Afganistan, Iraq wars, worse than useless

Diana West received a letter from one soldier, who is very frank in his assessment of what we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's devastating:

How Muslims Defeated the United States

Today, I am posting an extraordinary letter from a soldier currently stationed in Iraq, a sometime penpal of mine to whom I sent my three-part series on the aftermath of the surge to elicit his opinion. Knowing how thoughtful he is, I expected a substantive response. Given his time constraints alone, I did not expect an essay of this scope and I decided, with his permission, to present it here. It is unlike any commentary I have read from Iraq; it is both coolly reasoned and deeply passionate, and certain to challenge and disturb readers across the political spectrum: PC-believing liberals, Iraq-as-success-believing conservatives, Islam-as-a-religion-of-peaceniks of both Left and Right. [...]

She prints his letter in it's entirety. It's not what most of us would like to hear. I don't agree with everything he says, but enough of it rings true to find it very disturbing. What have we done, what are we doing, and what are the likely long-term consequences? If this soldier is correct, we may not like the answers to those questions. In any case, we shall see as time goes on.
     

Is the Iraqi government aligning itself with Iran?

There are signs that it may be so. Consider the recent massacre of Iranian dissidents that took place in Iraq:

Iran’s hand is seen behind camp massacre

KIRKUK, IRAQ // Residents at an Iraqi camp for Iranian dissidents have started a hunger strike to protest against alleged human rights abuses inflicted by Iraqi security forces this week, amid fears that the Iranian regime’s influence is growing in the Iraqi government.

On Tuesday, Iraqi police entered Camp Ashraf in Diyala province, where, according to residents, they attacked an unarmed group of people with machine guns and batons, killing 12 and seriously wounding 500.

Iraqi security forces initially denied the casualty figures, but on Thursday, Ali al Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, acknowledged that six Iranians had been killed and promised an investigation.

“We were empty-handed, with only slogans,” Shahriar Kia, a camp press officer, said. “We were shouting that Ashraf is a city of peace, and they started shooting and beating us.”

Iraqi police are now in position at junctions within the camp, which is around six square kilometres, and in control of the squares and public places, he said. They were restricting movement, said Mr Kia. “They don’t let people move around. They have shot car windows and tyres as people were driving.”

Mr al Dabbagh said a police station had been set up and that there were 1,000 Iraqi troops inside the camp. It was the setting up of a police post inside the camp that sparked the first clashes on Tuesday.

[...]

Residents claim that since Iraqi forces took charge, food and medical supplies have been restricted, and visiting family members and lawyers have not been allowed in.

The clashes this week have stoked fears that the residents will be evicted from the camp and returned to Iran, where they would probably face arrest amid an extensive clampdown on the opposition movement since the disputed June 12 election.

“This is the Iranian regime who is trying to survive by destroying opposition,” said Mr Kia. “The same thing is happening here as on the streets of Tehran – killing and beating.”

Residents had begun a hunger strike, he said, which they would maintain until the UN and other international groups came to Ashraf, and residents were allowed to see their lawyers.

“I think that the Iranian government, which is facing a summer of discontent back home, is using its influence over the Iraqi government to send a message that it is still in control,” said Maysun al Damluji, an MP of the secular National List coalition.

The Iranian authorities, she said, were trying to ensure that parties sympathetic to them win in Iraqi elections scheduled for January 2010. They will, she said, “do everything in their power to bring Iraqi political entities that are loyal or close to Iran’s conservatives to power in Iraq … they will also rid Iraq of all of Iran’s opponents, not only in Ashraf, but even outside it.” She described Ashraf as a “simple exercise of muscle flexing”.

Iran’s parliament speaker, Ali Larijani, has welcomed the seizure of the camp, describing the action as “praiseworthy” albeit “rather late”. [...]

If religious extremists in the Iraqi government join forces with the religious extremists currently ruling Iran, we would have the worst of both worlds.

Other news in Iraq:

Gay men attacked, executed in Iraq, rights group says

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Hundreds of gay men have been tortured and killed in Iraq in recent months, some by the nation's security forces, Human Rights Watch said Monday.

Interviews with doctors indicate hundreds of men had been killed, but the exact number was unclear because of the stigma associated with homosexuality in Iraq, the New York-based watchdog group said in its report.

"Iraq's leaders are supposed to defend all Iraqis, not abandon them to armed agents of hate," said Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. "Turning a blind eye to torture and murder threatens the rights and life of every Iraqi."

Four victims who spoke to CNN gave accounts of the attacks, which they say have intensified in the past few months.

"In 2004, militias and unknown groups started to go after the gays ... but the peak was six months ago," said Qaisar, who uses a pseudonym for fear of reprisal. "It has become wide scale war against gays in Iraq." [...]

The more we withdraw from Iraq, the more it acts like Iran. If Iraq becomes just like Iran, and joins forces with them, we will have achieved nothing, at great cost to ourselves.

Also see: Iran's pressing needs and Iraq's vulnerability.
     

A Bagdad Puppy Rescue for a Soldier's Dog

At least, I'm hoping it will happen.

Army blocks soldier from bringing puppy back

WASHINGTON - More than 10,000 people have signed an online petition urging the Army to let an Iraqi puppy come home with a Minnesota soldier, who fears that "Ratchet" could be killed if left behind.

"I just want my puppy home," Sgt. Gwen Beberg of Minneapolis wrote to her mother in an e-mail Sunday from Iraq, soon after she was separated from the dog following a transfer. "I miss my dog horribly." Beberg, 28, is scheduled to return to the U.S. next month.

Ratchet's defenders are ratcheting up their efforts to save him. On Monday, the program coordinator for Operation Baghdad Pups, which is run by Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals International, left for a trip to the Middle East to try to get the puppy to the U.S. [...]

She rescued the dog as a puppy, from a burning pile of trash. Adopted dogs left behind in Iraq face death on the streets, as many Iraqis view dogs (and cats) as nuisances and disease carriers.

Sgt. Beberg sent her mom an email that confirmed the dog was still alive and ok. Hopefully it will remain so until it can be rescued.



The black face with the white on the nose, reminds me our our dog, Digby. I'm hoping they can bring Ratchet home safely for Sgt. Beberg.


Related Links:

The Dogs of War... [need good homes]

Iraq meets 15 out of 18 political benchmarks

Real progress is being seen in Iraq, even as Nancy Pelosi & company do their best to downplay and discount it.

Political Progress Has Accompanied Increased Security in Iraq

[...] When Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker first reported on the results of the surge a year ago this past week, top congressional figures were quick to point out that the Iraqi government had satisfied only three of the 18 benchmarks set up as barometers for progress.

[...]

But the White House is now reporting that 15 of the 18 benchmarks set up to measure the Iraqi government’s effectiveness have been satisfied.

A critical turning point may have been reached in February of this year when the central government passed three pieces of legislation simultaneously: the Provisional Powers Law, the Amnesty Law and a national budget.

While political progress remains uneven, it is not non-existent, according to U.S. State Department reports and recent congressional testimony. The remaining unmet benchmarks concern the disarmament of militias and the distribution of oil revenue.

But the legislative measures that have come to fruition, especially in the past few months, demonstrate that Iraq’s government is in fact taking better advantage of the improved security climate, top administration officials claim. [...]

Read the rest for more details of how things are improving. You won't hear about it in the MSM, they are too busy trying to smear McCain and Palin.
     

John McCain's sons

Here is an email I got recently:

John McCain's Sons

Talk about putting your most valuable where your mouth is! Apparently this was not 'newsworthy' enough for the media to comment about. Can either of the other presidential candidates truthfully come close to this? ... Just a question for each of us to seek an answer, and not a statement.

You see...character is what's shown when the public is not looking. There were no cameras or press invited to what you are about to read about, and the story comes from one person in New Hampshire.

One evening last July, Senator John McCain of Arizona arrived at the New Hampshire home of Erin Flanagan for sandwiches, chocolate-chip cookies and a heartfelt talk about Iraq. They had met at a presidential debate, when she asked the candidates what they would do to bring home American soldiers - - soldiers like her brother, who had been killed in action a few months earlier.

Mr. McCain did not bring cameras or press. Instead, he brought his youngest son, James McCain, 19, then a private first class in the Marine Corps about to leave for Iraq. Father and son sat down to hear more about Ms. Flanagan's brother Michael Cleary, a 24-year-old Army First Lieutenant killed by an ambush ... a roadside bomb.

No one mentioned the obvious: In just days, Jimmy McCain could face similar perils. 'I can't imagine what it must have been like for them as they were coming to meet with a family that ......' Ms. Flanagan recalled, choking up. 'We lost a dear one,' she finished.

Mr. McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee, has staked his candidacy on the promise that American troops can bring stability to Iraq. What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son, who spent seven months patrolling Anbar Province and learned of his father's New Hampshire victory in January while he was digging a stuck military vehicle out of the mud.

Two of Jimmy's three older brothers went into the military Doug McCain, 48, was a Navy pilot. Jack McCain, 21, is to graduate from the Naval Academy next year, raising the chances that his father, if elected, could become the first president since Dwight D. Eisenhower with a son at war.

I chose to share this with those who I believe will pass it on, to others who will pass it on. We hear so much inflated trash out there. How about a simple act of kindness ... and dedication to others placed above oneself?

Has anybody heard if Barack Hussein Obama has served in The American Armed Services?

This is for all you Barack voters.
From Barack's book, Audacity of Hope:
'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.''
HE DID NOT SAY STAND WITH AMERICANS!!!!!

[END]

So how true is this? When I checked it out on Snopes, they said the version they reported on is true:

Snopes: My Three Sons.

The version I got is nearly identical to theirs, but has been re-written some, and amended. Most of the context is the same but Snopes version does not include the Obama quote at the end. That particular quote is addressed in another Snopes report, regarding multiple quotes from Obama's book:

Snopes: In His Own Words

It seems it's not an actual Obama quote, because he didn't mention Muslims specifically. It is based on something he said regarding legal immigrants generally, in the context of a Japanese internment camp scenario. You can follow the link for the details about this, and the truth about other Obama quotes as well.

And since we're "Snoping" McCain's family, see what they have to say bout his wife:

Snopes: Cindy McCain

It's very nice, and includes how the McCain's got their adopted daughter. Cindy would make an excellent First Lady.
     

Iran moves missle launchers to Iraq border

Report: Iranian Authorities Move Missile Launch Platforms To Shatt Al-Arab Estuary

Ahwazi (Iranian Arab) sources report that Iranian authorities declared a state of grave emergency in the Shalamjah region in Khozestan province, on the Iran-Iraq border, and have transferred missile launch platforms to the region bordering on the Shatt Al-Arab estuary.

Source: Al-Siyassah, Kuwait, July 7, 2008

     

President Bush Didn't Lie. Duh.

This isn't news to me. But to see it explained in detail, in the MSM, especially from a left-leaning source like the L.A. Times, is shocking:

Bush never lied to us about Iraq

[...] Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) It's also worth noting that Weapons of Mass destruction were NOT the ONLY reason for the war. Hussein was destabilizing the region, he was certainly intent on developing WMD's, and by removing him, we got rid of the biggest WMD - himself.

Unfortunately, removing Saddam Hussein also got rid of Iran's biggest enemy in the region. Iran just needs to get rid of the US influence in the region now, so they can annex Iraq and it's oil to fuel their war machine and fund their global ambitions. It's yet another reason why we can't just pull out and leave. Iran is the other half of the equation that still needs to be dealt with.

And yes, we freed up Iraq so it could sell oil on the world market again, making us less dependent on the Saudis. If you think that's a bad thing, then shut up about gas prices. You can't have it both ways. Duh.

The article was written by James Kirchick, who is an assistant editor of the New Republic. There are some criticisms within it about Mitt Romney's father who was governor of Michigan. What's he got to do with it? Read it and find out, if history interests you.
     

Good news for Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum

Case dropped against Haditha defendant Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum

Charges Dropped Against Another Haditha Marine

An indictment against John Murtha

Now lets see if we can redeploy John Murtha
     

The Dogs of War...

... Need good homes!

From Adam Silverman at USA TODAY:
Rescued from war: Tales of puppy love

CAMBRIDGE, Vt. — Cinnamon is a mixed-breed dog whose gaze, those who love her say, redefines the term puppy-dog eyes.

Navy officer Mark Feffer of Annapolis, Md., fell in love with Cinnamon during his first few days in Afghanistan. When Feffer's tour ended, he couldn't bear to leave Cinnamon behind.

The mission to bring the animal stateside — despite military regulations against doing so — almost ended when the puppy went missing, but after a frantic 44-day search across Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan, the dog arrived safely in the USA.

Two years after the lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve struggled to bring the red-furred pooch home, a program called Operation Baghdad Pups is easing the process for other servicemembers who want to bring stray dogs home when they leave Iraq or Afghanistan.

Launched in November, Operation Baghdad Pups, which operates under the umbrella of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) International, has more than 30 dogs and several cats it is working to bring to the USA, program manager Terri Crisp says. The program fields two or three inquiries daily. [...]

I know that one could argue, "why bother to bring dogs and cats home from Iraq, when there are already plenty here stateside that need adoption?" But read the whole article. Read the story of "Cinnamon".


Our soldiers bond with the dogs they adopt while over there. They often want to bring them home, instead of abandoning them to starvation or something worse. If you have ever bonded with a dog, you will understand.

There is now an organization to help soldiers bring home their dogs:

www.baghdadpups.com
"No Buddy gets left behind"
If you care to make a donation, it's a way to help both our soldiers and stray dogs.

John McCain's Favorable Rating Climbs

From Gallup.com:

McCain Favorability Surges to Eight-Year High

John McCain's favorability rating has surged 11 percentage points this month to 67%. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton trail McCain on this measure, at 62% and 53%, respectively.

You can follow the link to see Gallup's video report.

Meanwhile, John's been visiting Iraq:

McCain Visits Iraq for the Eight Time

Hillary Clinton spent the St. Patrick’s Day weekend working the crowds at parades and giving speeches wearing a green scarf adorned with Irish clovers. Barack Obama spent the weekend with weak attempts to find the right set of words to get himself out of the corner he’s painted himself into by running as the candidate who transcends race while having spent the last twenty years attending a church that is astonishingly racist. I also imagine that he spent a large part of the weekend with spin doctors working on a speech he is to give tomorrow that is supposed to fix this entire situation for him. Words. Its all about words.

While the democrats were busily working on their respective campaigns, McCain made a surprise visit to Iraq. It is his eight trip there since the beginning of the war (did you know he’d been that many time? Right. I didn’t think so). He was traveling with fellow Senators Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.). While McCain visited Iraq and met with official there he stayed largely out of view. That doesn’t stop the leftists blogs from declaring that he was there for photo-ops and political gain.

The only political gain involved in his trip to Iraq had to do with progress in relations with the government of Iraq. [...]

Read the full post for more details from Beth and video too at McCainBlogs.com.

Ahmadinejad continues his Lunatic agenda

Iran's insane president Ahmadinejad visits Iraq, tells the US to get out of the Middle East, claiming that our presence there has brought only destruction and division. He should talk. Through Hezbollah, Iran funds Hamas and other terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, with tentacles spreading even further.


Even now Iran is backing and supplying arms to Hamas for the current rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza, just as it arms Jihadists in Lebanon, all via Hezbollah. His visit to Iraq has nothing to do with peace and everything to do with Iran's pressing needs and Iraq's vulnerability.

Ahmadinejad has plenty of people in Iran worried, even members of the Iranian government. So they should be. Ahmadinejad is a nut-job who believes that a massive war and it's attendant bloodshed is actually needed to bring about the return of the Mahdi, the Hidden Imam.




The situation with Iran today is the direct legacy of Jimmy Carter, which was further abetted and supported by Bill Clinton. The Democrats just make us weaker and more vulnerable each time they're in charge. Shall we put another Democrat in the White House, so they can finish us off?


Related Links:

THE MULLAHS' TERRIBLE VISION

Is it time for regime change in Iran yet?

Hizbullah TV in Lebanon, courtesy of Iran

Iranian Internet users face blockage during coming election
     

Flying Nunsense

Sally Field recently claimed that she had joined the list of mothers with kids in Iraq because she plays one (Nora Walker) on TV.

I'm always amazed when air head actresses claim that pretending to be something is just the same as being something.

How long will it be before we see her on the cover of Aviation Digest, and hear Sally claim she's entitled to an Aviation license, explaining "I've never flown an airplane, but I once played..."


Yeah, same thing, isn't it...

I guess that's why they are called entertainers; they are very entertaining as long as you don't take them as seriously as they take themselves.




Related Link:

If nuns could fly....
     

Is the Troop Surge Really Working in Iraq?

The recent soccer victory isn't the only good news coming out of Iraq. Some noted critics of the Iraq war are starting to play a different tune about the surge:

Stop the presses! NYT says we may win war in Iraq!

This post by Pat at "Born Again Redneck" is not only about the NYT article, but also links to another article that explains why president Bush's long term strategy for the Middle East is wise. Pat gives us great excerpts from both articles, along with his sensible commentary too, check it out.
     

Iran's pressing needs and Iraq's vulnerability

#1460 - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: America Is Like a Battery Running Out. They Are Done For.
Iran Ch.1, Esfahan TV (Iran) - 5/24/2007 - 00:06:42

[...] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: With the grace of God, we have almost reached the end of the path where we can take complete advantage of all nuclear capabilities. We are very near the summit. The resistance of the enemies grows weaker every day.

[...]

Now they are mustering all their power, in order to cause some commotion – some resolution, some pressure, some uproar... But let me tell you that with the help of God, they are done for. Like a battery about to run out, they muster the remainder of their power but Allah willing, nothing will happen. We've passed that. Wait one month, two months, three months... Allah willing, as soon as possible, we will pass that. Their situation is much worse than one can imagine. Their foundations are shaking. Nobody is with them. They though that if they used threats, people here would withdraw voluntarily. When they used threats nobody withdrew. When they used their fist – it boomeranged back at them. What's left for them to say? A few months ago, they threatened us militarily. Do you remember? They specified the date. They said: "On March 27, at 5 a.m., we will bomb these 20 sites." From this position of making military threats, they've got themselves to the point where they want to have talks with us, and they say: "It wasn't us making threats."

(bold emphaiis mine) Talks? Even Ahmadinejad believes we have nothing to say. I think it's because of the Democrats that we are now having "talks" with the Iranians. A waste of time for us, it buys time for Iran, and lends them the veneer of credibility. Small wonder that they want to invite Nancy Pelosi to Iran. I don't see that any good will come of it.

As for the analogy of a battery running out, perhaps Ahmadinejad is confusing us with his own country? Here is a bit of economic news from the Memri blog:

Economic Shocks in Iran

Randa Taqi al-Din, columnist for the London daily Al-Hayat, reviews the economic shocks being experienced by the Iranian economy. Iran, the second largest exporter of oil in OPEC, is in economic crisis, caused by the shortage of gasoline for cars, which Iran imports in large quantities. Iran is suffering from a soft economy, 11% unemployment, and rising inflation.

Iran’s economic shocks are the product of state control over the economy, stifling bureaucracy, and poor management. Iran’s foreign policy and the provocative statements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have had their impact on the Iranian economy as well.

In order to revive Iran's oil sector, $100 billion is required, but no foreign investments are currently available because of the sanctions.

The Iranian leadership is blaming U.S. President Bush for its mismanagement of the economy.

Iran’s rush last year to provide economic aid to the Lebanese while failing to provide aid to a city that suffered an earthquake was widely criticized by local papers.

Ms. Taqi al-Din concluded that the Iran has only itself to blame for its economic woes, because it could be doing much better had it focused its energies on the internal front.

Source: Al-Hayat, London, June 6, 2007

(bold emphasis mine) Someone's batteries are running out. They need 100 billion in investments, or new resources to draw on. Where can they find new resources? From their neighbors, the Iraqis:

Baghdad Accuses Regional Fronts Of Seeking To Destroy Its Ports, Oil

The Iraqi government has accused unnamed "regional fronts" of targeting Iraqi oil installations and Iraqi ports.

U.S. officials have identified the "fronts" as a cell connected with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Source: Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, London, June 6, 2007[...]

(bold emphasis mine) The Iranian theocracy has a strong interest in seeing Iraq's government fail.

There are many family connections and religious ties between the Shia Muslims in both countries. If the Americans leave before Iraq's government stabilizes, Iran could precipitate a civil war, where the Shia would most likely win and dominate. Then the Shia in both countries would unite, and Iran's oil problems would be solved... and everyone else's would begin. And the Iranian Government would also have new revenue to fund their terrorism, and grow their war machine. Ahmadinejad has made no secret of what he intends to do with that:

Ahmadinejad: The Countdown To The Destruction Of Israel Has Begun; We Hope To Move Towards Jerusalem

If we isolate Iran, their internal problems will increase and the regime may collapse from within. But if we pull out of Iraq and abandon it to Iran, we will see troubles much worse than what we are facing now.
     

Rosie O'Donnell can't take being contradicted

Rosie's cheap emotional antics didn't work in a spar with Elizabeth Hasselbeck, so she's going to take her marbles and go home 3 weeks earlier than planned:

ABC: Rosie O'Donnell Won't Be Back on 'The View'

[...] A political discussion over the war in Iraq became heated when an angry O'Donnell decried Hasselbeck for not standing up for her when media outlets suggested that she'd called U.S. troops "terrorists" during a previous debate.

The argument with Hasselbeck began over O'Donnell's statement last week about the war: "655,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Who are the terrorists?"

Talk show critics accused O'Donnell of calling U.S. troops terrorists. She called Hasselbeck "cowardly" for not saying anything in response to the critics.

"What you did was not defend me. ... I asked you if you believed what the Republican pundits were saying — you said nothing, and that's cowardly," O'Donnell said.

"Do not call me a coward, because No. 1, I sit here every single day, open my heart and tell people what I believe," Hasselbeck retorted, and their riveting exchange continued despite failed attempts by their co-hosts to cut to a commercial.

O'Donnell and Hasselbeck were shown on a split screen as the argument progressed without commercial interruption.

"Do you believe that I think our troops are terrorists? And you would not even look me in the face, Elisabeth, and say, 'No, Rosie,'" O'Donnell said.

Responded Hasselbeck: "Because you are an adult, and I am certainly not going to be the person for you to explain your thoughts. They're your thoughts! Defend your own insinuations!"

O'Donnell said she wasn't going to fight anymore. "So for three weeks, you can say all the Republican crap you want." [...]

You can see the video here: War of the Rosie. I thought Elizabeth handled herself with restraint, but without backing down. Rosie did what most libs do when they are contradicted - over emotionalize, cry foul, claim THEY are the victim... anything to avoid a calm debate about facts. And when they can't get their way, they snatch up their marbles and go home. Like so many libs, Rosie can only tolerate a milieu where she's not contradicted.

And speaking about emotions out of control, there's more:

[...] According to a New York Post report, O'Donnell's chief writer, Janette Barber, was allegedly led out of the building on Wednesday after she was caught drawing mustaches on photographs of Hasselbeck in "The View" studios. [...]

Well there is a mature response from a rational adult. But since she writes for Rosie, I guess we are supposed to lower our expectations of civility?

Interestingly enough, O'Donnell's nemesis Donald Trump weighed in on the squabble and defended O'Donnell, claiming that anyone who supported the war in Iraq was an imbecile, among other things. You can read the article for the details. All I can say is, The O'Donnell and The Donald deserve each other. Do either of them have a sensible alternative on how to deal with this?:




Until they do, I can't take either one of them seriously. Thank you, Elizabeth.
     

The road the Democrats are taking us down...

From former NYC mayor Ed Koch:
Democrats Force Surrender Now, Terror Later

Up until now a strong supporter of the war, he's now taking a bleak view. Koch claims the Democrats have won, crippling our forces and achieving their goal of making sure we cannot win. He suggests giving an ultimatum to regional Arab states and our NATO allies, that unless they step in with boots on the ground and assist, we will leave in 30 days!

Even if you don't agree with that assessment, his reasons are interesting to consider. He also predicts the Democrats are going to pay a terrible price for this in the future, when they will have to own what they have done.




From Bernard Lewis:
Was Osama Right?
Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view.

Lewis maintains that since the 1970s, the Islamists believed the Western powers were weaker than the Soviets, whose strength they feared more. When the Soviet empire finally collapsed, the West saw it as our victory; yet the Islamists saw it as theirs. They believed the West would be easy to defeat.

Americas initial response to 9-11 changed that assumption, but as time has wore on, and with current opposition by the Democrats succeeding, they now have reason to believe that they were indeed right after all. And if that is what they believe, then what do you suppose will come next?

In this article Lewis unfortunately repeats the often stated myth that the US created Osama bin Laden by funding him, despite evidence to the contrary. Yet he still gives us a good explanation of the Islamist's strategy, how and why they came to hold those views, and how they must necessarily interpret current events.
     

The Democrats alternative foreign policy

If they succeed, it will follow them for years to come. From the Opinion Journal:

Harry's War:
Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq.

[...] In his speech Monday, Mr. Reid claimed that "nothing has changed" since the surge began taking effect in February. It's true that the car bombings and U.S. casualties continue, and may increase. But such an enemy counterattack was to be expected, aimed as it is directly at the Democrats in Washington. The real test of the surge is whether it can secure enough of the population to win their cooperation and gradually create fewer safe havens for the terrorists.

So far, the surge is meeting that test, even before the additional troops Mr. Bush ordered have been fully deployed. Between February and March sectarian violence declined by 26%, according to Gen. William Caldwell. Security in Baghdad has improved sufficiently to allow the government to shorten its nightly curfew. Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has been politically marginalized, which explains his apparent departure from Iraq and the resignation of his minions from Mr. Maliki's parliamentary coalition--a sign that moderate Shiites are gaining strength at his expense.

More significantly, most Sunni tribal sheikhs are now turning against al Qaeda and cooperating with coalition and Iraqi forces. What has turned these sheikhs isn't some grand "political solution," which Mr. Reid claims is essential for Iraq's salvation. They've turned because they have tired of being fodder for al Qaeda's strategy of fomenting a civil war with a goal of creating a Taliban regime in Baghdad, or at least in Anbar province. The sheikhs realize that they will probably lose such a civil war now that the Shiites are as well-armed as the insurgents and prepared to be just as ruthless. Their best chance for survival now lies with a democratic government in Baghdad. The political solution becomes easier the stronger Mr. Maliki and Iraqi government forces are, and strengthening both is a major goal of the surge.

By contrast, Mr. Reid's strategy of withdrawal will only serve to enlarge the security vacuum in which Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents have thrived. That's also true of what an American withdrawal will mean for the broader Middle East. Mr. Reid says that by withdrawing from Iraq we will be better able to take on al Qaeda and a nuclear Iran. But the reality (to use Mr. Reid's new favorite word) is that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and if we lose there we will only make it harder to prevail in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Countries do not usually win wars by losing their biggest battles. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The article goes on to examine Harry Reid's "reasoning" for his position, and shows why it's nonsense. If the Democrats do succeed in forcing us to lose now, not only will they own it; we will all suffer the consequences together.


Related Links:

Progress in Iraq

One Choice in Iraq

Rattling sabers, & Dems
     

Is the troop surge in Iraq REALLY working?

If you listen only the the MSM, you would think not. The recent suicide bombing in the green zone, killing three Iraqi Members of parliament, and severely wounding a fourth, is very disheartening news. Yet if you want to understand what's really happening, you have to look at the whole, larger picture. One set back is not the whole story. Charles Krauthammer reminds us there is more:

Surge Results are Visible

By the day, the debate at home about Iraq becomes increasingly disconnected from the realities of the actual war on the ground. The Democrats in Congress are so consumed with negotiating among their factions the most clever linguistic device to legislatively ensure the failure of the administration's current military strategy -- while not appearing to do so -- that they speak almost not at all about the first visible results of that strategy.

And preliminary results are visible. The landscape is shifting in the two fronts of the current troop surge: Anbar province and Baghdad. [...]

Krauthammmer then goes into some detail about the real changes in those areas, with new cooperation from the Sunnis, who were previously resistant. Stability is increasing, and the surge hasn't even entered full swing yet:

[...] How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the U.S. to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide.

Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?

And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.

Which the president has done. He changed the civilian leadership at the Department of Defense, replaced the head of Central Command and, most critically, replaced the Iraq commander with Petraeus -- unanimously approved by the Democratic Senate -- to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The Democrats are always saying Give Peace a Chance. But the mere absence of war is not peace. Sometimes the only way way to achieve a real and lasting peace is through the exercise of strength against tyranny. How about giving General Petraeus a chance to do just that, like the Democrats agreed to?


How about giving this woman, and many just like her, a chance? A chance to live in peace and prosperity, instead of abandoning them to a certain bloodbath?


Related Link:

Give Surge a Chance: Our moral obligation
This is the text Senator John McCain's speech at the Virginia Military Institute, as prepared for delivery. An excerpt:

[...] I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. I sympathize with the fatigue of the American people. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and a country. We, who are willing to support this new strategy, and give General Petraeus the time and support he needs, have chosen a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Democrats, who deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American defeat, have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election. This is an historic choice, with ramifications for Americans not even born yet. Let’s put aside for a moment the small politics of the day. The judgment of history should be the approval we seek, not the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) McCain doesn't downplay the pain of this war, yet he also understands the long term consequences of losing it.

Hat tip to Born again Redneck Yogi for the link.