I Am A Proud Member of Vets For Freedom

For up to date progress in the War In Iraq, please visit Vets For Freedom, an organization I am proud to be a member in good standing of.

Veteran's Suicide Hot Line Number!

1-800-273-TALK (8255) Call this number if you need help!!

A Vast Collection Of Buzzings At Memeorandum

If you wish to catch a buzz without the usual after affects, CLICK TO MEMEORANDUM. (It will not disturb the current page) That will be all. We now return to regular programming.

This Blog Is Moving

Greetings. After this weekend, this Take Our Country Back Blog will be moving to the new web site. Too many conservatives are getting zapped by the intolerant dweebs of the Obama Goons and seeing that this editing platform is a free site, Blogger can do pretty much what it feels like doing. Hence, I now have a paid site and will be migrating the last 1400+ posts shortly.

So, one day, you just may click this page somewhere and it will show up as "private". It has been fun but the intolerant Czarbie Goon Squads are brain dead idiots. They can come play at the new site which I OWN outright.
Showing posts with label Petraeus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Petraeus. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

The MoveOver Ad of Contention

Just in case no one has seen the ad up front and personal like, here it is. It can be found at the panty-waste site on MoveOverWeAreFatAndAdoreCzarChavez

This is the ad:

Ya can't read it so here is the ad blown up with a better picture.


I have changed the picture because I did not like theirs.

I like the facial expression here. For those of you that have BL training as I have, the expression is indeed priceless.


GENERAL PETRAEUS OR GENERAL BETRAY US?

Cooking the Books for the White House

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress” in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, “We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported

that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.

Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

Paid for by Moveon.org Political Action, political.moveon.org, not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.



They should change their name to MoronsAreUs.







Monday, September 10, 2007

General Petraeus Dashes The Moonbat Crowds To Oblivion



Text of Gen. David H. Petraeus' prepared testimony to Congress Monday: (9/10/2007)

Mr. Chairmen, Ranking Members, Members of the Committees, thank you for the opportunity to provide my assessment of the security situation in Iraq and to discuss the recommendations I recently provided to my chain of command for the way forward.

At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress.

As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met. In recent months, in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have achieved progress in the security arena. Though the improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in 8 of the past 12 weeks, with the numbers of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen since June 2006.

One reason for the decline in incidents is that Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to Al Qaeda-Iraq. Though Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq remain dangerous, we have taken away a number of their sanctuaries and gained the initiative in many areas.

We have also disrupted Shia militia extremists, capturing the head and numerous other leaders of the Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran's activities in Iraq.

Coalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno-sectarian violence, as well, bringing down the number of ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last December. The number of overall civilian deaths has also declined during this period, although the numbers in each area are still at troubling levels.

Iraqi Security Forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of the load, albeit slowly and amid continuing concerns about the sectarian tendencies of some elements in their ranks. In general, however, Iraqi elements have been standing and fighting and sustaining tough losses, and they have taken the lead in operations in many areas.

Additionally, in what may be the most significant development of the past 8 months, the tribal rejection of Al Qaeda that started in Anbar Province and helped produce such significant change there has now spread to a number of other locations as well.

Based on all this and on the further progress we believe we can achieve over the next few months, I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level of brigade combat teams by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains that we have fought so hard to achieve.

Beyond that, while noting that the situation in Iraq remains complex, difficult, and sometimes downright frustrating, I also believe that it is possible to achieve our objectives in Iraq over time, though doing so will be neither quick nor easy.

Having provided that summary, I would like to review the nature of the conflict in Iraq, recall the situation before the surge, describe the current situation, and explain the recommendations I have provided to my chain of command for the way ahead in Iraq.

___

The Nature of the Conflict

The fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources. This competition will take place, and its resolution is key to producing long-term stability in the new Iraq. The question is whether the competition takes place more or less violently. This chart shows the security challenges in Iraq. Foreign and home-grown terrorists, insurgents, militia extremists, and criminals all push the ethno-sectarian competition toward violence. Malign actions by Syria and, especially, by Iran fuel that violence. Lack of adequate governmental capacity, lingering sectarian mistrust, and various forms of corruption add to Iraq's challenges.

___

The Situation in December 2006 and the Surge

In our recent efforts to look to the future, we found it useful to revisit the past. In December 2006, during the height of the ethno-sectarian violence that escalated in the wake of the bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra, the leaders in Iraq at that time General George Casey and Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad concluded that the coalition was failing to achieve its objectives. Their review underscored the need to protect the population and reduce sectarian violence, especially in Baghdad. As a result, General Casey requested additional forces to enable the Coalition to accomplish these tasks, and those forces began to flow in January.

In the ensuing months, our forces and our Iraqi counterparts have focused on improving security, especially in Baghdad and the areas around it, wresting sanctuaries from Al Qaeda control, and disrupting the efforts of the Iranian-supported militia extremists. We have employed counterinsurgency practices that underscore the importance of units living among the people they are securing, and accordingly, our forces have established dozens of joint security stations and patrol bases manned by Coalition and Iraqi forces in Baghdad and in other areas across Iraq.

