Bush Sends Strong Signal to Syria and Iran on Foreign Fighters

From Fox News:

A U.S. strike on a network of foreign fighters in Syria led to the capture of an Al Qaeda coordinator who was wanted for sending operatives, weapons and cash into Iraq.

Abu Ghadiyain, Al Qaeda's senior coordinator operating in Syria, was captured after Sunday's attack in Sukkariyeh, which left eight dead about 4-5 miles away from Syria's border with Iraq, the official said. Ghadiyain was believed to be associated with the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Ninety percent of foreign fighters enter Iraq through Syria, according to U.S. intelligence estimates, bringing cash to Al Qaeda in Iraq's chief. They also are deadly — trained in bomb-making and willing to sacrifice themselves in suicide attacks.

With the U.S. election just days away, President Bush has fired a shot across the bow of both Syria and Iran, warning them that the U.S. won’t put up with further interference in Iraq from the two nations.

A military official in Washington said the U.S. is taking matters into its own hands after Syria failed to control fighters crossing the border into Iraq.

The attack lets Syria and Iran know that the Bush administration still calls the shots, and that the election will not deter the U.S. from going after foreign fighters entering Iraq.

Indeed, President Bush has nothing to deter him from taking on the fighters in either Syria or Iran, since he is not running for re-election, and not much that he does will have any effect on the elections or candidates. The election, in fact, may set the President free to pursue more aggressive measures against foreign fighters and the governments that enable them.

Click Here to Comment

Five Years is not a Long Time
to Establish a Stable Government

Iraq was the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reason. So goes a hackneyed phrase from a few years ago. We can disagree on whether attacking Iraq and taking down Saddam Hussein was warranted or not, and some will cling to the argument that “Bush lied, people died,” and that the administration manipulated intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the war.

But this view is contradicted by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Silberman-Robb Commission. Not only did every significant intelligence agency in the world believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but the Duelfer report created after the invasion concluded that he maintained the capability to produce them on short notice. Furthermore, it said there was abundant evidence of contact between Saddam’s regime and terrorist groups, including al-Qaida. Given Saddam’s hostility to the United States and his defiance of multiple United Nations resolutions, American leaders had every reason to believe he posed a grave threat. Removing him removed the threat.

Furthermore, there is an important factor concerning Saddam Hussein himself. The Left assumes that because no WMD were found Saddam would not have used them if he had them. They put the focus on WMD, not Saddam Hussein. But this idea flies in the face of history: Saddam used WMD against the Kurds not so many years before the war.

When you look back to the situation at the time, Saddam Hussein was hostile toward the U.S. and possessed the capability to produce and the inclination to use chemical and biological weapons.

But that is all water over the dam, and as my son often says, we have to “live in the now,” and the “now” is that we are in Iraq, have made a huge investment in that country in military personnel, lives and money, and are well on the way toward establishing a stable, democratic government in a part of the world where democracy and personal freedom are not only rare, but are looked upon with disdain by the dictatorial rulers that control much of the Middle East.

The troop surge has worked pretty well, despite Barack Obama’s silly refusal to admit it, and things are definitely moving in the right direction. No serious person would assert that establishing a stable democratic government in the Middle East is undesirable.

But the American people have become an impatient lot; we have been taught through decades of relative ease to expect instant gratification, and when things don’t fit our expectations, some of us lose our will. After five years in Iraq our patience is waning, and some are ready to admit defeat.

But historically the United States is more resilient than that. Following the unprovoked Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor we went to war against the Nazis and the Japanese and defeated them. In the ‘60s, we put men on the Moon. And following the vicious attacks of 9-11, just seven short years ago, we roared with one loud defiant voice, and declared war on terrorism. What has happened to our sense of perspective and our national character since then?

While there are those who always opposed the war on principle, many critics of the Iraq war are recent converts who are largely motivated by their dislike of George Bush. Their Monday morning quarterbacking benefits from 20-20 hindsight. But if you read history you know that war is not predictable, and that serious mistakes have been made in every war, so far.

Why should “Bush’s War” be any different, unless Bush is super-human? So, Bush hatred, impatience, and perhaps a lack of historic perspective combine to show that many Americans mistakenly expect the evolution of a stable government in Iraq to occur in a few short years. Certainly, they say, five years is plenty of time. But it is far more complicated than that.

The passage of several years between escaping an oppressive ruler and establishing a stable, democratic government has at least one very strong precedent. The United States declared its independence in 1776, and our country was formed on March 1, 1781 with the adoption of The Articles of Confederation. That took five years, just like Iraq has so far. But the Founders’ first attempt failed. The Articles did not work very well, so they went back to the drawing board and created the Constitution of the United States in a contentious and lengthy process.

By the time all was said and done, 13 years had elapsed between declaring independence and the final establishment of a governmental form stable enough to survive.

It took a few years more to see that the new government was, indeed, solid and dependable.

For some reason, many of us expect things to move faster in Iraq, with all its attendant difficulties, than when the United States was formed, and some are ready to throw in the towel in Iraq after just five years. But that isn’t long enough, and we need to stay in Iraq and finish the job.

Click Here to Comment

When the Going Gets Tough, Rely on Children

Think what you like about the Iraq war, but the coalition forces are having a negative impact on certain anti-freedom forces there. The bad guys are on the run and can’t effectively oppose the coalition forces in fair fights, so they resort to IEDs, suicide bombers, attacks against civilians and other equally cowardly techniques in their desperation. Now, as impossible as it sounds, the cowards have stooped to yet a lower level of behavior, as reported by the BBC.

Militias recruit child bombers

Insurgent groups and militias in Iraq are recruiting children for attacks, according to a United Nations official. The findings of the UN special representative for children and armed conflict echo concerns expressed by the US military about insurgent tactics. In some cases children are paid to carry out attacks, the UN envoy, Radhika Coomaraswamy, told the BBC.

Last month, the US released footage of what it said was al-Qaeda propaganda showing children being trained. The US says children are being taught how to use guns and carry out kidnappings in addition to other terrorist activities.

Ms Coomaraswamy labeled the practice "intolerable", adding that "their poverty is being exploited." Speaking to the BBC in the Jordanian capital, Amman, she said: "Some are paid, mainly for mortar attacks and for placing bombs."

She added that the use of children had been going on since 2004 and was a growing problem. "Many of them no longer go to school, many are recruited for violent activities or detained in custody, they lack access to the most basic services and manifest a wide range of psychological symptoms from the violence in their everyday lives." She said approximately 1,500 children were also "known to be held in detention facilities."

Technorati Tags: Iraq War, Terrorism, Thugs, War Crimes

al-Qaida on its Last Legs in Iraq?

So al-Qaida’s #2 man believes that there are traitors among the Muslims in Iraq, and has called on Iraqi Sunni Arab tribes to purge those who help the Americans. In a videotape posted Monday on the Web, the “physician”—whose specialties are murder, misery and despair—is freaking out as he cowers in his spider hole or some cave along the Afghan-Pakistan border that some of his fellow Muslims have forsworn the terrorist mantle, and now fight alongside the infidel Americans.

Ayman the Impotent is dissing the so-called "awakening councils," groups of Iraqi Sunni tribesmen that the U.S. military has backed to help fight al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies.

Count this as a positive sign that the Iraqi government in its struggle for independence from the evil, satanic clutches of al-Qaida is moving in precisely the right direction. The Sunni tribesmen have been able to see the light, that freedom isn’t such a bad thing, that living in the 7^th century is stupid, and have cast al-Zawahri and his murderous brethren into the trash pit of history, just where they belong.

Even as he laments the triumph of the forces of freedom and light, the Ayman whistles past the graveyard: he said the Americans have failed in Iraq and will withdraw soon.

Yeah, right! Only if the lace panty-wearing liberals somehow prevail.

The U.S. general responsible for the ground campaign in Iraq says that violence is at its lowest levels since 2003. Personally, I believe the general, not the “doctor.”

History will show that freeing the Iraqi people from the cruel domination of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime, and then freeing them from the idiocy of the Islamic fringe fanatics who are mired in the past were good and valiant things.

Write it down.

The Canterbury Tale

A post on a site I visit regularly, the Kashmiri Nomad's site, featured the lambasting of the United States by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Wilson.

Among other comments quoted on the Nomad's site, the Archbishop said the following:

"It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalizing it. Rightly or wrongly, that's what the British Empire did -- in India, for example," he was quoted as saying.

"It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put it back together -- Iraq, for example."

One wonders, after reading the Archbishop's comment, just what cave he's been living in for the last four years. He apparently hasn't noticed that the United States, as well as forces from other nations in the coalition, are still present and Iraq supporting with the lives and well-being of their military personnel the fledgling Iraqi government as it attempts to "put it back together" rather than, as the Archbishop said, "clear the decks and move on."

If Archbishop Wilson has any doubt that the United States is doing in Iraq precisely what he said the British did in India, all he needs to do is to read, watch or listen to the American media, as Americans complain regularly and loudly about the amount of money spent in Iraq after the brutal dictator Hussein was deposed.

This is yet one more example of how people who are ideologically opposed to the Iraq war automatically turn off their ability to see the reality for what it is, and replace it with what they would like it to be.

Technorati Tags: Iraq War, America

"Phony" Soldiers

The adolescent controversy surrounding talk show host Rush Limbaugh has crossed the line from merely ridiculous to utterly preposterous, absurd, bizarre and idiotic. Think what you will of Mr. Limbaugh, his opinions, and his style, no sensible person can show that he has been anything but strongly supportive of our military personnel. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn’t know what they are talking about. Yet, a couple of words, taken completely out of context, have fueled a firestorm of criticism of the conservative host.

What is far more important in this pathetic episode is whether the Limbaugh critics such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid—who has more important things he should be doing—or Senator Tom Harkin—who appeared in his Senate floor denunciation of Limbaugh to be incapable of knowing where he was—really believe that Limbaugh called soldiers who have been to Iraq and who disagree with the Iraq war “phony soldiers,” or not.

Here is the transcript: You be the judge.

RUSH: … Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don't understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that's over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so.

RUSH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. The next guy that calls here I'm going to ask them, "What is the imperative of pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out?" I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "When's he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe," whatever.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

CALLER: A lot of people.

RUSH: You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

CALLER: Exactly, sir.

The term “phony soldiers” uttered by Limbaugh clearly referred to those that “come up out of the blue,” which to any thinking person does not refer to actual present or former active duty military personnel, but to people who pretend to have been in the military, or in Iraq.

If you don’t believe that, then consider how Limbaugh followed this call.

“Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a ‘corporal.’ I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: ‘We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque.’

“Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth."

It is easy to take an isolated comment by someone—anyone—and misuse it, misconstrue it, to manufacture some false reality. It doesn’t take any special talent or insight to be a political cheap-shot artist like Media Matters, Harry Reid or Tom Harkin. What it does require, however, is a willingness to indulge in dishonesty and tawdry political hay-making, and that is exactly what has happened here. It is ludicrous to assert that Limbaugh actually thinks military personnel critical of the war are “phony soldiers,” given his historical support for our military personnel. And those that want to try to convince you that he did are unworthy of your trust.

He didn’t mean that and, more to the point, he didn’t say that. The term “phony soldiers” clearly describes real phonies like Jesse Macbeth.

Technorati Tags: Politics, Iraq War, Patriotism, U.S. Military

Blackwater: A Black Eye?

Blackwater, one of a host of civilian security firms operating in Iraq, is currently the focus of much criticism and a Congressional investigation for improper behavior, specifically for indiscriminately shooting Iraqi citizens.

Unfortunately, this is not a discussion of facts; it is a discussion of emotion, colored by political partisanship. It serves the Democrat’s purposes to use any negative anecdote—true or not—about Blackwater’s performance, and it serves the Republican’s purposes to use positive anecdotes. Most likely, it will be difficult to tell where the truth is. No earth-shattering analysis there.

A very important factor to remember in situations like this one is not to jump to conclusions until all the facts are known.

Today on Fox News’ XM Channel 168’s “Brian and the Judge” program did not help to clear the air. If you aren’t familiar with this program, it features Brian Kilmeade from FNC’s “Fox and Friends” morning show, and Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox’s Senior Judicial Analyst. Napolitano is brilliant, his two books excellent looks into constitutional law, and Kilmeade is much savvier than you might think, given his morning show hi-jinks. And, yes, “Brian and the Judge” is fairly conservative in its orientation, although Napolitano holds the line on strict interpretation on what I will term “government propriety.”

Today’s program featured a block with retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, who has nothing good to say about civilian security personnel in Iraq, let alone Blackwater, whose security agents he described as “thugs” and worse, who shoot first and ask questions later. There’s no point, however, in spending time on the obvious issue of whether shooting first and asking questions later is acceptable, because not everyone agrees with Col. Peters. Almost immediately after the colonel wrapped up his segment a caller who had served in Iraq gave a nearly opposite account of the civilian security operating in Iraq, saying that the security people he had come in contact with had done an honorable and competent job of protecting the State Department officials whose safety was their charge. He further commented that the military is not able to provide the security for the State Department personnel, requiring outsourced security for them. It is also relevant to note that 30 Blackwater staff have been killed while working to defend US diplomats, but that none of its clients had died while in its protection.

A recent report from the State Department stated that in 2007 Blackwater conducted 1,873 security details for diplomatic visits to the red zone, areas outside the Green Zone in Iraq, and there have been only 56 incidences in which weapons were discharged, or less than 3 percent of all movements.

I am left to decide—we are left to decide—whether to believe Col. Peters, whom I respect, or a soldier who has seen up close the behavior of civilian security personnel, or the State Department. It’s a tough decision. The soldier posited that Col. Peters has an axe to grind against Blackwater and the other civilian security companies because of the fact that most of those civilians are former military guys who make multiples of what active duty military guys and gals make. My respect for Col. Peters causes me to doubt that he would have such petty feelings. On the other hand, my regard for our active military guys makes me trust this soldier’s account. And, I feel confident that the U.S. would not tolerate cowboy behavior such as has been alleged by Blackwater’s and the administration’s critics. I just believe that the U.S. is the “good guys” in this conflict.

Technorati Tags: Politics, Iraq War, War on Terror

The Frenzied Left’s Rush to Irrelevance

It is only the most recent example of liberal excess, but it is perhaps the most effective example of just how far over the edge the fringe of the political Left has fallen. MoveOn.org’s ad in The New York Times shows the world just how foolish the fringe Left has become. The ad, in case you haven’t heard about it, uses a juvenile alteration of the general’s last name to imply that the report he was about to give Congress was nothing more than lies created by the White House. What an insult to a man who has risen to the heights of the military establishment and has devoted his life to defending his country.

Move-On.org has the right to put any ad in a newspaper that the newspaper is willing to print. However, MoveOn ought to have had better sense and a far less gutter-dweller sense of appropriate political discourse than demonstrated in this vicious and slanderous ad.

But, MoveOn’s goofy thought process is not the only issue in this shameful incident. It is fair to wonder why The New York Times would print such a reprehensible advertisement. And, The Times needs to explain why it gave Move-On.org a rate for the ad that was some $100,000 less than the paper’s open rate. Newspapers frequently discount ad rates for certain organizations that qualify for it, and perhaps MoveOn qualified for a discount. However, discounting and ad that normally costs around $160,000 by $100,000 seems a little too good of a discount.

MoveOn’s ignoble ad serves to show just how far the organization has strayed from sensible public debate, and sensible Americans will recognize that and disregard anything MoveOn has to say in the future.

The New York Times, by running this dishonorable piece of gutter politics, and giving MoveOn a cherry deal on it, has demonstrated that it is little more than a shill for the radical Left.

Technorati Tags: Liberalism, Journalism, Iraq War, Politics

Run Cindy, Run

The 2008 elections have held great promise ever since the presidential race got started a year early. For those enamored of the lure of raw politics it couldn’t get much better than an extra year of watching the political machinations of the presidential hopefuls, as they position themselves and batter each other. But hardly anyone, I’d venture, was anticipating this announcement:

Cindy Sheehan said Sunday that she plans to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unless Pelosi introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks. Sheehan, the mother of Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq after reenlisting for a second tour of duty, said she will oppose the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek to impeach Bush by July 23. She has been an avid anti-war protester and Bush critic since her son's death.

"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," she told The Associated Press. "We hired them to bring an end to the war. I'm not too far from San Francisco, so it wouldn't be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money."

The fifty year-old Sheehan, who recently said that she was leaving the Democratic Party because it "caved" in to the president, said Bush should be impeached because she believes he misled the public about the reasons for going to war, violated the Geneva Convention by torturing detainees, and crossed the line by commuting the prison sentence of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. She said other grounds for impeachment are the domestic spying program and the "inadequate and tragic" response to Hurricane Katrina.

What’s Wrong in Iraq

No, that wasn’t supposed to be a question. Read the account below, which is taken from a BBC report.

US-led raids 'kill 26' in Baghdad

US-led forces say they have killed 26 militants in overnight operations in the Sadr City area of Baghdad in which four vehicles were destroyed.

Troops also detained 17 militants in pre-dawn raids on the area, a Shia stronghold, the US military said.

But Iraqi hospital and police officials put the death toll at eight and said civilians were killed in their homes.

The raids are the latest in a series of US offensives against militants accused of smuggling weapons from Iran.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki criticised the raids on Sadr City, saying his government strongly opposed operations carried out by US-led forces without its permission.

Never mind the BBC's anti-U.S. spin; that isn't what this column is about.

I have ignored the Monday-morning-quarterbacking about whether we should have gone into Iraq, which deserves to be ignored, and I’ve tried to discount the more recent attitude against staying there, and even though I know intuitively and factually that the situation in Iraq is better than the media tells us it is, I am growing weary of this controversy. I find myself increasingly accepting of the suggestion that it is time for the U.S. to back off over there. I’m not saying, “Pull out,” nor am I endorsing the Democrat’s two-stage plan: 1 – Cut, and 2 – Run. But I am more and more coming to agree with the sentiment that the Iraqis aren’t holding up their end of the bargain. That sentiment just gained enormous strength with Prime Minister Maliki’s statement that “his government strongly opposed operations carried out by US-led forces without its permission.” (my emphasis) How’s that, again, Mr. Maliki?

If you and the boys would get off your duffs and take control, you wouldn’t have to worry about such things. The last thing the U.S. needs is some do-nothing wimp criticizing it for doing what the wimps haven’t the courage or wherewithal to do.

The danger of the U.S. backing off and leaving Iraq to the various factions to work out on their own is that those factions won’t be working things out on their own. Iran will have all of its fingers in the pie, as will other Middle East interests, and the future Iraq will be a detriment to peace and tranquility. Not that there’s much peace or tranquility in the Middle East outside Iraq, anyway. But enough is enough, and I’ve had just about enough of the Iraqi incompetence.

So, Mr. Maliki, it’s all yours, ol’ buddy, and good luck with that F Troop you have to help you.

Technorati Tags: Iraq War, Radical Islam, America

Ever Heard of “Arrowhead Ripper?” I Thought Not

Reports of U.S. and Coalition casualties keep making the news from Iraq, but the Bush administration must have done an excellent job of keeping at least one secret: Operation Arrowhead Ripper. Or maybe there is another explanation.

According to Michael Yon, who is embedded with U.S./Coalition forces in Iraq, "interest in the war is waning back home, I'm told, which may explain the thinning ranks of reporters over here.” That’s one reason you haven’t heard about Arrowhead Ripper, and maybe not the most relevant one, but maybe you should know exactly what it is. Yon writes on his Web site, “The immediate goal of Arrowhead Ripper was to free Baqubah of al Qaeda, by trapping and killing its members, but according to American officers here, public remarks by senior military officials may have flushed many AQI leaders before the attack. Despite this frustrating and significant setback, progress toward the end-state goal of Arrowhead Ripper—turning over Baqubah to Iraqi government control—appears to be working, at least in terms of the removal of the current AQI leadership and its quasi-government.”

Anyone interested in knowing more than the mainstream media’s reports from Iraq ought to check out this site and read Yon’s reports. It will broaden your perspective.

Technorati Tags: Iraq War, Radical Islam, Journalism

Don't Think Press Bias Exists?

Here is but one of a multitude of examples of press bias in today's media, contained in a story by Associated Press Writer Deb Reichmann:

"President Bush, trying to defend his war strategy, declassified intelligence Tuesday asserting that Osama bin Laden ordered a top lieutenant in early 2005to form a terrorist cell that would conduct attacks outside Iraq — and that the United States should be the top target."

Just in case you didn't notice the bias, it was the phrase "trying to defend his war strategy," and the use of the term "asserting." That phrase and that word are not legitimate parts of a properly written news story; the phrase is the opinion of the writer, and the term is a loaded one, intended to give credence to the opinion.

Consider the sentence without those elements: "President Bush declassified intelligence Tuesday indicating that Osama bin Laden ordered a top lieutenant in early 2005 to form a terrorist cell that would conduct attacks outside Iraq — and that the United States should be the top target." That is a politically neutral and factual statement.

News stories should include nothing more than verifiable facts and information, and leave the consumers to determine for themselves what the information means. Was President Bush really "trying to defend his war strategy," by "asserting" that bin Laden did this or that, or was he merely making public information relevant to the issue of terrorist activity? Ms. Reichmann relieves readers of the responsibility of answering that question by telling them the answer: "Mr. Bush was trying to justify the Iraq war, and don't you dare think otherwise." Having delivered that message in the first sentence of the story, Ms. Reichmann has set the stage for readers to accept her premise that Mr. Bush is propagandizing the American people.

Now, Mr. Bush may indeed be attempting to sway public opinion to his way of thinking, and in fact I would be surprised to find that he wasn't. But if he is, it is not the job of a mere reporter to decide that for the rest of us, and both Ms. Reichmann and her editors are supposed to know better.

It would be perfectly acceptable, even responsible, for Ms. Reichmann to offer a contrary opinion from a legitimate source—a Democrat Congressman or Senator, say—and leave it to the consumers of her report to decide which side of the story they believe.

Doing that, however, may not produce the reaction that liberals in the media want, so dishonest reporters like Ms. Reichmann stack the deck in their favor by slanting the reporting. And if you think that there aren't many Americans who would be taken in by this tactic, you are flat wrong.

Technorati Tags: Press Bias, Iraq War, Journalism

Another One Bites The Dust!

The follow-on operation in Iraq is definitely not going well, which is evident even in those unusual times when we get to hear both sides of the story. But every so often something very positive happens that even the biased media can’t keep quiet. Such an event happened yesterday when according to news from Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, was killed in an "internal battle" between militants. Al-Masri has led the group, which is blamed for or has claimed some of the bloodiest insurgent attacks in Iraq, since June 2006 when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a US air strike. While it isn' t certain that al-Masri is dead, we can certainly hope this story is accurate, and until otherwise known. let's assume he is.

These incidents are notable for a couple of reasons, first that another senior al-Qaeda operative has been eliminated, and second that they occasionally get their just desserts despite the fact that these cowardly leaders send out brainwashed men, women and children to do their dirty work for them.

This event is noteworthy, but it isn’t cause for true celebration. It’s true that another brutal thug who doesn’t care who or how many people he kills has met a fitting end, but the reality is that some other punk will soon take his place.

Technorati Tags: Terrorism, Iraq War, War on Terror

Iran Pushing Its Luck

It’s been a week since 15 British military personnel were seized in waters near Iraq and Iran. The Iranians claim the British boat was in its waters; the Brits claim their people were in Iraqi waters.

It has been pretty much a diplomatic standoff so far, but Iran is threatening to put the Brits on trial. There is also some possibility that the one woman among the British sailors and marines will be released. The Iranians originally said they would release the woman, but have more recently reneged. The Iranians have released one statement by the woman in which she admits the British boat was indeed in Iranian waters, and another statement is forthcoming, according to news sources. News sources also say that satellite imagery clearly shows the British boat outside the limits of Iranian waters.

A few questions naturally arise: Were the Brits in Iranian waters? If so, was it on purpose or by accident? It has been reported that the boundaries are tricky to navigate, due to the coastline near the boundaries. Another questions is: How much intimidation was used on the British woman to get her to admit the Brits were wrong?

But really, none of that matters, as the Iranians have tipped their hand and exposed their real reason for creating this hoopla: They have demanded the Brits pull out of Iraq. So the next and final question is, is this an international sovereignty issue, or a naked political maneuver?

One wonders just how long Tony Blair will wait to take decisive action to get his people back? As pointless as it is to work through diplomatic channels with Iran, I concede that some diplomatic efforts must be given a chance. But the Iranians have a reputation for doing as they please, pretty much with impunity, as most nations are afraid to get tough with the Iran. My solution? Give Iran one very stern warning with a definite and short timetable for a response, demanding the immediate release of the captured military personnel and their equipment and belongings, and when the deadline expires the British military will take out a small Iranian military installation, or take out a small portion of a bigger one, and let Iran know that if those sailors and marines aren’t released immediately, another attack will quickly follow.

Someone needs to confront Iran and let the Ayatollahs and the Ahmadinejad regime know that they aren’t nearly as tough and fearsome as they have come to believe they are, and there is no better time than the present, when Iran has provoked Great Britain.

Technorati Tags: War, Diplomacy, Iraq War

Democrats Before It Became
Convenient to Deny Iraqi WMDs

Thanks to #1 Son, Ryan.

Attention John Murtha!

What part of “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” do you not understand?

Or do you think you and your fellow travelers in the anti-Bush, anti-war camp are above the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which vests control of the military in the President, acting as Commander in Chief.

Presidents have made mistakes for years in allowing Congress to act when it is neither called for nor wise, as in allowing the Senate to approve which general or admiral gets what top position. That is the President’s decision; the Congress has no roll in it. Yet, presidents, apparently trying to be nice and cooperative, have made the mistake of putting these assignments up for approval. Such behavior only increases the self-importance imagined by certain members of Congress.

In this case, they have come to believe they can manipulate the Commander in Chief by playing with funding. Such behavior is inappropriate, dangerous, and reflects the arrogance and petulant nature of Mr. Bush’s enemies, led by John Murtha.

Technorati Tags: America, Democrats, Politics, Liberalism, U.S. Constitution, Iraq War

Al-Qaeda Threatens Oil Supply

An al-Qaeda-linked Saudi Arabian terrorist faction has urged Muslim militants to attack oil facilities in Canada, Mexico and Venezuela to stop the flow of oil to the US, according to an article posted on the Internet.

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula believes that "cutting oil supplies to the United States, or at least curtailing it, would contribute to the ending of the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Two thoughts: First, I don’t think interrupting the oil supply will affect our presence in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. A large number of Americans, including more than a few elected officials, are ready to bail out already, and if you add into the mix some discomfort at the gas pumps, quite a few more will certainly fold up under the stress. They don’t think we can win; they don’t want to win. Despite that, and while much of the recent behavior from some members of Congress tells the world that America is weak and has no will to fight terrorists, the Commander-In-Chief, the guy who makes the decisions on military operations, is not afraid, is not ready to bail out and is determined to defeat terrorists everywhere, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

Second, al-Qaeda’s fanatic obsession with hurting the United States produces actions that are bordering on, or perhaps venturing into, the la-la land of incoherent lunacy. So consumed with hurting the U.S. is this bunch of extremists that they kill fellow Muslims—man, woman and child—with complete disregard and now threaten to attack oil supplies, some of which are located in Arab/Muslim countries, some of which are in countries that are also enemies of the U.S., or at least not good friends of ours.

You have to wonder whether at some point al-Qaeda’s irrational behavior will turn the whole world against it?

The fact is that no nation is safe from these obsessed, supercilious goofballs, as is becoming more and more clear as time passes. Al-Qaeda may be focused primarily on the United States right now, but that is temporary. Anyone that doesn’t agree with the narrow, repressive, and murderous philosophy subscribed to by the maniacal leaders of this devil’s alliance is a future target. It is just a matter of time.

Technorati Tags: America, War on Terror, al-Qaeda, Oil, Culture

Congress in 2007

Now that the Democrats have regained control of the U.S. Congress in last November's election, the reminders of why they shouldn't be in charge come rushing back.

Since the much vaunted 100 Hour Plan was dispensed with all we have heard from Capital Hill is a lot of noise about a non-binding resolution expressing the “sense of the Congress” about President Bush’s new way forward in Iraq. The measure is meaningless because it is a toothless action that can’t force anyone to do or not do anything; Congress doesn’t direct military operations, the Commander-In-Chief does.

The Democrats are guilty of—to be generous—exaggeration and disingenuousness in putting forth the claim that Congress is opposed to the Bush plan to increase troop strength in Iraq by more than 21,000. This politically-based foolishness began in the House of Representatives where the vote on the measure was 246-182, meaning that the resolution had the support of only 57 percent of the members who voted. That margin may be enough to pass a resolution that means nothing, but it is far less that necessary to support the claim that the House opposes the troop surge. For such a claim you would need the support of more than 70 percent of voting members, and to convey the idea that the House is solidly behind it, you ought to have 80 percent support. The measure had only 17 Republicans favoring it, and didn’t even have all the Democrats behind it, hardly a strong statement of solidarity of opposition.

The Senate will begin consideration of what to do about this silliness in a rare Saturday session today.

Typical of liberal initiatives, this affair substitutes symbolism for substance, and the only thing this foolishness will accomplish is to signal the world that the U.S. is weak and divided about our activities in Iraq. Isn’t that a great message to issue in support of our military?

If the Democrats want to make a real statement against the war, they ought to draft real legislation that would have a real effect, and that would be to defund the war. And they may in the future attempt such an ill-advised stunt. However, to do that would put the military at risk, and we all know how solidly the Democrats support the troops. What the new majority really wants is to have its cake and eat it, too: blather on about how the surge won’t work, but fail to take a truly principled position against it.

Democrats are overdriving their headlights on this one, behaving as if the election gave them a mandate to do as they please. It didn’t, and the closeness of the vote in the House underscores that point rather dramatically. The American people may be frustrated with the way things are going in Iraq, but they do not agree with the Democrat mantra: damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead—meaning get out of Iraq as quickly as possible, and let the chips fall where they may.

Technorati Tags: Congress, Liberals, Patriotism, America, Iraq War, War On Terror

Iraq From the Inside

I have written before of the pitiful job the American media—indeed, the international media—have done in reporting accurately what is going on in Iraq. Trite phrases such as, “if it bleeds, it leads,” are offered up to explain the abysmal job American newspapers and networks have done in reporting the goings-on in Iraq, as if the media is hypnotized and unable to report anything other than spilled blood and death. Having been indoctrinated by the media’s steady diet of negativity from Iraq, otherwise sensible people don’t believe that good things are happening there. After all, how much good can be going on when they almost never hear any of it. But our journalists—those supposed purveyors of truth, accuracy, fairness and balance—are concealing much good news and many reasons if not to be hopeful, then not to despair.

The following excerpt is one commentator’s take on Iraq from the inside, embedded with U.S. Army troops at Forward Operating Base Justice in northern Baghdad. It is just one perspective, and of course it doesn’t reflect the entirety of the situation in Iraq, but it certainly is worth a few minutes of your time, unless you are a closed-minded ideologue satisfied with the biased view from the media. The writer is Michelle Malkin:

What I Saw in Iraq

I came to Iraq a darkening pessimist about the war, due in large part to my doubts about the compatibility of Islam and Western-style democracy, but also as a result of the steady, sensational diet of "grim milestone" and "daily IED count" media coverage that aids the insurgency.

I left Iraq with unexpected hope and resolve.

The everyday bravery and consummate professionalism of the troops I embedded with have strengthened my faith in the U.S. military. These soldiers are well aware of the history, culture and sectarian strife that have wracked the Muslim world for more than a millennium. "They love death," one gunner muttered as we heard explosions in the distance while parked in al Adil. Nevertheless, these troops are willing to put their lives on the line to bring security to Iraq, one neighborhood at a time.

Words of Wisdom and Insight

Regular readers and other friends will remember my high opinion of the writings of Wesley Pruden. He has both a gift with words and strong insight.

I strongly recommend that everyone read the following piece. I don't mean run your eyes across the lines, half paying attention, half day dreaming or thinking about something else. I mean read the piece and think about what you've read.

Does anyone here want to survive?

By Wesley Pruden
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published January 16, 2007

---

The rap on George W. Bush is that he can't make a rousing speech like Winston Churchill, and indeed he can't. But who can? Not Hillary, not "the husband of," not John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, or even Barack Obama, worthies all.

Churchill marshaled the language and sent it off to World War II. He was sui generis, one of a kind, an orator who played rhetoric like Babe Ruth hit home runs and Brooks Robinson played third base. But Churchill, the electrifier of frightened audiences on both sides of the Atlantic, had an advantage that neither George W. nor the pretenders do. He had an audience wired to be electrified.

The earlier generations were more serious, more grown-up, more willing to look threats of death and doom squarely in the eye. They took Hitler at his word. Churchill's challenge, to resist Nazi evil no matter how dear the price or heavy the burden, was eagerly assumed even though the prime minister had "nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat." When Herr Hitler boasted that he would wring England's neck like a chicken, Churchill mocked him: "Some neck, some chicken." An exchange like that between George W. and Osama bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would invite hoots and catcalls from defiant Democrats and fearful Republicans, and probably a derisive skit on "Saturday Night Live." Being a real chicken is less demanding than resisting evil.

Churchill used metaphors like weapons of mass destruction. Death by metaphor was often the fate of a parliamentary nemesis in the black years leading inexorably toward World War II. In one memorable exchange with Ramsay MacDonald, a Labor Party prime minister, Churchill, then a mere member of Parliament, recalled his disappointment as a boy at the circus not being allowed to see a sideshow freak born with arms, legs and spine like spaghetti, called "the Boneless Wonder."

"My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralizing and revolting for my youthful eye," he recalled, fixing a contemptuous gaze on his rival. "I have waited 50 years to see the Boneless Wonder."

He was born only too soon. If he were in Washington now we could show him lots of boneless wonders, as Bill Kristol observes in the Weekly Standard. "Today, Boneless Wonders sit on the benches of both parties in Congress. More are to be found on the Democratic side of the aisle than the Republican. But the herd of Boneless Wonders is a bipartisan ."

The Boneless Wonders and their cousins, the Bone Heads proudly liken their opposition to war in Iraq to opposition to the war in Vietnam a generation ago. But the '60's anti-war crowd opposed the war because they reckoned America had no stake in what happened in Southeast Asia. The anti-war crowd now recognizes that something's at stake in Iraq, but demands an alternative to how George W. Bush is dealing with it. Just what this might be, no one offers a clue. "I'm not the president," says Harry Reid, the leader of the fragile Democratic majority in the Senate. "It is the president's obligation to set policy."

And so it is. No one, not even the president, is certain sure that his "new way forward" is a guarantee of success. But no one has come up with anything better, or in fact with anything at all. "I think going into Iraq was a mistake," a friendly Muslim ambassador said to me this week. "But an American withdrawal now would be a disaster."

There's obvious glee among the president's critics that his war has gone sour. Joe Biden wants to codify glee with a Senate resolution to "demonstrate to the president that he's on his own." On his own? If events since September 11 have taught anything it's that we all, even Joe Biden, have a stake in the war against violent Islam.

"You ask what is our aim?" Winston Churchill told his critics in the spring of 1940, when civilization teetered in the balance. "I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs. Victory in spite of all terror, however long or hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival."