TIME - "Has Maliki Conquered Sadr City?"

From Time magazine:

"Sa'ad Mutlieck was one resident of Sadr City heartened to see armored columns of Iraqi Army forces rolling deep into his neighborhood on Tuesday. "We hope the government is serious about ending all the armed groups so life could be back to normal," said Mutlieck. "The situation is very, very bad."'

Odd; hadn't Maliki and Iraqi forces totally screwed up and lost (or not gained) Sadr City. I recall that was the line when Amb. Crocker and General Petraeus were in D. C.. It was Tet all over again right? Should Time be reporting this? I mean seriously, it didn't happen over night and doesn't that qualify it as a loss and old news that no one really cares about anyway?

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

The Wesley Clark Challenge

Italics of the twist (not necessary for those with even slight intelligence) from a former soldier and former presidential wannabe. In my opinion the general is fitting in just fine.

From one at the Huffer:

"Last week, Rush Limbaugh labeled any American soldier who supports an end to the war in Iraq as "phony." We challenged Limbaugh through an email campaign to invite VoteVets.org's Jon Soltz to his show and repeat these same insults to an Iraq war veteran's face. Over 10,000 people responded and emailed Rush -- but to our disappointment, he has refused to respond to our request."

Oh the disappointment. How does one repeat that which they didn't actually say or connote?

What does it mean when a former general sees things this way...hmmm, how's the war going?

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Dark Stain on America’s Image; Pillow Fights are Dangerous Too

“Besides having an army for hire, brave kids who are paid to fight so that most Americans are not personally touched by war, we have the real mercenaries.” Maureen Dowd

Reading Maureen Dowd this morning I can understand in part, why TimeSelect was a flop; it would be like DNation charging a price to read it. What, in the quote above is she saying? “Kids,” fighting so that we are not “personally” affected by the war? Geographically she creates a tough scenario, but boy oh boy, it’s a great line.

In bringing the reader up to date with the “facts”:

“It seems as though a bullet struck an Iraqi man driving his mother to pick up his father, a pathologist, at the hospital. The dead man’s weight, The Times reports, “probably remained on the accelerator and propelled the car forward” toward a Blackwater convoy.”

This is the beginning of the incident, which is rife with unknowns at the moment, but “it seems” really gives it that “yeah, right” tone. Continuing with the “facts”:

“Blackwater guards then unleashed a spray of gunfire and explosives, even though witnesses did not see anyone shooting at the American convoy and even though Iraqis were turning their cars around and escaping the scene.”

Is being shot at a necessary pre-requisite to firing a weapon when a vehicle driven by a dead man has just charged peoples adrenaline? I wonder how many knew he was a dead man? Thanks to the “witnesses” are offered, but they really went above and beyond the call of duty keeping their heads up and eyes trained on the scene during a “spray of gunfire and explosives;” I wonder if the “explosives” exploded?

Here is an unknowable at the time, but it’s a nice brush stroke to the image the “artist” wishes to portray, “even though Iraqis were turning their cars around and escaping the scene.” Dowd, “knows and assumes” this now, which is pretty handy for her purposes, but not terribly helpful at the time of the incident initiated by a “seeming” bullet, leading to a dead man driving a car; in turn creating a scene reminiscent of a suicide attack.

Bravo Mo!

Quoting Elijah Cummings at a House hearing yesterday:

“Blackwater appears to have fostered a culture of shoot first and sometimes kill, and then ask the questions.”

This quote to my mind is not too unrealistic an observation and it should be addressed, especially if it further tarnishes the image of those employed in the fight, we don’t need revenge killings or to be blamed as we often are for the planets rotation, but I have to say it is also a good to stay alive in the fight.

To Dowd and co. each scratch is an affront to our image; they have bought into the bloodless war as if a bloodless war could exist. Anything that deviates from this is a “Bush bad” claim as though things of this nature would not happen under a different administration.

This was Blackwater and questions need to be answered and consideration made to address this, but we should be happy and proud that our professional and well trained military doesn’t have more mishaps of this nature. This is war and as ugly as it is these things happen; that doesn’t make them any less horrifying or sad, it’s just a fact.

In Blackwater’s defense one can understand how in Iraq instances like this can and do happen; but this only goes so far. If our soldiers and Marines deal day in and day out with rules of engagement that hamper their efforts and puts them further in harms way we have got a serious issue and we do.

Were I a grunt again and knew of Blackwater’s “rules” I think I might be pretty pissed off about it and wonder ‘what about us?’ How many Blackwater employees have been killed?