In mid-June, with all the surge brigades in place, we launched a series of offensive operations focused on: expanding the gains achieved in the preceding months in Anbar Province; clearing Baqubah, several key Baghdad neighborhoods, the remaining sanctuaries in Anbar Province, and important areas in the so-called "belts" around Baghdad; and pursuing Al Qaeda in the Diyala River Valley and several other areas.

Throughout this period, as well, we engaged in dialogue with insurgent groups and tribes, and this led to additional elements standing up to oppose Al Qaeda and other extremists. We also continued to emphasize the development of the Iraqi Security Forces and we employed non-kinetic means to exploit the opportunities provided by the conduct of our kinetic operations aided in this effort by the arrival of additional Provincial Reconstruction Teams.

___

Current Situation and Trends

The progress our forces have achieved with our Iraqi counterparts has, as I noted at the outset, been substantial. While there have been setbacks as well as successes and tough losses along the way, overall, our tactical commanders and I see improvements in the security environment. We do not, however, just rely on gut feeling or personal observations; we also conduct considerable data collection and analysis to gauge progress and determine trends. We do this by gathering and refining data from coalition and Iraqi operations centers, using a methodology that has been in place for well over a year and that has benefited over the past seven months from the increased presence of our forces living among the Iraqi people. We endeavor to ensure our analysis of that data is conducted with rigor and consistency, as our ability to achieve a nuanced understanding of the security environment is dependent on collecting and analyzing data in a consistent way over time. Two US intelligence agencies recently reviewed our methodology, and they concluded that the data we produce is the most accurate and authoritative in Iraq.

As I mentioned up front, and as the chart before you reflects, the level of security incidents has decreased significantly since the start of the surge of offensive operations in mid-June, declining in 8 of the past 12 weeks, with the level of incidents in the past two weeks the lowest since June 2006 and with the number of attacks this past week the lowest since April 2006.

Civilian deaths of all categories, less natural causes, have also declined considerably, by over 45% Iraq-wide since the height of the sectarian violence in December. This is shown by the top line on this chart, and the decline by some 70% in Baghdad is shown by the bottom line. Periodic mass casualty attacks by Al Qaeda have tragically added to the numbers outside Baghdad, in particular. Even without the sensational attacks, however, the level of civilian deaths is clearly still too high and continues to be of serious concern.

As the next chart shows, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths, an important subset of the overall civilian casualty figures, has also declined significantly since the height of the sectarian violence in December. Iraq-wide, as shown by the top line on this chart, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by over 55%, and it would have come down much further were it not for the casualties inflicted by barbaric Al Qaeda bombings attempting to reignite sectarian violence. In Baghdad, as the bottom line shows, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by some 80% since December. This chart also displays the density of sectarian incidents in various Baghdad neighborhoods and it both reflects the progress made in reducing ethno-sectarian violence in the Iraqi capital and identifies the areas that remain the most challenging.

As we have gone on the offensive in former Al Qaeda and insurgent sanctuaries, and as locals have increasingly supported our efforts, we have found a substantially increased number of arms, ammunition, and explosives caches. As this chart shows, we have, so far this year, already found and cleared over 4,400 caches, nearly 1,700 more than we discovered in all of last year. This may be a factor in the reduction in the number of overall improvised explosive device attacks in recent months, which as this chart shows, has declined sharply, by about one-third, since June.

The change in the security situation in Anbar Province has, of course, been particularly dramatic. As this chart shows, monthly attack levels in Anbar have declined from some 1,350 in October 2006 to a bit over 200 in August of this year. This dramatic decrease reflects the significance of the local rejection of Al Qaeda and the newfound willingness of local Anbaris to volunteer to serve in the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police Service. As I noted earlier, we are seeing similar actions in other locations, as well.

To be sure, trends have not been uniformly positive across Iraq, as is shown by this chart depicting violence levels in several key Iraqi provinces. The trend in Ninevah Province, for example, has been much more up and down, until a recent decline, and the same is true in Sala ad Din Province, though recent trends there and in Baghdad have been in the right direction. In any event, the overall trajectory in Iraq a steady decline of incidents in the past three months is still quite significant.

The number of car bombings and suicide attacks has also declined in each of the past 5 months, from a high of some 175 in March, as this chart shows, to about 90 this past month. While this trend in recent months has been heartening, the number of high profile attacks is still too high, and we continue to work hard to destroy the networks that carry out these barbaric attacks.

Our operations have, in fact, produced substantial progress against Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq. As this chart shows, in the past 8 months, we have considerably reduced the areas in which Al Qaeda enjoyed sanctuary. We have also neutralized 5 media cells, detained the senior Iraqi leader of Al Qaeda-Iraq, and killed or captured nearly 100 other key leaders and some 2,500 rank-and-file fighters. Al Qaeda is certainly not defeated; however, it is off balance and we are pursuing its leaders and operators aggressively. Of note, as the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq explained, these gains against Al Qaeda are a result of the synergy of actions by: conventional forces to deny the terrorists sanctuary; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets to find the enemy; and special operations elements to conduct targeted raids. A combination of these assets is necessary to prevent the creation of a terrorist safe haven in Iraq.

