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.

Friday Sermon from Iran and New York

A moment of silence? At least from Tehran that is how it would appear; in NY however, the Mullahs Supreme Allegiance Branch West, otherwise known as the NY Times Editorial Board is in its usual frothing at the mouth form.

Tehran is quiet from a reporting point of view, which is unusual for a government controlled mouthpiece often overflowing with the propaganda rhetoric of the weeks Friday Prayer Leader. We’ll have to wait and see what next Friday brings to judge whether this lack will become the standard; perhaps their own words are coming back to bite them as they work to hide their faces of evil.

But no sooner does someone finish writing a paragraph and the floodgates are loosed; from Tehran, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei led the congregation with:

"Alert and wise Iranian nation, relying on strong faith and resistance, made US project of weakening Islamic Revolution face defeat. The Iranian nation would continue paving the same proud and glorious path, and a time will come when no power would dare to threaten this nation, even in his mind."

The religio-politico leader also defined US plans following 9/11 by adding:

"The Americans had a multi-dimensional project, aimed at shaping up a pro-Zionist Middle East, but faced defeat at all layers of that project."

Sometimes too much love can be harmful, but if you so choose visit the Motormouth Mullah for more of his positive message.

Mullahs West for its part continued the assault to strengthen the imagined belief that President Bush is the real enemy in this war and offered the fruits of wisdom with its summation of the week:

“This was the week in which Americans hoped they would get straight talk and clear thinking on Iraq. What they got was two exhausting days of Congressional testimony by the American military commander, hours of news conferences and interviews, clouds of cut-to-order statistics and a speech from the Oval Office — and none of it either straight or clear.”

It is a shame that in its role as the arbiter of truth the toilet paper believes “Americans” are so easily exhausted by an entire two days of information. Perhaps, as is obvious it is The behind the Times that has issues with the clarity and direction it expected from the testimony and “hours of news conferences and interviews.” When the only thing that would please Mullahs West is what they want to hear, anything short of that is just more smoke, mirrors and clouds.

Beyond the repetition complaining about repetition and various assertive, yet naïve strategies the board did at the least not bash General Petraeus. This was likely due to the lack of this necessity with the discounted full page ad given to the MoveOn group.

Beyond the redun, redundant, redundant and repetitive moaning and alternate propaganda with “cherry picked” remarks and misinformation, Mullahs West did offer up a very revealing sentence that suggests how wrong they really are. In hoping “Mr. Bush would drop the meaningless talk of victory” and the “fiction that the war keeps” Americans safe from terrorism; they offered “credit” to the general for not adopting “that bit of propaganda.”

So used to supporting those in the General Officers club that agree with their perspective, that when a general rightly chooses not to play a role in the larger political snafu; a role mind you that is not the generals to play, that they give him “credit” for doing something he shouldn’t be doing anyway.

All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely politicians…

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, third world county, Adam's Blog, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Pursuing Holiness, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Non-Sense of the Senate Resolution

From the Left Coast via The New York Left Times OpEd page comes the “piece” “Occupation Hazard,” which discusses the future legality of the U.S. presence in Iraq.

The legality in question is “the Authority” – which (is) to say “the occupying powers under unified command” – as Iraq’s effective legal government,” as granted under annual Security Council Resolutions.

According to the “piece” the “current mandate expires at the end of December,” and will require renewal. This past June, “the Iraqi Parliament passed a bill requiring that the next renewal should not be made without its advice and consent.”

Were the mandate not renewed it is conceivable that the U.S. would be required to leave Iraq, however, as the author says the “Bush administration is of course unlikely to give too much heed to any Security Council resolution.”

The author believes there is a possibility that if the Iraqi parliament chose not to allow renewal and the U.S. did not depart that this might “matter greatly to the Iraqis, even to the point of becoming the signal for a general uprising of Shiites against foreign forces.” This could then lead to a general uprising against our forces and those included in the multi-national coalition, Iraq finding another friend say Russia or “the most obvious and presumably most willing new partner for Mr. Maliki would be Shiite-dominated Iran.”

If this last were to become the reality while our military was still in Iraq the author theorizes the following:

“should the United States attack Iran pre-emptively? Some in high places favor this, but a pre-emptive American attack on Iran could quickly lead to an Iranian counterattack closing the Straits of Hormuz at the lower end of the Persian Gulf. The American forces would then be trapped — both their main supply line and their main evacuation route cut off.”

“It may be time to change the slogan on the yellow ribbon from “support the troops” to “defend the nation.” Rather than see the American army of liberation humiliatingly voted out of Iraq or have its avenue of exit cut off by opportunistic enemies, the Senate should join the Iraqi Parliament, through a “sense of the Senate” resolution, and call for the next Security Council mandate to be one that requires the progressive withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq, without haste but with all deliberate speed.”

Would the U.S. truly be cut off from its route of exit were it to strike at Iran? Certainly not without a fight and we can bring that, but “humiliatingly voted out of Iraq?” According to the author the remedy would be for our Senate to follow the lead of the Iraqi parliament and its non-binding resolution with the call for a withdrawal timetable.

The question of what to do were the mandate to require the U.S. presence reversed is not nothing and perhaps if it was to become a reality the U.S. should seriously consider heeding it, especially if Iraq leaned on Iran for support. As unattractive as our leaving too early would be the target area could become that much larger for our military and perhaps the U.S. could not worry so much about collateral damage as the war on terror would take quite a turn to the more violent.

This call for the future mandate of the Security Council to require a “progressive withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq, without haste but with all deliberate speed,” is just more of the same Leftist driven NY Times agenda that it and the rest of the msm feels obligated to force down the throat of the U.S. and its citizens. It is the newest tactic in sounding non-agenda like, but is nothing different.

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, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

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 -

FISA and the Imperial Judiciary

What if a data packet could be purposely sent through the U.S. networks? What if Joe Blow in California and Joe Dunno in New York were having a conversation via cell phone or some other wireless communication device? What if the recent legislation passed before the kids in DC went on summer recess hadn’t been passed at all?

For one The NY Times editors and perhaps the FISA would be pleased with this turn of events, as the editors this morning made clear they don’t care for the president viewing his role in intelligence gathering as constitutional. FISA might be happy as a recent ruling protected foreign to foreign communications; so Mahmoud and Mustapha in Pakistan or elsewhere would be protected in their communications with each other while planning an attack in the U.S., unless of course as proscribed by the FISA court, a warrant were obtained.

If you read or have read Andrew C. McCarthy today at NRO you might wonder where exactly the Times and other Leftists get their constitutional knowledge in swatting at the presidents role?

All the hubbub and brouhaha made by the Times editors doesn’t change the facts, but it does change the “facts” as they possess the power of the presses and inappropriately influence public opinion and knowledge many times. This is most noticeable when you have read McCarthy and his mentions of the Times and Leftists in their hue and cry over NSA wiretaps as he points out that the concern should be with the FISA court and not the president:

“We should be equally affronted by the hypocrisy of congressional Democrats and the leftwing commentariat. It’s not national security or the “rule of law” they care about. It’s politics — plain, simple, and brass-knuckled. The calculation: If George W. Bush can be hurt a polling point or two (yes, there’s still room to go down) by posturing over law-breaking, it’s okay to roll the dice with our lives.”

“For nearly two years since the New York Times blew the NSA’s warrantless-surveillance program, the Left has transfigured itself into a whirling dervish of indignation over President Bush’s imperious trampling of “the rule of law.” Why? Because he failed to comply with the letter of FISA, which purports in certain instances to require the chief executive — the only elected official in the United States responsible for protecting our nation from foreign threats — to seek permission from a federal judge before monitoring international enemy communications into or out of the United States.”

Of the recent ruling by the FISA court regarding foreign to foreign communications, McCarthy points to the four types of communications FISA regulates:

“(a) those involving a particular, known American citizen or permanent resident alien who is in the United States and has intentionally been targeted for monitoring, no matter whether the interception takes place inside or outside the United States;

(b) those involving someone inside the United States, even if that person has not been intentionally targeted, if the interception occurs within the United States;

(c) those in which all parties to the communication are located within the United States; and

(d) those rare contacts which are neither radio nor wire communications, “in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.”

Note as Mr. McCarthy points out that none of the above fit within the foreign to foreign communications. For the moment we can rest a little, but as McCarthy suggests that until FISA is ended and replaced with something more appropriate to our times; the imperials of the court will ultimately be the ones protecting us…

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5083885682505871064

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, The World According to Carl, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Republican National Convention Blog, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Times; Afraid of Fearing the Right Thing to Fear

“why, six years after 9/11, is this sort of fishing expedition the supposed first line of defense in the war on terrorism?” – The New York behind the Times Editors

The NY Times editorial board is getting really angry with the Democrats, as are the Kos-mynauts; forget about Bush, oh yeah they hate him, but the Dems are really letting them down. This morning’s editorial is rife with misunderstanding and msm, Leftist “fear mongering;” the fear mongering that they are best at. There is so much to pick and pull apart that I chose to pick one paragraph only to look at; the boards logic and line of thought is mentally exhausting:

“But the problem with Congress last week was that Democrats were afraid to explain to Americans why the White House bill was so bad and so unnecessary — despite what the White House was claiming. There are good answers, if Democrats are willing to address voters as adults. To start, they should explain that — even if it were a good idea, and it’s not — the government does not have the capability to sort through billions of bits of electronic communication. And the larger question: why, six years after 9/11, is this sort of fishing expedition the supposed first line of defense in the war on terrorism?”

“…if Democrats are willing to address voters as adults,” Democrats do not know how to treat “voters” as adults as they rarely act like adults themselves. As for the Times, this spoon feeding editorial as with most of them is not speaking to adults as much as it is speaking to the immature child in all of us; leading child of course being the “board.”

In this one paragraph the board appears to treat the technical issue, “the government does not have the capability to sort through billions of bits of electronic communication,” as though like “immigration” it doesn’t have the man power. These “billions of bits” are not something physical that someone will “listen” too, but would in one instance identify whether the data was a domestic call rather than terrorist to terrorist in nature; one of the many pieces that will help protect against the “spying” on Americans the board is so concerned about.

Further and again, in this paragraph alone:

“And the larger question: why, six years after 9/11, is this sort of fishing expedition the supposed first line of defense in the war on terrorism?”

The board is comprised of completely clueless individuals or it is just so cynically disingenuous that it is blinded to the most basic elements of security and the need for data to sort or sift through; what don’t they get? This “larger question” is quite possibly the most stupid question I have ever heard and reveals the utter lack of understanding of their chosen subject to whine about.

A few weeks back the NIE was released; a commonsense reaction to it and to me an example of how bad the Times (and msm in general) is at reporting and is available at TCSDaily and written by Pejman Yousefzadeh. If this is how the reporting goes, why should I expect anything better from the Board?

From “Unintelligent Intelligence”:

“It may be that for different people, different parts of the NIE stick out. The part that stuck out for me was the reference to the fact that AQI was "the most visible and capable affiliate" of al Qaeda and that al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is "the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland." Contra the Times story, of course, nowhere in the NIE does it say that the war in Iraq "spawned" al Qaeda. Even if you want to argue that the war in Iraq did spawn AQI, you cannot say--as the Times did--that the NIE makes such an assertion. Indeed, nothing even resembling that comment appears in the NIE. Curiously enough, the Times story completely downplays language in the NIE discussing how al Qaeda's efforts have been curbed . . . while—again—making up claims about how the NIE says the Iraq war "spawned" AQI. Apparently, writers at the Times don't think that the rest of us can actually get access to and read the NIE.”

Also of interest should be “FISA: Don’t Mend It, End It” from Andrew C. McCarthy at NRO; again, does the NYTimes have a clue?:

“We should be equally affronted by the hypocrisy of congressional Democrats and the leftwing commentariat. It’s not national security or the “rule of law” they care about. It’s politics — plain, simple, and brass-knuckled. The calculation: If George W. Bush can be hurt a polling point or two (yes, there’s still room to go down) by posturing over law-breaking, it’s okay to roll the dice with our lives.”

“For nearly two years since the New York Times blew the NSA’s warrantless-surveillance program, the Left has transfigured itself into a whirling dervish of indignation over President Bush’s imperious trampling of “the rule of law.” Why? Because he failed to comply with the letter of FISA, which purports in certain instances to require the chief executive — the only elected official in the United States responsible for protecting our nation from foreign threats — to seek permission from a federal judge before monitoring international enemy communications into or out of the United States.”

Lastly, "Right is Right" had some interesting words yesterday on this very subject, not the Times but the MSM/Dem/Leftist lack..."Granting the President Power"

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8568572921329842857

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Antediluvian Era of Telecommunications

Today it seems we have more chance of finding Noah’s ark, than getting Democrats and their adherents like the NY Times editorial board to see the light.

Last Friday 8/3 I avoided posting about the NYT editorial board and its continuing hissy fit with regard to NSA wiretaps et al., because I had had just about all I could take from them and the media in general on this subject. Rather than report honestly, each issue that comes up is treated as the latest "dirt" affording the hopes of the next Pulitzer. As to the usual course they went at the administration as stampeding Congress:

“Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not feel bound by the law or the Constitution when it comes to the war on terror. It cannot even be trusted to properly use the enhanced powers it was legally granted after the attacks.”

Read this opinion and almost any other and if you didn’t know where you were reading it from, throw in a couple four letter words and you would be surprised when told it wasn’t from Kos.

Over the weekend as the Congress let out for vacation having accomplished little more than the national government of Iraq it passed temporary acknowledgement of the authority to monitor international communications to the executive.

In perfect NYT fashion, the board still living in the Nixon era sees “conspiracy” and the latest Bush version of Fascism:

“Ever since, the White House has tried to pressure Congress into legalizing Mr. Bush’s rogue operation. Most recently, it seized on a secret court ruling that spotlighted a technical way in which the 1978 law has not kept pace with the Internet era.”

This morning we get a taste of what it means to have passed the barely appropriate version of foreign surveillance from the view of the editors at NRO:

“That task has never been more vital than it is today, when transnational terror networks, seeking access to weapons of enormous power, vow to attack us after killing nearly 3,000 Americans. Yet our defense is hindered by an improvident and outdated legislative scheme, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA was an overreaction to Nixon-era abuses, which included employing the CIA to conduct domestic spying on the administration’s political enemies. FISA purports to require that the president, before monitoring foreign communications, satisfy a federal court (specially created by FISA) that there is probable cause to believe the surveillance target is an “agent of a foreign power.”’

If the Democrats are not serious, we know a group, it’s affiliates, off-shoots and wannabes are; so do we continue playing games or are we going to give ourselves a fighting chance at keeping up as best as we can with the communications and/or possible communications of our enemies?

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2162150859988639442

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Conspiracy to find Conspiracy

Why does the Times editorial board has such wood for the Right, Republicans, Conservatives and President Bush in general?

This morning you can enjoy a “Selective Prosecution” according to the board and its Kos like paranoia. One shouldn’t just jump on board in a defense of the Justice Department and treat concerns as though they are not founded; but are they grounded in reality or just wishful thinking. Is it “fear mongering?”

The opener from the board of fear:

“One part of the Justice Department mess that requires more scrutiny is the growing evidence that the department may have singled out people for criminal prosecution to help Republicans win elections. The House Judiciary Committee has begun investigating several cases that raise serious questions.”

Again, don’t treat it as though there is nothing wrong, but “serious questions” are something we have been sorely lacking over the past half decade plus and by far “serious questions” are almost non-existent from the media and Left (I’m not sure where “and” comes in as they are practically one and the same).

As an example from one case, back on June 30, 2006 The Times reported on the conviction; one quote appears to be the boards mental smoking gun:

“Mr. Siegelman, a Democrat, called the case a ruthless campaign tactic by Gov. Bob Riley, a Republican who defeated him four years ago. During the trial, Mr. Siegelman campaigned unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination for governor, sometimes soliciting votes on the courthouse steps.”

Investigations of wrongdoing may be appropriate and the prosecution by Steven Biskupic Georgia Thompson appears to be a good case in point, but over zealous prosecution does not a conspiracy make.

There has been a rabid response from Democrats, the Left and media from roughly day one of the Bush Administration and those in opposition to him have screamed that the sky is falling from the day of inauguration; how can we ever take any of them seriously?

To this blogger, The Times and especially its editorial board makes daily the sound of the Kos site albeit, nicer language, but the tone and accusation is unmistakable. What is additionally amusing is the apparent “conspiracy” to find “conspiracy” in Bush et al; maybe we should investigate that, but that would probably just be paranoia.

trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/7097111446202531758

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Committees of Correspondence, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, third world county, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, and High Desert Wanderer, 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.

Now Hear This: The Editors Have Spoken Again

Will someone please, please, please flush the toilet Paper???

According to the emotion and angst filled, non logic using editorial board members at The NY Times:

"Prolonging the war for another two years will not bring victory. It will mean more lives lost, more damage to America’s international standing and fewer resources to fight the real fight against terrorists."

This group whines like Mike Gravel at a Democrat Debate, why are they so invested in the never changing need to get out? Who are these people? Who are the members?

Because we are still in Iraq (big surprise!) it is nothing but an utter failure. Because we are in Iraq, "Al Qaeda’s top leadership (has) regrouped and (is) resurgent in its old strongholds along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier." Is the logic(?) that we could then invade Pakistan or send more military to Afghanistan? What kind of a "quagmire" would be created by sending more soldiers to Afghanistan; do we really want to get involved in something like that? Who would we place the blame upon for that battlefield not going right or according to "plan" or an ever increasing number of casualties and deaths?

NO BLOOD FOR POPPIES!!!!

What would our "exit plan" be? Does that question not really enter the equation because we're already there? Hasn't Afghanistan gone on long enough? When will the Afghanis take responsibility for their own safety and government, why should they still need us?

Of Iraq, the board asks:

"What is President Bush’s plan for a timely and responsible exit?"

(bold/italics/case/ul mine) This according to those that "know" that getting out of Iraq is "THE essential precondition for salvaging broader American interests in the Middle East and for waging a more effective fight against Al Qaeda in its base areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

This is the boards over riding "intelligence" estimate. The rallying point that Iraq is for "extremists" would no longer be if we left. This is the answer they "stubbornly and damagingly" hold onto and refuse to view any other way.

Of Petraeus and Crocker's plan the editors are aghast at the gall in the "assumption" that "a large-scale United States military presence in Iraq will continue for at least two more years." Forget the fact that it is a "war plan" and not the "change in direction" or "exit plan" the editors envision and "assume" is the only answer to Iraq and is the only question in the minds of Americans with regard to Iraq.

The board sums it all up in a voice revealing the thin line between it and a Kos-hat (see a*s-hat):

"Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing."

One "illusion" here is that the board considers itself part of "everything" or perhaps "everything (that matters anyway)." Another "illusion" is that the "surge" and this newest plan isn't a re-evaluation of strategy. The last "illusion" is the boards unbending surety that it is failing and overall Iraq has failed.

It must be nice to know.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1606177156462559660

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The "Stymied" NY Times and Democrats

The NY Times editorial board is at it again with (italics mine) “Stymied by G.O.P., Democrats Stop Debate on Iraq:”

“After Senate Republicans yet again thwarted a proposal to withdraw American troops from Iraq,…”

Oh, wait…sorry, my bad…this colorful use of leading connotation is actually a “news” article. The article does however, have a nice and even-handed treatment of the debate with its “In Their Own Words: Comments from the Senate Floor” multi-media pop-up consisting of “words” from four Democrats and a Republican; so I guess we’re on balance there.

The Editorial board is just a bit more judgmental, even with their lack of contemplation on all the “news that isn’t fit to print.”

“The nation’s anguish over the Iraq war was kept on hold in the Senate yesterday as the Republican minority maintained serial threats of filibuster to buy time for President Bush’s aimless policies.”

Sadly for the nation and the paper an attempt to vote on something months before the agreed to Petreus report in September is now scheduled to take place when it actually was. A time when the realities of the report will still be ignored by the “old fart of a gray lady” and the Democrats. In Septembers time a pull-out probably won’t be appropriate, especially if things are improving, otherwise what is the point of anything we are doing, if not to try and see it succeed.

Cherry picking through the editorial like the Dems recently did with the NIE I offer a few “pie” worthy morsels. Beyond that, I cannot stomach much more of the arrogant ignorance.

“Republicans are doing the public a real disservice and playing an increasingly risky hand by delaying sober consideration of the war.”

So, the board and Democrats are drinkers? The Democrats and board do not consider anything in sober terms and this editorial is example of the usual condescending vitriol the editors do best.

“The Iraq war stands apart as a watershed issue — a downward spiral that the public increasingly sees as a colossal waste of the nation’s blood and treasure.”

This, thanks in no small part to the continual misleading hammering and one sided reporting from the MSM and Democrats.

“In postponing real action to September and beyond, Republicans laughed off the all-night debate as a “slumber party” of “twilight zone” theatrics by the Democrats. In fact, Bush loyalists seem trapped in the twilight zone, ducking their responsibility to represent constituents by applying credible pressure on the president to come up with an end to his sorry war.”

“In postponing real action to September…” or postponing the “theatrical” debate and vote brought up two months earlier than agreed to when all agreed to Petraeus and the “surge” plan. The board, like the Democrat majority obviously takes part in the weekly conference calls with the likes of the MoveOn.orgers….pathetic.

The board speaks of a “ducking” of responsibility on the part of the Republicans as though the support they offer is only in deference to the president, while painting the “majority” as pushing a pullout as the only appropriate thing to do or some kind of selfless calling. Ignoring the “ducking” of responsibility of the majority and itself regarding the real on the ground realities of what the piece Iraq plays in the entire puzzle that is the greater war on terror.

Who is ducking responsibility?

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5847355755231683077

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, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, 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, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Fear Mongering; The View from Up Here

The NYTimes Editorial board sees the recent release yesterday of “The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland,” as having a message, the message being, “Be very afraid. And don’t question the president.”

Oddly, the board chooses that as the underlying message as though it and others in the business of propaganda are having their right to free speech challenged. Here’s an idea, why not hold off on the knee jerk reaction, pause and just ‘listen to the president?’ That way you might spend a little less time reacting as though we’re stuck in some bizarre time warp in an alternate universe that never recognizes anything changing. Has the board heard of a general by the name of Petreaus? Do they know that President Bush won in 2004 or are they stuck somewhere?

Acknowledging “the report’s conclusions” as “disturbing,” is a start; but they fail with their ultimate conclusion. Their conclusion is more in line with an ‘we told you so,’ as in the case on the ground doesn’t matter so much as that we were right; at this point they prepare to move forward from their roughly 2003 posture. Why else would they say, “if the report is given an honest reading, it is a powerful rebuke to Mr. Bush’s approach to the war on terror. It vindicates those who say that the Iraq war is a distraction from the real fight against terrorism.”

If not mistaken a “distraction” is something to be ignored or if nothing else, the response to a “distraction’ should be muted or minor, while efforts are concentrated on the bigger task at hand. The Board however, distracts itself during the course of its tizzy when noting Iraq as a distraction, then near closing noting when in reference to their statements that al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the invasion that “we’ve seen no evidence of that, and none was in the intelligence report.”

So there is an acknowledgement of the fact that al Qaeda is in Iraq regardless of their time of entry or birth there. Why then, close with “Congress surely can see through the president’s fear-mongering and show Mr. Bush the exit from Iraq that he refuses to find for himself.” The board’s closing reveals that they are still fighting an old, old battle which prevents them from truly seeing today; else wise why would we grope for the exit as though this would resolve it all as we head on back or increase our efforts in the Afghanistan region, which may prove to be a “distraction” to the reality of what Iraq has become.

The board’s perceived enemy is the Bush Administration, viewing it as the real enemy, as the makings of a fascist if not fascist administration already. The Times editorial board has a myopic view of what fear mongering is when they cannot recognize their own brand of it.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1142718749559021650

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke's news and views, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Public Eye, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.