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Republican National Convention Blog, Right Voices, Wake Up America, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Bits and Pieces on the Middle East

Interesting that Osama bin Laden initially called for the U.S. to leave Saudi Arabia as the main reason for his and al Qaeda’s attacks on the U.S.:

“Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden called on Pakistanis to rebel against President Pervez Musharraf in a new recording released on Thursday, saying his military's siege of a militant mosque stronghold makes him an infidel.”

On what Osama bin Laden wants:

“Bin Laden’s problem then is not really tiny Israel or global warming or mortgage interest rates, but an all-powerful and free West led by the United States. It alone has the military and economic power to stop radical Islamists. Plus, we bring the more powerful message of political freedom. And American popular culture, with its informality and egalitarianism, is sweeping the globe, seducing far more adherents than does rote memorization of the Koran.

So, despite bin Laden’s bragging, America remains the big stumbling block, the stronger horse. The United States alone ensures that bin Laden stays a sick man babbling in a cave — and not a Muslim caliph in flowing robes, with billions of dollars in oil under his feet and weapons merchants lined up at his palace door.”

Regarding the invitation to speak at Columbia University extended to Ahamadinejad:

“Finally, I note that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been invited to speak at Columbia University. Have they at last agreed to include a moderate voice in their Middle East Studies department?”

The Phalange party of Lebanon has called:

“for a two-day strike Thursday, a day after a powerful bomb blast in Beirut killed an anti-Syrian lawmaker and four other people.”

Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini condemned the terrorist attack as well. Perhaps if they had “peaceful” nukes this type of thing wouldn’t happen:

"Such an event comes from Lebanon's known enemies' plots, and upon the past background of such suspicious moves in the sensitive times of Lebanon, it comes from ominous plots of the Zionist regime, which has always been threatening Lebanese sovereignty, independence, security and people's solidarity."

Lastly, the Islamic Republic of Iran, which wants nothing but peace for the downtrodden Iraqi people is missing an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps., Qods Force member in Iraq of all places…imagine?:

“Coalition forces on Thursday arrested a suspected member of an elite Iranian unit that has been accused of training and equipping insurgents in Iraq, the U.S. military said.”

Perhaps this is an indication of poor land navigation training in Iran's military.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Celebrity, Faultline USA, Wake Up America, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Right Truth, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Republican National Convention Blog, Conservative Cat, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Clinton, the Left and Adherence to the Agenda

From MSNBC

“Clinton picked up the endorsement of the 300,000-member National Association of Letter Carriers in Washington today.” (yesterday) This is a good example of people supporting those that keep them busy with work, considering all the donations that must get sent through the mail to her. That and their, semi-partial-kind of in a way-quasi governmental employment status.

With the remark to General David Petraeus at Tuesday afternoon’s hearing by candidate for President, Senator Hillary Clinton, "the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief," one has to wonder why the possibility or activity of suspending disbelief is something new to a Clinton.

In a nation torn by its presence in Iraq is it really the right time to so pit one side against another, especially by someone that has managed, as her husband has to suspend the disbelief of so many? When activists, clueless mind you, put President Bush down as a Fascist (this includes those of us that agree with our presence in Iraq and take the threats to our nation seriously and God forbid consider outside, rather than inside the government) their rhetoric is fully supported by the spewing of this candidate and other Leftist Democrats in her party that fail to appreciate that not all wounds can be healed.

Senator Clinton is stuck in her formative college days and appears to have no desire to depart it; especially since it works so well for the coffers. She has yearned for the office she is running toward for most, if not all of her adult life; might there be a chance she will do whatever it takes to see that dream through? This is more than can be said for the present commander in chief, yet he is some cog or leader in some imagined ultra secret coup to control the country. Bush, at the same time, back in his college days likely didn’t concern himself with so selfless a career.

Today, “disappointed Democrats map a withdrawal strategy” for Iraq as “Obama Offers Most Extensive Plan Yet for Winding Down War,” and has drawn “criticism from the left of his party for being too timid and from Republicans as being irresponsible.” Goodness, what could be more Left of those running for president than the Democrat candidates themselves at a time that does not yet require a scramble to the “center?”

One does not “wind down a war” that like most wars has a life of its own that requires reaction and adjustment as much as it does constantly fluid tactics. The Left looks to wind down to defeat or an “end (same difference),” while the inhabitants on the other side of the aisle look to ways toward success in the long war. Both sides actively pursue success; however success is viewed entirely differently, which should not require further explanation since we’ve been here since almost day one.

Back to the shining example of an almost lustful desire for the highest office in the land; Senator Clinton. Yesterday, The Times reported that “Mrs.” Clinton is facing what is described as her biggest fear or vulnerability; “Some sort of fund-raising scandal that would echo the Clinton-era controversies of the 1990s and make her appear greedy or ethically challenged;” appearing what one is, is not something the candidate cares to appear. “Mrs. Clinton told aides this year to vet major donors carefully and help her avoid situations in which she might appear to be trading access for big money.” Poor staffing selection or a cover for the micromanagement the senator is known for?

Ever since the falling of the other Hsu, the press has treaded the scandal of financing gingerly due to its chosen ones role in it; we get the stories but not the continuous in your face, please don’t forget motivation that follows the guide on of reportage on Republican scandals. Myrna Blyth wonders this morning, why “didn’t Hillary’s fundraising staff ever bother to call to thank the nice Paw family of 41 Shelbourne Avenue, Daly City, California for the almost $45,000 they donated to her presidential campaign? The Paws, big givers, have contributed over $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005. Hillary has been so willing this summer, often with Bill in tow, to make house calls on fundraisers at the Vineyard or in East Hampton. Why didn’t she want to drop in to share a cup of tea and a wonton or two with such generous West Coast supporters? Maybe if she or one of her staffers had paid that courtesy call, they might have been surprised the open-handed Paws, all six of them, lived in a tiny, 1280-square-foot bungalow painted an unfortunate though appropriate shade of green.” Why indeed?

The candidates “china syndrome” is one in a laundry list of questionable activities and ties. Big money in politics is unfortunately a “necessary” evil in this day and age and it’s not nothing; but the bigger questions might be the judgment of those that toe the line of Leftist agendas that have no rosier a past than any other obsessively adhered to unquestioning dogma.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, Big Dog's Weblog, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Stout Republican, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, Conservative Thoughts, and The Yankee Sailor, 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.

Msm Works to Out-Pace the Administration

From the LA Times:

“The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.”

Is how the article at LA Times opens. The “potential rift” is a seed among many meant to plant doubt in who to believe and what is reality. A potential rift for one assumes the generals and administration do not communicate; if a “news” source can get this, let’s comfortably assume the administration knows as well.

Part of the rift portent could be that:

“Any discord among the top U.S. generals could be awkward for Bush, who professes to rely heavily on advice from military leaders.”

The president only “professes” which is based on past “anonymous sources” and some general officers. If the president sided with these few naysayers all would be fine according to the msm I’m sure. The “profess” is their mistrust of the administrations leaning toward the 90% of general officers that probably don’t see the same issue as the handful that have whined have.

The LA Times and others will continue to report with “anonymous officials” as it adds all the more dirt to the build-up in the “war of the analogies”

Curiosity enters the equation when:

“According to a senior administration official, the Joint Chiefs in recent weeks have pressed concerns that the Iraq war has degraded the U.S. military's ability to respond, if needed, to other threats, such as Iran.”

I say curiosity due to the fact Iran will have to nuke us to wake us up and I don’t think they’ll be in that much of a hurry to do that at the moment as they’ve got too much going for them through their meddling in the region. After Iraq we should just have a parade military…we don’t deserve to be defended.

This is all not really news when you stop to think about it. It is just par for the course, when planning and the like continues to take place. The military cannot just one day jump up and decide it is leaving the next day.

“The chiefs are pushing for a significant decrease in troop levels once the current buildup comes to an end -- perhaps to about half of the 20 combat brigades now in Iraq. Along with support units, that would lower the U.S. presence to fewer than 100,000 troops from the current 162,000.”

Perhaps that will be doable, perhaps not as prescience of this kind is only so much preparation toward not believing Petraeus in July on his report due in mid-September.

Part of the mission of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to ensure military is prepared for future necessities; not having enough military to take on an Iran does not make Iraq any less important.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8421644533961969036

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

War of the Analogies: The Problem Isn't Mr. Maliki - The Editors

The Editors at The Times continue on about Iraq and contribute with fuel to the fire during the "War of the Analogies."

According to them:

"Blaming the prime minister of Iraq, rather than the president of the United States, for the spectacular failure of American policy, is cynical politics, pure and simple. It is neither fair nor helpful in figuring out how to end America’s biggest foreign policy fiasco since Vietnam."

Their closing two cents:

"If Mr. Bush, whose decision to inject Vietnam into the debate over Iraq was bizarre, took the time to study the real lessons of Vietnam, he would not be so eager to lead America still deeper into the 21st century quagmire he has created in Iraq. Following his path will not rectify the mistakes of Vietnam, it will simply repeat them.

"Bizarre" they call it..."inject Vietnam" have they no shame? Do they just forget what is necessary to pump their trash out?

I'm pretty sure the board hasn't been too pleased with Maliki in the recent past...have they forgotten?

The msm is really kicking it up a notch as it fights to avoid a loss; why are they so in it for themselves? Very strange indeed...

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Dear MSM, Vietnam analogies Cut Both Ways

Were blogger not too temperamental at times, the quote below would have been included in the previous post as a partial example of analogies cutting both ways:

"President Bush provoked liberal outrage when he cited the Vietnam war in making the case for the war in his speech at the VFW convention. Of course, Vietnam analogies cut both ways. The Iraq war is, as critics point out, like Vietnam in that we are trying to create a legitimate, capable government in the midst of a brutal war of insurgency — and learning (or re-learning) how arduous and complicated a task that is. But Bush was right to remind us of the horrific humanitarian costs of the precipitous withdrawal from Southeast Asia demanded by liberals in the 1970s. He might have mentioned another similarity with Vietnam — how Democrats were in such a fever to pullout that they disregarded any encouraging signs on the ground and abandoned all strategic sense."

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

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.

Bush Finally Sees Iraq as being like Vietnam

Of President Bush’s recent remarks on Iraq, his words in a speech to the VFW on Tuesday have sparked some interesting and revealing reactions. In an analogy to our departure from Vietnam the President said:

“Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."

There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle — those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that "the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today."

His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents."

Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet." Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility — but the terrorists see it differently.”

This has brought the usual suspects out to condemn his remarks, one of which was John Kerry who called the statements “ignorant;” this according to scrappleface has brought a suit by Kerry:

“The lawsuit claims that Sen. Kerry, a professional Vietnam veteran, “holds exclusive rights among modern politicians to the use of Vietnam imagery, metaphor and analogy to present-day circumstances.” Essentially, the suit argues that President Bush infringed on Mr. Kerry’s copyright by even mentioning Vietnam in a political context”

This “lawsuit” is about as realistic as the comments of those that condemn the presidents remarks and as Mackubin Thomas Owens notes:

“Reporters interviewed several historians who were happy to agree with Kerry. Robert Dalleck called the comparison “a distortion”:

What is Bush suggesting? That we didn’t fight hard enough, stay long enough? That’s nonsense. It’s a distortion...We’ve been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. It’s a disaster, and this is a political attempt to lay the blame for the disaster on his opponents. But the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out.

USA Today asked Stanley Karnow: “Vietnam was not a bunch of sectarian groups fighting each other, as in Iraq. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge toppled a U.S.-backed government. Does he think we should have stayed in Vietnam?”

Of their comments Owens says:

“Of course in criticizing Bush’s reference to Vietnam, they are comparing apples and oranges. If they don’t see this, they are fools. If they do — which is more likely — they are dishonest. Take your pick.”

Opponents of the Iraq Theater have had a field day with comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam, which at one point prompted this post on histories lessons. In their rush to condemn his words, they ignore many facets of the debate, which leaves the lessons incomplete.

One thing they appear to mislead themselves on is the view of their position during that era as the good guy role leading the bad guy U.S. out of a region; in a war they didn’t believe we belonged in; with zero recognition that EVERY action, including their own, has consequences. This forces the knee-jerk responses, as they do not wish to review the entire episode in our nation’s history as “cherry picking” is their MO and as the satirical lawsuit portrays how ludicrous their statements are.

This morning I had the pleasure of reading a post with a WWII analogy, which I commented on somewhat haphazardly due to all sorts of things going on around me. “Revisiting Kasserine Pass,” at Political Grind offered so many opportunities for arguing against from the Left, not because the post is wrong, but because the arguments against Roger’s analogy would be cherry picked to suit what might appear to further the debate, but rather turns it to the dishonest as these “historians” in reaction to the president have done.

Owens quotes Robert Dallek as saying of Bush’s “ignorant” remarks, “It’s a distortion...We’ve been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II;” which interestingly enough was what I thought some might throw back at Roger’s analogy between Vietnam and WWII. Where does one go in a debate when a statement like this is made? This from what one would think is an educated/learned historian; I guess he would prefer we leave history to his distortion interpretation.

One thing I do find surprising, is the fact that no one went down the “Bush finally sees Iraq as being like Vietnam,” route, although I sure someone falling off the Leftward edge did, I didn’t read it. Vietnam is the chosen weapon of many of those opposed to our activities in Iraq, unless of course someone from the other side wields it back.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Pirate's Cove, Perri Nelson's Website, Leaning Straight Up, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Conservative Thoughts, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

An Odd Close to an Odd Group’s Panel – Freaking Out Kossacks!

Interesting note from Tapped at The American Prospect:

“AN ODD CLOSE. As the Military and Progressives panel came to an end, a young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties. The moderator largely freaked out. When other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they "stand down." He demanded the questioner give his name, the name of his commander, and the name of his unit. And then he closed the panel, no answer offered or allowed, and stalked off the stage,

Wes Clark took the mic and tried to explain what had just occurred: The argument appears to be that you're not allowed to participate in politics while wearing a uniform, or at least that you shouldn't, and that the questioner was engaging in a sort of moral blackmail, not to mention a violation of the rules, by doing so. Knowing fairly little about the army, I can't speak to any of that. But it was an uncomfortable few moments, and seemed fairly contrary to the spirit of the panel to roar down the member of the military who tried to speak with a contrary voice."

Regardless of the accuracy of what Wesley Clark said you would think the “progressives” with their care, support and concern of our troops that the situation would not be handled as it was. Did the moderator know the “rules” as Clark stated or was it more of a hissy fit as it sounds?

There are some very interesting comments one in which the person says:

“It would be best if active duty personnel refrained from involving themselves entirely in politics. It's too dangerous to allow otherwise, regardless of what Wes Clark thinks. Too many nations have gone down the path of NOT making a big deal out of this sort of thing.”

Sounds like concerns of a military coup; enlist, go to battle and let all the manipulation by the misled throw it all away.

Ultimately a tarnished public image is a concern as well; we all know how they’re all about how something looks rather than how it actually is:

“They'd better hope nobody got video and passed it on to O'Reilly. Whatever the technical justification, that sort of behavior will go over like a lead balloon with the public.”

If you have the stomach for it, pass some seconds away for a guffaw or two.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2191567562097090485

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Medias and Democrats Iraq; a crack in the veneer

Rather than being a case of vindication it is more relief that we are not insane. Some may want to jump up and down with a loud ‘I told you so’ but it is more than that. The relief comes from the crack in the veneer that blocked the light of fact.

There has never been any doubt in the mind of many that Iraq can be a violent place. The daily death and mayhem is not ignored, the separated families are not mere trifles, and the challenges are recognized; but through it and standing for continuing with our actions was and is not a political game of we can’t lose this.

It is the ramifications of not succeeding, of not quitting too soon or let’s try this hopefully improved tactic. It is not that we want this to go on endlessly throwing our military at the enemy as if they are so many chips in the pot. Iraq obviously cannot go on for years and years more as though it’s not big deal.

We have learned through the historical lessons of our military that its success is in its ability to adapt and improve based upon what it is faced with; because of our nations past, even in the face of failures, that we can complete and do what we set out to do.

Not blind optimism, rose tinted glasses or blind faith, but an understanding that if what we are up against involves a long struggle then we cannot expect an over night success or even success in half a decade.

The veneer the light seeps through is an OpEd in of all places The NY Times; a media when faced with the reality that certain successes cannot be ignored; a new tactic being followed through on by a president continuously harangued with criticism of his policies, his hard-headedness and refusal to change course. The veneer cracked shows more that those appearing to have nothing but “criticism of the Bush administration's policies designed more to hurt Bush than to win the war.”

As Debra Saunders wrote of an article in the Times that Janet Elder wrote based upon the papers poll “found that the number of Americans who think it was right for the United States to go to war in Iraq rose from 35 percent in May to percent 42 percent in mid-Jul” which lead to another poll:

“the increased support for the decision to go to war was "counterintuitive" and because it "could not be easily explained, the paper went back and did another poll on the very same subject."’

Regarding the articles title “Same Question, Different Answer. Hmmm,” Saunders suggests, “America's Paper of Record Out of Touch With American Public."

Now that makes me smile, but only just; it is this very fact that should cause so much concern. The media is the trough that we feed from. It is not our ally or friend, it is a business and a business that influences the views of so many. It would not be so out of touch if it actually did its job, rather than play its own version of power politics.

It has taken pushing, shoving, posting and screaming to allow this one glimmer of reality through and it shouldn’t have. Rather than catch on and look into the various aspects of what is going on in an effort to report more accurately and with less bias (which they don’t recognize), they will likely regroup and push back harder.

They will push back harder because they don’t want to lose. Much like the Democrats in office, it is not so much about “the war” it is about power. There is a bit of a tizzy going on these days, which is best brought forth by Spree at Wake up America, “Democrats in the house starting to panic;” where she finds the time or energy I have no clue, but the wheel once invented doesn’t really need to be re-invented so pop over while I go back to sleep.

Oh, yeah…wouldn’t it be nice if they weren’t in a panic about their own a*ses?

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6320305727366976785

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Nanotechnology Today, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Thoughts, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

"General" Andrew Sullivan Dishonors General Petraeus

“Well, to be candid, that’s a hypothetical that I’m just not prepared to address. We are determined to do all that we can, while we’re given the opportunity to try to bring this to as successful as reasonable a conclusion as is possible, and that is really what is just what I’m devoting all my intellectual energy and physical energy to at this point in time, not thinking about what the implications of not getting it right are.”

-- spin from one on the side of Cheney and “extremist, Republican partisans,” General Petraeus in response to Hugh Hewitt’s question of what we might expect as the consequences of defeat in Iraq.

It is unfortunate; though not surprising that Andrew Sullivan would have qualms about General Petraeus’ interview with Hugh Hewitt yesterday and chose to pre-emptively judge the move on the part of the general as “working from the agenda of extremist, Republican partisans.”

This, he believes “renders Petraeus’ military independence moot,” but before passing judgment he’ll “wait for the transcript,” wee bit late on the withholding of judgment already. Believing Petraeus a willing cog or just allowing himself to be used by the “Republican propaganda machine” are charges of a partisan crime that leave Sullivan believing the he now knows “whose side” the general “seems” to be on.

I don’t blame the rising of anyone’s hackles when something they believe in the success of (losing Iraq in this instance), may be thwarted by someone in the top tier, someone whose judgment we should all be able to trust. I do however, question their judgment when they lay it all on the line and plant the seed, so to speak, for forwarding the argument of doubt for September based in part on an interview unheard or transcript unread (unavailable at the time of Hewitts post regarding the interview, therefore unavailable to Sullivan as well).

Sullivan inserts the next piece in the puzzle that is the Democrat propaganda plan of attack for the general’s report in September on the progress in Iraq.

Accusing someone of Hugh Hewitt’s caliber of being a tool of “extremist, Republican partisanship” is a sad statement just because you disagree with his views on various issues. A more “moderate” voice in the media to Sullivan is what or who; CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN or any of the rest? Interviewers from these fonts may well be more to Sullivan’s liking, they would however ask more leaning question, the answers of which they would use to spin the continuing tale of utter desperation, abject failure and to quote the Time’s editorial board, the “colossal waste of the nation’s blood and treasure.”

No, we hear from these purveyors of “selective prescience” much too much these days and take what they feed us as reality; when the reality is it offers a very incomplete and unbalanced diet in its best of reporting. An interview by Hugh Hewitt, whose questions you can listen to or read, combined with the answers to these questions as provided by someone in a real leadership position should be viewed as the least of the partisan means of getting the information.

To believe the General Petraeus as partisan when his life’s work has been dedicated to the defense of his nation and now the protection of the soldiers under him as well is to take the chance of dishonoring someone that likely has more honor in one finger than many can hope to have in their entire being. Not withstanding this syrupy judgment of a man I do not know; regardless of the interviewer, someone in Petraeus’ position should be provided with a modicum of the benefit of the doubt; it is after all the general whose judgment we will need to rely upon come September.

Based upon how things are going now, I expect to hear that things are looking up (up from where of course is another question) and that likely more of what has been taking place with the “surge” offensive will be necessary. I will look upon this as hopeful and positive while others will see it as proof our entanglement in Iraq does not have a set date, time and second for completion; they will want and require that. If the threats we face are to be driven back we cannot let them have what it is they want as it’s an excuse to accomplish nothing.

Having read the transcript I think it high time that Sullivan and Harry Reid start believing the general and considering what he sees. I don’t think it has a whole lot to do with anything November 2008 related.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/4584200933318770855

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, CORSARI D'ITALIA, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.