Jimmuh Chavez and Human Rights

What constitutes torture is subjective, which is one of the problems with defining what is allowed and what is not in U.S. interrogations of "detainees" at Gitmo and elsewhere. Publicly defining methods also adds to the difficulty as there will always be someone that considers certain methods too harsh.

As per the course, former President Jimmy Carter, rather than do something of benefit for his country is out and about condemning it.

If I want soft serve ice cream I'll go to President Carter the man almost singlehandedly condemned this nation during his presidency to the point that President Bush has needed to act decisively and from outside the box; a box which many are still very comfortable in, Jimmy is one.

Military.com has published an article that in part quotes the former president in an interview he had with CNN:

"Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights. We've said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we've said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime."

Mr. Carter is speaking of "human rights" as he sees them. Mr. Carter is using his view of what is and what is not "torture." Mr. Carter does his part in abandoning "the basic principle of human rights," each time he goes to some banana republic or terror exporting republic to validate elections. Mr. Carter talks a good talk (for a mistaken fool anyway), but his actions or rather, preferred inactions are what slaps "human rights" in the face. Mr. Carter continues to do this country a disservice; if only he took a page from President Reagan and President Bush following their tenure in office and let the new occupant do what he or she believes appropriate in the challenges faced.

What has so led this man astray from reality and the decisions inherent in living in the real world, especially from the point of view of someone that must make those hard decisions that can be twisted and screamed about from the roof tops? I am not agreeing that the methods enlisted in interrogations are "torture" in the previous statement, but that methods are necessary.

Jimmy Carter failed at his job during his time in office; why does he feel the need to give it everything he has to ensure others make mistakes as well?

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, , The Random Yak, Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Bin Laden Needs his own Dr. 90210

Guardian Unlimited reports:

"Terror mastermind Osama bin Laden plans a new video addressing the American people regarding the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, a terror monitoring group said Thursday."

Mastermind? That's so Austin Powers, Dr. No, Dr. Evil...

Bin Laden is a has been that occasionally offers his "reality TV" vignettes to boost a sorry and flailing career. Recent images are the proof in the pudding that appearance and image mean as much in the Hollywood in a cave as they do in the outside world.

Grecian Formula for Men? Yes and no, bin Laden is not a man, he is a silly misguided little child with a God complex.

Those bags bin-bin, you poor thing....got a Dr. 90210 in the mountains? You need one ASSHAT!

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

As We Keep Saying; Reframing the Iraq Debate

Did you know that “the Balkans are at peace today through the joint efforts of the United States, the European Union and the United Nations?” Makes it sound like the EU and UN were on board from the get go, doesn’t it? In fairness, NATO does consist of EU nations, whatever an EU nation is.

The above is an example of success(?) that didn’t come to fruition overnight, nor is it perfected yet. We could go over the “reasons” we are in Iraq, but why cover it all over to make the point that statements like the above and “a similar strategy should have been part of our Iraq policy from the outset but has never been seriously attempted,” from former leaders in our country is some of the reason we are where we are in Iraq today.

Former Secretary of State, Madeline “Not so” Albright believes that a fundamental shift in sectarian divisions in Iraq “will not occur through Iraqi actions alone.” Nor will it result from, “given America’s lack of leverage,…from our patrols, benchmarks, speeches or "surprise" presidential visits to Anbar province” either. “That leaves coordinated international assistance as the only option.”

Using materials likely drafted in mid-March for use in first July and now September, the former SecState has obviously reset her calendar along with the rest of the Democrats in this latest effort to “reframe the debate.”

The Bush Administration has not done a perfect job with Iraq, nor has it not dallied in diplomatic efforts at uniting the international community. There is no quick fix, nor is there any guarantee (by her own admission mind you) that a sweeping diplomatic push would work, it is not from lack of trying:

“A coordinated international effort could help Iraq by patrolling borders, aiding reconstruction, further training its army and police, and strengthening legislative and judicial institutions. It could also send a unified message to Iraq's sectarian leaders that a political power-sharing arrangement that recognizes majority rule and protects minority rights is the only solution and is also attainable.”

This “coordinated international effort,” according to the former Madame Secretary that:

“President Bush could do his part by admitting what the world knows -- that many prewar criticisms of the invasion were on target. Such an admission would be just the shock a serious diplomatic project would need. It would make it easier for European and Arab leaders to help, as their constituents are reluctant to bail out a president who still insists that he was right and they were wrong. Our troops face death every day; the least the president can do is face the truth.”

One thing the Democrats have not done is “faced any truth” out of Iraq; they’re not doing it now, nor apparently will they ever.

If we go down this “is such an initiative still viable? Perhaps” diplomatic surge, one wonders who might also assist in these “international efforts?” There are consultants out there that benefit financially from “diplomacy” out there in the world, one such is The Albright Group, LLC, which describes itself thusly:

“We are a unique team of international negotiators and seasoned diplomats, including two former Presidential Cabinet members. We have decades of combined experience managing multi-million dollar organizations with tens of thousands of employees.”

I guess in recent years business hasn’t been as forthcoming as it would have been during the 90’s, who messed with our "this is how we do business" plan.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Faultline USA, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

September 11, 2001 is Ancient History; Let's just forget it

“Does anyone go out on the streets of New York and commemorate the firing on Fort Sumter?”

Why continue to commemorate September 11, 2001? This is a question the NY Times asked or at least wrote about on the second of this month.

From the toilet paper of record:

“Each year, murmuring about Sept. 11 fatigue arises, a weariness of reliving a day that everyone wishes had never happened. It began before the first anniversary of the terrorist attack. By now, though, many people feel that the collective commemorations, publicly staged, are excessive and vacant, even annoying.”

I suppose it is a valid enough question, but it’s also an odd question. It’s been almost six years since the attack on our soil that took the lives of so many people that were innocently going about their day. This was no Katrina that was a natural disaster with poor responses from local, state and federal agencies, but the media will tout that anniversary with a vengeance at least until the Bush Administration is no more.

September 11, 2001 was a day of sorrow with many more to follow; once the tide of grieving changed many people and the media have tried to make it go away as though now, six years later it might be a good idea to let it go. The reason from the perspective of the media is more in line with keeping the tide of anger or offense from our minds; after all the military actions of our nation since then has been ignorant, hegemonic and undiplomatic in nature, at least to them. We don’t hear a lot from the msm on this subject as we might and I believe one reason for this is they do not want the public’s emotion to affect our foreign policy and even national policy as this is the mo of the msm and is not for us, the common public.

These days I get a bit tweaked that D-Day and Pearl Harbor are somewhat ignored, but those days in history are a ways back; they’re also much easier for the msm to ignore. There is also that possibility that this may help the forces of pride in our nation, which is something the msm cannot countenance.

Our media has chosen to not offer glimpses of that day due to concern for our feelings or emotions. What’s this all about?

September 11, 2001 did more, much more than take the lives of 3,000+ people. It opened the eyes of many if not most in this nation that there are forces in the world that would and will do us harm. Much of that is forgotten these days as the msm prefers to paint others with the blame and that the best way to deal with it would be to ease up internationally, since our previous actions in our history are what really brought this attack on the nation.

Had they their way, we would forget all this silly commemoration and go about our lives; this would make their jobs all the easier. In life as time passes tragedy is easier to deal with, especially if you were someone that was not personally affected by this date with the loss of a family member or friend. Those of us that don’t miss someone, perhaps almost daily may get by without the commemoration, but that doesn’t mean it would be a good idea to forget.

We, as a nation, have gotten passed much of what that day revealed to us about the world we live in; it’s a shame that there may be a necessity for a repeat to open our sluggish eyes again. Those that inform us of what is important (msm) have done its share in making this date appear like ancient history or an anomaly. Assuredly the attack itself could be considered somewhat of an anomaly if it makes us feel better, but that doesn’t really change anything.

9/11 is not a war or battle cry, but it is a huge piece of the puzzle in explaining the actions of our military over the past half decade; forgetting or ignoring that will do much more to tie our hands in the future when faced with difficult questions, questions many would prefer to believe don’t warrant asking.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Adam's Blog, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Thoughts, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Bait Has Been Taken, Now Hook Him and Gut Him

From Jim Hoagland this morning in WAPO:

"Bush's appeal to Americans to turn away from "the allure of retreat" centered on the indisputably horrific consequences for the people of Vietnam and Cambodia of defeat in 1975. But his analogy also summons the historical reality that U.S. involvement in Indochina became untenable when that engagement itself became a threat to America's social fabric and national cohesion -- and then to the very institutions that had responsibility for the war, the U.S. military and intelligence services, as well as the presidency and Congress."

The msm and others that oppose our actions in Iraq, have nearly from day one referred to Iraq as Vietnam. Now that the President has mentioned that war and made an analogy the msm (critics) have pounced now that the bait has been taken.

I'm curious if anyone, like say a Hoagland could ever bring themselves to attempt a defense of the presidents analogy, would find that it is just as easy to do as attacking. Hoagland sees a mistake in the president speaking on the subject because now it's all fair game. Now the articles can come out that only continue to make negative comparisons to Vietnam. Now the one piece of Vietnam that has always nagged at the Democrats and media can sanctimoniously be acknowledged and we can get on with the business of inextricably tying the two as one.

If only defeat can take place in Iraq, all the revisionist history following Vietnam can rest more comfortably in the knowledge that the U.S. has yet another war it has lost that it should not have gotten into. A war that has spilled the blood of our military for no good reason.

Wake Up America brought the latest Michael Hirsh "piece" from Newsweek to our attention yesterday, with his "Why America's Pullout From Vietnam Worked, The truth behind Bush's mangling of Cold War history." Hoagland has his rewrite or perhaps more appropriately does his part with regard to the msm/Liberal agenda. They are all fighting back harder and less honestly following the slight bump apparently due to troublesome positives in Iraq and the O'Hanlon and Pollack "defection."

The time is now, trumpet the negative comparisons, ignore any positives, paint any analogies as "mangling" history bring it home for the victory they have all fought so hard for; Iraq/Vietnam Never Again! We have been right all along, see? Now listen to us because we know.

Some defenses of analogies the msm doesn't like, "Returning to Cambodia;" "Revisiting Kasserine Pass;" "Maroons Rush In;" and even "Bush Finally Sees Iraq as Being Like Vietnam."

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1223289585293733735

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Adam's Blog, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Organization of the Islamic Conference Allies in the War on Terror

It’s always a pleasure when Mark Steyn’s work at National Review is available to the general non-subscribing public because it is at that time that I feel the most comfortable quoting and linking to something he has written.

In the July 16^th issue of National Review and available at Steyn Online is “Denial is a river in Washington.” In it he takes the various Western nations governments to task in their overly obsessive PC etiquette in conducting the war on terror. Read it and enjoy, but I am posting from within his essay to the references he makes to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Western leaders, including most recently Jacqui Smith, the British Home Secretary under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who was quoted as saying ‘“Any attempt to identify a murderous ideology with a great faith such as Islam is wrong, and needs to be denied.”’ This is in line with Brown’s disallowing the use of the word “Muslim” in any reference or connection with terrorism, as Steyn quoted from The Daily Express, “The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims.”

How we are expected to get anywhere in the war on terror is unknowable if we cannot in all seriousness use that which recent history is providing as example I do not know.

One of those groups that work to protect the Muslim identity is the Organization of the Islamic Conference; which in and of itself is very honorable and commendable. This honor is undeserved however when one of the conferences guidelines is to identify various terrorist entities as not terrorist due to their definition of the struggle.

Quoting Steyn with four quotes from the organizations 2002 “Declaration on International Terrorism;” the four that Steyn quotes are:

“5. We reject any attempt to link Islam and Muslims to terrorism as terrorism has no association with any religion, civilization or nationality;”

Fine. Whatever. Religion-of-peace boilerplate.

“10. We reject any attempt to link terrorism to the struggle of the Palestinian people in the exercise of their inalienable right to establish their independent state with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital;”

Er, okay. That gives a pass to Hamas and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and whatnot…

“11. We reject any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism, which constitutes an impediment to the global struggle against terrorism;”

…and that pretty much absolves Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and everybody else. So are there any actual terrorists operating anywhere today that this “International Declaration” is designed to cover?

“12. We condemn Israel for its escalating…”

Why then do we and our leaders stoop and bow to this group and others like it (C.A.I.R. anyone) as though we have the same intended outcome? We certainly do not want to offend anyone and turn them off from assisting in wiping this current scourge from the earth; but if truth offends it is not the messengers fault.

We, nor can anyone else get to the root of any problem by ignoring the basis of the problem or those involved from the very beginning.

One point of interest that Steyn did not quote was the laughable connection to the U.N. when in regard to the groups currently involved in “national” struggles as opposed to “terrorism:”

“14. We reaffirm our commitment to international action in combating international terrorism undertaken in conformity with the principles of the Charter of United Nations, including the principles of non-intervention in internal affairs and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as international law and relevant international conventions and instruments;”

Would the conference recognize this “charter” if it hadn’t at first identified that which it refuses to see as terrorist? No it would not since it would not fit within the “charter.”

The OIC is an organization that leadership looks to in the joint effort of combating terrorism, yet the OIC’s bottom line is combating the war on terror, leaving time and space to allow for the possibility of victory in behalf of terrorist organizations. This is very apparent when one reads the Declaration on International Terrorism; and in closing the offering of the conferences “Convention on Combating International Terrorism, which begins:

“Pursuant to the tenets of the tolerant Islamic Sharia which reject all forms of violence and terrorism, and in particular specially those based on extremism and call for protection of human rights, which provisions are paralleled by the principles and rules of international law founded on cooperation between peoples for the establishment of peace;”

Wondering already where they get the gall? Read on…

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2437899208518292632

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Nuke's news and views, Webloggin, Wyvern dreams, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Right Voices, Pursuing Holiness, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

“The War Is for You or For Us to Win”

"Here's the bottom line: Al Qaida in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like bin Laden, they are cold-blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaida's political objectives. Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaida in Iraq is not really al Qaida — and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check."

Personally when it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere; I don't care whether the egg came before the chicken or vice versa. Intelligence can be so off, as it has been yet often that is all you have. Do you go for it or not? The NY Times and the rest have the benefit as do I, of not having to make any decision based on intelligence.

As much as the intelligence community has failed in recent years past it is still all we have. The Times and others will tout it when it suits them and damn it when it doesn't or when it has abjectly failed. Our nation doesn't have that luxury; the editors do.

A portion of President Bush's speech Tuesday July 24, at Charleston Air Force base in South Carolina:

"A good place to start is with some basic facts: Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian terrorist, not an Iraqi. His name was Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He was not yet a member of al Qaida, but our intelligence community reports that he had longstanding relations with senior al Qaida leaders, that he had met with Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahiri.

In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces. In the violence and instability following Saddam's fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope, and lethality of his operation. In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaida, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and he promised to "follow his orders in jihad."

Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that Zarqawi was the "Prince of Al Qaida in Iraq" — and instructed terrorists in Iraq to "listen to him and obey him." It's hard to argue that al Qaida in Iraq is separate from bin Laden's al Qaida, when the leader of al Qaida in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

According to our intelligence community, the Zarqawi-bin Laden merger gave al Qaida in Iraq — quote — "prestige among potential recruits and financiers." The merger also gave al Qaida's senior leadership — quote — "a foothold in Iraq to extend its geographic presence ... to plot external operations ... and to tout the centrality of the jihad in Iraq to solicit direct monetary support elsewhere." The merger between al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers — and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail.

Zarqawi was killed by U.S. forces in June 2006. He was replaced by another foreigner — an Egyptian named Abu Ayyub al-Masri. His ties to the al Qaida senior leadership are deep and longstanding. He has collaborated with Zawahiri for more than two decades. And before 9/11, he spent time with al Qaida in Afghanistan where he taught classes indoctrinating others in al Qaida's radical ideology.

After Abu Ayyub took over al Qaida's Iraqi operations last year, Osama bin Laden sent a terrorist leader named Abd al-Hadi al Iraqi to help him. According to our intelligence community, this man was a senior advisor to bin Laden, who served as his top commander in Afghanistan. Abd al-Hadi never made it to Iraq. He was captured, and was recently transferred to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The fact that bin Laden risked sending one of his most valued commanders to Iraq shows the importance he places on success of al Qaida's Iraqi operations.

According to our intelligence community, many of al Qaida in Iraq's other senior leaders are also foreign terrorists. They include a Syrian who is al Qaida in Iraq's emir in Baghdad, a Saudi who is al Qaida in Iraq's top spiritual and legal advisor, an Egyptian who fought in Afghanistan in the 1990s and who has met with Osama bin Laden, a Tunisian who we believe plays a key role in managing foreign fighters. Last month in Iraq, we killed a senior al Qaida facilitator named Mehmet Yilmaz, a Turkish national who fought with al Qaida in Afghanistan, and met with September the 11th mastermind Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, and other senior al Qaida leaders.

A few weeks ago, we captured a senior al Qaida in Iraq leader named Mashadani. Now, this terrorist is an Iraqi. In fact, he was the highest ranking Iraqi in the organization. Here's what he said, here's what he told us: The foreign leaders of Al Qaida in Iraq went to extraordinary lengths to promote the fiction that al Qaida in Iraq is an Iraqi-led operation. He says al Qaida even created a figurehead whom they named Omar al-Baghdadi. The purpose was to make Iraqi fighters believe they were following the orders of an Iraqi instead of a foreigner. Yet once in custody, Mashadani revealed that al-Baghdadi is only an actor. He confirmed our intelligence that foreigners are at the top echelons of al Qaida in Iraq — they are the leaders — and that foreign leaders make most of the operational decisions, not Iraqis.

Foreign terrorists also account for most of the suicide bombings in Iraq. Our military estimates that between 80 and 90 percent of suicide attacks in Iraq are carried out by foreign-born al Qaida terrorists. It's true that today most of al Qaida in Iraq's rank and file fighters and some of its leadership are Iraqi. But to focus exclusively on this single fact is to ignore the larger truth: Al Qaida in Iraq is a group founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists, and loyal to a foreign terrorist leader — Osama bin Laden. They know they're al Qaida. The Iraqi people know they are al Qaida. People across the Muslim world know they are al Qaida. And there's a good reason they are called al Qaida in Iraq: They are al Qaida … in … Iraq.

Some also assert that al Qaida in Iraq is a separate organization because al Qaida's central command lacks full operational control over it. This argument reveals a lack of understanding. Here is how al Qaida's global terrorist network actually operates. Al Qaida and its affiliate organizations are a loose network of terrorist groups that are united by a common ideology and shared objectives, and have differing levels of collaboration with the al Qaida senior leadership. In some cases, these groups have formally merged into al Qaida and take what is called a "bayaat" — a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden. In other cases, organizations are not formally merged with al Qaida, but collaborate closely with al Qaida leaders to plot attacks and advance their shared ideology. In still other cases, there are small cells of terrorists that are not part of al Qaida or any other broader terrorist group, but maintain contact with al Qaida leaders and are inspired by its ideology to conduct attacks.

Our intelligence community assesses that al Qaida in Iraq falls into the first of these categories. They are a full member of the al Qaida terrorist network. The al Qaida leadership provides strategic guidance to their Iraqi operatives. Even so, there have been disagreements — important disagreements — between the leaders, Osama bin Laden and their Iraqi counterparts, including Zawahiri's criticism of Zarqawi's relentless attacks on the Shia. But our intelligence community reports that al Qaida's senior leaders generally defer to their Iraqi-based commanders when it comes to internal operations, because distance and security concerns preclude day-to-day command authority.

Our intelligence community concludes that — quote — "Al Qaida and its regional node in Iraq are united in their overarching strategy." And they say that al Qaida senior leaders and their operatives in Iraq — quote — "see al Qaida in Iraq as part of al Qaida's decentralized chain of command, not as a separate group."

Here's the bottom line: Al Qaida in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like bin Laden, they are cold-blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaida's political objectives. Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaida in Iraq is not really al Qaida — and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check."

The rest is here at NRO.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Let's Not Forget Other Costs in the Recent Democrat Off-Broadway Production

While the sleepover took place and the theatrics were going full bore sans fireworks, while the Democrats or Reid’s Rosies moaned of the “distraction” that Iraq is from “real” terror the world continues to spin.

Iran and it’s proxies in Iraq and elsewhere in the region have been all but forgotten. This is one of those subjects of debate the media aids and abets the Democrat party as it tries to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. There are so many pieces to this war on terror that regardless of size need to be addressed; Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere. It all continues apace.

The Rosies apply the makeup, have their jammies pressed, teeth brushed and put on their latest off-Broadway hit; who says sequels can’t draw in the crowds.

“Negotiations” with the IAEA continue with Iran as the lead in the show recites his practiced lines. Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini discusses efforts to avoid a third resolution against Iran, while stating what “appeared to refer to an agreement reached last week between Iran and the UN's nuclear watchdog for a new negotiations framework,” which the UN hailed recently.

This “new negotiations framework” stems from June 25 when Iran “invited an International Atomic Energy Agency team to Tehran to work on clearing up suspicions about its nuclear program, an IAEA spokeswoman said Monday.” Excitedly hailed at the time as forward momentum in the quest to cease the Islamic Republics nuclear ambitions by the UN, Iran and MSM, we are only now seeing that it is part and parcel in the stretching out of negotiations to allow Iran to achieve its ends during the farce of “negotiations.” After all Iran, “‘invited the IAEA to send a team to Tehran to develop an action plan for resolving outstanding issues related to Iran's past nuclear program,'” which is only a promise to continue the same.

Reid and the Rosies rant while Hussain Shariatmadari, an adviser to the Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei, claimed Iranian ownership of the Gulf Arab state of Bahrain stating:

"The public demand in Bahrain is the reunification of this province with its motherland, the Islamic Iran."

The statement made sometime around July 13^th has not been “formally disavowed” by Tehran, which adds further insult to injury to those that continue to believe that Iranian proxies in Iraq are not participating under the orders of the government in Tehran and the Mullahcracy. To Shariatmadari, “it goes without saying that such an indisputable right for Iran and the people of this province should not and cannot be overlooked.”

Does this speak kindly to the “peaceful” use of nuclear technology? How about the fact that “Iran has marked 600 targets in Israel for missile strikes if it is attacked, the Qatari newspaper Al Watan quoted Sunday diplomatic sources in Damascus as saying. The report said the targets are within reach of Iranian missiles and would be completely destroyed if Israel should attack Iran or participate in an American attack on it.” This threat also includes attacks against Syria within its protective umbrella.

This is not the “peace” we think of, but “peace” has a very wide ranging definition when practiced by the likes of the Iranian regime.

During the Cold War peace between the major powers was maintained via proxy and the promise of mutual assured destruction. Today and over the past 30 years this has been the practice of Tehran with an almost light speed increase in these efforts recently. Assuming history will repeat itself to the tee that some feel it has or does, i.e. Iraq is Vietnam; dangerously disregards the danger inherent in a new Cold War, this one with an nuclear armed enemy that reveres martyrdom in death.

So, to Reid and the Rosies, the UN, and the MSM thanks for making the assured destruction of many a possibility with your lack of seriousness in these grave issues.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5660205700587463186

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, third world county, Big Dog's Weblog, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Pet Haven, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Glass Half-Empty or Half-Full; Levin Breaks the Glass – Will someone break his Mold?

CNN: “White House SNUBS…..” White House “snubs;” thanks for the unbiased headline.

Levin on Fox News Sunday in response to Brit Hume’s question; “You just heard Steve Hadley outline the progress that he says has been and is being made in Iraq. Do you have any quarrel with that?”

Levin:

“They try to make it out in their own self-assessment that this is a glass which is half full rather than it being half empty. As a matter of fact, this is a cup or a glass with a big hole in the bottom.

This is not a half full, half empty issue. They have made no progress in the one key area that everyone agrees must have progress or the violence will not end, and that's on the political side of things.

There has been no progress in terms of resolving the differences over oil royalties, over elections in the provinces, over de- Baathification.

Everyone agrees — and by the way, even the prime minister that Stephen Hadley touts as being a positive force and someone who is able to put together this situation — even that prime minister, Mr. Maliki, has said recently that the reason that the violence continues in Iraq is the failure of the Iraqi politicians.

It's not that there's military chaos. It's that the politicians in Iraq have refused to make the compromises which are essential if there's going to be an end of violence in Iraq.

That's the issue. There's been no progress in that area. That's why it makes no sense to wait till September.”

Talk about turning it on its ear; nothing accomplished yet so let's stop. The interview is typical of a politician revolving around a question, sounding like he’s answering it, but in reality has not; however, in reading the transcript it is one where the politician reveals the differing definitions of success and the “surge,” where “surge” is concerned he is grossly dishonest.

The dishonest part of Levin’s argument is the piece that all of the Democrats are flaunting and confusing the debate; they either know this and are playing games with our action in Iraq or they don’t. If they don’t they’re incredibly stupid.

Hume points the senator to a video clip from earlier in the week, during which Levin says:

“The purpose of the surge was to give the Iraqi political leaders the space to work out a political agreement.

And as he has pointed out and as our leaders agree, although the surge is now complete, there is no evidence of political progress on the part of Iraqi leaders. None whatsoever.”

The dishonesty stems from the fact that from the moment the “surge” of troops began the Democrats touted its failure speaking as though the increase in numbers was what was supposed to make the difference. The increase in numbers means nothing until that increase in numbers starts moving on the ground with the “surge” tactics.

Levin says, “although the surge is now complete,” and this implies that it has failed. The surging of troops is complete and the surge tactics are only one month old. You can read the interview and it appears that he acknowledges this but in his words he does not.

“The surge is now complete, there is no evidence of political progress…” The tactical surge is NOT complete, it is 1/3^rd into its activity; the date that had been agreed upon was September, to which it does not matter on the subject of the surges success what it looks like at the present moment. Ultimately, Levin and the rest have until September to put this into the minds of the American people and the media; thereby making it complete and utter failure by September regardless of facts on the ground.

HUME: How many troops do you think would be necessary to fight Al Qaeda there, Senator?

LEVIN: We have not made an estimate because we want to focus on new limited missions without trying to get into a debate as to how many troops would be needed for each of those new limited missions. That would change the subject.

They have not made an estimate and do not want to change the subject they are trying to change. Iraq is lost. They intend to bring down the number of troops in Iraq, yet continue what we are doing today; that makes Iraq a loss. They will stretch this loss out as long as possible and for all it is worth.

LEVIN: The only folks who can solve the problem in Iraq are the Iraqi leaders, and they have to solve it politically, and we can't do it for them.

The Democrats and those spineless enough to agree with them would have us believe the mission can continue with fewer troops. With the numbers down our soldiers mission will be able to concentrate on “counterterrorism training and force protection.” Hume suggests that this only “covers the waterfront.” Levin says no, because our most of our military is involved in a civil war right now. By this logic we could just leave and everything will be just fine. Where does that “civil war” go?

Let’s try this plan: Iraq is lost. Put all the Iraqi leaders in a sealed room of a sealed building and let them work it out and come and solve it politically. While solving in politically allow devastation, murder, blood and death to continue unabated outside; but leave them to solve it politically.

Once they have solved it politically, open the doors and let the light of day enter (if you can see it through the smoke). What happens to that political resolution now?

One piece, not the other, no two can be combined. Politically the problems cannot be resolved without military assistance. Militarily the problems cannot be resolved without political assistance.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/377062633000608299

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Pet's Garden Blog, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, Mark My Words, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, DragonLady's World, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Conservative Thoughts, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Bin Laden in newly released Tape. Who's this bin Laden Guy?

A 40 minute video tape that contains a new 50 second message from Osama bin Laden was recently released.

Who is this loser and what has he been up to?

The little girls that follow you and look up to you really do not need you. You are a non entity that can't pull his head out of his *ss long enough during a 24 hour period to enjoy some rays of sunshine. The revolution has gone on without you and your recent entry for the sake of headlines will do nothing to change that fact.

An attack, massive or otherwise with which you may be involved may excite the media, but you are nothing and the fools that look up to you as though you are something special are bigger fools than you AND the media.

Give us your best shot you little bitch!!! It will take time and there will be those that resist, insisting everything is hunky dory, but little man you are nothing and your hateful, worthless existence and its followers will be beaten down and removed one by one from the face of the earth. I am tired of the fact that you all think you matter and will ultimately succeed. You will NOT succeed because you are pointless, hateful little losers; you all are nothing. Like the psychopath or sociopath that ultimately yearns for the attention of the media light, you are pointless and killing for nothing. You WILL lose one day.

I don't care how stupid we all are or how stupid you think we all are...you and your ilk will go down and it won't be on 72 virgins....at least female virgins.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

The Times Editorial Board in THEIR Labrynth When Considering Musharraf

Hmmm, The Times editorial board is at it again and all emotionally as well.

Regarding General Pervez Musharraf the board believes the U.S. should cut its loses with the sinking fortunes of the Pakistani leader:

“Washington continues to uncritically support the general’s highhanded rule.”

“We’ve seen this story too many times before. One version starred the shah of Iran, others some of General Musharraf’s predecessors. None ended happily for the United States or the nations involved. Dealing with dictators is sometimes necessary. Clinging to them when their people want them gone is unbecoming of the world’s greatest democracy and unhealthy for America’s long-term interests.”

It is just another cut and run tactic The Board loves, although I’ll agree that it would be nice as the board says, to have Pakistan “return to free elections and civilian rule,” in time; but at what cost? Even Time Magazine sees the light in reference to what Musharraf is up against at home, with:

“Called "my buddy" by George W. Bush, Musharraf, 62, has paid a price for his decision, having been the target of multiple assassination attempts by the militants who infest his country. His ties with the U.S. enrage religious radicals, who are his most dangerous opponents.”

Best by far is from someone that has a clue and doesn’t get into a hissy fit like The Times editorial board whenever something even slightly Bush is the subject.

From Foreign Affairs, “A False Choice in Pakistan,” Daniel Markey, July/August 2007 Vol 86, Number 4

“It is true that Pakistan's government needs greater popular legitimacy -- won through the ballot box -- in order to advance both long- and short-term counterterrorism goals. But the critics' prescriptions for how to advance these goals risk throwing the United States, Pakistan, and the war on terrorism off course without offering a better alternative. If members of the Pakistani army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) retain ties to militant groups, including Taliban sympathizers, they do so as a hedge against abandonment by Washington. The past six decades of on-again, off-again bilateral cooperation have undermined Pakistani confidence in long-term U.S. partnership. Washington, accordingly, should resist the appeal of the cathartic but counterproductive approach of confronting Islamabad with more sticks and fewer carrots. Any attempt to crack down on Pakistan will exacerbate distrust, resulting in increased Pakistani support for jihadists; coercive threats will undermine confidence without producing better results.”

Markey suggests “shifting gears:”

“Washington should shift gears in its approach to Pakistan, but it should not reverse course. Given the abysmal state of U.S.-Pakistani relations on the eve of 9/11, the Bush administration's six-year partnership with Musharraf has paid real dividends. Pakistan's macroeconomic outlook and its relationship with India have both improved, creating new prospects for long-term stability and prosperity.”

Shifting gears is appropriate advice to any side of our arguments these days. The Times, the Left and others growing weary of Musharraf’s Pakistan prefer shifting gears into R, which, suffice it to say is not Race; anyone knows (I hope) that driving along at a decent clip and jamming the gearshift into Reverse isn’t really a good thing. The same applies to any alliance, whether perfect (are there any out there?) or not. We need to appreciate the positives rather than just negatives and not simplify the arguments, which is something we love to do; great for the game of politics but not the game of life.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2366650358533406350

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Committees of Correspondence, Mark My Words, The Random Yak, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, The Pet Haven Blog, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, Faultline USA, third world county, Wake Up America, Walls of the City, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and CatSynth.com, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.