earth Journal, Connecting.the.Dots, Eschaton, The Sundries Shack, Balloon Juice, National Review, Jules Crittenden, Clayton Cramer's BLOG and Informed Comment

Track back from Wake Up America

American Support For the War Part #2

Remember when we showed you this graph?



Boy did it create a firestorm in the comments section, after all, members of the far left liberal party cannot stomach the thought of American support inching upwards for our actions in Iraq. They cannot handle any news of success or progress in Iraq. They cannot even fathom the idea of success or victory.

They lose what little minds they have left over it.

Wellllllllllll, guess what? The poll was redone, and the results came out the same.

THE war in Iraq is the single most important continuing news issue right now. Public opinion about the war is a critical part of that story. That’s why when a finding about the war in a New York Times poll could not be easily explained, the paper went back and did another poll on the very same subject. It turns out the poll had gotten it right. Support for the initial invasion of Iraq, as measured by a question The New York Times/CBS News Poll has asked since December 2003, increased modestly compared with two months ago.

[...]

Forty-two percent of those polled said the United States did the right thing, and 54 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. The last time the question was asked, in May, 35 percent said taking military action against Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out.

No doubt the NYT was praying for a different outcome but, alas, their prayers went unanswered. In fact, the only numbers that changed was LESS, in the second poll, said we should have stayed out of Iraq.

When the second round of results came back, the numbers were nearly identical to the ones found in the poll about Mrs. Clinton. In the poll conducted last weekend with 889 adults, 42 percent of the respondents said the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, and 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out.

No mistake. American support for the war is increasing.

Deal with it.

More and more good news is coming out every single day, we show it to you consistently throughout the week, every week.

The American people see it too.

There was also a drop in the number of people who said the war was going badly. In the latest poll, 66 percent of Americans said things were going badly for the United States in its efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq. That is down from 76 percent who said the same thing in May.

Looks like some Americans are still capable of acknowledging the truth when it hits them in the face, or in this case, when they media starts showing some progress and success, instead of sweeping it under the rug.

The good news about Iraq, just got a little bit better. Thanks NYT!!!!

Cross Posted from Wake up America.


.

And The Lefty Trolls Are ALL Atwitter!!

As Q&O says, all the more reason to like Petraeus!!

Damien McElroy / Telegraph:

Iraqi leader tells Bush: Get Gen Petraeus out — Relations between the top United States general in Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki, the country's prime minister, are so bad that the Iraqi leader made a direct appeal for his removal to President George W Bush. — Although the call was rejected …

Link Search: Google, Ask, Technorati, Sphere, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: The Atlantic Online, SWJ Blog, QandO, The Garlic, Don Surber, DownWithTyranny!, Cliff Schecter, Outside The Beltway, TalkLeft, Liberty Street, Marine Corps Times HOME and INTEL DUMP

From Q&O

The deal, as has been written about elsewhere, is the Sunnis must join the armed forces to become armed. If that's a problem for Maliki, he needs to find a new job. As Odierno points out, there are plenty of arms out there already in the hands of the Sunnis groups and tribes. His priority is to ensure they're pointed at AQI and not the CF.

Don Surber

But there is hope for Democrats. Both the Marine Times and the London Daily Telegraph report that the Iraqi prime minister wants President Bush to recall Gen. David Petraeus. The Telegraph reported:

Gen Petraeus admitted that the relationship was stormy, saying: “We have not pulled punches with each other.”

Bush will fire Petraeus right after the Tampa Bay Devil Rays win the pennant.

Hat tip: Lucianne.com.

LOL!!

Moron Matthew Yglesias

Maybe if the Prime Minister of Iraq doesn't like our commanding general in Iraq and wants us to stop arming Sunni groups, but the US government thinks our commanding general is a smart guy and we want to intensify the arming of Sunni groups that we ought to step back, take a deep breath, and decide to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

Intel Dump

Tonight, the AP reports that Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker have been taking Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki out to the woodshed a bit. And apparently, as you might imagine for a grown man who's a head of state, Maliki's not exactly pleased with the thumping he's been getting from the two top U.S. officials in Iraq. According to the AP:

Here is the bottom line. Maliki needs to STFU and get over himself. He has had LOTS and LOTS of time and hasn't produced. He needs to stop whining. GWB told him no. End of story.

PERIOD! DOT. COM.

The Idgit Dems

GREAT little blurb by Ralph peters today in the NY Post...my sentiments exactly!

WINNING IN IRAQ AND LOSING IN WASHINGTON

July 26, 2007 -- TO a military professional, the tactical progress made in Iraq over the last few months is impressive. To a member of Congress, it's an annoyance.

