Ayers Alright Obama?

Big stink, that doesn't stick; not Teflon but just as effective (affective works in a sense too).

Defenders in the media describe it as finish line scrambling of a campaign reaching for any means out of the relentless quicksand. Cries of "as the Byrd flew, so did McCain" glaringly miss the point though.

Following the recent "townhall" "debate" this typist oddly walked away from it with a sense of optimism; not based upon a performance, but of the words actually spoken by the "anointed one."

Barack Obama possesses a skill in communication no small part developed and honed in admiration of Reverend Wright (spiritual mentor and vocal coach). Not unlike the acoustic pianos touch sensitivity of 1 to infinity, the Senator hits the notes as they should be regardless of whether the human ear picks up on it or not. Like any musician, being off-key happens, but with the audience goodwill and appreciation of skill; the er, um, ahs of improvisation are accepted.

How you write the music down is another story entirely. Political rhetoric, too often what politics is about (all sides mind you) is not reality. It's quick, immediate, and doesn't offer answers or results (how), but dang what a ditty!

The Democrat Left has made a heyday of pointing out the easy and obvious over recent years in example; numbers of dead, the mayhem and destruction inherent in war allows for the effortless application of negative "conclusions" on the war. Like the reflexive emotion hate or anger, it is far simpler to attain than love or respect.

Following the debate, a realization that Obama plays with the sensitivity more appropriate to the many musical keyboards 1 to 7 levels versus 1 to infinity of a real piano. The 1 to 7 may still be indiscernible to the untrained ear, but we're not really talking about music now are we?

The media would appear to prefer the election held today, as with the daily poll reminders of "if held today," but the election has not yet taken place and VDH has an argument containing glimpses of optimism grounded in a "common" sense the media does not posses. The Ayers et al relationship that is taken as "mudslinging" by so many is simply put within the essay. One does not have to agree with it, however it is disingenuous to simply lay at the feet of "changing the subject." It's a subject and a concern to many and not at all frivolous.

From "Not Over Yet" at NRO by Victor Davis Hanson (read the whole thing):

"The Ayers controversy is cited by the in-the-tank media as signs of McCain’s desperation. Perhaps. But amid the tsk-tsking, there are also certain deer-in-the-headlights moments among Obama’s handlers.

Why? There are simply too many ACORNs, Ayers, Khalidis, Pflegers, Wrights, et al. not to suggest a pattern unbecoming of a future President of the United States. Obama’s past statements about his relationship with Ayers (and others) simply cannot be reconciled with the factual circumstances of their long association. McCain must focus on Ayers between 2001–2005. Then in the climate of national worry following 9/11, Ayers was on recent record as lamenting that he had not set off enough bombs, and yet until 2005 still in contact with Obama — about what and why, voters might wish to know."

Follow in its entirety here too...

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Obama's Chicago Annenberg CHALLENGE

Stanley Kurtz has been taking on the "challenge" of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the msm's reluctance to actually dig into Senator Obama's "experience" or lack thereof.

While the "mainstream" pulls out the shovels big enough to dig to China (and while there taking a page from its state run media) investigating Alaska Governor Sarah Palins history, Kurtz has taken on the "challenges" the media has not felt obliged, over the past 20 months to take regarding the "good" senator from Illinois. (holy run-on Batman)

Initially gaining access to records at the Richard J. Daley Library proved quite easy; excepting that being "granted access" and "actual access" are two different things. The farce of the open records was written and published 8/18/2008 by the author here at NRO.

This mornings WSJ offers the fruits of Kurtz's labor in "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools." Mr. Kurtz offered the "gist" of his Annenberg findings to the Obama campaign; his comments and the campaigns response can be found at NRO, entitled "Obama's Challenge."

If readers find either of these writings intriguing it would behoove them to visit Stanley Kurtz's archive of articles written for NRO; he has taken on some of the questions of who exactly Mr. Obama is or might be, while those of the msm have been busy scratching the tingles up their legs.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Bland Impromptus - Elections, Primaries....

In honor of one of my favorite (can there only be one? not the case anymore) reads, Impromptu's by Jay Nordlinger at NRO - I'll make a stab...

Katherine Jean Lopez at the corner at NRO wrote of Bill Clinton’s game face regarding Hillary Clinton’s success rate to date….interesting, but one thing stuck out creating a “really?” moment:

Quoting Stewart Applebaum, head of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union:

‘“Hope itself is not a program. There is no Department of Hope…. You don’t hope for a paycheck. You work for a paycheck.”’

“You work for a paycheck?” .Really…..?.?.?

------------------------------------------------------------
“Barry” Obama had some final words for the student volunteers working on his campaign in NH at a Tuesday morning rally in Hanover (bold mine):

‘"My job is to be so persuasive that if there's anybody left out there who is still not sure whether they will vote, or is still not clear who they will vote for, that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama."’

Me thinks someone’s head is getting a wee bit heavy for that pencil neck… Who needs to make mention of God when apparently you are he?

Oops…that was yesterday morning

--------------------------------------------------

Every cloud has a silver lining

I am happy as a pig in…but I’m unhappy too. Such is life as a member of the contradictory human race (come on, don’t tell me that’s not so…I am not that unique

What’s my silver lining? Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, Biden, Gravel, and Dodd all lost yesterday and this is a happy event; the silver lining is dimmed as the reality is someone has to win and Clinton did just that and it hurts.

--------------------------------------
Speaking of happiness, if you want it, sometimes you have to go find it for yourself (no guarantees mind you). What else might make you and I happy…the pundits and the media were wrong about NH. Will they shut up now? No, but that’s the way it works, you have to take the good with the bad. As I like to say every action and even inaction has a reaction; there’s no way around it regardless of how much “hope” or “change” might make us feel all warm and fuzzy.

---------------------------------------------
On the subject of “change,” it’s kind of a broad brush with no color to the paint; it’s your job to select which color makes you feel best and that everything is taken care of. Is mentioning “color” not PC or “inclusive” enough or does the lack thereof imply there is no “diversity?” Diversity is different to the sides of the political aisle; to the Left it’s a visual thing, the Right is more intellectual (I’m guessing someone may disagree).

Sorry, got off the subject of “change” there, though going off subject is a decent example of “change.” Change is good; especially if you have some spare in your pocket as you pass a gumball machine.

Change… Democrats have been railing on about “change” for roughly seven years now. For example, they want to “change” our foreign policy because “change” is good and it needs to be “changed.” We got change with the present administration especially following 9/11; some don’t like this kind of “change,” so they want to “change” it back to what led us to that day as though it’s something new.

“Change” is not really a detailed or structured policy; I’m thinking maybe they could be a little more honest and call it what it is, “time travel,” oh for the peace of the 90’s.

-----------------------------------
What is this latest garbage about how stressful and grueling the campaign trail is for these “poor” candidates? Don’t like it? Get out! You need us, we don’t need you. As with the media, it is the story and the yellow journalists are the heroes in say, Iraq. Do we really need to look up to these people as though they’re doing it just for us? In all honesty the job does have its perks; I wouldn’t want the job, but I’m not the same kind of “animal” as they. Boo Hoo, Hoo

Well that’s it for my little experiment at dealing with my short attention span. Who are you voting for in 2012…campaign’s about to start, but I’ll hold off a few days before announcing my Iowa predictions.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Berger Raw and the Quest for Power: Crime Pays

Very recently it was reported that Sandy Berger is on board the Clinton presidential campaign as an adviser; it cannot be for legal advice as he has lost his license to practice law, much like his previous boss though not for the same reason.

DeMediacratic Nation has not bothered to post on this turn of events due to it's ridiculousness and that, well to be honest it would be stated more properly elsewhere and this morning that belief has borne the expected fruit.

The editors at NRO have a few words regarding the Berger:

"Berger used his privileged access to steal top-secret national-defense documents. On at least two occasions he stuffed them into his clothing and briefcase, smuggling them out of the archives. He secreted some of these stolen papers under the wheel of a truck at a nearby construction site so that he could return for them later. Other documents he intentionally destroyed. These actions were serious felonies."

Hsu, Berger, the Clinton Presidency itself and others tarnish the Clinton campaign with enough questionableness that any sane person has to wonder why this senator holds a commanding lead on the Left side of the aisle; what do some have against reality?

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Unless Congress surrenders first…

The news from the MSM has been mainly silent over the past few weeks; why? One thing, as pointed out by Pete Hegseth of “The Tank” at NRO:

“As for what has not happened, there is a number that may or may not make headlines tomorrow: 62. This is the number of American combat deaths in September, and happens to be the lowest since August of last year. And while this number is still too high, it is nonetheless relevant. Despite a counter-insurgency strategy that makes U.S. troops more “vulnerable,” American deaths have dropped. American troops have moved off of large, secure bases and into small, security stations throughout the country – yet American deaths, after a spike from April to June, have begun to drop.”

Hegseth will take the silence and perhaps most in favor of our actions in Iraq; I may even be happy to hear nothing. Nothing, though is silence and is easily forgotten when something other than silence comes out of the mouth of the MSM regarding Iraq and as has been seen can have a devastating affect on our actions. Silence can just be a pause; a pause that is completely forgotten about when something loud, juicy and deadly comes from the megaphone.

"The Sounds of Silence"

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, guerrilla radio, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, DragonLady's World, Walls of the City, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Republican National Convention Blog, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Newt, Don’t Run; We Need Solutions!

National Review’s Editors don’t want Newt Gingrich to run for president with mentions of his lack of popularity and the consideration of a “toe to toe” race with Clinton. There are also:

“Legitimate reservations about his electability, his lack of executive experience, and his troubled tenure as Speaker would limit his appeal.”

I tend to agree if for no other reason than the further polarization in the nation that would visit us were he to run. Wholehearted agreement with the editors assessment that:

“The Republican party owes Newt Gingrich a big debt. It will benefit should GOP politicians borrow some of the initiatives that result from his latest project. But not if he runs for president.”

Newt Gingrich can do much more for the Conservative movement and this nation in the role he has filled for the past few years now, one project of which is this Saturday’s “Solutions Day,”

“This Saturday, over a dozen workshops will be held nationwide to tackle a range of issues, from tax reform and reducing bureaucracy to conservation and space policy. This effort perfectly fits Newt’s reputation for bold thinking and innovative policy ideas."

American Solutions for Winning the Future:

“We recently launched American Solutions for Winning the Future, a unique non-partisan organization designed to rise above traditional gridlocked partisanship, to provide real, significant solutions to the most important issues facing our country.

The breakthrough impact of this organization is driven by its powerful approach:

Broad scale engagement of elected officials and candidates of both parties at all levels of government, interested citizens, private sectors leaders, reporters, scholars and students.

Development of big, real, breakthrough solutions to the most important issues facing this country - education, energy, more effective homeland and national security, a new model of retirement savings, a renewed sense of American civilization and citizenship, creating efficient, information age government and more.

A process to educate, ignite collaboration and implement these solutions across all levels of government with widespread support from citizens.

If you think the current mess will be fixed by doing more of the same, this approach will not interest you.

If you agree with three principles:

1. Einstein: "Insanity is when you think that doing more of what you are already doing will lead to a different outcome."

2. Eisenhower: "When I can't solve a problem I always make it bigger until I can find a solution. I can never find a solution by trying to make it smaller."

3. "Real change requires real change."

That last is not the “change” we would get with turning back the Bush tax cuts either; that could be number four one supposes.

Visit SOLUTIONS DAY here and sign up for this weekend.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, Big Dog's Weblog, The Pet Haven Blog, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, Gone Hollywood, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

HillaryCare II: HillaryCare I Was Not Sneaky Enough

An NRO Symposium on HillaryCare the Second, "Dr Hillary Will See You Now"

“Hillary Clinton says she has learned the lessons HillaryCare I. Judging by HillaryCare II, she still prefers the perverse incentives of collectivism over the virtuous incentives of the market. All she learned was that she wasn’t sneaky enough the first time around.”

Michael F. Cannon

“Senator Clinton would require Americans to have health insurance, and she would provide expensive new government subsidies to help households pay the premiums.”

James Capretta

“In one fell swoop she has cut the Gordian knot of health-care reform. The problem, especially for a Democratic presidential candidate, is: No matter what you propose, a significant number of the party faithful are not going to like it. The obvious solution: Propose everything!”

John C. Goodman

“The cornerstone idea: Make employers buy insurance for their employees. From a distance, it doesn’t sound unfair — but it probably would do little, except lead to more outsourcing, part-time jobs, and contracting out.”

Dr. David Gratzer

“The financing relies on targeted Medicare reduction, employer mandates and, of course, “revenue enhancements” that will come with the promised end of the hated Bush tax cuts. It is unclear just how many times Washington can expect to repeal the Bush tax cuts.”

Robert E. Moffit

“The challenge with Hillary’s new proposal, which is the challenge with each of the Democrats proposals, is how deftly they take from ideas that in some form have been blessed by leading Republicans and right of center thinkers while twisting them in pursuit of taxpayer-funded universal health care.”

Sally C. Pipes

“HillaryCare2 shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone (except Bruce Bartlett who has deluded himself into thinking that Hillary Clinton is the second coming of Ronald Reagan), and it’s as bad as it sounds”

Pat Toomey

“She would achieve universal health coverage by requiring everyone in America to have health insurance, and she would require businesses to pay a significant share of the costs. This “individual mandate” inevitably means that government would decide what kind of health insurance we must have, what must be covered, and what penalties we will face if we don’t comply.”

Grace-Marie Turner

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, third world county, Adam's Blog, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, Republican National Convention Blog, Conservative Thoughts, The Yankee Sailor, and Rosemary\'s Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

All You Need is Love?

The 9/11 commemoration speech from Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick according to Mark Steyn included this beauty, that the attack:

“was a mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States,” and “was also a failure of human beings to understand each other, to learn to love each other.”

Rather than learning to love each other or say an Atta it would be wiser to understand an Atta. If no further than understanding an Atta, it would be best to take an Atta at his words and anyone else that has a deranged view of the world.

Steyn sees this as do many others, as a result of our “multi-cultural” beliefs and attitudes that assumes we are all the same; just from different places. We’re not all the same, nor should we try to make those out to do us harm equal to us. If crowds of people chant “death to America,” we should consider that an indication that they don’t much care for us. When someone that fits a “profile” and is traveling from say, Saudi Arabia, we should stop and consider that perhaps this fella has some plans that we might not really like the result of and treat him as such before he boards the aircraft.

If “multi-culturalism” is the way to go, yet children in say, Palestine are reared to despise Israel and all Jews, watch “Hamas Mickey” like after school specials on TV and rehearse for school plays with the kiddies as masked men, soldiers and the like, we might want to think about the fact that these children, as unfair and evil as their upbringing is, are not too malleable to our way of seeing things.

We should certainly strive to understand other cultures and not dislike someone just because of their culture of origin, but we should view those cultures with skepticism that rely on the fanaticism of hating ours, with dreams of annihilation.

Mark Steyn’s “One Mean and Nasty War: Massachusetts tough talk” at NRO.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Mark My Words, third world county, Big Dog's Weblog, DragonLady's World, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Cultural Cluelessness

Everyone has likely had an opportunity to hear the latest from Senator Chuck “the shill” Schumer on the Senate floor the other day about our “success” in Anbar province in Iraq:

“We've heard of success stories every six or eight months. This province, this town, this city. “They're cleared, they're safe.” And then because of the basic facts on the ground, we revert to the old situation. And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.”

“It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.”

This is unfortunately, but not surprisingly an instance of outright dishonesty from one of the senators from New York. It also is an instance where misunderstanding leads us from the overall big picture that is Iraq in the war on terror.

Stanley Kurtz writing in NRO takes Andrew Tilghman, author of “The Myth of AQI” to task for his misunderstanding of the ways of the world in the Middle East. Kurtz begins by pointing out the grain of truth of the naiveté of Conservatives and adds that Liberals suffer from the same problem.

Is Kurtz the end all expert and will you following the reading of his article be one as well? No, but it should help enlighten those of us who are often guilty of oversimplifying issues at times as well. There is nothing simple about Iraq and the greater war on terror except perhaps accepting it, but even that isn’t simple for many; as Kurtz says:

“My own view is that, whether we stay in Iraq or leave, the United States and Europe are destined to return to the Middle East in force, and remain there indefinitely. Our shrinking world, and the pressure of events, will force our hand. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have accepted this unfortunate likelihood, but I do think this is what we are headed for, whatever we do about Iraq. Tilghman’s naive claim that the salience of local tribal and sectarian identities in Iraq somehow means that al Qaeda isn’t present as well shows how much we’ve got to learn. Unfortunately, over time — and whether we want to or not — Americans are destined to become experts how to play the tribal game.”

“Cultural Cluelessness”

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, third world county, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, 4 Time Father?, Pirate's Cove, Right Voices, Church and State, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

“I deserve what you Americans have, but won’t ever become like you to get it.”

Victor Davis Hanson at NRO this morning has some eye-opening and thought provoking words regarding the latest “Pew poll of June 2007.”

The popularity poll consists of what the world thinks of the U.S.:

“No doubt when the Bush administration leaves office, and should a Democratic one replace it, our approval ratings will rise with our present detractors. But they may also decline among our friends who will learn that U.S. open markets, free trade, and reliable military support in times of crisis are now objects of left-wing criticism. Note in this regard that world opinion toward both China and Russia is turning unfavorable. That distrust will only increase as both begin to flex their muscles — the former gobbling up oil contracts from the most murderous regimes, the latter selling the same rogues anything they need to foment unrest.”

After reading the essay, give some serious thought to the final paragraph, not just for the sake of tit for tat, but perhaps just to let them all know that we don’t think so highly of them very often either. Isolationism isn’t the answer, but they wouldn’t care much for the ways of the world without us.

“In that regard, such polls continue to be mostly one-sided. What we need now are new comprehensive surveys of what Americans themselves think of the United Nations, the Islamic world, and Western Europe — so that they can try to square the results with our present foreign policy of aid, friendship, or military assistance to those who apparently don’t want or appreciate what they receive.”

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Woman Honor Thyself, Adam's Blog, The World According to Carl, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Victory has a Hundred Fathers, but Defeat is an Orphan

Yesterday saw the publication of an OpEd in The NY Times regarding the Iraq Theater in the war on terror written by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack entitled, “A War We Just Might Win.” Say, have you heard about it?

Today, possibly as a counterbalance (as opposed to the editorial page’s usual ever so slight, falling over LEFTIST tendency), to yesterday’s opinion is one submitted by Nicholas Thompson, a senior editor at Wired magazine, “A War Best Served Cold.” Thompson is currently authoring a biography about George F. Kennan, a career foreign service officer who is credited with formulating the policy of “containment,” against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

According to Thompson, Kennan “gave American strategy a name, but not much else.” Also the article, “X” published in Foreign Affairs “sixty years ago this month” was basically “grounded in a misunderstanding. Kennan didn’t make clear whether he intended containment to be primarily a political or military strategy. Despite the article’s ambiguity, everyone assumed the latter.”

Admittedly, Thompson says of the Kennan view of “containment” that:

“we can’t know for sure how his recommended, wholly political version of containment would have fared in the cold war. But we do know that a militant foreign policy didn’t lead to nuclear war and did, eventually, help bring about the collapse of Soviet communism. We also know that a strong offensive policy has yet to succeed against Al Qaeda.”

Which is an honest enough assessment of not knowing how things would have turned out had we done X rather than Y, but in writing of the almost half century long Cold War it appears a bit incongruous to point out that “we also know that a strong offensive policy has yet to succeed against Al Qaeda.”

Thompson takes Kennans explanation of containment, which lacked the clarity of whether it was “primarily a political or military strategy,” and turns it into his own version lacking clarity by making it an outright “political” one, forsaking a “military” side to the equation:

“A 21st-century rendering of X’s vision of containment would involve the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, an unambiguous renunciation of torture and an abandonment of the notion that our legal and moral norms don’t apply to the current struggle. Kennan believed we gave our opponents a propaganda victory each time we acted in a manner unfitting of our ideals.”

Thompson’s assessment sounds more akin to the arguments we have been hearing over the past few years, but with a “twist of Kennan” to somehow give it more credibility. Ultimately though it falls flat and could just be that based upon the opinion of an author in the throes of writing a book about and honorable and intelligent subject.

It would seem more likely that today’s generational war will be best accomplished with various pieces of past lessons paired with adjustments to the ever-changing landscape of war in general.

Yesterday also saw an NRO Symposium entitled “Turning Point?” If you haven’t read it, it is a must read:

“The New York Times ran a piece Monday by two non-“neoconservatives” — Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack — arguing that the war in Iraq can be won. Is this indicative of some kind of mood change afoot? Could we really win this war? Could the rhetoric in Washington really change? National Review Online asked a group of experts.

Read the responses from; Frank Gaffney Jr., Victor Davis Hanson, Clifford May, John McCain, Mackubin Thomas Owens, James Robbins, Peter Rodman, Joseph Morrison Skelly and Michael Yon.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6232131706495933981

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Republican National Convention Blog, Conservative Cat, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Believing the Worst Requires Too Little Imagination

If it bleeds it leads is one reason we are all too well aware of as to why the news has more good then bad; even when more good than bad may have happened. Watch any local newscast and the coverage is wall to wall crime, accidents and anything that might bring in the viewers hoping for some action and car chases.

In Iraq, from Abu Ghraib, Fallujah to Haditha, the truth isn’t nearly as important as the story; much like the Duke Lacrosse players in their travails and tribulation facing prison time for a rape they did not commit nor even happened.

All this is unfortunate for us in that it leads to an acceptance of what isn’t as those it is, which brings us to all the horror stories of our soldiers in Vietnam as baby killers and presently our heartless “killers” in Iraq. Perhaps if the media wasn’t so starved or easily self-mislead toward the worst in us in a war they disagree with we might have a true picture of what exactly is going on.

Mackubin Thomas Owens, contributing editor at NRO had a great column yesterday that I had hoped to bring attention to, however failed on that task. From John Kerry and the “Winter Soldier Investigation” from Vietnam, to Stephen Glass of National Review fame, Owens reveals a reason that we should all take what we hear of atrocity with a grain of salt before we go on the rampage beating ourselves, our military and our nation down as though it is not worthy of spitting on.

Owens does not deny the reality that horrible things happen and anyone that does is obviously a fool probably cannot speak beyond the monosyllabic. That said however, it is a fool that in knee jerk order accepts that which paints what our military does as everything but honorable as though each member in its ranks cheered on the anomaly, not “new management” at Abu Gharaib.

A personal anecdote shared by Owens during his time in Vietnam goes:

“I heard of an atrocity just after I joined the unit. A Marine who was scheduled to rotate soon recounted an incident that he claimed had occurred shortly after he had arrived in the unit about a year earlier. According to his story, members of a sister company had killed some North Vietnamese soldiers after they had surrendered.

Some months later, I happened to overhear another Marine who had joined my platoon after I took it over relate exactly the same story to some newly arrived men, only now it involved me and my platoon. I had a little chat with him and he cleared things up with the new men. But that episode has always made me wonder how many of the stories have been recycled and how many accounts of atrocities are based on what veterans heard as opposed to committed or witnessed.”

Instances of atrocity are undeniable in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere; they happen in Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon and we’re not there. As a matter of fact horrible acts are committed daily all over the world. This is not to justify the action of those that commit them, but to allow ourselves the calm that should come knowing that it is not in our military’s first instinct to commit them.

We should doubt that which we read or see in the news until we know more. All the claims of support of our troops is nothing if you expect the worse of them.

From Wednesday’s NRO, Mackubin Thomas Owens, “Stephen Glass Meets the Winter Soldiers.”

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1278506351624998969

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, The Pet Haven, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Azamatteroprinciple - A new blog dedicated to fighting pork barrel spending, Right Voices, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Iraq and Afghanistan from the Air - Interview with Lt. Gen Gary L. North

W. Thomas Smith Jr., (former U.S. Marine infantry leader, W. Thomas Smith Jr. writes about military issues and has covered war in the Balkans, on the West Bank, and in Iraq. Smith is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications. He blogs at “The Tank.”), has an interview up at NRO with Lt. General Gary L. North, commanding general of CENTCOM’s CENTAF and Combined Force Air Component Commander (CFACC).

The interview, along with the recent Hugh Hewitt interview with General David Petraeus is a must read. If there were no other reason to read it, it would be that it reveals the level of planning and reality of the logistics of our fight in Iraq and elsewhere in the global war on terror. Oddly, it’s not a fight that is of the brain-dead simplicity the media reports upon. As with anything, it is never that simple. We should all appreciate how huge an undertaking this war is and give it more credit than our politicians and detractors imply.

One quote of the greatest significance to my mind follows after a short discussion of whether the “surge” in Iraq is working, regards “the broader war on terror:”

“The enemy is determined and deliberate and this is big stakes for him. He is patient and deliberate. Where he finds weakness, he probes. Where he finds strength, he draws back. We cannot be short-sighted about this. Our grandchildren are going to be fighting this war. It’ll be different. But we are going to fight this one way or another, around the world or here at home.”

Before we step up and call, Iraq or the “surge” a failure and temptingly call for a draw down now consider the previous words. If one holds that this war is not as big or time consuming as the general avers, at the least consider it and ask yourself how leaving Iraq in an utter mess would work toward successfully seeing the war on terror through.

If Iraq is just a “distraction” now, what will it be later if we leave?

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6470547435850527637

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, Big Dog's Weblog, DragonLady's World, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, Right Celebrity, Stageleft, Walls of the City, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke's news and views, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

"We're Not Staying; You Don't Have Much Time!"

One of the of-size issues of “discussion” these days is what a “redeploy” order would be like for the U.S. and Iraq. The two “schools” of thought are, in a nutshell; one would free us up to fight the real enemy, with a sprinkling of disdain for the plight of the Iraqis once we leave as it’s their country. The second sees Iraq as a new haven or sanctuary for al Qaeda and other nasties, as well as a rippling effect upon the region deleterious, although pretty obvious in many others to our efforts in the greater war on terror.

Is it just a bunch of “fear mongering” to suggest mayhem and unimagined violent ramifications to a U.S. “redeployment?” If so, how would one describe the other side of the argument, “peace mongering?” Certainly not, as there would be no “peace” for miles and miles; just because the U.S. had left; just a certain “peace” of mind for some because it isn’t our problem.

Yesterday, top military and Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker met via video hook-up with “lawmakers” at the Pentagon and Capitol Hill; which according to The NY Times met with “stern rebukes from lawmakers of both parties.”

Crocker told lawmakers “that it was increasingly likely that Iraq’s government would not achieve all of the political benchmarks by September.” A very telling remark from Crocker would be, “the longer I am here, the more I am persuaded that progress in Iraq cannot be analyzed solely in terms of these discrete, precisely defined benchmarks because, in many cases, these benchmarks do not serve as reliable measures of everything that is important — Iraqi attitudes toward each other and their willingness to work toward political reconciliation.”

If we have invested as much as we have in Iraq is it really wise to say ‘let’s pack up,’ now when, regardless of precision benchmark goals are not quite met according to a spreadsheet formula?

If Crocker’s previous comment is “telling” so are the “stern rebukes,” from lawmakers.

Senator Voinovich (R-OH) said: “There’s got to be some real evidence that action’s taking place there, and everything you can do to convey to Mr. Maliki and his executive committee, to the other players in the region, that the American people’s patience is running out.”

Senator Biden (D-DE) said: “We’re not staying. You don’t have much time.” (No reporting as to how long he took to spit this out as the good senator does like to drag things out.)

Senator Warner (R-VA) said: “The facts are pretty much in the public domain; our concerns are about their inability to come together and reconcile things.”

If “the facts are pretty much in the public domain,” I do not agree that the concern should be so much the “inability” of them to “come together and reconcile things;” rather it should be up to the Senate and OUR employees (lawmakers) to understand what those public domain facts are coupled with the realities or likelihoods and what those likelihoods mean to this country and the Middle East region.

Worthy Quotes from Required Reading for the Senate (all from today’s NRO):

For starters, an essay directly appropriate to what was offered at the video-conference yesterday from Charles Krauthammer at NRO regarding an “incapacity” of the Iraqi government to get it together, so to speak:

“The Democrats cite this incapacity as a reason to give up and get out. A tempting thought, but ultimately self-destructive to our interests. Accordingly, Petraeus and Crocker have found a Plan B: pacify the country region by region, principally by getting Sunnis to join the fight against al Qaeda.”

Victor Davis Hanson today at NRO:

“In fact, “redeployment” is a euphemism for flight from the battlefield. And we should no more expect an al Qaeda that won in Iraq to stop from pressing on to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia than we should imagine that a defeated U.S. military could rally and hold the line in the Gulf. Would the IEDs, the suicide bombers, the Internet videos of beheadings, the explosions in schools and mosques cease because they now would have to relocate across the border into Kuwait or Saudi Arabia?”

Mona Charen and the good enough for now terminology, “Democratomyopia:”

“The Democrats have convinced themselves, once again, that the enemy is us — or at least our fault. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded the country, they argue. If it exists now, it’s entirely our own doing. It is our presence that causes the violence in Iraq. In fact, our presence in Iraq is the greatest recruiting tool the terrorists have!”

Lastly but not least(ly), is Jonah Golberg’s “Order Is in Order:”

“In Iraq, security isn’t merely the most important thing, it’s the only thing. Without security, nothing else is possible. “The good society is marked by a high degree of order, justice and freedom,” Russell Kirk wrote in The Roots of American Order. “Among these, order has primacy: For justice cannot be enforced until a tolerable civil social order is attained, nor can freedom be anything better than violence until order gives us laws.”’

Regardless of political affiliations and partisan irreverence, the thoughts and writings of these and other commentators deserve serious consideration to those that have made up their minds about what is best in Iraq. As usual, in my case they are “preaching to the choir,” and this “church” for me does not live in the negative, rather it more closely relates to a reality I can appreciate especially when the other does not offer any vision.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5069149439249527037

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Maggie's Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Right Celebrity, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Hearing through the Bullhorn Grapevine that Iraq is Lost

Michael Ledeen this morning at NRO said:

“The fight in Iraq is part of a broader struggle that’s unfolding across the region...The same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill American soldiers.

The same Hezbollah terrorists who are waging war against the forces of democracy in Lebanon are training extremists to do the same against coalition forces in Iraq.

The same Syrian regime that provides support and sanctuary for Islamic jihad and Hamas has refused to close its airport in Damascus to suicide bombers headed to Iraq.

...the war against extremists and radicals is not only evident in Iraq, but it’s evident in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Afghanistan.”

What part of the “surge” to retreat addresses this reality and why might it just disappear? What part of the Lugar-Warner amendment improves upon diplomacy in the region where the U.S. pulls out, leaving its allies hanging? How do fewer numbers of troops improve a situation that is challenging to the large number there now?

Yesterday, reference to Iraq being an issue that can only be resolved politically suggested this idea to mind:

“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.”

The military piece of the puzzle being suggested does not come close to that necessary to hold off the hoards while those political solutions are being discussed."

USA Today opinion from Friday July 13, 2007:

“In Washington Thursday (7/12), the Iraqi ambassador, astoundingly, talked of Americans as being too focused on "instant gratification" — this more than four years into a grinding war that has cost more than 3,600 American lives.”

The day to day view of “instant gratification” is somewhat offended by this remark, but it speaks more realistically of Iraq then anything coming out of our Democrat leadership and those few Republicans lacking this same spine and myopic WORLD view. The ambassador was correct in his assessment for those that actually want Iraq seen through to the time that we can drawdown as we inch along toward that goal.

To those stubbornly holding to a view that good will come of our leaving, the recent Iraq Assessment was proof that we “have” failed in our mission in Iraq. Had the assessment been more than the 50/50 that it was in the obviously moving forward positively column, the assessment would still have been proof that we “have” failed our mission in Iraq.

These views are of the same vein as hate in that hate is much simpler than love or even like. They are the same pessimistic views that can only invest intellect in the discovery of what is wrong rather than what might be right. It is the same simplistic view that ones way is the only way and anyone that disagrees is an idiot.

You won’t find many that are in favor of continuing on in Iraq, especially with an eye toward hearing from General Petreus in September disagree that war is a drag; the deaths are painful; many in the Middle East hate us; that this can and does generate bad guys etc..

What you won’t find is anyone that disagrees with our being in Iraq and want us to pull out NOW (now is the “instant gratification” of next spring) agreeing with those that want to continue the fight for now on anything Iraq. I guess that’s because we’re the stubborn ones.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8656620875964312159

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Celebrity, third world county, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.