Right Wing Lunatic

I guess this is what Harry Reid meant when he said

"This is unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to the American people," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid said the recommendation by Gen. David Petraeus, expected to be embraced on Thursday by President Bush in a speech to the nation, "is neither a drawdown or a change in mission that we need. His plan is just more of the same."

"I call on the Senate Republicans to not walk lockstep as they have with the president for years in this war. It's time to change. It's the president's war. At this point it also appears clear it's also the Senate Republicans' war," Reid told a Capitol Hill news conference.

 

Kershaw now greets his former enemies with kisses, hears their grievances, spends time in their homes and even shares meals with them. He is surprised at how far relations have progressed.

"Our hope a year ago was to establish very basic inroads down here," Kershaw said. "We thought the insurgency was far too deep for us to be able to effectively root it out and develop the relationship with the locals."

As happened in Anbar province to the west, local Sunni leaders from this town south of Baghdad finally turned on the al Qaeda extremists in their midst when the death and destruction became too much to bear.

"Killing people, stealing goats, everything, you name it," said Sheik Hamid Karbouli, when asked why he and his men now oppose al Qaeda. Karbouli has recruited some 150 volunteers to man checkpoints and carry guns.

You can bet your ass I'd be very weary about teaming up with former enemies.  However, if it's progress that can be made and it moves Iraq closer to getting back on it's feet, I say a reluctant "ok".

That being said, if we're double crossed by these people and it's all a giant ambush, I say let all hell break loose.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: insurgent, iraq, Reconciliation

Well it's about time we started getting serious about the threat from Iran. 

The Pentagon is preparing to build a military base near the Iraq-Iran border to try to curtail the flow of advanced Iranian weaponry to Shiite militants across Iraq, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday in its online edition.

Quoting Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the commander of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, the Journal said the Pentagon also plans to build fortified checkpoints on major highways leading from the Iranian border to Baghdad, and install X-ray machines and explosives-detecting sensors at the only formal border crossing between the two countries.

The base will be located about four miles from the Iranian border and will be used for at least two years, according to the report. U.S. officials told the paper it is unclear whether it will be among the small number of facilities that would remain in Iraq after any future large-scale U.S. withdrawal.

Once we start showing the Iranian's that we're not messing around and that any support of the insurgency will result in swift and severe reprisals, they'll start acting a lot more friendly then they are now.  Let's face it, the Iranian government is full of cowards and the only reason why they are supporting the insurgency and taking pot shots at our guys is simply because they know they can get away with it.  Show them they can't, and it stops.  It'll also have the added benefit of dealing with their nuclear program.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: insurgent, iran, US

Oh how I enjoy the Huffington Post.  It's completely filled to the brim with idiotic people who don't want to do even the most elementary research before they go spouting off about their cause du jour or hopping on the next bandwagon.

Case in point, this funny little article.

But details have emerged from the recent escalation that strongly indicate what many have long suspected: the Bush administration's fundamental conflict with Iran is not about its nuclear program or alleged weapons smuggling -- so far unproven -- into Iraq.

So far unproven?  What kind of rock has this idiot been hiding under?  What about the IED's?  What about the weapons?  What about the captured insurgents saying they trained in Iran?  What about the sniper rifles that were ordered by the Iranian government and then sent into the hands of insurgents?

Unproven?  Yeah, maybe if you're an idiot or are completely blind to the evidence at hand.

Here is something very simple Congress could do to indicate that they are serious about preventing the Bush Administration from provoking a war with Iran. They could mandate that U.S. forces in Iraq cannot arrest Iranian government officials who can prove that they are in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government, unless they have explicit authorization from the "sovereign" Iraqi government to do so.

The problem with that line of thinking is that we never could have arrested the Iranian diplomats who were actively helping the insurgency kill US troops.  When you tie the hands of people who are trying to do their job, it only hampers their ability to do that job.

What this moron is asking US troops to do is ludicrous.  They have every right to arrest and detain anyone they think may be committing a crime or working against US interests.  These people were arrested and then released. 

So you're telling me that US soldiers are supposed to believe a hotel manager over their own gut feeling?  If this idiot had his way, even if there was evidence of wrong doing, they couldn't arrest them.

This is the same kind of defeatism that liberals keep pushing for on and on again.  Tie the hands of those who are trying to do their job, then complain when they can't do their job to the best of their ability.  Ignore overwhelming evidence that Iranians are actively fighting a proxy war with US troops in Iraq while complaining when US soldiers arrest someone for a reason they thought was justified.  There are Iranian agents in Iraq right now with and without the permission of the Iraqi government.  That doesn't mean that they get free reign of the country and aren't above suspicion.

Maybe if Iran wasn't supporting the insurgency, they wouldn't be getting treated this way.

Personally, if we find out where a bomb factory is or a training facility, I think we should bomb it to rubble, even if it's on the Iranian side of the border.  No one is allowed to take pot shots at our guys and get away with it.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: idiocy, insurgent, iran, iraq

Well this is....odd to say the least.  Moqtada al-Sadr has ordered his militia to be suspended for six months for "restructuring".  What that means is anyone's guess, but if, and this is a BIG if, he wants to stop the attacks against US interests and wants to peacefully work towards Iraqi nation building, I'm cautiously for it.

That being said, if it turns out to be a ruse and he's only doing it to keep our guys off his ass while he rebuilds, I say slaughter them all.

 

"For the sake of public interest, we have decided to issue the following: Suspend the Mehdi Army, with no exception, for a maximum of six months starting from the date of this release, to restructure it in a way that would preserve its ideological principles," al-Araji said.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: insurgent, iraq, Mehdi Militia, Moqtada al-Sadr

So, last night I heard that my Representative Brian Baird was going to be in Vancouver doing a town hall meeting over his change in his stance in the Iraq war.  He was now supporting it and was facing his critics.  Should be fun and I'll get to see some fireworks, I thought.

Well there was and more.  First off, I arrived at Fort Vancouver High School's auditorium with about 500 other people around 7pm and sat there for a while and listened to what he had to say.

Let me tell you something, he's about the only Democrat in the whole of Congress I have respect for.  He told everyone about his conceptions of what to expect when he went to Iraq twice (at his own personal expense) and that he came back with an overwhelming feeling of things were improving from our soldiers, regional leaders and Iraqi civilians.

He also saw the carnage that can happen in Iraq and came to the same conclusion that I did a while ago:  If we leave these people, they will be slaughtered, a theocracy will be set up, and we will eventually have to go back and destroy the militants all over again.  He said he was 95% certain of that.

But while he's talking, I see a man who's over dressed for the occasion.  He's wearing a suit and tie, hair combed nicely, he just didn't fit in.  I couldn't see his face, but I thought he was with the security detail.  Then he started to talk.  I didn't catch his name at first, but he sounded REALLY familiar.  Then I heard Brian Baird say "I appreciate your opinion Mr. Soltz".

 

 

"MOTHERFUCKER!",  I thought, "it CAN'T be JON SOLTZ" can it?  Sure enough, I caught a glimpse of his face.  Sure enough it was him.  The same Jon Soltz who berated a soldier who was saying that the surge in Iraq was working at Yearly Kos for "talking about politics in my uniform".  I wrote about it earlier.

So, I decided that I'd corner Jon about his little bit of hypocrisy and see what he had to say.  After he was done berating Brian Baird (not rudely mind you), he was shaking hands, and waiting for the press to get ready to interview him.  I was standing behind him when the press were just gathering around him.  About 5 or so reporters were writing things down when I asked him these questions:

"Mr. Soltz, first off, I'd like to thank you for your service to our country".  I shook his hand because I was sincere in that regard.  Anyone who picks up a weapon and defends my country, I have an immediate respect for, regardless of their political viewpoint. 

 

Travis:

"Mr. Soltz, you berated a soldier at Yearly Kos for wearing a uniform while talking about politics"

Jon: 

"I acted like an asshole to that soldier.  I should have handled it better."

Travis:  "But Mr. Soltz, don't you think it's a tad hypocritical that you berated this man who wasn't talking about politics, only about the successes he's seen in Iraq after the surge, when you have a political website and there's a picture of you in uniform?"

Jon: 

Who was taken aback mind you.

"Well......I have the right to use that photo in any way I want..." and he trailed off for a second.

All the while, reporters are writing furiously.  I don't know if they were writing about what we were talking about, but they were writing as fast as they could.

Travis:

"Well Mr. Soltz, if you do have that right, which I'm not contesting, don't you think it makes you look like a hypocritical jerk if you're going to berate someone for something and then turn around and appear to do the exact same thing"?

Jon:

"Thank you for your time, I have to go talk to these people now".

 

I didn't push the issue as there were a lot of people around and I still didn't get to ask my questions to Brian Baird and I didn't want to be asked to leave.  But I think I got my point across.

So I listened to what Rep. Baird had to say.  He gave example after example along with facts to back up his opinion, but most of the crowd wasn't having any of it.

What I really was disgusted with was the manners of everyone in the audience.  Regardless of your stance on issues, people would shout out their opinions without waiting for anyone else to finish what they were saying.

Some people brought up the fact that we don't go into other countries that need our help, so I thought I'd stick up for Mr. Baird and said "We went into Liberia when no one else would.  How many other nations are in Liberia?"

That shut the guy up pretty quickly.  What I also noticed was the complete lack of homework done by the anti-war crowd.  They had no clue about the region, how it works, or even who the major players were. 

Several people asked why surrounding countries like Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia weren't helping, I knew I was in for a treat.  Mr. Baird said point blank: "you don't want the Iranian or Syrian's help"  Jordan and other allies in the region aren't going to help because their view point is "we didn't have these problems before the invasion".

Mr. Baird seemed to have a good grasp on things and really had done his homework on the issue.  I must say I was very impressed by a Democrat, which as you all know, doesn't happen often.

So then one person asked why can't we just leave the mess as is.  The guy who asked it was obviously a college student who had ZERO responsibilities in his life.  Mr. Baird asked him if he broke something would he replace it or fix it?  The guy was speechless.

Then there was the run on guys.  There were dozens of people standing there waiting to ask their questions, and some people would just drone on and on about various things that were "wrong" in their head but they never actually asked a question or made a statement.  It pissed off a lot of people.  There were cat calls of "get to the point"!

Well around 11:00 last night, I finally got to my turn to ask my questions.  However, they were going to call it a night so I only got 1 minute to say my piece. 

I gave Mr. Baird a disclaimer:  "I must warn you, I'm a Republican".  His head bowed a little bit waiting for the next attack to come.  "However, I voted for you twice".  He said "Thank you".  I told him "You're the best man for the job when I voted for you, and you're the best man for the job now".  His ears perked up.

I asked Mr. Baird about the Iranian threat because of the sniper rifle situation where they bought expensive sniper rifles to fight "drug dealers" only to have hundreds of them end up in insurgents hands within 6 weeks of delivery.  I wrote about it here earlier.  As soon as I mentioned the Iranian sniper rifles being delivered to insurgents and that it was confirmed by the weapon's manufacturer, his ears and whole demeanor perked right up.

He pointed at me and agreed whole heartedly.  I got a few people who said I was lying or worse, but Mr. Baird came to my defense: "what he is saying is 100% true, that was a recently declassified document.  I'm glad you did your homework".  I looked around at the people who said I was lying and said: "Apparently you didn't do yours".  I got sneered at.

His answer wasn't as clear as I would have liked. He said that we are isolating and undermining the Iranian government with sanctions and "other methods".  He said that the Iranian threat was real and that to underestimate them or to "go it alone" would be a mistake that we would all pay for. 

But the best part was when a man behind me said "Don't bomb Iran".  So, I had enough at this point and turned to him and said: "Ok genius, if you're so smart, with the Iranians supporting a very large portion of the insurgency in Iraq, how would you combat it".  I made sure to make my comments loud enough for the auditorium to hear.  He didn't have an answer.  I asked him "Well if we're not bombing Iran, what should we do.  Don't chastise Mr. Baird if you don't have a solution yourself.  Just saying "Don't bomb Iran" isn't good enough if you don't have an alternative, so let's hear it.  We're waiting".  He again was speechless.

After 11:30, it was time to wrap things up.  Being that I actually have ideas for the Representative, I stuck around and spoke with him face to face.  I told him that the biggest complaint right now is the lack of electricity.  Most Iraqis are without electricity and have to use generators.  Using generators means that you can't power all of the stuff you want to do when you're at home, so you have to pick and choose.  That usually means the air conditioner and a few appliances at most.  I told him to get electricity up and running as quickly as possible and the insurgency will go down. 

Think about that for a moment.  If you're in 120 degree heat all day, every day, you tend to get angry and snap at the smallest things.  If you have electricity and are sitting in a 70 degree room when it's 120 outside, then you feel much better.  Besides, when you go from 70-120 degrees, you tend to want to stay inside as much as possible.

I thanked the Representative for his time, told him thanks for taking a beating, thanked him for truly researching the topic and coming to his own conclusions, even though it meant that he would be taking the road he thought was right instead of what was popular.  That to me is what leadership is about.  It means that you follow in your own heart what you think is right and what is in the best interests of the people.  No one, with the exception of Jon Soltz even began to know what they were talking about, let alone actually have been in Iraq to understand the complexities of the region.

With General Petraeus's report coming from the White House (which Baird said was a mistake), he said he agrees with General Petraeus in that we should start bringing our guys home in around the springtime if current levels of Iraqi progress holds. 

Mr. Baird also suggested that we have another town hall meeting in April to discuss any successes or failures.  He mentioned that his general thoughts are, sustain the current levels until April, then gradually bring troops home as the Iraqis start to fend for themselves.  They are already starting to show signs of standing on their own two feet, so why yank the rug out from underneath them when they are still in training wheels?

He also mentioned that there will be car bombs that go off and occasional assassinations, but it will go down.  And I believe him.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: al-qaeda, Brian Baird, insurgent, iran, iraq, Jon Soltz, nuclear program, Politics

If you capture a leader, you can get valuable intelligence off of him and capture people who would have otherwise blended in with society and sometimes never be heard from again. Luckily, we caught another senior guy in Iraq. Good job fellas. Keep it up.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: capture, insurgent, iraq, leader