Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2025
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘iraq’

Foolish myths

Posted by Richard on August 14, 2007

The inimitable Christopher Hitchens looked at the myths about al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and wielded his mighty pen like a sword, slicing them effortlessly to pieces:

To say that the attempt to Talibanize Iraq would not be happening at all if coalition forces were not present is to make two unsafe assumptions and one possibly suicidal one. The first assumption is that the vultures would never have gathered to feast on the decaying cadaver of the Saddamist state, a state that was in a process of implosion well before 2003. All our experience of countries like Somalia and Sudan, and indeed of Afghanistan, argues that such an assumption is idiotic. It is in the absence of international attention that such nightmarish abnormalities flourish. The second assumption is that the harder we fight them, the more such cancers metastasize. This appears to be contradicted by all the experience of Iraq. Fallujah or Baqubah might already have become the centers of an ultra-Taliban ministate, as they at one time threatened to do, whereas now not only have thousands of AQM goons been killed but local opinion appears to have shifted decisively against them and their methods.

The third assumption, deriving from the first two, would be that if coalition forces withdrew, the AQM gangsters would lose their raison d'être and have nothing left to fight for. I think I shall just leave that assumption lying where it belongs: on the damp floor of whatever asylum it is where foolish and wishful opinions find their eventual home.

Needless to say, read the whole thing

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

“We Just Might Win”

Posted by Richard on July 30, 2007

Today's New York Times contains a remarkable op-ed column by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the liberal Brookings Institution. The pair — who, according to Blackfive, had previously argued "against the continuation of our presence in Iraq" — recently returned from an eight-day tour of the country, and the trip changed their assessment considerably:

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.

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

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services – electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation – to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began – though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

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

In Baghdad's Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. …

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

It's not just the Petraeus plan and the additional combat troops that have made the difference, though. The situation has been slowly but surely improving (with ups and downs, of course) for quite some time. One reason is that the prospect of living in a medieval caliphate focuses the mind, causing more and more Iraqis to decide that a pluralistic society with American soldiers hanging around is far better than the alternative:

In war, sometimes it's important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

This comes as no surprise to you if you've been reading Michael Yon, as I've strongly suggested. Or Austin Bay, or Bill Roggio, or Michael Totten, or various and sundry Milbloggers. And despite what O'Hanlon and Pollack claim, I don't think it's happened suddenly in the last few weeks or months. Maybe Iraq reached a tipping point in recent weeks, but the tide was gradually turning against the jihadists long before that.

The sudden change that's surprising, actually, is that there've been several positive reports like this one in the mainstream media in the last few weeks. After two years of unrelenting negativity, of endless talk of quagmire, civil war, and Vietnam comparisons, of contemptuous dismissal of anyone and anything that contradicted or questioned the prevailing wisdom, why are some journalists suddenly seeing signs of hope and evidence of improvement where yesterday they saw none? Maybe they were blind to everything that didn't fit their narrative until the contrary evidence reached some critical mass. Now, as conscientious journalists, they can no longer ignore it. Yeah, maybe that's it.

If you're inclined toward a more cynical interpretation, how about this one: The media effort to Vietnamize Iraq has served its two main purposes, crippling the Bush administration and giving Congress back to the Democrats. Now it's time to drop or downplay it so the Democrats don't go into the election defined by their KosKids/MoveOn/nutroots wing and lose the presidency in a McGovern-like rout. I wouldn't be surprised if the Clinton machine had something to do with it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hearts and minds

Posted by Richard on July 24, 2007

Investors Business Daily:

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.

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.

Read the whole thing.  

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Son of Winter Soldier

Posted by Richard on July 20, 2007

In a Detroit hotel early in 1971, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, led by Al Hubbard and John Effin' Kerry, staged the three-day "Winter Soldier investigation." Over a hundred Vietnam vets testified that they and their fellow soldiers committed and/or witnessed a horrendous list of atrocities and barbarous acts. Later that year, John Effin' Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and repeated many of those claims. Those stories of massive war crimes played an important role in turning much of the American public — myself included — decisively against the war and against the military.

There was just one problem. Much, if not all, of the Winter Soldier testimony was bogus. Some of the "witnesses" weren't who they claimed to be. Others lied about having served in Vietnam or even in the military. At least one later filed a sworn affidavit alleging that John Effin' Kerry had pressured him into testifying falsely about American atrocities.

McQ at QandO, himself a Vietnam vet, wrote an excellent summary of The Fraud of the Winter Soldier back during the 2004 election campaign. There's a wealth of information and links at WinterSoldier.com. Why should you brush up on this bit of history? Because it's about to repeat itself. 

With a few egregious exceptions, the anti-war mantra has long been, "we support the troops, we just don't support the mission." But the anti-war left is growing increasingly frustrated. As I noted recently, opposition to the war is only about an inch deep. Many Americans are mildly displeased about the Iraq situation, but remarkably few are strongly opposed or really angry. Look at the lack of participation in the increasingly irrelevant anti-war demonstrations.

Opponents of the war must be looking for some way to rekindle the anti-war fervor of the 70s, some way to anger and sicken and disgust mainstream Americans and turn them decisively against the war. 

Well, how about repeating the John Effin' Kerry gambit? How about once again portraying American soldiers as barbaric monsters who've been dehumanized by war and by their evil superiors up the chain of command?

In any group of 160,000, there are inevitably a few nasty people who do bad things. And this enemy doesn't hesitate to fraudulently accuse our soldiers of doing bad things. But with the Haditha case falling apart, I don't doubt that some on the left are ready to rev it up a notch, and the first salvo may have been fired. A New Republic article, "Shock Troops," purported to be by an anonymous soldier in Baghdad, is that salvo.

The article is subscription-only, but Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard has extensive quotes and commentary. Be sure to check out the responses from members of the military. Also, McQ at QandO does a fine job of dissecting this garbage, and he adds some useful ruminations about the military equivalent of urban legends.

I'm no expert on military mess halls, children's skulls, or Bradley Fighting Vehicles, but the stories told by "Scott Thomas" in the New Republic article strike me as not even remotely credible. This is pure BS, and it doesn't pass the smell test. I'm astonished that the editors at the New Republic didn't toss this nonsense in the circular file. I suppose it shows just how willing to believe the worst of our soldiers they are — or how willing to do anything to undermine the war effort.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Senate vs. real world

Posted by Richard on July 19, 2007

Harry Reid's all-nighter was all make-believe. At Sen. Barbara Boxer's behest, Reid scheduled the votes five hours apart, so most senators went home or slept in their offices. The cots were just stage props that went unused. The gimmick resulted in fewer jellyfish Republicans embracing defeat than before, so that didn't work out too well for Reid.

Yesterday, Rush played a clip of Sen. Boxer on CNN saying the Democrats' goal was to get our troops "back on track, going after Al-Qaeda" and "out of the civil war."

Meanwhile, in the real world, Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was spilling his guts to his American captors about who we're really fighting in Iraq:

The Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella terror group affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq, is led by a fictional character designed to mask that group's foreign influence, a captured terror leader has revealed to U.S. interrogators.

In an effort to give Al Qaeda an Iraqi face, terrorists created "a virtual organization in cyberspace," U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner said.

In Web postings, the Islamic State of Iraq has identified its leader as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, a name indicating Iraqi origin. There are no known photos of al-Baghdadi.

Al-Mashhadani said that an actor with an Iraqi accent is used for audio recordings of speeches posted on the Web, Bergner said.

To make their fictional leader appear credible, al-Masri swore allegiance to al-Baghdadi and pledged to obey him, which was essentially swearing allegiance to himself, Bergner said.

Al-Zawahiri also repeatedly referred to al-Baghdadi in video and Internet statements, further deceiving Iraqi followers and perpetuating the myth of al-Baghdadi.

So the people we're fighting in this "civil war" that the Democrats want to get us out of are the same people who declared war on us in 1996 and 1998 (and who began waging war against us at least as early as 1993). They're pretending to be an Iraqi insurgency. I'd like to hear Sen. Boxer explain why she's aiding and abetting their deception.

Boxer and the Democrats are also promoting the idea that we've lost and the situation is hopeless, although even al Zawahiri has admitted that quite the opposite is true. In the real, I mean, Riehl World, Dan Riehl did a nice job of illustrating the progress made in the past 18 months in Iraq:

As the light green fills in month by month, those are areas in which Iraqi forces are now taking the lead. As you begin to see dark green, those areas have been turned over to Iraqi forces. Watch the video below, or here – then tell me there is no progress in Iraq. And remember, Senators, America is watching you.