In the past six months we have also targeted Shia militia extremists, capturing a number of senior leaders and fighters, as well as the deputy commander of Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2800, the organization created to support the training, arming, funding, and, in some cases, direction of the militia extremists by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps' Qods Force. These elements have assassinated and kidnapped Iraqi governmental leaders, killed and wounded our soldiers with advanced explosive devices provided by Iran, and indiscriminately rocketed civilians in the International Zone and elsewhere. It is increasingly apparent to both Coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Qods Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.

The most significant development in the past six months likely has been the increasing emergence of tribes and local citizens rejecting Al Qaeda and other extremists. This has, of course, been most visible in Anbar Province. A year ago the province was assessed as "lost" politically. Today, it is a model of what happens when local leaders and citizens decide to oppose Al Qaeda and reject its Taliban-like ideology. While Anbar is unique and the model it provides cannot be replicated everywhere in Iraq, it does demonstrate the dramatic change in security that is possible with the support and participation of local citizens. As this chart shows, other tribes have been inspired by the actions of those in Anbar and have volunteered to fight extremists as well. We have, in coordination with the Iraqi government's National Reconciliation Committee, been engaging these tribes and groups of local citizens who want to oppose extremists and to contribute to local security. Some 20,000 such individuals are already being hired for the Iraqi Police, thousands of others are being assimilated into the Iraqi Army, and thousands more are vying for a spot in Iraq's Security Forces.

___

Iraqi Security Forces.

As I noted earlier, Iraqi Security Forces have continued to grow, to develop their capabilities, and to shoulder more of the burden of providing security for their country. Despite concerns about sectarian influence, inadequate logistics and supporting institutions, and an insufficient number of qualified commissioned and noncommissioned officers, Iraqi units are engaged around the country.

As this chart shows, there are now nearly 140 Iraqi Army, National Police and Special Operations Forces Battalions in the fight, with about 95 of those capable of taking the lead in operations, albeit with some coalition support. Beyond that, all of Iraq's battalions have been heavily involved in combat operations that often result in the loss of leaders, soldiers and equipment. These losses are among the shortcomings identified by operational readiness assessments, but we should not take from these assessments the impression that Iraqi forces are not in the fight and contributing. Indeed, despite their shortages, many Iraqi units across Iraq now operate with minimal coalition assistance.

As counterinsurgency operations require substantial numbers of boots on the ground, we are helping the Iraqis expand the size of their security forces. Currently, there are some 445,000 individuals on the payrolls of Iraq's Interior and Defense ministries. Based on recent decisions by Prime Minister Maliki, the number of Iraq's security forces will grow further by the end of this year, possibly by as much as 40,000. Given the security challenges Iraq faces, we support this decision, and we will work with the two security ministries as they continue their efforts to expand their basic training capacity, leader development programs, logistical structures and elements, and various other institutional capabilities to support the substantial growth in Iraqi forces.

Significantly, in 2007, Iraq will, as in 2006, spend more on its security forces than it will receive in security assistance from the United States. In fact, Iraq is becoming one of the United States' larger foreign military sales customers, committing some $1.6 billion to FMS already, with the possibility of up to $1.8 billion more being committed before the end of this year. And I appreciate the attention that some members of Congress have recently given to speeding up the FMS process for Iraq.

To summarize, the security situation in Iraq is improving, and Iraqis elements are slowly taking on more of the responsibility for protecting their citizens. Innumerable challenges lie ahead; however, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have made progress toward achieving sustainable security. As a result, the United States will be in a position to reduce its forces in Iraq in the months ahead.

___

Recommendations

Two weeks ago I provided recommendations for the way ahead in Iraq to the members of my chain of command and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The essence of the approach I recommended is captured in its title: "Security While Transitioning: From Leading to Partnering to Overwatch." This approach seeks to build on the security improvements our troopers and our Iraqi counterparts have fought so hard to achieve in recent months. It reflects recognition of the importance of securing the population and the imperative of transitioning responsibilities to Iraqi institutions and Iraqi forces as quickly as possible, but without rushing to failure. It includes substantial support for the continuing development of Iraqi Security Forces. It also stresses the need to continue the counterinsurgency strategy that we have been employing, but with Iraqis gradually shouldering more of the load. And it highlights the importance of regional and global diplomatic approaches. Finally, in recognition of the fact that this war is not only being fought on the ground in Iraq but also in cyberspace, it also notes the need to contest the enemy's growing use of that important medium to spread extremism. The recommendations I provided were informed by operational and strategic considerations. The operational considerations include recognition that:

_Military aspects of the surge have achieved progress and generated momentum.

_Iraqi Security Forces have continued to grow and have slowly been shouldering more of the security burden in Iraq.

