Day by Day

Saturday, December 03, 2005

W's Plan and Progress VS the Democrat Plan and Inner Party Division

First thing to keep in mind - The very fact that there has always been a plan, and that we have made progress according to that plan completely obliterates two DNC talking points, namely: 1) W has no plan. 2) QUAGMIRE. As we know, if Democrats and their Media fail with one meme, they tweak it or switch to another (as long as it is geared toward destroying the Iraq war effort and the President). Some claim that our determination to stay the course means we aren't learning from our experiences, or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground. Again, the progress we've made lays that meme to waste as well. We continue to build Iraq into a prosperous and secure constitutional democracy despite the best efforts of the terrorists and the left. There is no way we could have accomplished this without adapting to changing circumstances.

Let's cover a little progress in Iraq on the political, economic, and security fronts:

Political:

Since the liberation of Iraq in April of 2003. We Established a Governing Council in July 2003, Formed the First Cabinet in September 2003, Announced Deadlines for Sovereignty and Transitional Administrative Law in November of 2003, Developed Transitional Administrative Law by March of 2004, Announced the Interim Government on June 1, 2004, Transferred Sovereignty (the Interim Government Assumed Power) on June 30, 2004, and Convened a National Conference and established the National Council in July of 2004. Then, in January 2005, Democratic Elections were held and a Transitional Government was elected. These elections (which were held on schedule) saw 8 million vote. Sunni Arabs (formerly comprising Saddam's Ba'ath party) boycotted the elections only to express regret afterwards. A little under 100 attacks occurred nation-wide. Then in October 2005 a vote was taken of the Iraqi people and their Constitution was Ratified. These elections (which were also held on schedule) saw 10 million vote. Some Sunni Arabs (formerly comprimising Saddam's Ba'ath party) defied foriegn terrorists' call for Sunni Arabs to boycott this election as well creating a rift between the two camps of Iraq's insurgency. This time there were only 19 attacks on polling places. The Constitution was ratified by 80 percent of voters. There is a logical trend to follow here. The Sunni Arabs start out determined to oppose Iraqs new Government (perhaps because they thought that a Ba'athist controlled Iraq could re-emerge with the help of al Qaeda and leftists the world over), but as the majority of Iraqis eagerly take part in the democratic process, these home grown Iraqi insurgents end up marginalizing themselves in the political process and waring with their fellow citizens. Now they have a choice. They can continue down this dark path or they can seek a truce with their fellow citizens and particpate in a system of self determination. This is the situation we have created in Iraq.

Economic:

According to the Brookings Institution - the standard of living in Iraq has doubled since 2003, and the Iraqi economy is projected to grow by 16.8 percent next year. This might be the first time you've heard about this, as it is indicative of great progress in Iraq and the Democrat Media can not perpetuate "Quagmire" while informing viewers of such facts.

Security:

In The Past Year, Iraqi Security Forces Have Made Real Progress. This time last year, there were only a handful of combat-ready Iraqi battalions. Now, there are over 120 Iraqi Army and Police combat battalions in the fight - typically comprised of between 350 to 800 Iraqi forces. Of these, about 80 battalions are fighting alongside Coalition forces. About 40 other battalions are taking the lead, and most are controlling their own battle space and conducting their own operations with some Coalition support.
Iraqi Forces Are Taking The Lead. This progress is especially clear when comparing last year's assault in Fallujah and recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine Coalition battalions - with six Iraqi battalions supporting. The Iraqis fought and sustained casualties but were primarily limited to protecting the flanks of Coalition forces and securing ground already cleared. This year in Tal Afar, the assault was primarily led by 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five Coalition battalions. Many Iraqi units conducted their own anti-terrorist operations and controlled their own battle space. Many Iraqi forces have stayed behind to ensure the city's safety and move ahead with reconstruction projects. In October, the citizens of Tal Afar were able to vote on the constitutional referendum.
Iraqi Forces Are Taking Control Of More Territory. Today, over 30 Iraqi Army battalions have assumed primary control of their own areas of responsibility. In Baghdad, Iraqi battalions have taken over major sectors - including some of the city's toughest neighborhoods. Iraqi troops are securing the area around Baghdad's Haifa street, and roughly ninety square miles of Baghdad province. Across the country, Iraqi battalions are making similar strides, taking responsibility of areas in South-Central, Southeast, Western, and North-Central Iraq. As Iraqi forces take control of more territory, Coalition forces can concentrate on training Iraqis and hunting down high-value terrorist targets.
Coalition Bases Are Being Transferred To Iraqi Control. As Iraqi forces take over more territory, the Coalition is transferring forward operating bases to Iraqi control. Over a dozen bases have been handed over to the Iraqi government - including Saddam Hussein's former palace in Tikrit. From many of these bases, the Iraqi Security Forces are planning and executing their own operations against the terrorists.
By Any Reasonable Standard, The Iraqi Security Forces Are Making Progress. Some critics point to the fact that only one Iraqi battalion has achieved complete independence from the Coalition. To achieve complete independence, an Iraqi battalion must not only fight the enemy on its own but also provide its own support elements, including logistics, airlift, intelligence, and command and control through their ministries. There are some battalions from NATO militaries would not be able to meet this standard. But not every Iraqi unit has to meet this level of capability for the Iraqi Security Forces to take the lead in the fight against the terrorists.
Progress Has Resulted Because Of Changes Made In Helping Train Iraqi Troops. Learning from earlier experiences, the Coalition has changed its approach to training. Now, Iraqi Army recruits receive about the same length of basic training as new U.S. Army recruits. With Coalition help, Iraqis have established schools for the Iraqi military services, an Iraqi military academy, a non-commissioned officer (NCO) academy, a military police school, and a bomb disposal school. NATO has established an Iraqi Joint Staff College as well. There is also an increased focus on leadership training, including professional development for Iraqi squad leaders, platoon sergeants, warrant officers, and sergeants-major. A new generation of Iraqi officers is being trained to lead their forces with skill, defeat the terrorists, and secure their freedom.
Changes Have Been Made To Iraqi Police Training. At first, Iraqi police recruits spent too much time in classroom lectures and received limited small-arms training. Now, recruits spend more of their time outside the classroom with intensive hands-on training in anti-terrorism operations and learning real-world survival skills. Iraq has six basic police academies, and one in Jordan, that together produce over 3,500 new police officers every 10 weeks. The Baghdad police academy has simulation models to prepare Iraqi police for real-life situations. Because Iraqi police are not facing common criminals, they are getting live-fire training with the AK-47s they need to fight the terrorists.
Recruits Are Being Instructed By Iraqi Officers. When the training effort began, nearly all the trainers came from Coalition countries. Today, the vast majority of Iraqi police and army recruits are taught by Iraqi instructors. By training the trainers, an institutional capability is being created to allow the Iraqi Forces to continue to develop and grow long after Coalition forces have left Iraq.
The Quality Of Recruits Is Improving. Even though Iraqi police and army recruits are being targeted by the terrorists, there is no shortage of Iraqis willing to risk their lives to secure a free Iraq. As Iraqi Security Forces become larger and more capable, more Sunnis are being encouraged to join the Iraqi army and police. These efforts were given a significant boost when more than 60 influential Sunni clerics issued a fatwa calling on young Sunnis to join the Iraqi Security Forces. These religious leaders are helping to make Iraqi Security Forces a truly national institution able to serve, protect, and defend all Iraqis.


That's THE SUPER SHORT VERSION. On November 30th President George W. Bush outlined his Strategy for Victory in Iraq in a speech to midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. He also made available an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing in Iraq - The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. It is a bit of a read, but it is well worth it. It is at once comprehensive, intuitive, adaptive, and most importantly - oriented toward goals and conditions rather than timetables and deadlines.

Democrats are OBSESSED with "timetables"/deadlines. This is a "tell". It is projection on their part. They have NO PLAN for victory in Iraq. NONE. All they've ever offered is critisism. Which is what this business of "timetables" is all about. They've literally said, "Bush broke it, he bought it". They deny our progress and highlight only our failings and losses. They've justified actively working against victory in Iraq with their disagreement with the decision to liberate Iraq in furtherence of the Global War on Terror. Why? Because they know Bush is right and they've no way to reconcile victory with their statements and behavior to the contrary. A free Iraq will (and has) changed the region for the better. A free Iraq will unite Sunni and Shia, Arab and Kurd in self determination and create a partner in our fight against the murderous terrorists in the heart of the mid-east. The Democrats have invested soo much time, energy, rhetoric, and pride in the position that liberating Iraq will not advance our war against terror, that they would sabotage our efforts by pulling our troops out before their mission is completed. What is the purpose of "timetables"? They are nothing more than artificial markers in the road to victory that Democrats can later complain about when we fail to meet them. What will they do if we don't meet them? Will someone be punished? Who? The Iraqis? "We didn't meet our timetable, QUAGMIRE, Murtha calls for withdrawal....again." Bush? Of course they want to punish Bush. A failure to meet a timetable is simply another opportunity for Democrats to point at the President and yell "failure"! This is what they do instead of offering constructive advice on how to do things better. Instead of advancing a plan of their own, they want a way to bash Bush. Let's look at the Democrat response to Bush's Plan. Their responses fall into 1 of 3 categories:

1) "No Progress! Quagmire! Withdraw!!!

Shortly after the President outlined his plan and the progress we've made on November 30th, House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) aggressively endorsed a proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. She previously praised Murtha for the stunt which she and Murtha had coordinated when Murtha called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq on November 17th (this took place right in between the successfull ratification of the Iraqi Constitution in October and the up-coming mid-December elections that will see representatives elected according to that Constitution). House Republicans called their bluff and put their rhetoric to a vote which failed to pass by 400 to 3. Pelosi voted against the resolution, but endorsed it in response to the President's speech outlining his plan and the progress we've made.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Backed The Call For Withdrawal Of Troops. "'I will be supporting the Murtha resolution,' Pelosi said of Murtha's resolution calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq at the earliest practicable date." ("Pelosi Backs Murtha's Call For Withdrawal From Iraq," Reuters, 11/30/05)

Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) Reiterated The Call For An Artificial Timetable. "'We need leadership, and we need a policy on Iraq that includes a flexible timetable for completing our military mission there. In August, Feingold put forward December 31, 2006 to help jumpstart the discussion of a target date to complete the military mission there." (Sen. Russell Feingold, "Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The President's Speech" Press Release, 11/30/05)

Representative Murtha (D-PA) Has Said There Must Be An "Immediate Redeployment Of U.S. Troops." REP. MURTHA: "My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq." (Rep. Murtha, Press Conference, 11/17/05)


THIS IS THE DEMOCRAT PLAN FOR IRAQ. Defeat. Failure. The inability to win militarily, rather by "diplomacy" with the terrorists. And of course TIMETABLES to bash Bush about later.


2) Incoherence, Obfuscation, and Outright Lies

No one is a better poster child for this approach than the 2004 Democrat Presidential Candidate - John Kerry:

On November 30th, in response to President Bush's speech outlining his plan and citing progress we've made, Senator Kerry said:

"Secondly, this debate is not about an artificial date for withdrawal. Several times in his speech today, the president set up this straw man and then knocks it down. That's not what this debate is about... The president today in his speech said, I quote, 'America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am commander in chief.' Well, so long as Jack Reed is a United States senator and John Kerry is a senator and the rest of us are senators, none of us, no one, has ever suggested or believes that we should run in the face of car bombers or assassins. That, again, is not what this debate is about. All of us agree. No one is talking about running in the face of a challenge; we're talking about how to win, how to succeed, how do you best achieve our goals."

Refer to Democrat Response Category 1, Senator Kerry. "It's not about cutting and runnig, just about setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Ignore my incoherence, our House Minority Leader, and the Democrats who've been complaining that all is lost since 5 minutes after we set foot on Iraqi soil."

3) Inner party division. The few Democrats who want America to be victorious.

Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT):

"And, I Am Convinced, Almost All Of The Progress In Iraq And Throughout The Middle East Will Be Lost If Those Forces Are Withdrawn Faster Than The Iraqi Military Is Capable Of Securing The Country." (Sen. Joe Lieberman, Op-Ed, "Our Troops Must Stay," The Wall Street Journal, 11/29/05)


Senator Lieberman has consistently and regularly advocated victory in the war in Iraq and the war on terror, and he also acknowledges the progress we've made and that we acted properly because Saddam was intent on attaining WMD and was a state sponsor of terrorism. But Represetative Hoyer found the House Minority leader's response to President Bush worthy of rebuttal.

House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) (The number 2 Democrat in the House of Representatives) issued a statement Wednesday that was in marked contrast to Pelosi's:

"I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility,"


He also said:

"If our forces leave before the Iraqis can defend themselves, the result will be a national security disaster for the United States. Iraq will be convulsed into full-scale civil war that could provoke a regional conflagration. The Sunni triangle will likely become home base for the global jihad network, a safe haven for hatching new terrorist plots against our country and our friends. America will once again have broken faith with Iraq's long-suffering Kurds and Shi'a, and the cause of Arab democracy will be set back for a generation."


There are a few sane, responsible, adult Democrats left in the party. Unfortunately for them, the DNC is run by Howard Dean, MoveOndotnever, International ANSWER, and the leftist Democrat Media. And they have completely invested themselves in America's defeat in the war in Iraq and by extension the Global War on Terror. Fortunately for those same sane few, the United States military, it's Commander in Chief - George W. Bush, and the Iraqi people will succeed in transforming Iraq from the dominion of a brutal, terrorist-supporting dictator, into a constitutional democracy united with us to fight the terrorist threat.

What to expect in the Future - The Democrat Media's war against the War in Iraq:

You may not have heard about the ratification of Iraq's Constitution, because at the time the American press was fully dedicated to Democrat complaints about the 2000th soldier lost in the war effort. News of Iraq's successful constitutional referendum does not fit with the view that Iraq is a complete failure, so it was ignored.

Our soldiers have said that reporting of progress in Iraq vs reporting of the cost of that progress can be summed up in the following analogy: If a Marine buys a sandwich for $8.00 in Iraq, the Press would report "Soldier out 8 bucks".

Hence why you may not have heard about the following:

Coalition forces killed over 700 terrorists and capturing 1,500 in the last two months alone.

"It's been very successful," Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch told a briefing in Baghdad ...... referring to a series of security offensives conducted by U.S. and Iraq forces in Anbar province since September 28. Though media reports suggest recent U.S. casualties are due to deteriorating security conditions in Iraq as a whole, most were incurred during the new offensive - dubbed "Operation Steel Curtain."
In quotes picked up by Reuters, Gen. Lynch noted that despite the heavy combat, U.S. troop casualties had fallen more than 30 percent in November compared with last month. During the November 2004 assault on Fallujah, the monthly casualty rate was nearly twice what it is now. The Anbar operations, and others in the northern Iraq city of Mosul, have been focused on foreign fighters and militants linked to al-Qaida's chief of operations in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Gen. Lynch said. Noting that Zarqawi was nearly captured last week, Gen. Lynch said the close call was a result of the terror group's deteriorating position in the country.
"We come close to Zarqawi continuously," the top military man explained, adding, "At one point in time in the not too distant future, we will capture or kill him."


Such information is often mentioned only once and even then it is hedged in lavish amounts of nay saying. In contrast, the AP death count is presented in true "Marine out 8 bucks" form with ZERO hedging of this statistic in facts relating to progress we've made in Iraq.

Again. This is the true majority Democrat sentiment on Iraq. It also manifests in denying the nobility of our goals, demonizing the President and the troops (Jimmy Massey), and literally supporting America's enemies like former U.S. Attorney General under Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, Ramsey Clark, who is serving as legal counsel for Saddam Hussein. In a recent poll respondents were asked whether the world would be better off if the Butcher of Baghdad was still in power. Forty-one percent of Democrats said yes, 34 percent said no. Expect nothing but the same from the Democrat Media.

Friday, December 02, 2005

There's a new anti-Bush film in town

Found at LGF:

In a Village Voice review reeking of Bush Derangement Syndrome, we learn of Joe Dante’s new project: Homecoming, a film in which soldiers return from the dead to demand impeachment.
.
.
.
In an election year, dead veterans of the current conflict crawl out of their graves and stagger single-mindedly to voting booths so they can eject the president...
I love comment #2:

"Art imitates life: the dead are voting Democrat again."
Haw!

lgf: Zombie Soldiers and Mama Moonbat

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Family backs mission

Rocky Mountain News

The Red Crescent Returns - Flight 93 "Memorial"

Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:50:49 -0800 (PST)
From: DW
Subject: Design for the Flight 93 National Memorial
To: info@paulmurdocharchitects.com

Paul Murdoch Architects,

I just viewed your brochure on the "Design for the
Flight 93 National Memorial," and I just have one
comment: You are stuck on Stupid.

Everything I said in my earlier email (below) still
stands. It is still a red crescent; it still points
toward Mecca. Anyone can see that. From the pictures
on your brochure, it appears that if you draw a line
connecting the "tips" of the red crescent and bisect
it, drawing another line perpendicular to the
crescent-tip connecting line, then not only does this
perpendicular line point toward Mecca, but it bisects
the memorial wall making it clear that this aspect of
the design is not accidental. Your intent is now quite
clear. You wish to memorialize the hijackers.
Moreover, after your previous failed design, I do not
need to prove this assertion but it is your job to
disprove it.

In your letter on the brochure, you say this was a
"democratic selection process." I was born in
Pennsylvania, I have relatives who were in the World
Trade Center on 9/11/01, and I vote NO. So does my
entire family.

DW
California

--- On Sept. 9, 2005 DW wrote:

> I am deeply disturbed by your design for the Flight
> 93
> memorial in Shanksville, PA. You could not possibly
> be
> unaware that the crescent moon with a star is the
> internationally-recognized symbol of the faith of
> Islam. Is it your intention to honor the terrorist
> hijackers? Your design appears to be the equivalent
> of
> putting a swastika over a holocaust memorial site. I
> am thoroughly disgusted, and would expect others to
> be
> equally disgusted when they discover your plan. If
> your "Crescent of Embrace" memorial goes forward, it
> will further victimize Americans. I can only imagine
> your motivation - perhaps it is to turn Americans
> into
> hate-filled terrorists, as you must expect the trees
> in this memorial to be torched.
>
> DW
> California

I also faxed my letter to the Superintendent of the Flight 93 Memorial at the National Park Service (814-443-2180).

PREVIOUS:
Sonofabitch!! - Flight 93 Memorial Still Jihadist Shrine
These people need a clue.

Withdrawing troops before the job was done....

...in Afghanistan was a mistake. Yet withdrawing troops before the job is done in Iraq is an imperative. This is the American Left in deep thinking mode.

Why are there not enough troops???

Recruitment shortfalls? Maybe.

Bill Clinton? Most certainly.

Laura Bush under attack...

...from the Left.

Hillary under attack...

...from the Left.

But but but but Bush said Saddam was behind 911

You've heard lying traitorous Democrats utter that countless times and what do they cite as proof that Bush did this? Not what he said! No. Because he never fucking said it. They cite public opinion! Que Carl Levin - Lying Democrat:

"LEVIN: He made the link so strong that the majority of the American people believed, when we went into Iraq, that Saddam Hussein had actually attacked us on 9/11."


Oh really, Carl. You lying sack of shit:

On Sept. 13, 2001, a Time/CNN poll found that 78 percent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to have been personally involved in 9/11.

Boy! Must have been a lot of selling by W and Cheney in those 2 days, right?

On Sept. 16, 2001, Dick Cheney said this on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

By September 2002, a CBS News poll found that the percentage of the public that believed that Saddam was personally involved in 9/11 had dropped to 51 percent. By March of 2003, just prior to the invasion of Iraq, the CBS poll found that number had dropped to 45 percent — not a "majority" as Sen. Levin claimed.

So what's up with 80 percent of people polled thinking Saddam was hehind a major terror attack on the United States right after it happened? Maybe they got that idea from listening to Bill Clinton and CNN.

Sonofabitch!! - Flight 93 Memorial Still Jihadist Shrine

At first we hear that the Flight 93 memorial has been redisigned. Cause for celebration. NO FUCKING WAY! The 'Redesigned' Flight 93 Memorial Design is almost entirely unchanged! Complete with 44 blocks instead of 40. 40 would represent the innocent people who lost their lives on board flight 93. 44 includes an extra 4 to honor the human fucking vermin that took their lives!

THIS IS BULL SHIT!

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Back to school

OK folks, sorry for the short warning, but as of Thursday I'm going to be in school for two weeks. December 1st to the 16th.

But I'll be home for Christmas. That's the important part.

In any case, as with almost any military school, the internet access will be very limited, and my time even more so. Maybe when I'm filthy stinking rich, I'll have a nice laptop with wireless access and a digital SLR camera and all the nice things that I want. Until then, I'll keep toiling in the dark ages and get to blogging when I can.

So, off I go, into the great unknown. Again. Ah well, I volunteered for this, didn't I? I must say, it does keep my marraige feeling like a perpetual honeymoon, because we haven't been together for a long enough consecutive time to make it feel aged at all.

Spc. Robert Shane Pugh


Army Spc. Robert S. Pugh


“Shane was an expert in dealing with wounds that come when that happens,” said Maj. Gen. Harold Cross, adjutant general for the Mississippi National Guard. “Though he was injured himself, another soldier lay wounded next to him. Shane directed a group of primarily engineers on what to do to stop that soldier’s bleeding enough to where he could be stabilized.”

Cross said the other soldier, Sgt. Ellis Martin, needed 52 units of blood while en route from Iraq to a hospital in Germany. Cross said Martin has undergone four surgeries at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and is now in critical condition.

Pugh didn’t survive his injuries.
May God hold Specialist Pugh tightly.

Spc. Robert Shane Pugh

UPDATE: you can leave messages for families of the fallen here: Fallen Heroes Memorial

The Grieving Mom....

...is cashing in.

The State University College at Oneonta has booked a Fox News Channel military analyst to counter a lecture tonight by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.
.
.
.
Both events are part of "Making a Difference Week," said CUAC lecture chairwoman Erin Dromgoole, who helped book both speakers earlier this month.
.
.
.
Sheehan is getting paid $11,000 for the hour-long talk, while Rutter will receive his standard fee of $600 for his presentation, Dromgoole said.
.
.
.
Dromgoole said Sheehan will give a presentation entitled, "One Person Can Make a Difference."
.
.
.
She said the CUAC also heard concerns that Sheehan’s appearance may be more than a just a talk.

"Some people assumed it was an anti-war rally and that’s not what it is," Dromgoole said. "Her program is not about the war."

Dromgoole said the lecture is designed to illustrate that an individual can make a difference in society. But she added that the war will be mentioned by Sheehan.

"Obviously, it’s going to come up, that’s who she is," Dromgoole said.
.
.
.
In addition to hiring the lecturers, CUAC also paid for an advertisement in The Daily Star for the Sheehan speech.

Harcleroad said Rutter was not booked in time to get a similar advertisement for his speech, but he said that Rutter and Sheehan’s lectures are being promoted on campus with the same level of activity.

However, Dromgoole said, the advertisement was done in part to generate off-campus interest in Sheehan’s lecture because of the larger price tag for her appearance.
I like that last part - "we're doing more advertising because the speaker cost more money".

SUCO to pay Sheehan $11,000

Joe Lieberman

Honest Democrat

Supporting the troops

The Military Outpost

Speechless

Isn't there ONE DAMN PERSON who can tell these blighters to sod off?

A massive mosque that will hold 40,000 worshippers is being proposed beside the Olympic complex in London to be opened in time for the 2012 Games.

The project’s backers hope the mosque and its surrounding buildings would hold a total of 70,000 people, only 10,000 fewer than the Olympic stadium.


And as someone else remarked yesterday, "Gee, will the suicide bomb vending machines be installed right next to the doors??"

Its futuristic design features wind turbines instead of the traditional minarets, while a translucent latticed roof would replace the domes seen on most mosques. The complex is designed to become the “Muslim quarter” for the Games, acting as a hub for Islamic competitors and spectators.


A "Muslim quarter". Can we build a cathedral on the other side of the stadium and have a "Christian quarter" as well? If not, why not?

And follow this last part closely:

“It will be something never seen before in this country. It is a mosque for the future as part of the British landscape,” said Abdul Khalique, a senior member of Tablighi Jamaat, a worldwide Islamic missionary group that is proposing the mosque as its new UK headquarters.

Tablighi Jamaat has come under scrutiny from western security agencies since 9/11. Two years ago, according to The New York Times, a senior FBI anti-terrorism official claimed it was a recruiting ground for Al-Qaeda. British police investigated a report that Mohammad Sidique Khan, leader of the July 7 London bombers, had attended its present headquarters in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. In August, Bavaria expelled three members of the organisation on the grounds that it promoted Islamic extremism.


Emphasis mine.

Yeah. Just the group I want building a mosque right near the Olympic Games. Powerline has more on this Tablighi Jamaat group. This thing needs to be shut down, and fast.

Monday, November 28, 2005

And more news the MSM will not tell you

US Military exceeds recruitment numbers for October.

And as the Army Times reported last week, the Army met it's recruiting goal for FY 06.

Gee, I wonder why the MSM wouldn't scream about that? I mean, when the Army was facing a shortfall, it was front-page, above the fold news! Should the converse also be true?

Not if you're a biased Leftist shitwad journalist, I guess. Who woulda thunk it?

[UPDATE (Tim)]: The Iraq story: how troops see it

Evan Bayh, sure to be a Media darling in 2008,...

...ranks 4th in privately paid trips. C-SPAN loves this guy; they've been rerunning some speech he made in New Hampshire in October over and over here.

And just to drive the point home.....

"My internet access has been limited but I'm having the time of my life in Iraq. I've had great access to all of the Marines and soldiers out here, and am being treated like royalty. These guys are extremely frustrated with the media and make no bones about their distaste for those who are undermining the war effort by calling for withdrawal."


The troops know who has their back, and who the slimy, backstabbing, cowardly, idioctic shitsacks are. In case you can't see who is who, let me give you a clue:

It's not a Republican who called the terrorists in Iraq "Minutemen".

Via Instapundit.

Well, duh!

The war on terror is being fought in an age of global, instant, communications, at least if you have a satellite phone. But many of the troops have Internet access, which is especially useful when they are in a combat zone. So you don’t have to wait for the official version of what’s going on, or for reporters on the scene to get their stories to the folks back home. The troops send email, or pick up the phone, sometimes a cell phone, and call. This has caused a lot of confusion, because the media reports of what’s happening are often at odds with what the troops are reporting. This has been particularly confusing in a year where there’s a presidential election race going on. The Democrats decided to attack the way the war on terror, and particularly the actions in Iraq, was being fought. Part of that approach involved making the situation at the front sound really, really bad. But the troops over there seemed to be reporting a different war. And when troops came home, they were amazed at what they saw in the newspapers and electronic media. Politics and reality don’t mix.


All anyone has to do in order to figure out how the War on Terror is going is ask the damn people fighting it. But the Lame-Stream Media just hasn't figured that part out. And as had already been proven, the Lame-Stream Media will even use a soldier's last words to push their anti-war, anti-freedom, anti-Bush agenda on the public.

And as history has shown, the Lame-Stream media have been rooting for America to fail for decades now.

The idea of the press reporting objectively on the war is I think another urban myth.

Two classic examples: the 1968 Tet Offensive, reported as a great defeat for the US, but which was a victory for the US and which was a devastating loss for the Viet Cong and NVA (essentially resulted in the destruction of the indigenous South Vietnamese Viet Cong).

The second example is the seige at Khe San. This was reported as a defeat for the US, with lots of comparisons to Dien Bien Phu, but the several month long seige at Khe San resulted in the destruction of several NVA divisions at the cost of several hundred US troops. By 1970, the US had defeated the NVA (the indigenous Viet Cong had long been pretty much out of the picture).

The real failure in Vietnam was not to invest in the development of a truly representative democratic government in the south and commit to protect that government from invasion from the north. Of course, then we were primarily interested in fighting communism instead of developing democracy and self determination. In Iraq, I think we have learned to foster self determination, local style.


Well stated, from someone who was there.