 Progress In Iraq

  

So, to sum up: It's not a civil war. It's not a distraction from the war with al Qaeda. And we're not losing. Any questions? 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Fighting for victory

Posted by Richard on July 17, 2007

Today, a hastily-assembled group of Vets for Freedom volunteers made the rounds on Capitol Hill, urging lawmakers to reject the Reid/Pelosi surrender plan, which the Senate will "debate" tonight in an all-night publicity stunt. It's part of a series of pro-victory efforts that the group originally planned for September, but moved up due to the Democrats' accelerated effort to embrace defeat. If you can spare a few bucks, make a donation, please.

Meanwhile, Move America Forward is moving forward with plans for its September cross-country Fight for Victory Tour, culminating with a large rally in Washington, D.C. on September 15, the day Gen. Petraeus' interim report is due. A donation to help with that project would be nice, too.

A week ago, I cited some of the evidence that the situation in Iraq is improving, despite the Democrat cheerleading for defeat. Since then, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch and Gen. Peter Pace have argued strongly that the Petraeus plan is working and we must not withdraw. Even such non-friends of the U.S. military as U.N. Secretary-General Ban have voiced concern about the consequences of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

None of this deters the Democrats, of course, who won't let the possibility of a million dead Iraqis stand in the way of an opportunity to damage the Bush Administration and enhance their 2008 election prospects.

The Dems can count on some of the Republican jellyfish in the Senate, who also have their eyes on 2008, to look at the (media-manipulated) polling data on the war and cave. Stupid Republicans. Opposition to the war is about an inch deep, and will turn around fairly quickly if the Petraeus plan is reasonably successful. The pro-victory base of the party, however, will never forget the cowardice of the weak-kneed wafflers. They can expect primary challenges and fund-raising troubles.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Investigation clears Marine

Posted by Richard on July 12, 2007

Remember the Haditha Marines? The media covered the charges in a frenzy, calling it the worst atrocity of the Iraq war. Time magazine called the three enlisted Marines accused of shooting Iraqi civilians "symbols of a war gone bad," and Congressman John Murtha called them "cold-blooded murderers." Four officers were accused of covering up the "atrocity."

Well, the first Article 32 investigation (analogous to a civlian grand jury investigation) of one of the accused murderers has concluded, and the investigating officer recommended dismissal of the charges against Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt. A previous Article 32 investigation of one of the officers, Capt. Randy Stone, also recommended dismissal of charges.

Defend Our Marines has tons of information about the Haditha case and related matters. Gateway Pundit quoted the Fox News report, adding emphasis and editorializing a bit, and then asked what I assume is a rhetorical question about those who had so loudly trumpeted the charges:

The conclusion of the investigation was reported on Tuesday.
FOX News reported:

An investigating officer has recommended dismissing murder charges against a U.S. Marine accused in the slayings of three Iraqi men in a squad action that killed 24 civilians in the town of Haditha, according to a report.

The government's theory that Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt had executed the three men was "incredible" and relied on contradictory statements by Iraqis, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said in the report, released Tuesday by Sharratt's defense attorneys.

"To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and sets a dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and mission in Iraq," Ware wrote. (Ya think?)

… 

Do you suppose any of the media outlets will beg forgiveness for slandering this marine?

One of the problems with this kind of conflict and enemy is that it's difficult at best, and often impossible, to determine who is a "civilian." The enemy aren't "soldiers" wearing uniforms and marching under a battle flag. They can be shooting or planting explosives one minute and unarmed "civilians" the next. Or the "civilians" could be the family members, lookouts, and logistical support for the people doing the shooting.

I'm sure there are some bad apples among U.S. troops doing things for which they should be punished.

But I'm also certain that the Islamofascists, who've beaten us badly in the public relations war, have long been encouraging their partisans to bear false witness against U.S. troops in order to erode public support for the mission.

I'm just wondering if Rep. Jack Murtha and the others who aided and abetted our enemies in this matter cynically did so as a tactic to erode puplic support, or if they're merely what the communists used to call "useful idiots"?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Snatching defeat

Posted by Richard on July 11, 2007

After countless mistakes and still impeded by the most restrictive rules of engagement ever, coalition forces in Iraq seem to have turned the corner. The troop surge (which nearly doubled the number of combat troops in the field) and Petraeus plan are beginning to work. Shia tribal leaders are turning away from al Sadr, Sunni tribal leaders are fighting al Qaeda, and the Iraqi security forces are more and more in control and trusted.

The situation in Anbar province has improved greatly in the past couple of months, and al Qaeda is on the run in Diyalah, with villagers calling on the Iraqi Army for help in battling the barbarians. They're treating us as liberators in and around Baquba — and if you've been reading Michael Yon's dispatches, you know why.

Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's number two man and chief strategist, in a video released on July 4 (Belmont Club has a detailed summary; Power Line has the video), made it clear that they're in trouble in Iraq, are losing the support they had among the Sunni population, and are desperate for reinforcements. 

Zawahiri's plea for help in preventing a U.S. victory in Iraq was immediately answered — by the mainstream media and Democrats. With al Qaeda weakening every day and coalition forces making progress in the most embattled regions of Iraq, the Americans who are completely invested in U.S. defeat and humiliation have themselves become desperate. We can't wait until next spring, they cry, or even for Gen. Petraeus' interim report this fall, we have to surrender and withdraw right now! The New York Times demanded that we leave "without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit," even while acknowledging that the result would be more bloodshed and chaos, possibly genocide, and the emergence of a new terrorist stronghold. 

The Democrat cheerleading for defeat is disgusting, but expected. What's new and truly contemptible is the sight of Senate Republicans sticking their finger in the wind and running for cover. LTC Ralph Peters outlined the sorry situation we're in (emphasis added):

EVEN as our troops make serious progress against al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and other extremists, Congress – including Republican members – is sending the terrorists a message: "Don't lose heart, we'll save you!"

Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq is suffering a humiliating defeat, as fellow Sunni Muslims turn against the fanatics and help them find the martyrdom they advertise. Yet for purely political reasons – next year's elections – cowards on Capitol Hill are spurning the courage of our troops on the ground.

The frantic political gamesmanship in Congress would nauseate a ghoul. Pols desperate for any cover and concealment they can get have dragged the Iraq Study Group plan from the grave.

Masterminded by former Secretary of State Jim "Have Your Hugged Your Saudi Prince Today?" Baker, the report is a blueprint for a return to yesteryear's dictator-smooching policy (which helped create al Qaeda – thanks, Jimbo!).

That Baker report reminds me of cheap horror films where the zombies just keep coming back – except that zombies retain a measure of integrity.

But if Republicans are rushing to desert our troops and spit on the graves of heroes, the Democratic Party at least has been consistent – they've supported our enemies from the start, undercutting our troops and refusing to explain in detail what happens if we flee Iraq.

So I'll tell you what happens: massacres. And while I have nothing against Shia militiamen and Sunni insurgents killing each other 24/7, the overwhelming number of victims will be innocent women, children and the elderly.

… As for those on the left who sanctimoniously set out rows of shabby combat boots to "teach" the rest of us the cost of war, I fully expect them to put out displays of women's slippers and children's shoes to show the world how many innocents died when they "brought our troops home now."

I hate the long-mismanaged mess in Iraq. I wish there were a sensible, decent way to get out that wouldn't undercut our security and produce massive innocent casualties. But there isn't. Not now. And, like it or not, we have a moral responsibility as well as practical interests in refusing to surrender to the butchers in Iraq.

This has been the Bush-Cheney War. But it will only be fair to call the carnage after we run away the "Reid-Pelosi Massacres."

Of course, many Americans will pay scant attention to the bloody consequences in Iraq. The advocates of surrender will surely avert their eyes from the resulting mass graves and deny any responsibility, just as their counterparts from an earlier generation did regarding the killing fields of Cambodia and the mass graves, prison camps, and boat people of Vietnam. 

Besides, the escalation of attacks on the West by a reinvigorated al Qaeda may distract us. As Armed Liberal noted, if we abandon Iraq to the Islamofascists: 

We will have helped train a new generation of jihadis to believe that if they kill several thousand troops, we will surrender. The last time we taught them this lesson was in Somalia, which in Bin Laden's words

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

I can't wait to see what he says – and more importantly, does – in response to our pullout from Iraq.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

A tough smoking ban

Posted by Richard on June 27, 2007

If you want to know how things are going in the battle for Baquba and Diyala province, you need to read Michael Yon's dispatches from the front lines. Yon is no Pollyanna. He's frank about American blunders in this war, he spoke of civil war as early as 2005, and he thinks we face a difficult task in trying to turn things around. But he thinks now we're doing some things right, and al Qaeda is doing many things wrong. The massive operation to clean al Qaeda out of Diyala is a case in point.

