Day by Day

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Back in the Saddle Again

For those who live in more temperate climes, let me be the first to fill you in:

Puerto Rico is f**cking hot. More on that later.

I finished my schooling right on time. Made the Commendant's List, which is limited to those who finish with a 95% or above average. Some schools lists are the top 20% of the class, but we had sixty students, so they went with the former rather than the latter. I missed making Distinguished Honor Graduate by this much, but a Ranger beat me on the Physical Fitness test. That's not exactly a black stain on my record, if you know what I mean.

I spent most the time in the classroom, and then the last four days were in the field, applying everything I'd learned. It might be December, and you all might have snow where you live, but it was 85+ degrees down here, and humid as all hell. Not only that, but the area where we were conducting movement had grass as tall as I was, along with other vegitation that could be described as "ungodly". I managed to do everything I had to do, and get the maximum score, but I also needed three bags of IV fluid in two days. After coming back from one mission, my legs were cramping up so bad I had to walk straight-legged. I went over to the medic and just said "Stick me. Now, please." I had drank a gallon and a half of water on that mission as well, but I was sweating it out as fast as I could drink it.

And now I'm back, and seeing that I have a lot to catch up on. After reading DW's posts on the NY Slimes and the Washington Post, I feel like I have to link these two articles, just to illustrate how biased and foul the Lame-Stream media really is.

Victor Davis Hanson

For some time, a large number of Americans have lived in an alternate universe where everything is supposedly going to hell. If you get up in the morning to read the New York Times or Washington Post, watch John Murtha or Howard Dean on the morning talk shows, listen to National Public Radio at noon, and go to bed reading Newsweek it surely seems that the administration is incommunicado (cf. “the bubble”), the war is lost (“unwinnable”), the Great Depression is back (“jobless recovery”), and America about as popular as Nazi Germany abroad (“alone and isolated”).

But in the real adult world, the economy is red-hot, not mired in joblessness or relegating millions to poverty. Unemployment is low, so are interest rates. Growth is high, as is consumer spending and confidence. Our Katrina was hardly as lethal as the Tsunami or Pakistani earthquake. Thousands of Arabs are not rioting in Dearborn. American elderly don’t roast and die in the thousands in their apartments as was true in France. Nor do American cities, like some in China, lose their entire water supply to a toxic spill. Americans did not just vote to reject their own Constitution as in some European countries.

The military isn’t broken. Unlike after Vietnam when the Russians, Iranians, Cambodians, and Nicaraguans all soon tried to press their luck at our expense, most of our adversaries don’t believe the U.S. military is losing in Iraq, much less that it is wise now to take it on. Instead, the general impression is that our veteran and battle-hardened forces are even more lethal than was true of the 1990s — and engaging successfully in an almost impossible war.

Nor are we creating new hordes of terrorists in Iraq — as if a young male Middle Eastern fundamentalist first hates the United States only on news that it is in Iraq crafting a new Marshall Plan of $87 billion and offering a long-oppressed people democracy after taking out Saddam Hussein. Even al Jazeera cannot turn truth into untruth forever.

Instead, the apprentice jihadist is trying to win his certification as master terrorist by trying his luck against the U.S. Marines abroad rather than on another World Trade Center at home — and failing quite unlike September 11.


Captain's Quarters

In my post below, I ask whether the world has finally gotten the message that all people of all backgrounds want and deserve freedom, as demonstrated by the Iraqi elections. Media watches might expect that serious newspapers around the world will address the lessons to be drawn from this historic event. Not at the Paper of RecordTM, however; the message -- and the elections -- seem to have escaped the attention of the editorial board at the New York Times.

The RSS feed for the Opinion page at the Times just updated with tomorrow's articles. Here's what readers of the Times will see addressed by the opinion leaders of what was once the most influential of all American dailies:

* Don't rush to renew the PATRIOT Act (even though it's about to expire after four years)
* The Red Cross may not be motivated to fix its problems
* Chad hasn't benefited from its discovery of oil (but then again, neither have we in ANWR)
* A demand for moral clarity on torture

Wait -- perhaps one of their guests addresses it instead. Er, no. Tim Harford talks trade reform to benefit poor farmers, Robert Kennedy really likes wind power until it blocks his view of the stars (more on that later), and Pankaj Mishra writes about the West vs Islam ... in Turkey. Even behind the Times Select Firewall of Sanity, Paul Krugman forgoes his usual Chicken Littlism on Iraq in favor of discussing conflicts of interest in health care.

Did the Times miss the story? Or are they just hoping that the rest of us did?


Read both. It's a stark example of just how off-base the Lame-Stream media is with it's lies, hysterics, and unfounded accusations. Hey, have you heard how great the economy is going? If you read the NY Slimes, you wouldn't have. The economy is still red hot, as it has been for the past three years. Screaming along. Growing faster than ANY COUNTRY IN EUROPE.

But the Lame-Stream press doesn't want to print that. It might go against it's bias.

Friday, December 16, 2005

NY Slimes - Propaganda Machine

Finally, I'm off work and able to enjoy more of the propaganda of the day. Let's look at today's NY Slimes, shall we? First headline: "Supporters of Patriot Act Suffer a Stinging Defeat in Senate - Supporters are well short of the 60 votes needed to bring the anti-terrorism act to a final vote, leaving it in limbo." Ooh. Double wammy! Not only do terrorists get a major break, but the democrats reestablish the fabled "supermajority" rule that has been in place ever since they lost the majority in the Senate in 2002. We must be the only country in the world where the minority party gets to call the shots. No wonder this is the lead story - the Slimes must be in party mode! Let's see, second story: "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts - Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the National Security Agency has spied on hundreds of people inside the U.S." Not only is this report another blatant attack on the President, but it puts our national security at risk. To see why, see here, here and here.
The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said.
It seems like anything the CIA touches gets leaked to the Slimes. (Amazing, isn't it?) Turns out the NY Slimes has been sitting on this story for more than a year, and chose this time to release it not only on its own pages but on the pages of newspapers across the country. (I question the timing.) Special council Fitzgerald should investigate the NY Slimes and all the security leaks they have been getting instead of the Plame game.

The Post: a little Truth mixed in with the Propaganda

The front page of the Washington Post is a great example of propaganda in journalism. In the upper left of their front page (online version), we see a picture of a man and his dog walking across what looks to be dry, heavily cracked mud and the headline is, "2005 Continues the Warming Trend," so they are starting with the obligatory gobal warming pitch. The top headline in the center of the page reads, "Bush Allowed Domestic Spying in 2002 Order - President authorized NSA eavesdropping operations with post-9/11 order, despite previous legal prohibitions against such tactics." At least they got the obligatory stab at the President out of the way early. Actually, now that I look, the rest of the front page is a verbal assault on our nation's President, too. That's what it's all about though, isn't it? Attacking the President. Every. Single. Day. Nothing unusual there. Next on their front page we have, "Sen. McCain Takes the Lead - Torture ban compromise becomes an awkward dance in which President Bush must follow." So now we are to believe that Senator McCain is telling the President what to do, reinforcing the "Bush can't think for himself" meme. (Funny. I thought this week's angle was that the President does not listen to others - that he lives in a bubble.) This story from the Post further paves the way for a McCain run for President in '08, which wouldn't be as good as Hillary but better than any other Republican the Post's editors can think of. Next we have, "Experts Cautious on Iraq Vote - Analysts say high turnout and little violence during elections is a positive step but not a turning point." What would we do without the Post's duplicitous "experts" and "analysts?" Actually, we'd do pretty well, particularly in Iraq. I'm wondering how they can call this "news" without collapsing in a fit of laughter. Next we have the Post's lead opinion piece apparently, which starts with "The struggle for Mideast democracy will be a human triumph if it succeeds -- but not, by itself, a victory for American national security." The 'Post didn't have articles like this when we invaded Kosovo or Somalia. Explain to me how Kosovo or Somalia made our nation more secure.

But, speaking of troops, I did find this article in the Post yesterday which is not an article at all but a letter from a US Marine. It was not mentioned on their front page of course, but at least they printed it. Maybe they're slipping. (I can dream, can't I?) The letter is so good, I think I'll just 'post' the whole thing right here:
The Truth On the Ground
By Ben Connable

Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Page A29

When I told people that I was getting ready to head back to Iraq for my third tour, the usual response was a frown, a somber head shake and even the occasional "I'm sorry." When I told them that I was glad to be going back, the response was awkward disbelief, a fake smile and a change of subject. The common wisdom seems to be that Iraq is an unwinnable war and a quagmire and that the only thing left to decide is how quickly we withdraw. Depending on which poll you believe, about 60 percent of Americans think it's time to pull out of Iraq.

How is it, then, that 64 percent of U.S. military officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue our work? Why is there such a dramatic divergence between American public opinion and the upbeat assessment of the men and women doing the fighting?

Open optimism, whether or not it is warranted, is a necessary trait in senior officers and officials. Skeptics can be excused for discounting glowing reports on Iraq from the upper echelons of power. But it is not a simple thing to ignore genuine optimism from mid-grade, junior and noncommissioned officers who have spent much of the past three years in Iraq.

We know the streets, the people and the insurgents far better than any armchair academic or talking head. As military professionals, we are trained to gauge the chances of success and failure, to calculate risk and reward. We have little to gain from our optimism and quite a bit to lose as we leave our families over and over again to face danger and deprivation for an increasingly unpopular cause. We know that there are no guarantees in war, and that we may well fail in the long run. We also know that if we follow our current plan we can, over time, leave behind a stable and unified country that might help to anchor a better future for the Middle East.

It is difficult for most Americans to rationalize this optimism in the face of the horrific images and depressing stories that have come to symbolize the war in Iraq. Most of the violent news is true; the death and destruction are very real. But experienced military officers know that the horror stories, however dramatic, do not represent the broader conditions there or the chances for future success. For every vividly portrayed suicide bombing, there are hundreds of thousands of people living quiet, if often uncertain, lives. For every depressing story of unrest and instability there is an untold story of potential and hope. The impression of Iraq as an unfathomable quagmire is false and dangerously misleading.

It is this false impression that has led us to a moment of national truth. The proponents of the quagmire vision argue that the very presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is the cause of the insurgency and that our withdrawal would give the Iraqis their only true chance for stability. Most military officers and NCOs with ground experience in Iraq know that this vision is patently false. Although the presence of U.S. forces certainly inflames sentiment and provides the insurgents with targets, the anti-coalition insurgency is mostly a symptom of the underlying conditions in Iraq. It may seem paradoxical, but only our presence can buffer the violence enough to allow for eventual stability.

The precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops would almost certainly lead to a violent and destabilizing civil war. The Iraqi military is not ready to assume control and would not miraculously achieve competence in our absence. As we left, the insurgency would turn into internecine violence, and Iraq would collapse into a true failed state. The fires of the Iraqi civil war would spread, and terrorists would find a new safe haven from which to launch attacks against our homeland.

Anyone who has spent even a day in the Middle East should know that the Arab street would not thank us for abandoning Iraq. The blame for civil war would fall squarely on our shoulders. It is unlikely that the tentative experiments in democracy we have seen in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere would survive the fallout. There would be no dividend of goodwill from heartbroken intellectuals or emboldened Islamic extremists. American troops might be home in the short run, but the experienced professionals know that in the long run, quitting Iraq would mean more deployments, more desperate battles and more death.

Sixty-four percent of us know that we have a good shot at preventing this outcome if we are allowed to continue our mission. We quietly hope that common sense will return to the dialogue on Iraq. Although we hate leaving our families behind, many of us would rather go back to Iraq a hundred times than abandon the Iraqi people.

A fellow Marine and close friend epitomizes this sentiment. Sean has served two tours in Iraq as a reserve officer. During his last tour, he was informed of the birth of his baby girl by e-mail, learned his father was dying of cancer, and was wounded in the same blast of an improvised explosive that killed his first sergeant on a dirt road in the middle of the western desert. Sean loves his family and his job, but he has made it clear that he would rather go back to Iraq than see us withdraw.

Everyone in uniform does not share this sentiment. Thirty-six percent of military officers are less confident in the mission. But these officers will continue to work as hard as the rest of us toward success because they, too, are professionals. With men and women such as this, the United States has an excellent chance of success in Iraq. We can fail only if the false imagery of quagmire takes hold and our national political will is broken. In that event, both the Iraqi people and the American troops will pay a long-term price for our shortsighted delusion.

The writer is a major in the Marine Corps
I think the disparity in opinion is due to the fact that 99% of Americans have not spent a day on the ground in Iraq and only know what the Post and other mainstream media propaganda outlets tell them. Much of the information we receive from our most trusted sources is false - if people don't see the world clearly then they can't make decisions on a rational basis.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Another senior moment with John "over-the-horizon" Murtha

From CNN:

"Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania -- a usually hawkish Democrat who has called for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq -- criticized Bush's policy again ...."

"We've got nation building by the U.S. military, and that's not a mission for the U.S. military," Murtha said. "I've said this over and over again: They're not good at nation building. You've given them a mission which they cannot carry out. They do the best they can, but they can't do it."


Previously, the "hawkish" Representative mentioned:

"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won 'militarily.'”


Matthew Rothschild asks idiotically in TheProgressive:

"Bush has trapped himself with his own rhetoric of “total victory” and “finishing the job.” And then, of course, there’s Cheney and Rumsfeld who still want that oil and those military bases.

The question is, how long can Bush, and Cheney, and Rumsfeld defy a majority of the American public and an increasingly restive Congress?"


Today, CNN provides the answer:





"One final thing," writes Rothschild.

"While Murtha is not the bastard child of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, as some of Bush’s attack dogs snarled, it is gratifying that Murtha is making some of the very arguments that the peace movement has been advancing all along."


So does that makes Rep. Murtha another confused hawkish pacifist Democrat? Maybe. Or he could just be nuts.

It happens. My senator, Jim Jeffords, appeared in the House of Representatives one day, and was told that he was in the wrong chamber. Then he announced his retirement. (I would link this story, but all references have been purged from the MSM. The record survives only in blogs.)

Another Fake Headline

From AFP: "Bush defends Iraq war, says he will attack another nation if necessary"

The article is about a speech that US President Bush gave yesterday. I actually watched the speech in question on C-Span, and Mr. Bush never said what the AFP is reporting he said. Of course, he did not say that he would "not" attack another nation if necessary, either. Jacques Chirac didn't say that he would not attack another nation, so should we conclude that Jacques is a warmongering cowboy? Who writes these headlines, anyway?

Remembering those who paid for the Iraqi election


Army Sgt. Philip A. Dodson, Jr.

42, of Forsyth, Ga.; assigned to the 148th Forward Support Battalion, 48th Brigade Combat Team, Georgia Army National Guard, Forsyth, Ga.; died Dec. 2 of injuries sustained earlier that day when his truck accidentally rolled over at Tallil Air Base, Iraq. Also killed were Staff Sgt. Philip L. Travis and Spc. Marcus S. Futrell.

Dodson was responsible for repairing generators, but he had volunteered to be a machine gunner on convoys three days a week, according to his father.

Sergeant Dodson leaves a wife and a 16-year-old daughter.

Marine Lance Cpl. Adam W. Kaiser

19, of Naperville, Ill.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, Calif.; attached to 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward); killed Dec. 1 by an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Fallujah, Iraq. Also killed were Staff Sgt. Daniel J. Clay, Lance Cpl. John M. Holmason, Lance Cpl. David A. Huhn, Lance Cpl. Robert A. Martinez, Cpl. Anthony T. McElveen, Lance Cpl. Scott T. Modeen, Lance Cpl. Andrew G. Patten, Sgt. Andy A. Stevens, and Lance Cpl. Craig N. Watson.

Lance Corporal Kaiser is survived by his parents, Wade and Christine, both of Romeoville; a sister, Sarah; and a twin sister, Amanda.

Army Staff Sgt. Aram J. Bass

25, of Niagara Falls, N.Y.; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Ky.; killed Nov. 23 when his unit came under direct fire during combat operations in Baghdad. Also killed was Sgt. William B. Meeuwsen.

Military officials aren't releasing many specific details about Bass' death, but did tell his wife, Breanne Sterner, that he was shot while trying to save another soldier in Baghdad.

"I just want them to know he was very, very special, and he was proud of what he did," Sterner said. "It was something he loved to do and I know that he was proud to do it.



UPDATE: That is a picture of Staff Sergeant Bass; this link states that Sgt. Bass served three years in the Marines prior to joining the Army.

Love Thine Enemy

Ann Coulter wonders why Republicans in government feel the need to deify those who attack them.

Iraqi Election Roundup...

...at Gateway Pundit.

A New Beginning

Scenes From A New Democracy

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Where's that confounded Plan???



FOUND IT!

They had a plan to fix Social Security, Education, and stuck up people, too, but Diebold robbed them of their chance to Plow Forward.

Plan Plan, who's got the Plan?

Harry Reid just went on national TV and said the President "is still not focused on what needs to be done in convincing the American people and showing the American people what his plan is in Iraq." Well, I suppose it's hard to see or hear the plan if your eyes are closed and your ears are plugged. By the way, when's the last time the Dems had a plan?

PREVIOUS: Gulag. Gulag. Who's got the gulag?

Portraits in Moonbattery

The Tookie Williams Vigil at San Quentin

Monday, December 12, 2005

Polls and Sunni Arabs Make Liars of Donkeys

Now we can't quote them! That's "questioning their patriotism". I've no doubt that they love the socialist utopia they dream of transforming the United States into. They just don't love it as is. And they justify their traitorous calls for retreat (and many other foul behaviors) with their disdain for "the current administration". Let's start this one with more pronouncements of doom by (current) leading Democrat and media darling - John Murtha (D-Mogadishu) on our fight for victory:

“There’s no way you can win a war when not only have you lost the hearts and minds of people, when you have become their enemy,” Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said during a press conference at the Ritz Carlton in Philadelphia.

Murth says "we can't win". His solution is to get our troops out of Iraq (it is lost after all), and attain victory by engaging in diplomatic deliberations with Abu Zarqawi. And this time, he says it's because we've lost hearts and minds. Really?

Security:
More than 6 in 10 Iraqis feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up sharply from just 40 percent in June 2004.
61 percent say local security is good up from 49 percent in February 2004.
51 percent say they feel safe - nearly double what it was in June 2004.
Confidence in the Iraqi Army, up from 39 percent in November 2003 to 67 percent now
Confidence in the police, up from 45 percent to 68 percent.

Economy:
Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months.
70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively.
In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones now it's 62 percent.
Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled.
More families now own air conditioners - 58 percent up from 44 percent. Which may have something to do with Iraqis opinion of their electricity infrastructure as 54 percent say it's bad in their area, although that's down from 64 percent last year.

Political:
Interest in politics was 39 percent in an Oxford survey in November 2003, 54 percent in February 2004 and 69 percent now.
76% of Iraqis express confidence in the national elections being held this week.
6 in 10 Anbar residents have confidence that the elections will lead to a stable government.
70 percent approve of the new constitution.
Preference for a democratic political structure has advanced, to 57 percent of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic state has lost ground, to 14 percent (the rest, 26 percent, chiefly in Sunni Arab areas, favor a "single strong leader" (they miss Saddam.....awwwww).
When Iraqis instead are asked which of these systems they prefer not now, but in five years' time, support for democracy is a bit higher - 64 percent

70 percent including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike want Iraq to remain a unified country
88 percent of those in Sunni areas want a unified Iraq, compared with 56 percent in Shiite provinces
99 percent of Iraqis support women voting or working as medical doctors

The Future:
69 percent of Iraqis expect things for the country overall to improve in the next year.
70 percent think security nationally will improve in the next year.

52% of Iraqis say coalition forces should remain until security is restored or longer.

Overall:
10 to 13 point gains in ratings of local crime protection, security and medical care, as well as in the still-problematic areas of electric supply and jobs.
While most of these ratings have improved since February 2004, fewer Iraqis now say these conditions are better than they were before the war. That could reflect both dimmer recollection and an unwillingness to give the war credit for positive change. The measure above, rating conditions without relying on recollection, is the more reliable one.

Leftists love to claim that we can not win militarily as if our Strategy for Victory in Iraq was comprised solely of military means. They are intentionally blind to our political progress in Iraq precisely because they must satisfy the "we can't win militarily" meme. They know that the Iraqi army will be "built out" (reach the size PLANNED for it) by May or June of next year, and the Iraqi police are slated to be "built out" early in 2007. By claiming defeat now and citing troop reductions when and only when they are warranted, they will attempt to save face. We've known all along that we can't win without the military component or the political, or the economic.

Al Qaeda calls the upcoming elections in Iraq "Satanic". They aren't willing to negotiate, Mr. Murtha. The home grown portion of the Iraqi "insurgency" is comprised of former Ba'athists loyal to leftist humanitarian hero Saddam Hussein, and they had previously hoped that their sugar-daddy and his leftist comrades around the globe would be able to thwart the effort to democratize Iraq and that they would be returned to their previously undeservedly spoiled existence - Shia Muslim (Arab) and Sunni Muslim Kurd be damned! We'll, that didn't work out for them. They boycotted the first election, and progress continued. They defied al Qaeda a little in the constitutional referendum in an attempt to spoil it, but it succeeded. Now the choice for Iraq's Sunni Arabs is black and white: Lay down their arms and participate in the December 15th elections to elect proportional representation in Iraq's new democracy, or continue their bloody and futile fight to return to the ways of the past. How are they choosing?


FALLUJA/RAMADI Iraq (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein loyalists who violently opposed January elections have made an about-face as Thursday's polls near, urging fellow Sunni Arabs to vote and warning al Qaeda militants not to attack. Guerrillas in the western insurgent heartland of Anbar province say they are even prepared to protect voting stations from fighters loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.
Graffiti calling for holy war is now hard to find. Instead, election campaign posters dominate buildings in the rebel strongholds of Ramadi and nearby Falluja, where Sunnis staged a boycott or were too scared to vote last time around. "We want to see a nationalist government that will have a balance of interests. So our Sunni brothers will be safe when they vote," said Falluja resident Ali Mahmoud, a former army officer and rocket specialist under Saddam's Baath party. "Sunnis should vote to make political gains. We have sent leaflets telling al Qaeda that they will face us if they attack voters."

Keep in mind this is the same Abu Zarqawi they are referring to that once wrote Osama bin Laden lamenting the "poor Sunni (Arabs)". This is the end of their love affair. As an aside, isn't it funny how the Sunni Arab group - al Qaeda can issue a call to defend the regime of Sunni Arab Saddam Hussein and his Sunni Arab Ba'athists (while in the same breath proclaiming that a partnership with the global left was to both groups' advantage) and Democrats go out of their way to stand common sense on its head denouncing links between AQ and Hussein? Now, thanks to our pursuit of democracy for all Iraqis, including the ex-Ba'athists, the goals of Iraqs Sunni Arabs and Al Qaeda are at odds.

Dec. 19, 2005 issue - Ahmed Duraid is ready for a new era. Like almost all of his neighbors in Adhamiya, a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency along the Tigris River in central Baghdad, the 35-year-old clothes vendor boycotted Iraq's National Assembly elections last January on the advice of Sunni fighters and influential political groups such as the Association of Muslim Scholars. But the consequences for Adhamiya were severe: shadowy religious militias with ties to the Shiite-dominated government began arresting, kidnapping and sometimes murdering young Sunni men in the neighborhood; Duraid felt unprotected, even abandoned, by the country's new leaders. "We didn't participate, and the others took power alone, and this is the result," Duraid told NEWSWEEK.
Saddam Hussein once ruled Iraq with brutal predictability. In the political realm, nobody had to think, or to choose, or to compete. You did what you were told, and when elections came around, you voted for Saddam. But today, as the ex-dictator stands trial for atrocities, even some Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers are beginning to acknowledge the power of the ballot box. Duraid and his fellow residents say they've learned from their mistake: they plan to participate in the Dec. 15 vote for a new National Assembly.
This new determination has transformed the atmosphere of places like Adhamiya. Posters for the Iraqi Consensus Front—a slate consisting of the three main Sunni parties—have sprouted on walls and lampposts. Candidates are drumming up votes in mosques and meeting halls. On one street corner last week, a mute 10-year-old boy enthusiastically passed out cards adorned with photos of Salih al-Mutlaq, a popular Sunni politician. "Iraq now is at a crossroads," reads a political leaflet distributed in Sunni neighborhoods, urging people to vote next week. "Either unity, dignity and security... or division and bloodshed."
Everyone in Iraq has a sense of urgency. U.S. diplomats, convinced that the insurgency can't be defeated by military means alone, see the elections as a vital chance to find a political solution to Iraq's seemingly intractable problems.

Stop. No one EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER promoted a strategy that called for "military means alone"...EVER. EVER! President Bush has consistently cited the need to democratize Iraq in order to succeed against the insurgency and the terrorists that oppose a democratic Iraq. What we are seeing RIGHT NOW is that his strategy is succeeding in ending the home grown insurgency. In other words (never to be printed in the likes of Newsweek) - BUSH WAS RIGHT! :)

"Growing numbers of Sunnis, meanwhile, realize that pursuing a guerrilla war against the Americans and shunning the political process won't end their marginalization."

That sounds familiar!

" For many Iraqis, the trial of Saddam is also a reminder of the pitfalls of a one-party state. (In days of emotionally charged testimony, victims of Saddam's regime told stories of torture, rape and murder.) Even some insurgent groups are encouraging people to vote. "We will participate, and we have called on all of our battalions in Anbar province and [the rest of] Iraq to take part," says Abu Baraa, 35, a fighter for the Islamic Army in Fallujah.

Nobody is saying that a heavy Sunni turnout will end the violence: radical Islamic militants loyal to Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi have vowed to continue their terror campaign until they establish an Islamic state in Iraq.

Indeed, just today, President Bush said that the violence (which leftists in the Democrat party and the press are myopically focused on) will not end with the elections. But changes, there WILL be:
"But the Bush administration, which has seen one "turning point" after another lead nowhere, believes this one could be different. "If you have a government that comes out of participation by all communities," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told NEWSWEEK, "then resistance against it is illegitimate."

Note that "the Bush administration" said nothing that can possibly be construed as "this time it will be different, we will end the violence". Now we know who Newsweek considers "Nobody" as I said, they are generally focused on "the violence". For if there is "violence" they can focus on it instead of the good stuff. And if the meriad of "turning points" got us "nowhere", then how did we end up here?
Zarqawi routinely targets moderate Sunni leaders for assassination. Half a dozen Sunni politicians have been killed in the past six months, most of them prominent moderates. Two weeks ago Ayad al-Izi, a well-respected cleric and National Assembly candidate from the Iraqi Islamic Party, was gunned down minutes after giving a conciliatory speech to high-ranking members of a Sunni tribe. "He created a wave of acceptance around the political process, and that scared some people," says Alaa Makee, a senior member of the Iraqi Islamic Party. Despite the threat of violence, most observers believe that the Sunnis will achieve large gains in the elections.


Again, we see that Democrat claims run contrary to the reality they so desperately hope no one notices. There is no way to square the success in the realm of Iraqi public opinion alone with the defeatist rhetoric of the Democrats today. Look out Donks, December 15th is going to be a REAL "Benchmark for success", no thanks to you.

Look what the tide washed in ...


Survey Perplexes
Leftoid Journos



---BBC

An opinion poll suggests Iraqis are generally optimistic about their lives, in spite of the violence that has plagued Iraq since the US-led invasion.

Their priority for the coming year would be the restoration of security [57%] and the withdrawal of foreign troops [10%].

The BBC News website's World Affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, says the survey shows a degree of optimism at variance with the usual depiction of the country as one in total chaos. The findings are more in line with the kind of arguments currently being deployed by US President George W Bush, he says.

Interviewers found that 71% of those questioned said things were currently very or quite good in their personal lives, while 29% found their lives very or quite bad. When asked whether their lives would improve in the coming year, 64% said things would be better and 12% said they expected things to be worse.

However ...

They go on to produce the kind of imbecilic spin we have come to know and expect from BDS sufferers. A 10% poll result becomes a "priority." However ...

I think we are seeing the BBC trying to get out in front of the impending apocalyptic disaster: Anglo-American Victory in Iraq.

Good Deficit News Couched In Bad Deficit News

All hail the Associated Pests! In the middle of a doom and gloom story entitled "Federal Budget Deficit Hits Record High", we find this tid-bit:

"The 2005 deficit narrowed to $318.5 billion after hitting an all-time high in dollar terms of $413 billion in 2004."


Of course in this instance, Bush and the GOP are damned if they do:

"Analysts said the increase in part reflected higher payouts of flood insurance claims by the Department of Homeland Security related to Hurricane Katrina."


Next time around the headline will be "Republicans Choose Tax Cuts For Rich (can't say deficit reduction or economic growth package) Over Hurricane Relief".

Elephant vs Pacifist - Dean's Defender Picks Cherry

It seems a snipit of my bombastic rhetoric has earned the attention of one Doug Dobbins, a Podcaster who's December 12th podcast referenced this quote from my post on Progress and Defeat for Defeatist Democrats:

"The Vermont abortionist went further, telling us his plans for troop "redeployment". He said that he backed the redeployment of 20,000 troops to Afghanistan and a force in the Middle East to deal with al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but not in Iraq. Wow! Just let him have Iraq, right Dr. Death? Pining for a slaughter that the Khmer Rouge would hail you for?


Now Doug didn't actually address the substance of my quote. His inclusion of my quote was merely an attempt to paint the right wing as a bunch of wackos. Hey, Doug, note the blog name. It is a badge of honor. I responded to Doug by sending him a comment and responding to his much appreciated notification in the comments of my post. And I'm basically going to cover the same ground a third time here:

I'm not sure whether or not Doug clicked the "Khmer Rouge" link, but seeing as he's a self admitted member of the "you break it you bought it crowd" and wants to end "unneeded" deaths, he should enthusiastically join us Right Wing Wackos in denouncing the politicization of Murtha, Dean, Pelos, Kerry, and the rest of the Democrats who are calling for "immediate withdrawal". But instead, Doug cites Wesley Clark in a moment of similar political opportunism as he calls for a diplomatic solution to dealing with terrorists because as he reminds us "it can not be done militarily" (as if our strategy was ever solely a military one). News flash, Doug! Iraqi insurgents ARE laying down their arms and seeking truces with their fellow citizens as well as issuing warnings to the terrorists that they will retaliate if they attack them for their political participation. This is the situation that we've created in Iraq by our dedication to creating a democracy in Iraq and fighting those who oppose it. The Sunni Arabs now feel that they are better off partipating than fighting. No thanks to General Clark, or to those that consider the spread of freedom as having "broken" Iraq. Doug ignored an awful lot of success listed in my blog entry to highlight the quote he chose. Funny that!

Oh. And it's "pining" that's "pine-ing". It means he feels a lingering, nostalgic desire to witness a slaughter post leftist-forced withdrawal of US forces from armed conflict such as took place when the Khmer Rouge slaughtered a couple of million cambodians upon or exit from the war in Viet Nam which he mentioned specifically.

How's that cherry taste, Doug?

I tell fortunes too.

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Leftist ProjectionSpeak translated

Senator Daniel Inouye, feckless backbencher and flaming Liberal, released the following statement:
----------------------------------------------

Leftist ProjectionSpeak: As a Veteran of World War II,

Translation: As a veteran political hack,


Leftist ProjectionSpeak: I know what it’s like to fight a war

Translation: I know what it's like to be a character assassin


Leftist ProjectionSpeak: and put your life on the line every day.

Translation: and put your political life before your country every day.


Leftist ProjectionSpeak: I also know what it takes to win a war,

Translation: I also know what it takes to lose a war,


Leftist ProjectionSpeak: and I know that politics and an attack machine like the President’s

Translation: and I know that politics and an attack machine like the Liberal print and broadcast industry's


Leftist ProjectionSpeak: plays no part in it.

Translation: plays a key part in it.


Leftist ProjectionSpeak: The Republican Party’s latest ad is a shameful and disgusting attempt

Translation: The Republican Party’s latest ad is a credible and effective way


Leftist ProjectionSpeak: to distract the American people from the problems in Iraq.

Translation: to refocus the American people on the problems in the Democrat Party.


Leftist ProjectionSpeak: It may improve the President’s political fortunes,

Translation: It is costing us a fortune in political contributions,


Leftist ProjectionSpeak: but the American people and our troops will pay the price.

Translation: but the American people and our troops are grateful.


Leftist ProjectionSpeak: I hope that President Bush realizes

Translation: We were hoping that American would never realize


Leftist ProjectionSpeak: how shameful it is [for the President] to play politics when what we really need is leadership,

Translation: how shameful it is [for Democrats] to play politics when what we really need is leadership,


Leftist ProjectionSpeak: and that he will direct his Party

Translation: and we will direct our Party [prosecutors and judges]


Leftist ProjectionSpeak: to take down this ad immediately.

Translation: to take down Karl Rove and Dick Cheney immediately.