_A mission focus on either population security or transition alone will not be adequate to achieve our objectives.

_Success against al-Qaida-Iraq and Iranian-supported militia extremists requires conventional forces as well as special operations forces; and

_The security and local political situations will enable us to draw down the surge forces.

My recommendations also took into account a number of strategic considerations:

_Political progress will take place only if sufficient security exists.

_Long-term US ground force viability will benefit from force reductions as the surge runs its course.

_Regional, global, and cyberspace initiatives are critical to success; and

_Iraqi leaders understandably want to assume greater sovereignty in their country, although, as they recently announced, they do desire continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq in 2008 under a new UN Security Council Resolution and, following that, they want to negotiate a long term security agreement with the United States and other nations.

Based on these considerations, and having worked the battlefield geometry with Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno to ensure that we retain and build on the gains for which our troopers have fought, I have recommended a drawdown of the surge forces from Iraq. In fact, later this month, the Marine Expeditionary Unit deployed as part of the surge will depart Iraq. Beyond that, if my recommendations are approved, that unit's departure will be followed by the withdrawal of a brigade combat team without replacement in mid-December and the further redeployment without replacement of four other brigade combat teams and the two surge Marine battalions in the first seven months of 2008, until we reach the pre-surge level of 15 brigade combat teams by mid-July 2008.

I would also like to discuss the period beyond next summer. Force reductions will continue beyond the pre-surge levels of brigade combat teams that we will reach by mid-July 2008; however, in my professional judgment, it would be premature to make recommendations on the pace of such reductions at this time. In fact, our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous. The events of the past six months underscore that point. When I testified in January, for example, no one would have dared to forecast that Anbar Province would have been transformed the way it has in the past six months. Nor would anyone have predicted that volunteers in one-time al-Qaida strongholds like Ghazaliyah in western Baghdad or in Adamiya in eastern Baghdad would seek to join the fight against al-Qaida. Nor would we have anticipated that a Shia-led government would accept significant numbers of Sunni volunteers into the ranks of the local police force in Abu Ghraib. Beyond that, on a less encouraging note, none of us earlier this year appreciated the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq, something about which we and Iraq's leaders all now have greater concern.

In view of this, I do not believe it is reasonable to have an adequate appreciation for the pace of further reductions and mission adjustments beyond the summer of 2008 until about mid-March of next year. We will, no later than that time, consider factors similar to those on which I based the current recommendations, having by then, of course, a better feel for the security situation, the improvements in the capabilities of our Iraqi counterparts, and the enemy situation. I will then, as I did in developing the recommendations I have explained here today, also take into consideration the demands on our nation's ground forces, although I believe that that consideration should once again inform, not drive, the recommendations I make.

This chart captures the recommendations I have described, showing the recommended reduction of brigade combat teams as the surge runs its course and illustrating the concept of our units adjusting their missions and transitioning responsibilities to Iraqis, as the situation and Iraqi capabilities permit. It also reflects the no-later-than date for recommendations on force adjustments beyond next summer and provides a possible approach we have considered for the future force structure and mission set in Iraq.

One may argue that the best way to speed the process in Iraq is to change the MNF-I mission from one that emphasizes population security, counterterrorism, and transition, to one that is strictly focused on transition and counterterrorism. Making that change now would, in our view, be premature. We have learned before that there is a real danger in handing over tasks to the Iraqi Security Forces before their capacity and local conditions warrant. In fact, the drafters of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq recognized this danger when they wrote, and I quote, "We assess that changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safe haven would erode security gains achieved thus far."

In describing the recommendations I have made, I should note again that, like Ambassador Crocker, I believe Iraq's problems will require a long-term effort. There are no easy answers or quick solutions. And though we both believe this effort can succeed, it will take time. Our assessments underscore, in fact, the importance of recognizing that a premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences.

That assessment is supported by the findings of a 16 August Defense Intelligence Agency report on the implications of a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Summarizing it in an unclassified fashion, it concludes that a rapid withdrawal would result in the further release of the strong centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi Security Forces; rapid deterioration of local security initiatives; Summarizing it in an unclassified fashion, it concludes that a rapid withdrawal would result in the further release of the strong centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi Security Forces; rapid deterioration of local security initiatives; al-Qaida-Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom of maneuver; a marked increase in violence and further ethno-sectarian displacement and refugee flows; alliances of convenience by-Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom of maneuver; a marked increase in violence and further ethno-sectarian displacement and refugee flows; alliances of convenience by Iraqi groups with internal and external forces to gain advantages over their rivals; and exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics, especially with respect to Iran.

Lt. Gen. Odierno and I share this assessment and believe that the best way to secure our national interests and avoid an unfavorable outcome in Iraq is to continue to focus our operations on securing the Iraqi people while targeting terrorist groups and militia extremists and, as quickly as conditions are met, transitioning security tasks to Iraqi elements.

___

Closing Comments

Before closing, I want to thank you and your colleagues for your support of our men and women in uniform in Iraq. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen with whom I'm honored to serve are the best equipped and, very likely, the most professional force in our nation's history. Impressively, despite all that has been asked of them in recent years, they continue to raise their right hands and volunteer to stay in uniform. With three weeks to go in this fiscal year, in fact, the Army elements in Iraq, for example, have achieved well over 130 percent of the reenlistment goals in the initial term and careerist categories and nearly 115 percent in the mid-career category. All of us appreciate what you have done to ensure that these great troopers have had what they've needed to accomplish their mission, just as we appreciate what you have done to take care of their families, as they, too, have made significant sacrifices in recent years.

The advances you have underwritten in weapons systems and individual equipment; in munitions; in command, control, and communications systems; in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities; in vehicles and counter-IED systems and programs; and in manned and unmanned aircraft have proven invaluable in Iraq. The capabilities that you have funded most recently especially the vehicles that will provide greater protection against improvised explosive devices are also of enormous importance. Additionally, your funding of the Commander's Emergency Response Program has given our leaders a critical tool with which to prosecute the counterinsurgency campaign. Finally, we appreciate as well your funding of our new detention programs and rule of law initiatives in Iraq.

In closing, it remains an enormous privilege to soldier again in Iraq with America's new "Greatest Generation." Our country's men and women in uniform have done a magnificent job in the most complex and challenging environment imaginable. All Americans should be very proud of their sons and daughters serving in Iraq today.

Thank you very much.

END



Yes. The end to the anti-"war" crowds. They are NOT anti-war. They are anti-success.






Jackie Mason Says the Democrats Should Move In With OBL!!

Why do the Leftinistra fear General Petraeus?

And I second that motion. Any Ayes?





Jackie Mason lays it on the line. "Get rid of them or devoid the Democrat Party."

Friday, September 7, 2007

Thursday, September 6, 2007

In Anticipation of General Petraeus...UPDATED

As I sit in my Death Chair reading article after article in the Far Left Brigades of despair via their news outlets, blogs and forums, I can hear the tiny, squeaky voices from a movie from long ago. Some of you might remember it.

It was a science fiction movie in the days of the original Outer Limits and Twilight Zone genre of films. It was called, The Fly. The original was created and aired in 1958 with a remake in 1986.

If you recall, a mad scientist was testing the genome structures of various creatures and, WOOPS! He became a fly. Folks were wondering what happened to him and the movie ends when they find him...and kill him.

This fellow was in the basement because he kept hearing a wee-tiny little voice saying, "Help me! Help me!" As he zeroed in to the sounds, he found a fly with a human head trapped in a spider web and the fly was saying, "Help me! Help me!" The fellow looked at the scene in total horror, saw the spider approaching his friend. He picked up a book, I do believe, and swatted the spider AND the Fly Man.

The credits rolled then and everyone felt sorry for the poor dead Fly Man.

This is what goes through my mind as I read and view Schumer prattling on how the military is useless and the surge isn't the cause and affect of the Tribal People fighting Al Qaida, no matter what reports are made by whom to the contrary. Note to Schumer...no matter how you spin it, we are winning due to the efforts, blood spilled and warriors wounded and KIA to bring about the change. You, "mister" Schumer are a disgusting and useless excuse of a man. You are indeed pathetic and you are hereby classified as the same class as ReidCo. In the words of Dennis Miller, "...a mediocre man's Thermopoly...". That is you, Mr Schumer; a mediocre failure.

This is what goes through my mind as I read and view Harry Reid saying that he is willing to "negotiate terms" with Republican comrades if it means that we change direction in Iraq. Note to ReidCo...there HAS been a change and we are winning so shut your ignorant pie-hole.

As I read the piece at Salon by the War Fraud Kerry, I can hear their voices in the background, "Help me! Help me!"

As I read the piece by Amato at Crooks and Liars, I can hear the wee-tiny little voices saying, "OH nooooooooooooooooooooo, Mr Bill!", as the Conservative Tsunami crests and sweeps the useless blob of flesh that it is out to sea.

As I read that twit Blumenthal at Salon, I can hear the micro-voice of panic screeching, "It's too late! We have lost! Help me! Help me!"

Yes. Success is indeed sweet revenge. Victory in Iraq is repulsive to the unAmericans and the unPatriotic. The New One World Order of the losers and the gamblers is not to be realized. And, I count my blessings.

The Democratic Party leaders have ensnared themselves in their own webs of deceit, despair, lies and political quagmires. They have invested heavily in defeat and defeatist rhetoric to appease and please their far left base which, by the way, are baseless in this Federal Republic we call the United States of America.

The verbiage we hear everyday is their way of saying, "Help! Help!"

General Petraeus is the book that will swat them and they know it.

Catch the wave

UPDATE!!
Check out Hot Air and Sweetness & Light

It seems as though there is a glitch in the not-so-carefully prepared (or not so) speechification by the moron Schumer. Check it out...as I read this, I DISTINCTLY remember that this is NOT what Schumer said...

And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.

The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.”

So, deep down, he IS a Jihadi Sympathizer? The above is from his web site. Something smells like fish and there is only one thing that smells like fish and that is fish. When something waddles like a duck and sounds like a duck then, it must be a duck.

More waves






Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Jon Carry Wanna-Be Stolz Rambles





I guess political aspirants get a little lunk-headed after a while. Four months In Country will do that, I suppose...

Huff and Puff Leftinistra Rag...

Too bad for Jonny Boy, being on the wrong end of the pungie stick all for political aspirations. Did Buzz Patterson really trounce him into a blithering toad...like Murtha?

Here IT is, yammering on about the GAO that has ALREADY been debunked and exposed prior to the release, after being "leaked" for political reasons. Gee. I wonder why that is and why it was "leaked" in this particular timeframe. Gee. Could it be that "they" know "they" have lost Their War?

Could it be that "they" know that "they" have lost the hearts and minds of True Patriots with all of their known-to-be-bull rhetoric? Could it be that "they" see the Conservative Tsunami cresting and "they" cannot escape?

Could it be that since Jonny Boy has been running ITSELF ragged all over tarnation to jostle for a possible political stake in somebody's back pocket that IT has lost touch with what is reality and what is the Twilight Zone of Obscurity?

Come on, Jonny Boy. Pull your head out. It has just GOTTA stink in there!

OH! WAIT! This JUST hot off the presses!

The NY Slimes is reporting on something that everybody knows already. There must not be any secrets they can disclose to the enemy.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 — As Congress reopened for business on Tuesday, the Democratic leadership promised to force a change in President Bush’s war strategy, and lawmakers maneuvered to frame the debate over Iraq ahead of reports next week by Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker.

“Many of my Republican friends have long held September as the month for the policy change in Iraq,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, said in his opening speech on the Senate floor. “It’s September.”

“The calendar hasn’t changed,” he said. “It’s time to make a decision. We can’t continue the way we are.”

Really, ReidCo? How about accepting your losses, pony up to the bar, admit you were/are playing political football with our troops, my son being one of them, confessing your misdeeds and mistakes, thereby regaining some self-dignity. Lord knows and, so do you, that YOU have the lowest approval ratings in the history of this nation.

And here is the Big Story...must be a slow day...

In a hearing later in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, war critics seized on a new report by the Government Accountability Office showing virtually no political progress by the Iraqi government as the latest evidence that the president’s military strategy was failing.

It is too soon to say how far either side in the deeply divided Congress is willing to bend, and the hearing before the Senate committee, which is not as sharply partisan as the full Senate, offered few clues.

In the words of Charlie Brown, "AAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGG!"

And there ya have it. As an email conversation went along;

Friend One:Listening to the headline news broadcast in the car this evening I could have sworn they said that the surge is working, but then in the same sentence without taking a breath they started in about how the Iraqi government hasn't met "x" number of objectives.

These are 2 entirely separate issues, why did the news media act like it was all just one?

Am I making any sense?


Snooper:They MUST make it sound like a package deal.

They will NOT accept that a military victory MUST come before a political solution can be viable.

You have witnessed the Spin Machine Churning.


Friend Two:Exactly so. They have to project it that way or admit that Bush is right.

That right there is what this GAO crap is ALL about. Nothing more. Nothing less. Distraction.


And CONgress wonders why they are such an international embarrassment.

[Update- Spree] Snooper asked me to post this as an update:

Cross posted from Wake up America


Flash back to July here:
(Click to Enlarge)


The handy dandy graph above shows 8 areas of satisfactory progress, 7 areas of unsatisfactory progress, mixed on 2 areas and 2 areas which it says it is too early to determine.

That was July's Initial Benchmark Assessment Report.

Fast forward to today, it seems that Congress has once again leaked information, this time to Wapo, from a report issued by GAO, and agency that by their own words, "works for Congress", a Democratically controlled congress at the moment, and this leaked report states that only three of the benchmarks have been met.

Once again, we have Congress leaking a report to counter the news that their own politicians returning from Iraq are telling the American people.

So, the question ends up being, do we listen to the commanders on the ground? Do we listen to the multitude of people, mostly Democratic politicians that are returning from Iraq saying their is real progress? Do we listen to the troops in what they are telling us about conditions on the ground?

Or do we listen to a report that no one has access to and we only have Wapo's word on what it says because it hasn't been officially released yet, from an Agency that works for Congress?

The left side of the blogosphere and news organizations are jumping all over this story, but where is the GAO report?

No one has access to it to see what it really says, just Wapo's interpretation of the report.

Most striking is what everyone is ignoring about this Wapo article:

The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. They are expected to describe significant security improvements and offer at least some promise for political reconciliation in Iraq.

[...]

A GAO spokesman declined to comment on the report before it is released. The 69-page draft, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, is still undergoing review at the Defense Department, which may ask that parts of it be classified....


The part that is bolded.

This report was leaked preemptively to try to counter the good news militarily and politically coming from Iraq, and I haven't seen anyone asking the serious question about who leaked a report that the Defense Department has not had time to strike anything that may be classified, to a newspaper?

Once again, the big story is being glossed over.

Political posturing and deliberately trying to preempt the report General Petraeus is to give, trying to counter the news the American people are seeing showing progress, trumps our national security for whoever leaked the report.

Funny how the big story of the day is a report no one has access to, leaked to a newspaper before classified material could be removed and written by an agency that works for Congress.

Sorry folks, but I think I will wait for this report to be released in full and until General Petraeus, the man in charge on the ground in Iraq has made his reports before making those types of determinations.

Then again, those that this report was aimed at, certainly jumped on it fast without asking any of the above questions.

[Update] As predicted the Pentagon disputes the report, once again, leaked information from a report that isn't factually finished, isn't really news at all, except to those trying to use it for a political purpose.

[End update]

.

Friday, August 17, 2007

Anti-War Loons Losing Ground Faster Than Anticipated

Simply amazing, isn't it? Success for America in a war is actually considered a bad thing.

Wake Up America has a grand piece up and her super-faster-than-lightning fingers flew across the keyboard and beat me to the punch. I could smell the smoke of the overly strained flow of electrons from my office in Texas.

It seems as though Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash has just returned from his one and only trip to Iraq with the news that, "HEY! General Petraeus is right! There "IS" progress being made and there "IS" success!"...paraphrase mine, naturally. The actual words?

Over at Topix: here is a very small snippet and I find the choice(s) of the "teaser" to be in doubt as to the Big Picture being presented but, alas, the Lame Stream Media is what it is. The saddest part of this particular piece is the comment from an individual that hasn't a clue. The individual leaving the comment is from Detroit, OR and that explains quite a bit right there.

“It's impossible to overestimate the challenge”

Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., returned from a two-day visit to Iraq this week encouraged about signs of stabilization in the war-torn country but unsure about its future.
And the comment from a moonbat followed by mine:
This is one of the bloodiest months in Iraq!

We've got close to 3,400 dead soldiers - at least 1,000 dead since the Dems took office. How can ANYONE say that there has been progress in Iraq??

Are we going to finally acknowledge that a civil war is going on?(occupying a country during a civil war is a war crime & unwinnable fight because we are only *adding* to the bloodshed - not reducing it). Example: If our country was being occupied, by Canada, during a civil war, Canada, as an occupier would be an obstacle & target - not a peacekeeping force.

Also: Are Iraqis getting electricity 24/7 yet? Are we putting a hold on the mega-huge embassy we are building, and focusing our soldiers' energy on training and peacekeeping - instead of torture and interrogations.

This individual should not even be driving a motorized vehicle, let alone pretending to even remotely dream of actually knowing of that which IT is yammering on about. Where do you suppose this poor irrelevant child gets ITS data from? Do the talking dulls sound familiar to anyone? Here is my reply;
You are as ignorant as ignorant can be. I did not say you were stupid. There "IS" a difference.

Your problem is that you cannot see through your own political agenda and your BDS has curtailed your ability to think straight.

Also, from the temperament of your verbiage, I detect a complete disregard to that which we face and unless you are a Jihadi sympathizer, you would be better off keeping the yapper shut.

Have a nice day.
I will let the child stew on that for a while.

In other more presented news, which cannot be posted here due to copyright concerns, (for three paragraphs), has more tenable data of which one can gleam a small fraction of intent. The piece is entitled; Rep. Baird sees need for longer U.S. role in Iraq. That right there is enough to send the most shrill moonbat into orbit around planets that won't be discovered for aeons! Happy trails to you! Until we meet again....click and read.

From the Oregonian:

Baird voted against giving President Bush the authority to launch the Iraq invasion in 2002 and voted against a war resolution last June. Last week he voted to continue funding for troops.

This marked his first visit to Iraq and his fourth to the Middle East since 1999. He came away with several positive impressions after his visit.

The surge in troop strength, increased Iraqi military participation in the nation's security and "a change in strategies" had helped stabilize Baghdad, Baird said.

He based his observations on a 11/2-hour meeting with Army Gen. David Petraeus, top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the United States ambassador to Iraq, as well as a separate two-hour session with U.S. Marine Corps Brig. Gen. John Allen, the U.S. deputy commander in Anbar province.

Conditions in Anbar, the province west of Baghdad that includes the flashpoint towns of Fallujah and Ramadi, appear to be improving, Baird said. That's partly because aggressive missteps by al-Qaida operatives that have rankled provincial leaders.

Baird made the trip in part to visit with 104th Division soldiers. About 40 of the division's 360 soldiers who were deployed are from Oregon and 110 from Washington.

"The morale of the troops in general is pretty good," Baird said. "They want to succeed."

But the congressman, who opposes a rapid drawdown of U.S. forces, said it is still unclear to him what framework exists for a gradual troop withdrawal.

"Democrats and Republicans have said to the (Bush) administration: You can't continue what you're doing forever," Baird said.

But "we can't just wave a magic wand and say, 'Pull all our guys out.' That's not honest or realistic."

From the Olympian:

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.

Repo Baird still stands by his voting record in regards to this war but he said:

"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work."

And there we have it. More and more folks are seeing the light that we, The New Media, have been stating for seemingly FOREVER! But, it didn't agree with the BDS and the likes of the losers such as Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and a scad or two of other defeatist clowns. They have invested in failure for political gain and they have lost and they didn't even lose the Good Fight. They lost a losing fight because the MAJORITY of the American People knew better and we have proven it.

This also proves, in the long run, and painfully so, that Bush Was Right after all and the Right Brothers' video is very much prophetic.

The buzzzz is here:

Brad Shannon / The Olympian:
Baird sees need for longer U.S. role in Iraq — U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security. — "I believe that the decision …
Link Search: Google, Ask, Technorati, Sphere, and IceRocket
Discussion:

Thursday, August 16, 2007

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.





Friday, August 10, 2007

And The Leftinistra Slip Further Into Obscurity


Reid says to himself..."Oh my [god]...they are winning. Now what do I do? I know. I'll call Nancy! Yeah! That's the ticket!

"Hello? Nancy? What is my next step? Really? Ignore it for long enough and it will go away? Really? You sure? Oh. Yeah. Right. Just like when we repeat our lies to garner votes and position for long enough, the American Idiots fall for our crap! Man! How could I be so stupid? What? Well, jeez! You didn't have to go and answer that. Damn, Nancy.

"But some of the weaker ones that have their own consciences still in tact are beginning to bail on us. What do we do about that? AH! Take their pork away! Why didn't I think of that? What do you mean I am dumber than a box of turtle turds? Snooper? Who in the hell is that? And who is collecting turtle turds for Christ's sake? Oh! Sorry. I didn't mean to mention a religious figure. Can I still have my warm mocca-java? OK. Now. Who is Snooper?

"AH! One of those friggin' Blog Swarm creeps! We need to shut them down! They are WAY too effective and they are beating the hell out of our pet moonbat base! They are slipping fast and now that idiot Cindy says she is mobilizing the base to take us out!! Who does she think she is?

"HOLY COW! Oh. There I go getting religious again. Sorry. I know. You weren't asking for a character witness but I am scared. Everybody is saying how dumb I am and it hurts my feelings. Why can't they just listen to us so we can stay in power and why does that dumb military have to go and start winning? Don't they know that will destroy us? We have worked so hard at getting the American Idiots to believe our lies and now they are using those SAME lies on us! It isn't fair!

"OH, bite me, Nancy! You went out and did that retarded Damascus thing and screwed it up so bad! Talk about calling the kettle pink. What? Black? Isn't that politically incorrect to use that color? Listen, Stretch. You are the one...but...but...but...STFU beeotch! Hello? Hello? Nancy?

"Well. Hell. She hung up on me. Maybe if I call Rush...?"


It it was only true...


Yahoo! News

Prior proponents of the ReidCo ignorance have begun to jump ship and the lame Stream Media has, reluctantly, begun to report that which THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ALREADY KNEW. Imagine that.

One senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted President Bush's plan to increase troops has caused tactical momentum.

One even went so far on Wednesday as to say the argument could be made that U.S. troops are winning.

These are not Bush-backing GOP die-hards, but Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Bob Casey and Jack Reed. Even Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, said progress was being made by soldiers.

At the Opinion Journal

This doesn't necessarily mean these senators will abandon their calls for retreat, but it does seem likely that, come next month, those Democrats who do want America to win in Iraq--as well as Republican weak sisters, who've feared that they'll pay a price politically if they don't jump on the surrender bandwagon--will have an easier time voting their consciences.

On the other hand, it's doubtful that this will change the politics of the Democratic presidential race, where the core voters have always opposed the war and, failing that, favored retreat.

Actually, when you think about it, it's amazing how similar the 2008 race is to the 2004 race. We have a formidable establishment candidate who originally backed the war, then changed his mind (John Kerry then, Hillary Clinton now); a challenger who has opposed the war all along, and who is clearly out of his depth (Howard Dean, Barack Obama); and a third guy who stands around looking pretty (John Edwards, John Edwards). The biggest difference is that Mike Gravel doesn't quite have the gravitas of a Carol Moseley Braun.

This year, of course, everyone seems to think the Democrats are very likely, even guaranteed, to win. That's because, unlike in 2004, George W. Bush is very, very unpopular. The biggest danger for the Dems, then, is that their nominee will figure out that Bush is not on the ballot and won't know what to do.

Say It Ain't So!
From the Hill:

Congress's failure to secure a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq has split anti-war activists on the tactical question of whether to attack Democrats, who now control Capitol Hill.

The split has also underlined accusations among some activists that MoveOn has abandoned its credentials as an issue-based advocacy group and now instead provides cover for Democratic Party leaders.

We guess we should apologize for our August 2003 characterization of MoveOn as a "far-left, pro-Saddam group." It seems they're actually just a bunch of partisans. How disappointing.






Visitor Tracker