Start with Be Not Afraid, written before Operation Arrowhead Ripper began. It provides important background information, including Yon's encounters with and assessment of Gen. Petraeus, and an excellent description of the political situation in Iraq. Then read the three dispatches (so far) about the operation: 

Operation Arrowhead Ripper: Day One

Arrowhead Ripper: Surrender or Die

Drilling for Justice  

That last one, filed on the 25th, includes some harsh criticism of the local government and police in Baquba and Diyala. But it also includes some fascinating information about why more and more Iraqis are turning against al Qaeda and cooperating with the Americans and with rival Iraqi sects and factions (emphasis added):

Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) had tarnished its name here by publicly attacking and murdering children, videotaping beheadings, all while imposing harsh punishments on Iraqi civilians found guilty of violating morality laws prohibiting activities like smoking. The AQI installed Sharia court had sanctioned the amputation of the two "smoking fingers" for those who violated anti-smoking laws. …

On the evening of the 24th I spoke with a local Iraqi official, Colonel Faik, who said the Muftis would order the severance of the two fingers used to hold a cigarette for any Iraqis caught smoking. Other reports, from here in Diyala and also in Anbar, allege that smokers are murdered by AQI. Most Iraqis smoke and this particular prohibition appeared to have earned the ire of many locals. After an American unit cleared an apartment complex on the 23rd, LTC Smiley, the battalion commander, reported that residents didn't ask for food and water, but cigarettes. In other parts of Baqubah, people have been celebrating the routing of AQI by lighting up and smoking cigarettes.

Other AQI edicts included beatings for men who refused to grow beards, and corporal punishments for obscene sexual suggestiveness, defined by such "loose" behavior as carrying tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag. These fatwas were not eagerly embraced by most Iraqi

And I thought the anti-smoking nazis here were getting out of hand!

Michael Yon has been called the Ernie Pyle of this war. His dispatches are always gritty, riveting, thoughtful, and informative, and they're frequently illustrated with wonderful photographs. Michael Yon : Online Magazine is an example of independent journalism at its finest — his work is supported entirely by contributions and sales of books and photos. Drop by there from time to time, and if you think what he's doing is worthwhile, drop him an "attaboy" or kick in a few bucks to support his efforts — it'll be greatly appreciated.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Democrats declare another failure

Posted by Richard on June 16, 2007

The other day, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi declared the Iraq "surge" a failure even before the troop buildup was complete. Harvey at IMAO came up with the perfect response — a classic IMAO parody entitled "America's Corn Crop a 'Failure', Top Democrats Tell Bush":

WASHINGTON (AP) – Top US congressional Democrats bluntly told President George W. Bush Wednesday that American farmers' spring planting "surge" policy was a failure.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the president over this year's corn crop by sending him a letter, ahead of a White House meeting later on Wednesday.

"As many had forseen [sic], the springtime planting of seed corn has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in seeds in the ground has yet to produce a single edible ear of corn so far this year.

"Far from fulfilling its promise of putting steaming, buttery ears on every table, this crazy planting scheme has done nothing so far but cost this country's farmers most of last year's profits, as well as causing them to spend all their time coddling these high-maintenance vegetables.

"Clearing the land, plowing, weeding, fertilizing, irrigating, spreading pesticides and herbicides – not to mention the over 1000 farmers that have lost their lives in unnecessary tractor deaths so far this year – when will the madness end?

"And what do we have to show for it? It's already mid-June and not a single plant has borne fruit. In fact, if these trends continue, it's safe to predict a nation-wide corn famine that will bring this country to its knees."

Read the whole thing, including comments. I especially liked "The field was happier before it was plowed!" 

On a more serious note: Reid and Pelosi aren't the only Democrats who have something to say about the situation in Iraq. Sen. Joe Lieberman actually went to Iraq to assess the situation in Iraq, and I strongly encourage you to read his analysis.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pelosi celebrates Flag Day

Posted by Richard on June 14, 2007

The buildup of 30,000 additional combat troops in Iraq known as the "surge" will be complete tomorrow, and the military said last week that "it could take up to two months for the newly arrived reinforcements to be fully effective." There are certainly signs of improvement, but it would be premature to declare the surge a success.

For the Democrats, however, it's never too early to declare it a failure, and that's just what Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi did yesterday. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that this is how Nancy Pelosi celebrated Flag Day today: 

Pelosi waves white flag

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 7 Comments »

Iraq and Darfur

Posted by Richard on May 23, 2007

Former Democratic Senator and 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey took his fellow liberals to task in The Wall Street Journal today. Kerrey made two points: first, that Iraq "is central to the fight against Islamic radicalism"; and second, that the Democratic critics of our Iraq policy are at least inconsistent, if not downright hypocritical:

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

… 

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

As if on cue, Senator Joe Biden today renewed his call for the United States to invade Sudan. Biden's call for the United States to "cowboy up" and use military force unilaterally was denounced by the Sudanese ambassador to the U.N., thus deepening the irony: Biden opposes having U.S. troops in a country whose democratically-elected government wants us there (Iraq), but he's eager to "redeploy" those troops into Sudan over the strenuous objections of its (admittedly undemocratic) government.

I believe I can clear up the mystery for Bob Kerrey and anyone else who is puzzled by the inconsistency of Biden, most Democrats, and most of the American left in general. Unlike, say, Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan, these people aren't opposed in principle to military intervention in foreign countries. They're only opposed to military intervention that might possibly be in America's self-interest.

And of course, they can't abide anything supported by Chimpy McHalliburton Bushitler.

UPDATE: Bob Krumm, commenting on Sen. Kerrey's article, suggested that if the Democrats had nominated Kerrey instead of Kerry in 2004, they might control the White House today. I suspect he's right. He has some other interesting observations, so check it out.

Later, Krumm sarcastically explained the lack of media coverage Kerrey's gotten:

Have you noticed that whenever a Republican of some national prominence says anything negative about America's Iraq policy, that it's greeted with rapt media attention? (Think Chuck Hagel)

This morning, however, former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey says that the war in Iraq is central to the war against Islamic terrorism, and the media apparently responds with deafening silence.

Instead of jumping to the conclusion that the differing treatments are indicative of media bias, might it be dog bites man? Perhaps the existence of pro-war Democrats is more common than anti-war Republicans, and that's why it's not news.

That must be it, Bob. After all, it can't be media bias — all the big media journalists have assured us that they're objective reporters with no political biases whatsoever.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Targeting our weak spot

Posted by Richard on May 22, 2007

Glenn Reynolds, with an assist from a reader, came up with the best damn Iraq post I've seen in quite a while. Like much good humor, it's based on truth — in this case, a bitter truth. Because my legions of fans may not all have seen the post at Glenn's little blog, here it is:

THE MAIN FRONT IN THE WAR IS CONGRESS:

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

Well, if they're targeting Congress they're certainly targeting our weak spot.

UPDATE: Reader Drew Kelley emails: "Wouldn't we be better off if we gave them Congress?"

As I've said before, I oppose torture.

 <RIMSHOT />

Oh, and to further fill your needs for humor and a way to vent, don't miss Glenn's multipart Jimmy Carter poll.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Iraqi Shi’ites split from Iran

Posted by Richard on May 13, 2007

This strikes me as very, very good news, so don't expect to see much coverage in the mainstream media:

Iraq's largest Shiite political party split from Iran this week and pledged allegiance to the moderate pro-secularist Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani:

Iraq's biggest Shi'ite party on Saturday pledged its allegiance to the country's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in a move that would distance it from Shi'ite Iran where it was formed.

The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) said it had introduced significant policy changes and changed its name to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) — dropping the word "Revolution."

The party, which makes up about a quarter of Prime Minister al Maliki's ruling Shi'ite Alliance, used to take its guidance in religious, social, and political matters from an Iranian religious institution led by Ayatollah Khameini, but not any more:

"We cherish the great role played by the religious establishment headed by Grand Ayatollah Sayed Ali al-Sistani … in preserving the unity of Iraq and the blood of Iraqis and in helping them building a political system based on the constitution and law," said Rida Jawad al-Takki, a senior group member, who read out the party's decisions to reporters.

The party pledged to follow the guidance of the Shi'ite establishment, he said.

Yeah, I know — this will prompt the radical Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda to redouble their efforts to increase the body count and shake America's resolve (such as it is). But it's still a great development that may eventually make a big difference. So, I'll say bravo and best wishes to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The veto pen

Posted by Richard on May 3, 2007

Words fail me. Michelle Malkin:

Reader Bill N. e-mails the back story of the veto pen Bush used to nix the Democrats' surrender bill:

Bush signed the veto with a pen given to him by Robert Derga, the father of Marine Corps Reserve Cpl. Dustin Derga, who was killed in Iraq on May 8, 2005. The elder Derga spoke with Bush two weeks ago at a meeting the president had with military families at the White House.

Derga asked Bush to promise to use the pen in his veto. On Tuesday, Derga contacted the White House to remind Bush to use the pen, and so he did. The 24-year-old Dustin Derga served with Lima Company, 3rd Battalion 25th Marines from Columbus, Ohio. The five-year Marine reservist and fire team leader was killed by an armor-piercing round in Anbar Province

Sign the damn petition.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »