[AP] "Every place you go you hear about no progress being made in Iraq," said Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid. "The government is stalemated today, as it was six months ago, as it was two years ago," Reid told reporters, warning US soldiers were caught in the middle of a civil war.
"It is not getting better, it is getting worse," he said.
Reid was just as wrong back in April, when even before the Petraeus surge reached full strength Reid declared Iraq "lost."
Harry Reid is hardly well-travelled vis-a-vis Iraq. Reid hasn't been to Iraq since 2005, when the situation was vastly different, and worse. So I'll trust those who are there now, who have no cause or profit to gain, embedded there, who sweat amongst the troops -- men like Yon, Trotten, Emanuel.
As for Reid: Reasonable people can argue "wait and see." Reasonable people can argue caution. But only the most cynical of defeatist and pessimist fools could claim that Iraq was "getting worse." Reid's argument is not one of reason, but of desperation.
Reid is a modern day Clement Vallandigham. During the American Civil War, Congressman Vallandigham was the United States' most vocal antiwar, anti-Lincoln voice. He was king of the Copperheads, Butternuts, Peace Democrats. But just as he was wrong then, so is Reid now.
Using his own words, Jennifer Weber's book Copperheads paints Vallandingham as a subversive and disloyal fool. His speech before Congress in January 1863 sounds eerily as defeatist and truth-twisting as the speeches from so many Democrats today, Reid included.[Vallandingham about Lincoln] Soon after the war began the reign of the mob was… supplanted by the iron domination of arbitrary power. Constitutional limitation was broken down; habeas corpus fell; liberty of the press, of speech, of the person, of the mails, of travel, of one’s own house, and of religion; the right to bear arms, due process of law, judicial trial, trial by jury, trial at all; every badge and monument of freedom in republican government or kingly government—all went down at a blow; and the chief law-officer of the crown—I beg pardon, sir, but it is easy now to fall into this courtly language—the Attorney-General, first of all men, proclaimed in the United States the maxim of Roman servility: Whatever pleases the President, that is law! Prisoners of state were then first heard of here. Midnight and arbitrary arrests commenced; travel was interdicted; trade embargoed; passports demanded; bastiles were introduced; strange oaths invented; a secret police organized; "piping" began; informers multiplied; spies now first appeared in America. The right to declare war, to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy, was usurped by the Executive...
you have utterly, signally, disastrously—I will not say ignominiously—failed to subdue ten millions of "rebels," whom you had taught the people of the North and West not only to hate, but to despise.… You have not conquered the South. You never will. It is not in the nature of things possible; much less under your auspices. But money you have expended without limit, and blood poured out like water. Defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchres, these are your trophies.… The war for the Union is, in your hands, a most bloody and costly failure.
As the Union Army slowly turned the tables -- and under new leadership with Generals Grant and Sherman, among others, performing their own "Surge" -- Vallandingham's rhetoric became more crass and delusional. Reid and his fellow Democrats follow that same formula today.
But it's not by accident that on a daily basis one can find news relating more killing and capturing of al Qaeda in Iraq, arresting of Iranian agents, discovery of bomb emplacements and weapons depots. The Petraeus surge provided enough protection for Iraqi informants to safely begin cooperating with the US military.
All are taking notice. All but today's Copperheads.
Though not with the saturation or visibility that fairness dictates even the New York Times has taken a few moments to pause from their Bush hatred. Even the nation's most liberal voice has begun to hedge its bets: Headlines today alone include, "Fewer Roadside Bombs in Iraq, U.S. Says," and "Iraq to Spend $19 Billion on Projects."
Fortunately, Iraqi citizens have a bit more optimism and courage than our "leaders" on Capital Hill.
Michael Yon reports from the St John's Church in Baghdad -- yes you read that right -- just a few days after the community of Muslims and Christains joined together to raise the cross on the building. According to Yon, Most Reverend Shlemon Warduni, Auxiliary Bishop of the St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Diocese for Chaldeans and Assyrians in Iraq, performed an official "Welcome Home" service, a bilingual Arabic and English one at that.Today, Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John's. Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home. The Christians who might see these photos likely will recognize their friends here. The Muslims in this neighborhood worry that other people will take the homes of their Christian neighbors, and that the Christians will never come back. And so they came to St John's today in force, and they showed their faces, and they said, " Come back to Iraq. Come home." They wanted the cameras to catch it. They wanted to spread the word: Come home. Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. "Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq ."
...The interpreter "Ice," pictured here with members of the congregation outside St John's after mass, grew up in this neighborhood. His family is Christian and St. John's is their church. I asked Ice if the Muslims treat the Christians poorly in Iraq, and he said what other Iraqi Christians and Muslims have also told me: an unequivocal "No." Ice said they had no problems at all until al Qaeda instigated friction between people.
... It's been a long time since I've seen any fighting. I can't remember my last shootout: it's been months. The nightmare is ending. Al Qaeda is being crushed. The Sunni tribes are awakening all across Iraq and foreswearing violence for negotiation. Many of the Shia are ready to stop the fighting that undermines their ability to forge and manage a new government. This is a complex and still delicate denouement, and the war may not be over yet. But the Muslims are saying it's time to come home. And the Christians are saying it's time to come home. They are weary, and there is much work to be done.
Just yesterday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), under the guise that "American people voted for change," claimed a need to withdraw US forces because they were "refereeing a civil war." Two weeks ago House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D, WI) claimed that violence must have declined in Iraq because terrorist groups "are running out of people to kill."
As Yon's reporting - among others - shows, Democrat prognostications and assessments aren't just off the mark but are often ludicrous too. The "change" for which the American people voted did occur -- in the form of a winning strategy by Gen. David Petraeus.
The more progress we make in Iraq the more the Democrats appear desperate to surrender Iraq. But that's the bed they made. The Democrats almost to a person decided to tie their party identity to defeat in Iraq.
Labels: capitulation, Congress, Delusional Democrats, Iraq, Petraeus, white flag
[LA Times] WASHINGTON -- A senior State Department official, toughening the administration's line on Iran, said Tuesday that there was no doubt the top leaders in Tehran were directing Iranian forces that the administration is holding responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq. Senior Iraq advisor David Satterfield said "there is no question in our minds whatsoever" that Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops "are very much under the direction and command of the most senior levels of the Iranian government. Full stop."
The administration has repeatedly charged that Iranian troops and agents are shipping sophisticated explosives into Iraq, training Iraqi militants and taking other actions counter to American goals. However, U.S. military officials have released no conclusive evidence that Iranian weapons and training were supplied by top authorities in Tehran, and have been careful not to say whether they believe senior or lower-level government officials are involved.
...Bruce Riedel, a former CIA and White House official, said Satterfield's comments reflected "the growing frustration the administration is feeling about this" because officials believe Tehran has not heeded warnings to scale back its alleged activities in Iraq.
And indeed, why would they when you've got every Democrat presidential candidate shouting how they'll never allow Bush to use force against Iran. Since Iran knows Bush would never have the political capital to take military action against them they have no need to negotiate, whether on the issue of killing US troops in Iraq or on nuclear proliferation!
Bush will be gone soon. American presidents come and go. But the Iranian Ayatollah and Supreme Council, pursuing the 12th Imam, will always be present.
Which brings us to Iran's new nuclear negotiator. He's a buddy of Ahmadinejad, a former member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Force - recently officially designated a terrorist organization - and of Hezbollah - long ago designated a terrorist organization, and Holocaust denier. But of course![Wall Street Journal] In appointing Saeed Jalili as Iran's top nuclear negotiator with the West, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad chose a close ally whose views on many issues -- from Iran's right to build nuclear energy facilities to the Holocaust -- mirror his own.
While a flurry of prominent Iranians have criticized Mr. Jalili as a political lightweight, the midranking bureaucrat has a record of loyalty to Mr. Ahmadinejad and to the Islamic regime. He clearly stated his views on the regime's nuclear ambitions before being appointed: "Under no circumstances should Iran give up its absolute right to nuclear energy," Mr. Jalili said in an interview recently with Iran's Fars News Agency.
Many analysts believe Mr. Jalili's appointment suggests Iran is taking a less-compromising stance in the negotiations, with the new chief negotiator far less likely than his predecessor, pragmatic conservative Ali Larijani, to push Tehran toward a deal.
Mr. Jalili, 42 years old, is a graduate of the elite Imam Sadegh University, where the regime has long groomed its most senior managers and officials. Established after the revolution, it is a hybrid educational institution where theological studies are taught alongside scientific classes. Mr. Jalili fought in the Iran-Iraq war as an officer in the Revolutionary Guard Force, losing his right leg in battle. At age 24, he entered the Foreign Ministry, part of a quota of appointees from Iran's ultra-conservative Hezbollah movement. He climbed the bureaucracy there and had a stint as director of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's office. He is the author of a book titled, "Foreign Policy of (the) Prophet of Islam."
Mr. Jalili has also recently echoed one of the president's most controversial views -- that the Holocaust may not have happened. "Why won't they allow an investigation into this matter? The questions that our president has raised about this issue are all in line with human-rights discussions," he told Fars News.
Well, we do what we can: By 2012 the US starts delivery of the Joint Strike Fighter to Israel, which, according to one US official, "This plane can fly into downtown Teheran without anyone even knowing about it since it can't be detected on radar."
Let's hope it never comes to that, but the Democrats have clearly forgotten a Cold War lesson -- It wasn't until Reagan supplied Europe (amid mass protests) with the Pershing II ballistic missiles that the Soviets came to the arms negotiation table. Enemies respect strength, and walk all over talk.
Labels: Delusional Democrats, Iran, proliferation
This article should make you sick to your stomach. For all their talk about "spying on Americans" and other such nonsense, at the end of the day, when Democrats are challenging so-called "warrantless wiretaps" or the Patriot Act, all they're really doing is ensuring that another horrible episode, whether 9-11 or the one below, occurs.[NY Post] U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected of kidnapping Queens soldier Alex Jimenez in Iraq earlier this year, The Post has learned.
This week, Congress plans to vote on a bill that leaves in place the legal hurdles in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - problems that were highlighted during the May search for a group of kidnapped U.S. soldiers.
...A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.
Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.
For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.
Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.
"The intelligence community was forced to abandon our soldiers because of the law," a senior congressional staffer with access to the classified case told The Post.
"How many lawyers does it take to rescue our soldiers?" he asked. "It should be zero." [emphasis mine]
The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied.
Labels: antiwar loonies, civil liberties, Congress, Delusional Democrats, rules of engagement, surveillance, TSP, war on terror, wiretap
[The Politico] House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.), Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the Defense subcommittee on House Appropriations, and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), will soon unveil a "surtax" on taxes owed by Americans to help cover the cost of the war, the trio announced this morning.
The tax is designed to raise $140 billion to $150 billion annually, and would range from a 2% surtax on low-income Americans to as much as 15% for wealthy taxpayers.
...Obey said "there is no sense of shared sacrifice in this country on the war" since the federal government continues to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars in order to fund the military campaign in Iraq while also covering domestic needs.
"The only families being asked to sacrifice are military families, and they are being asked to sacrifice again and again and again," Obey said.
"George Bush compared the war in Iraq to the Revolutionary War," McGovern added. "If he really believes that, he should be asking everybody to sacrifice. For those of us who are against this war, who think it's a tragedy, the only thing that makes this tragedy worse is that the cost of this war falls on the backs of my kids and grandkids. If you don't like this war, and you don't want to pay taxes, then fight doubly hard against this war."
This is nothing new. Democrats, in order to ease their own self-flagellated guilt, often compare sacrifices or lack thereof between the Greatest Generation of WWII and our citizens today.
This means they either display a gross ignorance of basic economics or are simply propagating a misnomer.
Yes, the WWII generation sacrificed. They question is why they did so.
Even after adjusting for inflation, Gross Domestic Product during WWII (1941-1945) averaged $1,582 billion ($1.5 trillion). In today's inflation-adjusted economy, our GDP thus far for 2007 is $11,466.4 billion ($11.4 trillion) -- or 11 times more powerful than during the early- to mid-40s. [all BEA figs.]
Military spending as a percentage of GDP during WWII averaged in the mid-30s. Military spending as a percentage of GDP today is less than 5 percent. So not only is the percentage of military spending 30 points smaller but the size of the pie ( i.e., GDP) has grown 11 times, making our military spending miniscule when compared to military spending during WWII.
Thus, US citizens during WWII didn't sacrifice and ration basic goods because of some higher notion of charity or or sense of "burden spreading" purpose.
They sacrificed because they didn't have a choice.
Had they the economy we have today, there would have been no rationing or sacrifice during WWII. Period.
We have a luxury they did not because our economy is at least 11 times as powerful as it was back then, and our military spending is far less as it was back then.
There's no need to stick it to the American consumer and taxpayer simply to ease the guilt of the Democrat Party, which now opposes a war it Congressionally authorized a few years ago (and quietly supports every time it passes bills for additional funding).
Meanwhile, if Senator Murtha truly cared about the sacrifice of our military families perhaps he would spend less time falsely accusing them of murder and smearing their good names.
Labels: Congress, Delusional Democrats, Economics, Iraq, tax cuts, taxes
This is beautiful! I found this link via Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard -- apparently JunkScience.com is sponsoring a $125,000 reward to anyone who can prove that global warming is from human behaviors and deeds.
In fact, the reward went up $25,000 recently because since the contest was announced on August 7 JunkScience has yet to receive any takers. Not one.
Labels: climate, Delusional Democrats, environment as religion, global warming
Once more, a Western liberal is blinded by their concepts of diversity and multiculturalism and thus assume that all cultures are motivated by the same rewards...ATLANTA (AP) - Former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday that it was almost inconceivable that Iran would "commit suicide" by launching missiles at Israel.
Speaking at Emory University, Carter, who brokered the 1979 Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt, said Israel's superior military power and distance from Iran likely are enough to discourage an actual attack.
"Iran is quite distant from Israel," said Carter, 83. "I think it would be almost inconceivable that Iran would commit suicide by launching one or two missiles of any kind against the nation of Israel."
Carter speaks of "suicide" as though Islamic fundamentalists consider it a bad thing. But this is horribly basic misunderstanding of Islamic fundamentalists -- the very opposite is true!
For the Islamic radical there is no greater glory then giving one's life to destroy one's enemy. That which Carter terms "suicide" the Islamic fundamentalist calls "shaheed." Shaheed for the individual means personal glory in heaven, with 72 virgins and the gift of salvation for up to 70 family members (see the Shoebat quote below).
The belief of martyrdom through suicide killings is both powerful and deep, taught to the offspring when they are very young. Islamic fundamentalist rulers champion it, the parents and educators teach it, the television and media constantly propagate it.
Even if just one percent of one billion muslims are fundamentalists, and the remaining 99 percent moderate, you're still talking about 10 million Islamic radicals who believe in suicide-murder as a means to acheive eternal paradise -- and just around 25 of them killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 using ingeniuity and deception as their weapons. Imagine what they will accomplish should they attain more tangible weapons, like nuclear power.
So it matters not that many or even most of the 71 million persons in Iran are not true believers. It only matters that the ones in charge - 12 mullahs lead by the Ayatollah, and a hand-picked "president" with military control - are.
Labels: antiwar loonies, Delusional Democrats, Iran, Islamic extremism, Israel, Moonbats, proliferation
And the emmy for most out of touch with reality goes to.... Sally Field![MRC] Using her Emmy acceptance comments on stage to praise mothers, Sally Field turned political Sunday night as she declared: "Let's face it, if the mothers ruled the world, there would be no Goddamned wars in the first place."
Oh, Reaaaally?
Well, there are countless mothers of suicide bombers whom disprove Field's naive theory. In fact, the culture of Islamic extremism fosters the concept that children are procreated especially for martyrdom.
Just a few examples:A martyr is a sacrificial lamb, a sacrifice to obtain salvation, which is evident from the cultural term given to terrorists - Fida'e, which literally means 'the sacrifice.' The Islamic argument against blood atonement is somewhat contradicted when it comes to the concept of martyrdom in Islam. Blood atonement is hardly absent in Islam. In fact, blood atonement makes it possible to intercede on the behalf of others, since the Shaheed [suicide bomber] takes on Christ-like abilities, interceding for seventy members of his or her family, who would otherwise have entered hell's fire. So, in order to alleviate the suffering in hell, at least one family member is encouraged to be given as a sacrifice."
-- Walid Shoebat, author of Why We Want To Kill You: The Jihadist Mindset and How to Defeat it.A new online magazine published by the 'Women's Information Office on the Arabian Peninsula' aims to teach women how to contribute to jihad, or holy war. "Our main mission: push our children to the battlefield, like Al-Khansaa," declares Umm Raad al-Tamimi in the magazine. The monthly publication champions the ideology of Al Qaeda terrorist chief Osama bin Laden: "Drive infidels from the Arabian Peninsula," or Saudi Arabia.
-- Agence France-Presse, Sep 4, 2004"The mother of the Palestinian suicide bomber who blew himself up in Eilat three days ago also told Agence France-Presse that she was happy her son was martyred. She revealed that she had said goodbye [to him] before he left for his mission and had wished him success, and that she was happy that 'God had heard her prayers.'"
-- Al-Hayat, February 1, 2007The mother of the first female Palestinian suicide bomber has said she is proud of her daughter and hopes more women will follow her example. ...
Body parts found at the scene suggested that an attack on Sunday, which killed an 81-year-old Israeli man and left more than 100 injured, was the first of its kind by a woman. ... "She was happy when martyrdom attacks were carried out against the Israelis and told me she wished she would one day carry out such an attack," another relative, Manal Shaheen, said.
-- BBC, Female bomber's mother speaks out, 30 January, 2002"Allah be praised, I am a Muslim and I believe in Jihad. Jihad is one of the elements of the faith and this is what encouraged me to sacrifice Muhammad in Jihad for the sake of Allah. My son was not destroyed, he is not dead; he is living a happier life than I. Had my thoughts been limited to this world, I would not sacrifice Muhammad. I am a compassionate mother to my children, and they are compassionate towards me and take care of me. Because I love my son, I encouraged him to die a martyr's death for the sake of Allah… Jihad is a religious obligation incumbent upon us, and we must carry it out. I sacrificed Muhammad as part of my obligation."
-- Umm Nidal, mother of suicide bomber Muhammad Farhat, in an interview with Dream 2 TV (Egypt), December 21, 2005"I feel the martyr is lucky because the angels usher him to his wedding in heaven. I feel the earth moves under the occupiers' feet… There is no doubt that a child [martyr] suggests that the new generation will carry on the mission with determination. The younger the martyr - the greater and the more I respect him… They [mothers of martyrs] willingly sacrifice their offspring for the sake of freedom. It is a great display of the power of belief. The mother is participating in the great reward of the Jihad to liberate Al-Aqsa… I talked to a young man… [who] said: '… I want to marry the black-eyed [beautiful] women of heaven.' The next day he became a martyr. I am sure his mother was filled with joy about his heavenly marriage. Such a son must have such a mother."
-- Mufti Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri, Al-Ahram Al-Arabi (Egypt), October 28, 2000In an interview with Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nuzhah Ziyadeh, also known as Umm Souheil, a 55-year-old woman from the Jebaliya refugee camp who had "sacrificed two of her sons as Shahids for the sake of Allah," expressed "pride and a sense of honor that Allah had honored her with the martyrdom of her two sons Souheil and Muhammad, and made their wish come true." The paper called Umm Souheil " Al-Khansaa" – referring to the mother of Shahids in Islamic history.
-- Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), June 7, 2003The Palestinians are fighting against the Zionists with a lethal weapon - the weapon of the multi-birthing woman. If they kill ["The Engineer" Yahyah] 'Ayyash, or if a Mujaheed is Martyred, the wombs of the women pushed, push, and will continue to push thousands Ayyash's of Mujahideen who suckle with their mothers' milk, the education for Jihad... Ah, If only [former Israeli PM Ariel] Sharon and his angels of destruction knew that the mother of a Shahid [suicide bomber] receives the news of her son's Martyrdom with cries of joy... One of them, so it was reported, took an oath to send the four sons she had left to the battlefield so they would gain Martyrdom as well, just like their brother. We wish that just like the Zionist airports were filled with those vagabond homosexuals on their way in, they will be filled once again on their way out, without anyone feeling sorry for them..."
-- Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), June 5, 2001.A large number of summer camps were named after Shahids [suicide bombers], without distinction between whether they were involved in attacks in the Palestinian territories or carried out suicide bombings within the Green Line [Israel]. The following is a partial roundup of some camps that were mentioned in the Palestinian media:
Two summer camps were named after the first female suicide bomber Wafaa Idris, in Qalqiliya and in the Al-Am'ari refugee camp; A summer camp in eastern Gaza, organized by the Fatah Shabiba, was named after female suicide bomber Ayat Al-Akhras ; A summer camp was named after commander of Fatah's military wing Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Tulkarem, Ra'id Karmi; A summer camp in Gaza was named after Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Commander in Gaza, Jihad Al-'Amarin; A summer camp was named after the Shahid Mahmoud Al-Jamasi, who blew up an IDF boat in Gaza; A summer camp in the town of 'Azoun in the Qalqiliya district, organized by the National Guidance Administration and named after the Shahid Muhammad Salim, an activist in the Hamas military wing Iz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades who was killed while trying to blow up a tank; A boys' summer camp in Dir Ballah named after Shahids; A boys' summer camp named after "the Shahids of Surif"; The "Loyalty to the Blood of the Martyrs" summer camp; The "Loyalty and Love for Chairman Yasser Arafat" summer camp, which this year was named after Shahids from the Rafah district; The "Independence and [Refugee] Return" summer camp in Nablus; At an Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades summer camp in the Hebron district, the children held a closing ceremony which included a play called "The Shahid's Wedding" – that is, his wedding in Paradise to the 72 black-eyed virgins; The Charity Organization for Aid to Orphans and the Needy in Jericho, which is close to the Hamas movement, concluded its summer camps with an exhibit of handicrafts. The 230 children participating in these camps were divided into groups with names that have Islamic connotations. Some of the names were: Al-Khansaa, Al-Tayyar, and Paradise.
-- Middle East Media Research Institute special report.
Labels: antiwar loonies, Delusional Democrats, Hollywood bias, Islamic extremism, Moonbats, why they hate us
Columnist Mark Steyn reflects on the recent morally equivilant Kumbayah approach to counter-terrorism by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. On the sixth anniversary of 9-11, Patrick told a crowd that the attacks were "a failure of human beings to understand each other, to learn to love each other." Pass the sick bag.We should beware anyone who seeks to explain 9/11 by using the words "each other": They posit a grubby equivalence between the perpetrator and the victim – that the "failure to understand" derives from the culpability of both parties. The 9/11 killers were treated very well in the United States: They were ushered into the country on the high-speed visa express program the State Department felt was appropriate for young Saudi males. They were treated cordially everywhere they went. The lap-dancers at the clubs they frequented in the weeks before the Big Day gave them a good time – or good enough, considering what lousy tippers they were. Sept. 11 didn't happen because we were insufficient in our love to Mohamed Atta.
This isn't a theoretical proposition. At some point in the future, some of us will find ourselves on a flight with a chap like Richard Reid, the thwarted shoe-bomber. On that day we'd better hope the guy sitting next to him isn't Gov. Patrick, who sees him bending down to light his sock and responds with a chorus of "All You Need Is Love," but a fellow who "understands" enough to wallop the bejesus out of him before he can strike the match. It was the failure of one group of human beings to understand that the second group of human beings was determined to kill them that led the crew and passengers of those Boston flights to stick with the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures until it was too late.
Labels: 9-11, antiwar loonies, Delusional Democrats, Islamic extremism, Moonbats, terrorism, war on terror
Just an awesome editorial by Michael Graham...Deval's naivete endangers us all
How do you explain to someone who just doesn't get it, that the problem is that he just doesn't get it?
This is the Deval Patrick Dilemma.
He is our governor, and he's unlikely to leave office before serving two full terms. (Patrick may be a lot of things, but he's no Republican.)
He is our chief magistrate. Due to his involvement with the courts and police, he is essentially Massachusetts' top cop.
And yet he seems completely and utterly incapable of telling the good guys from the bad guys.
Ben LeGuer, rapist of grandmothers - bad. Police officers and prosecutors who locked LeGuer up - good.
Sex offenders looking for jobs at Massachusetts day care centers - bad. Employers who want to see complete CORI reports before hiring day-care providers - good.
Islamist hijackers who board planes at Logan and fly them into the World Trade Center - bad. The Americans they killed, and the nation they terrorized. . .
See the pattern here, Gov?
In his 9/11 commemoration speech, Patrick observed that while the attack on the World Trade Center was "mean and nasty," (that's telling 'em, Deval!) the real tragedy of six years ago was the "failure of human understanding."
Yes, 9/11 was, Patrick said "a failure of human beings to understand each other, to learn to love each other." [Emphasis added.]
To find out what the victims of 9/11 didn't understand about the terrorists that might have prevented the attack, I turned to Debra Burlingame. Her brother, Chic, was the pilot of American Airlines [AMR] Flight 77 - the plane that hit the Pentagon.
When I first read Debra the governor's remarks over the phone, her reaction was astonished silence. "Can you read that again please?"
I did. More silence.
"Did he have the audacity to say that in front of grieving 9/11 family members?" she asked, somewhat astonished.
Yes.
"Well, I'm glad I didn't have to listen to that on 9/11," she said in a measured tone, trying unsuccessfully to conceal her anger. "I would have found it extremely insulting to the memory of my brother."
"Did he really say 'mean and nasty?' " she wanted to know. "At Ground Zero, they've recovered 21,000 body parts and still counting. That's not mean and nasty, that's an atrocity."
Debra wasn't happy with the governor's suggestion that 9/11 was born of the failure of mutual understanding between the victims and their killers, but she understood it. She called is a form of moral vanity.
"It appeals to one's sense of vanity to think we're better than these people because we're nicer than they are. Liberals like this think 'I'm not judgmental, so that makes me superior,' " Debra said.
This self-gratifying "we're all responsible for 9/11" preening isn't just dumb, however. It's also dangerous. "If your governor thinks we can love-bomb al-Qaeda into submission, he's living in a dream world."
Perhaps that's Patrick's problem. Maybe he's living in another world, an imaginary liberal land were every Muslim radical is just one hug away from Methodism, and every criminal can be rehabilitated by a proper diet and midnight basketball.
The rest of us, alas, are trapped in the real world. And in this world, "9/11 is the price we paid for not truly understanding the enemy," Debra told me. "It was the moral vanity of our politicians that told them the Islamists could be dealt with through diplomacy, or negotiated with.
"The only negotiating they do is with a Kalashnikov rifle."
I'm still unclear what it is Patrick wants us to understand about the radical Muslims who want to kill us. But thanks to liberals like Patrick and MoveOn.org, the terrorists understand America.
All too well.
Labels: 9-11, appeasement, capitulation, Delusional Democrats, why they hate us
A Washington Post story describes the mood during testimony of Gen. David Petraus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and reaction by Rep. Jan Schakowsky, whom the post calls "one of the House's most vociferous critics of the war."
The Post shadowed Schakowsky yesterday during which she spent her day in a general state of enraged kookiness, "firing off messages" on her BlackBerry to friendly media outlets, "mere minutes into his [Petraeus] testimony."
It's a classic display of a liberal unhinged. The all-CAPS below were Schakowsky's actual use, not my emphasis:"Did I hear him correctly? I thought I heard Gen. Petraeus say that because of the 'progress' that's been made, the US will reduce the number of troops to pre-surge levels by NEXT SUMMER," she wrote to a reporter, offering her real-time reaction.
"He is presenting the same cherry-picked numbers that we've all heard before. . . . 4 1/2 years later and we are still hearing how, despite their deficiencies, Iraqi security forces are expanding their capacities.
"Bottom line? He is saying in effect, 'Stay the course.' "
Next came Crocker's opening remarks -- and another furious e-mail from Schakowsky, with the subject line "Just Wrong!"
"Crocker had the chutzpah to begin by comparing Iraq and the chaos and violence there with U.S. history of slavery, universal suffrage, civil rights. . . . The US was not occupied by another nation that ran the show. . . . How dare he!"
Look, I'm not a big fan of direct war comparisons but Crocker is closer to the truth than Schakowsky realizes. Perhaps were she not so blinded by rage she might recall some facts.
To whit: Even well after Reconstruction began (1865 to 1876), former citizens of the Confederate States of America, you see, certainly viewed Union soldiers on their territory as an occupying force.
The only reason the Civil War ended in conventional fashion (after 500,000 dead) was because commanding General Robert E. Lee refused to engage in the "Bushwhacking" (guerrilla) warfare some of his generals were proposing.
Even with Lee's refusal, Reconstruction was a very bloody period filled with ex-Confederate anti-Union propaganda, voter intimidation via racially-based, tribally-based (.i.e., anti-Northern) violence, kidnapping and torture against blacks, northern whites and pro-Unionists. The effects of this lasted well into the 1960s.
Thus, the difference between Iraq and the US Civil War isn't a matter of "occupation," as Schakowsky asserts, but of technology and ideology.
Insurgency warfare was fully mature by this period, displayed during the Civil War and even going back to the Revolution and French & Indian Wars. But Confederates didn't have IED's and cellular phones. Nor did they embrace the notion that murdering civilians in suicide-attacks was a fast track to heaven, as Islamic fundamentalists thoroughly believe. If they had we would be a much different country today.
Furthermore, the US Civil War was just as unpopular as today's Iraq War. Abraham Lincoln was under constant criticism by Union media. Cities one would think of as Union loyal were often hotbeds of Confederate sympathy -- John Wilkes Booth and his fellow conspirators began their plotting in New York City, the heart of the Union.
As for Schakowsky's criticism of Petraeus, it's just plain premeditated, predetermined hate and pessimism. Petraeus wasn't in charge 4 1/2 years ago. Those commanders - Abazaid, Sanchez, Rummy - are all gone. It's pointless and silly to pin past mistakes to Petraeus, or otherwise imply nothing's changed. On the contrary, leadership and tactics change everything.
Now let's not compare war, but attitude: On June 6, 1944, after the US took a fresh 7,000+ dead at Normandy, one would have not found a single US Congressman, Republican or Democrat, rue the slew of US strategy mistakes from 1941 to 1944 (Operation Market Garden comes to mind), and attempt to use them for political agendas. But that's precisely what Schakowsky and her ilk do today.
Beyond surrender, her kind have no other plan. So it would seem that antiwar liberals are the ones staying the course -- a course of capitulation.
Labels: capitulation, Delusional Democrats, Iraq
MoveOn.org Calls Petraeus a Traitor
Do Democrats in Congress agree?
by Pete Hegseth
Tomorrow--as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to Congress--the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."
Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.
General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is "cooking the books," then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, 'betray[ing] us.'
MoveOn.org has been working closely with the Democratic congressional leadership --as an article in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine makes clear. And consider this comment by a Democratic senator from Friday's Politico: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'
So, veterans who served in Iraq ask the Democratic leaders in Congress: Does MoveOn.org speak for you? Do you agree with MoveOn.org? Or do you repudiate this despicable charge?
MoveOn.org has helped frame the core choice: Whom do we trust to run this war--MoveOn.org and its allies in Congress, or Gen. David Petraeus and his colleagues?
Pete Hegseth is executive director of Vets for Freedom and an Iraq War veteran.
A group of 31 bipartisan Congressional leaders have asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to denounce the group.
Labels: Congress, Delusional Democrats, Iraq, Petraeus
[CNN] "I think that it's unacceptable for our troops to be caught in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war while the Iraqi government is on vacation," said Clinton, a New York Democrat.
But apparently Hillary's got no problem for our troops to be at war while the American Congress takes a vacation... seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up.
Hillary's message today gets even more confusing. Her feelings on the surge?"The best way of honoring their service is by beginning to bring them home," Clinton said, receiving respectful, yet tepid applause during an address to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
And...[UK Guardian]``It's working. We're just years too late in changing our tactics,'' she said. ``We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war.''
It's working... so let's leave? Run that logic by me again...
After months and months of pessimism and declaring defeat just days after the surge was announced the Democrats are so deep in the hole that they're now looking like fools attempting to play both sides of the fence simultaneously.
Labels: capitulation, Clinton, Delusional Democrats, quitters
The delusions of the Democratic party can be neatly summarized with a trio of news articles today.
According to the NY Sun, Western and American intelligence services believe that terrorist cells connected to the British "doctors plot" may already be in the United States and planning terrorist attacks here based on "E-mail addresses for American individuals [which] were found on the same password-protected e-mail chains used by the United Kingdom plotters to communicate with Qaeda handlers in Europe."
But what are the Democrats and liberal community worried about (well, besides the red herring of climate change)?
They're worried about eavesdropping on communications of suspected terrorists, and they're worried about how the CIA has been treating the captured 9-11 mastermind and murderer of 3,000 Americans, Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.
Let's start with the news regarding the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP, aka warrantless wiretapping):The Democratic-controlled House last night approved and sent to President Bush for his signature legislation written by his intelligence advisers to enhance their ability to intercept the electronic communications of foreigners without a court order.
The 227 to 183 House vote capped a high-pressure campaign by the White House to change the nation's wiretap law, in which the administration capitalized on Democrats' fears of being branded weak on terrorism and on a general congressional desire to act on the measure before an August recess.
Oh, gee, no biased reporting there! The TSP enhancement was needed to help our intelligence agencies catch terrorists. Period. Not to assist "Bush advisers" or "play on fears."
Clearly enough Democrats knew this to be true.
Maybe the votes were instigated by the warning to Congress from National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden: "Had this program [TSP] been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such."
Maybe they were instigated by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, who told the media last week that intelligence operatives are unable to protect Americans because Democrats previously abridged the TSP program. "'[The intelligence community is] missing a significant portion of what we should be getting' from electronic eavesdropping on possible terror plots," according to Newsweek.
Maybe it was because even some of the less liberal democrats recognized that it shouldn't take a warrant to spy on a jihadist in Peshawar who is telephoning instructions to a suicide bomber in London, all because the call happens to go through a switch located in the US.
One suspects that if a President Clinton or Obama takes the reigns most of this leftist concern will wither away. But for now, regardless of their loss in Congress, it won't stop the anti-war left from being far more concerned about intangible and theoretical dangers (see: post below) than of the actual terrorists trying to kill them."There are a lot of people who felt we had to pass something," said one angry Democratic lawmaker who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of caucus discussions. "It was tantamount to being railroaded."
Railroaded? Yes, railroaded said the Democrat so proud and sure of themselves they refused to be identified.Civil liberties and privacy advocates and a majority of Democrats said the bill could allow the monitoring of virtually any calls, e-mails or other communications going overseas that originate in the United States, without a court order, if the government deems the recipient to be the target of a U.S. probe.
"Board your wife and children! Virtually any calls!" (some restrictions apply, such as target "BEING RECIPIENT OF A US TERRORISM PROBE.")Last night, several Democrats said the bill would undermine the Fourth Amendment. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said lawmakers were being "stampeded by fearmongering and deception" into voting for the bill. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) warned that the bill would lead to "potential unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans' privacy."
So the Fourth Amendment now applies to foreign nationals suspected of terrorism and electronically communicating overseas...? I don't think James Madison had that in mind.
Needless to say that Mr. Nadler and Ms. Harman represent two states most likely to be terrorist targets."I'm not comfortable suspending the constitution even temporarily," said Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), a member of the House intelligence committee. "The countries we detest around the world are the ones that spy on their own people. Usually they say they do it for the sake of public safety and security."
Does Mr. Holt "detest" the United Kingdom? Because their MI-5 conducts domestic spying everyday, and yet their democracy seems intact. Likewise even wacky-liberal France conducts domestic spying.
The bottom line is that this bill was created because the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Service Act) courts were created decades ago and no longer cover our modern technologies, at least not without some upkeeping, which is what this bill did.
And, of course, if Democrats allowed more surveillance maybe we wouldn't need to have women interrogate a naked Khalid Mohammed.
Which brings us to our last article:[Washington Post] Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was subjected to the CIA's harshest interrogation methods while he was held in secret prisons around the world for more than three years, part of an interrogation regimen that the International Committee of the Red Cross has called "tantamount to torture," according to a New Yorker article to be published on the magazine's Web site today.
In a 12-page article released yesterday, reporter Jane Mayer analyzes the development of the CIA's secret interrogation techniques and writes that a confidential ICRC report to the U.S. government details Mohammed's assertions that he was tortured by the CIA. Unnamed Washington sources told Mayer that Mohammed said he was held naked in his cell, questioned by female interrogators to humiliate him, attached to a dog leash and made to run into walls, and put in painful positions while chained to the floor. Mohammed also said he was "waterboarded" -- a simulated drowning -- in addition to being held in suffocating heat and painfully cold conditions. Mohammed's captors also told him shortly after his arrest in March 2003: "We're not going to kill you. But we're going to take you to the very brink of your death and back," the article said.
Me thinks torture is made of sterner stuff. Torture doesn't "simulate drowning," it actually drowns you. Or your family in front of you, etc.
Certainly one would wager our treatment of al Qaeda operatives is purposely designed to skirt techical law - which is why they don't cause "prolonged mental harm" or threaten death. One can be sure it's not pleasant. But neither is anal rape in our state prison systems, yet we hear no peep from the liberal community to reform that. So, beyond discomfort and humiliation, Mohammed gets to keep all of his limbs - unlike, say, Saddam's victims - and has been flat out told we'll never kill him.
And this assumes Mohammed is speaking the truth even though the ICRC admits that the only person who can verify these claims is the very terrorist, Khalid Mohammed.
If Khalid Mohammed can organize the murder of 3,000 Americans he can certainly lie about or exaggerate his treatment to the Red Cross and play to their bleeding-heart sympathies.
But, even if he isn't lying, his fate is far, far better than those of his victims.
Labels: Delusional Democrats, Doctors plot, intelligence, interrogation, surveillance, TSP
Obama Statement on The Declassified National Intelligence Estimate
CHICAGO, IL-Senator Barack Obama today released the following statement on the Declassified National Intelligence Estimate.
"This morning's declassified NIE is a chilling reminder of what we have feared all along. After almost six years, awesome sacrifices by our brave men and women in uniform, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, we are no safer than we were on 9/11. This is a consequence of waging a misguided war in Iraq that should never have been authorized, and failing to seize the opportunity to do lasting harm to the extremist networks that pose a direct threat to our homeland. It is deeply troubling that more that nearly six years after 9/11, al Qaeda maintains a safe haven, an intact leadership, and the capability to plan further attacks. It is time to act to correct those mistakes, and the first step is to get out of Iraq, because you can't win a war when you're on the wrong battlefield."
The wrong battlefield?
That implies that Senator Obama believes there's a "right" battlefield, an alternate battlefield, where he, as president, would authorize military force.
Is Senator Obama really advocating an invasion of Pakistan? Sure sounds like it. But it's laughable to believe that Democrats - who have suddenly discovered Pakistan - would ever authorize military force.
No, the only thing Democrats have discovered is a way to not sound soft on the war on terror (which some of them - ahem, John Edwards - refuse to even acknowledge).
And while we're at it if, as Democrats argue, military action in Iraq only "creates" more terrorists why wouldn't military action in Pakistan or Afghanistan also "create" more terrorists?
And why wouldn't Iran and Syria and al Qaeda and Saudi terror sponsors simply funnel their foreign fighters from Iraq to wherever we decided to go under a President Obama or Clinton?
And so, does it really matter where is the battlefield so long as it is not in the US? Scratch that: Iraq is a tough environment to fight in, but fighting in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan would be far, far more difficult. Gee, maybe that's another reason they chose Iraq?
Labels: 2008, capitulation, Delusional Democrats, democrats, Iraq, Obama