The herd animals on Capitol Hill - from both parties - just can't wait to go over the cliff on Iraq. And even when the media mention one or two of the successes achieved by our troops, the reports are grudging.

Yet what's happening on the ground, right now, in Baghdad and in Iraq's most-troubled provinces, contributes directly to your security. In the words of a senior officer known for his careful assessments, al Qaeda's terrorists in Iraq are "on their back foot and we're trying to knock them to their knees."

Do our politicians really want to help al Qaeda regain its balance?

Gen. David Petraeus and his deputies sharply prioritized the threats we face in Iraq: Al Qaeda is No. 1, and Iran's Shia proxies are No. 2. Our troops hunt them relentlessly. And we don't face our enemies alone: Iraq's security forces have begun to pick up their share of the fight.

A trusted source in Baghdad confirmed several key developments that've gone largely unreported. Here's what's been happening while "journalists" focused on John Edwards' haircuts:

* Al Qaeda lost the support of Iraq's Sunni Arabs. The fanatics over-reached: They murdered popular sheiks, kidnapped tribal women for forced marriages, tried to outlaw any form of joy and (perhaps most fatally, given Iraqi habits) banned smoking. In response, the Arab version of the Marlboro Man rose up and started cutting terrorist throats.

* Since the tribes who once were fighting against us turned on al Qaeda, our troops not only captured the senior Iraqi in the organization - which made brief headlines - but also killed the three al Turki brothers, major-league pinch-hitters al Qaeda sent into Iraq to save the game.

How to Win in Iraq

Here we go. A very interesting article is herein...

Do we have what it takes?

The New Look of The Victory Caucus!!

The Victory Caucus is THE one-stop place if you are looking for everything and anything that is related directly to the Global War On Terror...the good AND the bad. We hide not a thing.

As I was listening to the caterwauling of the Democratic Presidential Aspirants this evening, I couldn't help notice that their sources of progresses and shortfalls in the War In Iraq is wanting. It is wanting intellectual fervor and the Democrats cannot, NAY!, WILL not accept that we, America, are WINNING this war.

We have also been saying that the Democrats CANNOT afford to win in Iraq. It will disappoint them GREATLY and their "popular" stature will wax thin and cold. Little do they realize, it has already happened. They are in for a major landslide come November 2008...the problem is, the landslide that comes their way will bury them and their ignorant defeatist shit for DECADES to come.

Losers are as losers do.

Do we, America, want a "change in direction"? Yes. We do. But the "direction" is not a "location". The "direction" is an event. We, America, want to WIN THE WAR. And, we are...now. The ROE has been modified. The obvious signs are clear to this DAVOFW.

Wake Up America has an excellent (as usual) piece up about how American Support for War Inches Up. I listened to how we were failing. Failing to do what, exactly? Lose? Like in Vietnam? I and others have been blogging, writing, screeching, preaching and getting the word out that nothing could be more wrong than as Reid has stated, "The war is lost..." Some people's kids. I swear!

IBD Editorials has a piece up from earlier today entitled "Heart and Minds".

Not listening to Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, Iraqi Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders have formalized an alliance with U.S. forces and against al-Qaida. The Arab street is rising up, and they're on our side.

How long have we been hearing about this and the Leftinistra, the Armies of the Socialist Liberals, aka the Democratic Party leadership and their far left nemesis and the Republican Party RINOs, absolutely refuse to accept this news. They would "Rather" delude themselves into thinking that their politically driven lies and deceitfulness will garner them more support and have some kind of a MAJOR landslide similar to the Reagan landslide of yore.

Just in case anyone has forgotten what that entailed, here is a graphic for your enjoyment or hair-pulling.
Now, the above is a landslide. What happened last November, was ("IS") by no means a landslide, nor was it a mandate for the Democratic Party. What it was is this; a wake-up call for the complacent Republicans that we, The Reagan Era Conservatives, were displeased with the RINOs among us and guiding the country down the wrong path...NOT about Iraq, but about the spend-thrift machinations of a party gone unchecked.

The Contract With America was brushed aside and we tried to warn them but they were not listening to "We The People", were they? No, they were not. They most assuredly heard us over the Shamnesty deal, yes? And, thank God above, we have EVERYONE'S attention now. Don't we? Yes, we do.

We have their attention so badly at the moment that the Defeatocrats want to shut us down. "It's not fair that our bleeding heart liberal communist pinko fag agenda garbage fails at every turn or it is not as popular as the conservative agenda that succeeds at every turn!" "It's not our fault. It is GWB's fault that we fail so miserably!"

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!

Here is another graphic. It is how Reid and his genre of Democrats and RINOs act when "things" don't go as they so lustfully pine and yearn for them to go.

The overwhelming success of CONSERVATIVE talk radio and other venues SHOULD BE their sign...here's your sign. "You might be a Leftinistra if your radio talk show goes tits up. Here's your sign."

The cut-and-run Democrats have long argued that our presence in Iraq has merely stirred things up and given al-Qaida an effective recruiting tool. Well, we've certainly stirred things up — and thanks to the success of our surgin' general, David Petraeus, we have a bevy of new Iraqi recruits. Except they've got al-Qaida in their cross hairs.

On Saturday, members of the 1st Cavalry Division based near Taji brokered a formal agreement between Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders to join forces against al-Qaida and other jihadists. The Sunni and Shiite agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji, just 12 miles north of Baghdad.

Take a few minutes and think about that. Take a few minutes and think about this as well.

The deal is just the latest example of the progress Democrats claim isn't happening in Iraq — a series of deals with various tribes and militia groups that at one point were part of the insurgency. But it's the first involving both Sunni and Shiite sheiks together.

After the agreement, soldiers from the 1st Cav's 7th Regiment could be seen walking calmly through the streets of nearby Falahal. "A month ago, every single one of these people were shooting at us," Sgt. Richard Fisk told the Washington Times as he pointed out places in Falahal were roadside bombs were once planted.

Who would have thought that? Oh. WAIT! General David Petraeus did! The General the Senate UNANIMOUSLY confirmed and they APPROVED of The Plan! I smell shit in Shinolla here. You? What do you suppose is the "real agenda" here, folks?

The "real agenda" is this. The Democrats and RINOs cannot afford a victory in Iraq, plain and simple.

Last October, al-Qaida in Iraq declared Baqouba to be the capital of the Islamic State in Iraq, and claimed to control both Anbar and Diyala provinces, of which Baqouba is the capital. But that was before Operation Arrowhead Ripper. Of the 1,000 al-Qaida who were thought to have been in Baqouba, those who haven't been killed or captured have fled.

And we're not doing it alone. Despite mainstream media reports, Iraqis are fighting and dying for their freedom in ever greater numbers. Progress is being made. But as even New York Times reporter John Burns notes: "The most likely outcome of an American withdrawal any time soon would be cataclysmic violence."

Sounds like the tell-tale story of an imminent victory to this old warrior!! What does it sound like to you?

The article ends thusly and it is a chilling consternation:

The choice for Democrats is Petraeus or betray us.

THIS JUST IN...Americans Support The War!!

Well, it looks like the Lame Stream Media is getting the word that WE have KNOWN since the beginning!!

Thanks to Spree for this post!!

Monday, July 23, 2007

American Support for War Inches Up

If you are a far lef Democrat that has been trying to force America to surrender in Iraq, you MAY want to get yourself a drink right quick before seeing the latest poll, shown by the New York Times.

American support for the war in Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until General David Petraeus files his report in the fall.

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

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

Those numbers need to rise more and I believe that as long as we keep seeing the successes that the last couple of months have brought us, the numbers WILL rise considerably more.

As I said earlier:

We have shown, via multiple sources, that the Iraqi Army is stepping up to the point that our commanders are announcing that they may be able to step down in those parts of Iraq, that the 50 Tribal leaders have decided to help the U.S and Coalition forces, we have also shown you that the everyday Iraqi's, sickened by al-Qaeda's methods have been working with our forces and providing tips that have led to some major progress, and this is just a small sample of the news we bring you every week from Iraq.

Every day now, we are getting good news coming from Iraq, one success at a time, and the American people are beginning to understand that Harry "Baghdad" Reid was wrong, we have NOT lost Iraq and we WILL NOT lose in Iraq.

The bad news stories still are coming out, as they should, but for the first time in YEARS, it is being balanced now, by a reluctant media by the good news that they can no longer ignore and sweep under the rug.

Alot of credit for that needs to go to some of the fine independent journalists that have risked their lives to embed with our troops and bring us the truth.

People like Michael Yon, Bill Roggio just to name two, and the Miliblogs that speak to us from the frontline, but there are many more and they have my and many others THANKS for doing it.

Day after day we bring you good news from Iraq, now, week after week, it has become "the trend" instead of the exception.

GOOD JOB TROOPS.

Of course, the LEFT will definitely try to spin it.

[UPDATE] STAY FIRM MR. PRESIDENT.

[UPDATE #2] From Amy Proctor...

GEN David Petraeus is a hands-on kind of guy. He doesn’t sit in the FOB (Forward Operating Base) and rely on briefings from troops on the beat. Instead, he drives and walks through the streets of Baghdad and sees “astonishing signs of normalcy” in half, perhaps two-thirds of Baghdad. Petraeus said today: