Confidence Game Politics

Roger Cohen of International Herald Tribune fame had me at the onset of his OpEd at the Times this morning; but lost me at paragraph three, which began the descent into a laundry list of must dos (without how to do them) and a nuanced helping of ‘let’s go back to the way we used to do things.’ The hook:

“The unpopularity of George W. Bush has led many to believe global America-hating will ebb once he leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009. That’s a dangerous assumption.

It’s dangerous because the extent of American power will continue to invite resentment whoever is in the White House, and because America’s perception of the terrorist threat will still differ from that of its Asian and European allies. Asians are focused on growth, Europeans on integration: different priorities cause friction.”

Once out of office, President Bush won't be around, but the damage he has done will, so be prepared for things taking a while to return to normal (whatever that is). Cohen chooses the "things won't be easy" tack and admits that working internationally is a battle, but zero regard for how this could, did or can play into dislike toward the United States when perhaps everyone else is wrong.

No Line, Just a Sinker

Tidbits from Cohen that irk me ever so slightly…”

“The Iraq-linked damage to U.S. credibility is too severe to be quickly undone.”

“The most critical is a switch from the politics of anxiety to the politics of confidence.”

“Bush and Cheney never emerged from the 9/11 bunker. Their attack-dog snarl alienated a globe asked to step in line or step aside.”

The Left and Leftists among us love to point to the Bush Administrations efforts and those that support it as mainly “living in fear,” which is annoying in the sense that perhaps those against the actions are “living in arrogant ignorance.” How about “living in fear” themselves, as it is a fear of an unknown, of ruffling international feathers and/or of stepping outside the mold of “stability” at almost all costs.

No one it appears can find anything of worth from this new doctrine; is it really that bad? No just scary…

Cohen fits in with those that fall under Mark Steyn’s essay from yesterday:

“Civilized nations like chit-chatting, having tea, holding debates, talking talking talking. Tyrannies like terrorizing people, torturing people, murdering people, doing doing doing. It’s easier for the doers to pass themselves off as talkers then for the talkers to rouse themselves to do anything.”

To put it succinctly to Mr. Cohen and others out there, Victor Davis Hanson's word show another side to the debate; one they will continue to ignore:

"the current orthodoxy that America is losing the war on terror inside and outside Iraq, while bereft of allies, is simply not true. Instead we are winning — it’s ugly perhaps, but winning nonetheless."

All talk, no action assisted greatly in our Tuesday morning revelation in 2001 and given the opportunity we will return to that do nothing time; hopefully we would have the option of returning to the tactics in practice now. No matter how feel good the attitudes of the Cohen’s are it will be necessary to return to offense that so many find offense with.

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.

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.

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.

Democrats/Times Reframing Iraq Debate to Mislead as Utter Defeat; what’s new?

According to that stalwart of balance and knowledge, the old gray poofter:

“As Congress reopened for business on Tuesday, the Democratic leadership promised to force a change in President Bush’s war strategy, and lawmakers maneuvered to frame the debate over Iraq ahead of reports next week by Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker.”

Democratic Majority Leader, Harry “this war is lost” Reid of Nevada is quoted by the toilet paper as saying:

“Many of my Republican friends have long held September as the month for the policy change in Iraq. It’s September. The calendar hasn’t changed. It’s time to make a decision. We can’t continue the way we are.”

I am pleased that Reid has finally gotten a grip on the calendar and date as it was only a couple of months ago that he wanted to charge full speed ahead in withdrawing from Iraq even though it wasn’t yet September; as he rightly says, “it hasn’t changed.”

“We can’t continue the way we are,” no, we can’t, but it should remain as it is if one of the minimal two choices is withdrawal and “ending the war” as though withdrawal ends anything.

As the toilet paper claims, the Dems aim to “reframe” the debate, which is just another way of saying what they have said for the better part of the Iraq theater, “the war is lost,” and regardless of any forward momentum on any subject that is the banner they will and do raise.

Elsewhere in the toilet paper the editorial board is up to it’s usual blinded by myopic vision and sticks it to the president; how unlike them:

“Iraq is a long way to go for a photo op, but not for President Bush, who is pulling out all the stops to divert public attention from his failed Iraq policies and to keep Congress from demanding that he bring the troops home. As Americans and Iraqis continue to die — and Iraqi politicians refuse to reconcile — Mr. Bush stubbornly refuses to recognize that what both countries need is a responsible exit strategy for the United States, not more photo ops and disingenuous claims of success.”

What the bathroom tissue fails to see is its own stubborn refusal to recognize that both countries need a responsible strategy that can lead to the U.S. out of Iraq with a modicum of success that will ultimately lead to a more stable and functioning Iraq. Not more editorial “pieces” and disingenuous claims of defeat.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, Faultline USA, Big Dog's Weblog, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Right Voices, Conservative Thoughts, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Heroic Labor - President Bush's Speech to Troops, Anbar Province, Labor Day 2007

From NRO:

Thank you all. General, thank you very much. It’s an honor to be with you.

As you know, today is Labor Day back home — (hooah) — so I thought I’d come by to thank you for all your hard work. (Hooah.) Every day — every day — you show bravery under incredibly difficult circumstances. Every day you’re doing work on the sands of Anbar that is making it safer in the streets of America. And every day the United States of America is grateful for what you’re doing. I want you to tell your families the Commander-in-Chief stopped by to say hello, and he said, I’m incredibly proud to be the Commander-in-Chief of such a great group of men and women. (Applause.)

I’m keeping pretty good company, as you can see. I brought out the A Team so they could be with the folks who are making a significant difference in this war against these radicals and extremists. In Anbar you’re seeing firsthand the dramatic differences that can come when the Iraqis are more secure. In other words, you’re seeing success.

You see Sunnis who once fought side by side with al Qaeda against coalition troops now fighting side by side with coalition troops against al Qaeda. Anbar is a huge province. It was once written off as lost. It is now one of the safest places in Iraq. (Hooah.) Because of your hard work, because of your bravery and sacrifice, you are denying al Qaeda a safe haven from which to plot and plan and carry out attacks against the United States of America. What you’re doing here is making this country safer, and I thank you for your hard work. (Hooah.)

The surge of operations that began in June is improving security throughout Iraq. The military successes are paving the way for the political reconciliation and economic progress the Iraqis need to transform their country. When Iraqis feel safe in their own homes and neighborhoods, they can focus their efforts on building a stable, civil society with functioning government structures at the local and provincial and national levels. And that’s important, because a free Iraq, an Iraq that’s an ally against these extremists and murderers will be a major defeat for the terrorists.

Earlier today I met with some of the tribal sheiks here in Anbar. It was a really interesting meeting. And at the table were the leaders of the central government, as well. They told me that the kind of bottom-up progress that your efforts are bringing to Anbar is vital to the success and stability of a free Iraq. See, Iraqis need this stability to build a more peaceful future. And America needs this stability to prevent the chaos that allows the terrorists to set up bases from which they can plot and plan attacks on our homeland.

The very people that you helped the Iraqis defeat in Anbar swore allegiance to the man that ordered the attack on the United States of America. What happens here in Anbar matters to the security of the United States.

And so I thank you for your sacrifice. I thank you for volunteering in the face of danger. I thank you for your courage and your bravery. Every day you are successful here in Iraq draws nearer to the day when America can begin calling you and your fellow servicemen and women home.

But I want to tell you this about the decision — about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground — not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media. (Hooah.) In other words, when we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure. To do otherwise would embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home. If we let our enemies back us out of Iraq, we will more likely face them in America. If we don’t want to hear their footsteps back home, we have to keep them on their heels over here. And that’s exactly what you’re doing, and America is safer for it.

In Anbar you’re doing this hard work every day. We’ve all come to say thank you. We’ve come to tell you the American people are standing with you. They’re grateful for your sacrifice. As Commander-in-Chief, I’m proud to be in your presence on this Labor Day. I ask for God’s blessings on you and your family, and may God continue to bless America. Thank you.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

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.

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.

Sustainable Stability IS Victory in Iraq

How is the board feeling this morning, betrayed? Who do O’Hanlon and Pollack think they are returning to Iraq and actually viewing what it is like on the ground today and actually reporting back that Iraq has improved since their last visit?

Michael O’Hanlon recently wrote on June 10, 07 in the same pages of the NY Times that “Cities like Kirkuk and Mosul remain tinderboxes.” Today, writing of Tal Afar and Mosul:

“This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq.”

In the January 2005 issue of Policy Review, O’Hanlan wrote “Iraq Without a Plan,” (reproduced by permission of Policy Review at The Brookings Institution) which he opened with:

“The post-invasion phase of the Iraq mission has been the least well-planned American military mission since Somalia in 1993, if not Lebanon in 1983, and its consequences for the nation have been far worse than any set of military mistakes since Vietnam.”

Pollack in January wrote a Saban Center Analysis, also available at The Brookings Institute; “Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover from an Iraqi Civil War.” In May it was The New Republic with “Civil Defense: The Surge That Would Really Save Iraq”

The bottom line is that O’Hanlon and Pollack left of Center foreign policy analysts, are anti-Iraq heroes to the likes of the NY Times Editors and the rest that are so far Left they almost fall off; so their writing of improvements will make many vested in defeat very unhappy.

“Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”

If Harry Reid insists on not believing General Petraeus, will he believe these two? We’ll have to wait until after his weekly conference call with MoveOrg, Kos and the rest.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5057231118536742876

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, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Jo's Cafe, Pursuing Holiness, Stageleft, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, 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.

The Most Dishonest Congress Ever?

Judging this Congress as the most dishonest ever would be a tough call; I'm not going to make it as I do not know enough about all the different congresses. Regardless of the "most" it is extremely dishonest just the same as offering anything of worth is not what they have come to do. They won last November by saying nothing and this is what they are doing right now, nothing.

The Democrat Majority is in place for one reason and one reason only; power. This Congress is their precursor to 2008; what they will offer after that is anyones guess as they are only familiar with the tactics they have employed from the beginning of the Bush Presidency.

They appear to be the insurgency in our midst; no goals beyond running the present leadership out. They hurt our efforts daily in Iraq and elsewhere with their theatrics and misleading statements.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona has an essay up this morning, "Up All Night," as does Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, "Dark Night of the Senate." Sigmund, Carl and Alfred also has a very timely piece, 'Feeling' History's Future"

Obviously preaching to the choir, but the choir really needs to kick it in right about now. The new "leadership" has done nothing but propagandize about the Iraq theater from day one; they're painting September's report as failure today. What kind of argument is that?

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Did you hear the one about Petreus’ Interest in Changing Direction in Iraq?

Yeah, it’s true I guess at least according to Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat (oddly) from the great state of Rhode Island.

According to Reed who just happened to arrive back from a trip to Iraq got some “impressions” while speaking with General Petreus.

Reed put together some thoughts based on these “impressions,” that give one the “impression” that no matter what Petreus said would fully fit in with Reed’s “impressions.”

Said Reed:

"The prospect of anything changing over the next several weeks or months, certainly through September, are very bleak indeed."

As a result of Reed’s “impression:”

"We're ready, I think, for a vote on the policy. I don't think we have to wait."

It is my “impression” that direction, “impression” and “appearances” suggested to Reed to use friendly terminology by saying that Petraeus “appeared eager to come out with new ways to respond to the continuing security problems there” as a means to bolster the “cut and run somewhere” argument.

This is by means of giving the “impression” that Petraeus wants out; not that Petraeus has on the ground ideas to improve tactics in the mission based on the daily tide in battle.

Marking and assisting in the murky “impression” that Senator Reed would like to provide comes this sinister “impression:”

“"I got the impression from Gen. Petraeus that he wasn't waiting. Now he might be overruled by people in the White House and, you know, wait until September. But he seemed very eager to come forward as quickly as possible with a new direction and policy."

While we’re at it, let’s decide on the next six presidents that way we can get onto the more pressing issues of 2031__________________

Did you know:

"There was a time when events shaped history. It was the ‘facts on the ground’ that would influence the future and help us understand the past. We might debate the meaning of it all and we were free to debate the events that triggered changes.

While scholars and historians will discuss Lincoln and the Civil War forever, or debate the real origins of World War One, it clear that ‘facts on the ground’ now play a lesser role than ever in determining history- or the future.

Now, feelings have entered the equation....."

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/4665500643942976785

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.

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.