Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Congress investigating alleged corruption in State Department - CNN.com
A congressional committee has launched an investigation into the State Department's inspector general, alleging that he blocked fraud investigations, including potential security lapses at the newly built U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Also under scrutiny is whether a major security firm was "illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq," according to a letter to Inspector General Howard J. Krongard that was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.
The investigation involves allegations that "your strong affinity with State Department leadership and your partisan political ties have led you to halt investigations, censor reports, and refuse to cooperate with law enforcement agencies," Krongard was told.
The one thing I cannot stand is corruption by my government. Illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq is a very serious charge and I imagine they have evidence to support this. But to do this in a place as volatile as Iraq just screams for a much harsher sentence then a usual one simply because of the potential consequences of that action.
Labels: corruption, iraq
Monday, September 17, 2007
Jane Hamsher: MoveOn: Hillary Gets it Right, Elizabeth Edwards Gets it Wrong, and Rudy Gets It In the Eye - Politics on The Huffington Post
And now for something completely different, an idiotic viewpoint from a Huffington Post blogger.
This time it's about the moveon.org's "General Betray Us" ad and Republicans asking Democrats to denounce the ad. She praises Hillary and Obama, but Elizabeth Edwards gets this response:
But I guess not, because she decided instead to join with such leading moral barometers as Diaper Dave Vitter and John "McCarthy" McCain to attack MoveOn. So did John Kerry, whom one would expect to know better by this point in time. Granted, we really don't expect much better from Joe Biden -- somehow he continues to find the obvious quite elusive. So I guess we have to say it once again until everyone gets it -- you never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a cudgel to beat the left with.
Just. Don't. Do. It.
Why not? If the talking points are valid, why not use them? Oh that's right, it's because it'll look like you're actually thinking for yourself and want to do what's right instead of sticking to partisan politics like everyone in the Democratic party likes to accuse Republicans of doing. That's called "hypocrisy". Democrats are REALLY good at it.
Just take a look at the above mentioned statement. She basically says that because Elizabeth Edwards DARED to criticize the righteous moveon.org people, that she has crossed an invisible line and now they will cast her off to the side.
Good for MoveOn for being willing to say what needs to be said and take the hit. Democrats should take their cues from Hillary Clinton when asked about their efforts and seize the opportunity to wrap this war around the exposed necks of the GOP.
I guess she's against the Iraq war, as well as against winning it and against anyone telling her the truth about what's going on over there, even if it's by one of the most qualified person's on the planet to do so.
Travis
Labels: iraq, Jane Hamsher
Greenspan: Euro Gains As Reserve Choice: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance
Alan Greenspan has been on a tear lately.
First, he warns, correctly, that the Euro can soon replace the US dollar as the reserve currency defacto standard.
It's very important for this country to support fiscal responsibility. That includes cutting out the fat in government spending and not proposing new programs such as Hillary Clinton's $110 BILLION dollar fiasco that is Universal Health Care until we trim out the unnecessary items.
But then after a bit, Greenspan goes way out into left field:
Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.
But you have those on the left who will take that "Iraq war is largely about oil" comment and run with it. I know I've seen a ton of people say "See! I told you so!" without reading further then that statement.
Though Greenspan's book is largely silent about Iraq, it is sharply critical of Bush and fellow Republicans on other matters, denouncing in particular what Greenspan calls the president's lack of fiscal discipline and the "dysfunctional government" he has presided over. In the interview, Greenspan said he had previously told Bush and Cheney of his critique. "They're not surprised by my conclusions," he said.
Being the head of the Federal Reserve, I can completely see his point. We've spent WAY too much money in the past several years, some legitimate (rebuilding New York and the Pentagon), and some not (earmarks galore on spending bills)
But then Greenspan says something that I'd never thought I'd hear him say.
As for Iraq, Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."
I'm pretty sure that's what everyone though. I know that's what I thought. My concerns about Saddam's behavior, the intelligence we had at the time, and Russia's warning about an impending terrorist attack by Saddam, sealed it for me.
Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.
And THAT'S what those on the left didn't read in the article. They just saw the "largely about oil" and ran with it. It's important to read ALL the facts before you comment. I know I'm guilty of the same thing from time to time. :)
Travis
Labels: Alan Greenspan, iraq
Blackwater security firm banned from Iraq - CNN.com
A gun battle that left 8 civilians dead has cost the security firm Blackwater, their license to operate within Iraq.
The ministry said the incident began around midday, when a convoy of sport utility vehicles came under fire from unidentified gunmen in the square.
The men in the SUVs, described by witnesses as Westerners, returned fire, and the witnesses said the vehicles are that Western security firms use.
A witness told The Associated Press that he heard an explosion before the gunfire began.
"We saw a convoy of SUVs passing in the street nearby," Hussein Abdul-Abbas, owner of a mobile phone store in the area, told the AP. "One minute later, we heard the sound of a bomb explosion followed by gunfire that lasted for 20 minutes between gunmen and the convoy people who were foreigners and dressed in civilian clothes. Everybody in the street started to flee immediately."
So these men were fired upon, returned fire, and now they are losing their license to operate within the country. The investigation is ongoing, but there are a few problems I have with this.
Did these men actually kill the civilians? There was an explosion, so did that kill the civilians? Did the people who fired upon the convoy kill these people?
If they did indeed kill these people, then let them stand trial for it. However, revoking the license of the security company will have dire, long term consequences that I don't think the Iraqi's have thought through.
25,000 Blackwater employees are in Iraq right now. You take out 25,000 security folks and now you have a real problem on your hands. Who's going to provide security to those that they now have to leave in the open? It certainly appears that this revoking is a "feel good" response, but I don't know if they know what they're doing.
Travis
Friday, September 14, 2007
White House report shows meager gains in Iraq - CNN.com
The White House report to U.S. lawmakers on progress in Iraq showed meager gains on benchmarks that Congress established for the Iraqi government.
President Bush's report, which was released Friday, grades Iraq as showing satisfactory progress on nine of the 18 benchmarks set for the Iraqi government.
The report said Iraqi leaders have shown unsatisfactory progress on seven benchmarks, including four "with progress on some aspects while not on others."
Two benchmarks "are not rated because the necessary preconditions are not yet present," the report said.
That's where you'll see the real push in Iraq over the coming months. Diplomatic and political pushes will dominate the headlines for the foreseeable future as the security situation becomes better and better.
Watch for a push against al-Maliki and the Iraqi parliament to get laws passed, Iraqi security forces on their feet quicker, and Iranian influence to diminish.
Of course, according to the article: "Democrats vowed to fight for a change of course in Iraq."
The problem is that Democrats idea of "change" is get the hell out as quickly as possible and damn the consequences of said action. That's not "change", that's leaving people to the wolves.
I watched the President's speech and while there were things I disagreed with him on (such as leaving troops in Iraq for significant periods of time), he is right on many levels. The recent assassination of an Anbar leader shows that Al-Qaeda wants to come back and wreak havoc onto the populace. If our guys aren't there to protect them until they are enough on their own feet, Al-Qaeda could easily slaughter them all and the blood of innocent civilians will be on Democratic hands.
Of course they won't see it that way. They'll see it as "we got out because we lost" and other defeatist attitudes like that. Our men and women on the ground see it, President Bush sees it, hell even regional leaders see it, so why can't Democrats see it? Because they love nothing more than an American defeat.
Travis
Labels: iraq
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Korea may be Bush's model for Iraq, officials say - CNN.com
This is a bad idea. George Bush is looking at the 38,000 troops we have in South Korea as a model for Iraq. In other words, keeping around 40k troops, equipment, and other things stationed in Iraq indefinitely.
I understand the need for a Middle East base since the Saudis and us basically took one to the chin and closed the base there. If Iraq does turn around nationally like the Anbar province has, then I say we have a vote within the Iraqi parliament to see if they really want us to have a permanent base there.
That is, however, WAY after we've removed most of our troops and we're headed out the door. Sort of a "hey, we're leaving, but if you'd like, we can stay a bit longer with a lot less guys if you'd like some protection....your choice".
And if they say no, then that's it, no. If they say yes, then fine, we'll build another base and hire a ton of Iraqi's to give the local economy jobs and security. But it MUST be after the war is over, our guys are coming home and the Iraqi government votes publicly on it.
But my gut feeling is that this is a bad idea.
Travis
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Sunni insurgents side with U.S. against al Qaeda - CNN.com
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
Labels: insurgent, iraq, Reconciliation
No Democratic censure for MoveOn ad - - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper
Well it appears that Democrats LIKED the ad that was taken out against General Petraeus. The infamous "General Betray Us" ad. They aren't speaking out against it, only giving token statements. Let's take a peek:
Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the California Democrat "wished [MoveOn.org] wouldn't have done that ad," but declined to comment further.
A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, also declined to comment on the ad.
Even Presidential candidate John Edwards won't denounce the obviously below the belt tactic done by his political masters:
A spokesman for former Sen. John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate who has benefited from full-page ads MoveOn.org ran on his behalf, said Mr. Edwards "honors General Petraeus' service and patriotism," but he did not disavow the MoveOn.org ad.
"The general is wrong to believe that the American people or Congress should give President Bush's failed Iraq strategy more time," said Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz.
In July, MoveOn.org ran newspaper ads for Mr. Edwards in Iowa and New Hampshire after their members chose him as the winner of an online forum about global warming.
Is Barack Obama any different? Nope.
Sen. Barack Obama's spokeswoman Jen Psaki noted that the candidate is not questioning the general's patriotism but rather his "logic," because the Illinois Democrat sees "no evidence that this surge is producing the political progress needed to resolve the civil war in Iraq, or that it will be accomplished through more of the same."
After Mr. Obama won an online MoveOn.org forum about Iraq, the group set up a page directing its members to make direct financial contributions to whichever candidate they felt gave the strongest performance.
Of course, even Hillary won't denounce it.
Phil Singer, a spokesman for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said his boss would "keep her focus where it should be, on ending the war."
So she can't be bothered to make a two sentence statement?
But do you know who actually denounced the ad on the Democratic side of things? John Kerry. Stop laughing, I'm not kidding:
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, who on Monday called the ad "over the top."
But they are all saying that it's being used as a distraction. This coming from the party of distractions. Republicans aren't asking for this to be the main topic, they are asking for a bit of humanity from Democrats and they aren't getting it.
Travis
Labels: Democrats, General Petraeus, iraq, Politics, Republicans
Michael J. Totten: Anbar Awakens Part I: The Battle of Ramadi
If you want to get a good feel of how things are REALLY going in Iraq, there's no one better to ask then someone who's actually there. Check this out from Michael J. Totten. I've written about him before.
Sheikh Jassim’s experience was typical.
“Jassim was pissed off because American artillery fire was landing in his area,” Colonel Holmes said. “But he wasn’t pissed off at us. He was pissed off at Al Qaeda because he knew they always shot first and we were just shooting back.”
“He said he would prevent Al Qaeda from firing mortars from his area if we would help him,” Lieutenant Hightower said. “Al Qaeda said they would mess him up if he got in their way. He called their bluff and they seriously fucked him up. They launched a massive attack on his area. All hell broke loose. They set houses on fire. They dragged people through the streets behind pickup trucks. A kid from his area went into town and Al Qaeda kidnapped him, tortured him, and delivered his head to the outpost in a box. The dead kid was only sixteen years old. The Iraqis then sent out even nine year old kids to act as neighborhood watchmen. They painted their faces and everything.”
“Sheikh Jassim came to us after that,” Colonel Holmes told me, “and said I need your help.”
“One night,” Lieutenant Markham said, “after several young people were beheaded by Al Qaeda, the mosques in the city went crazy. The imams screamed jihad from the loudspeakers. We went to the roof of the outpost and braced for a major assault. Our interpreter joined us. Hold on, he said. They aren’t screaming jihad against us. They are screaming jihad against the insurgents."
“A massive anti-Al Qaeda convulsion ripped through the city,” said Captain McGee. “The locals rose up and began killing the terrorists on their own. They reached the tipping point where they just could not take any more. They told us where the weapon caches were. They pointed out IEDs under the road.”
“In mid-March,” Lieutenant Hightower said, “a sniper operating out of a house was shooting Americans and Iraqis. Civilians broke into his house, beat the hell out of him, and turned him over to us.”
Still want out of Iraq? This is concrete proof that we're making progress in Iraq.
Travis
Labels: iraq
Hirsh: Rating Petraeus’s Report to the Hill - Newsweek Michael Hirsh - MSNBC.com
There's reports that the Pentagon's internal report will "differ substantially" from what General Petraeus is telling America.
John Arquilla, an intelligence and counterinsurgency expert at the Naval Postgraduate School, is even harsher in his assessment of Petraeus. “I think Colin Powell used dodgy information to get us into the war, and Petraeus is using dodgy information to keep us there,” he said.
You think or you know?
“His political talking points are all very clear: the continued references he made to the danger of Al Qaeda in Iraq, for example, even though it represents only somewhere between 2 and 5 percent of the total insurgency.
How do you know it's only between 2 and 5%? Where do you get these figures?
The continued references to Iran, when in fact the Iranians have had a lot to do with stability in the Shiite portion of the country.
Yes, the insurgency isn't happening at all. The Shiite's aren't bombing markets full of people. If that's the Iranian's "help", I don't think anyone wants it.
And it's not at all clear why things are a little better now. Is it because there are more troops, or is it because we're negotiating with the insurgents and have moved to small operating outposts?
Well we'll all find that out once troops start coming home won't we? If things continue to go at the same pace and there are less troops, I think that would answer your question.
On any given day we don't have more than 20,000 troops operating.
How do you know this?
The glacial pace of reductions beggars the imagination.”
Well moving 30,000 troops out of Iraq is a big deal. Would you like it if we moved our guys out and had to bring them back because things hadn't quite settled down?
I'm not saying this guy is wrong. However, I want examples and hard data before I accept someone's opinion on matters.
Travis
Labels: General Petraeus, iraq
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Dennis Kucinich has lost his mind
I am at a complete loss for words on the insane amount of bullshit that this guy is spewing out.
Here is Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich talking about reparations for Iraqis, exaggerating the amount of Iraqi dead, and calling the war in Iraq an "illegal occupation". He talks about "American showing it's goodness again". Yet, he doesn't seem to get it that Iran isn't going to show us the same respect that the proposes to us. They burn our flag and chant "death to America" LONG before the Iraq war started. But of course, once we "show our goodness again", the "world can love America again". Sorry Dennis, but your deluding yourself and America if you think that's ever going to happen. If the world loved us BEFORE Iraq, why did 9/11 happen? Why did Palestinians cheer in the streets? Why did Iran hang an Army Colonel in the late 80's and show his death video around the world? Why were we attacked in Beruit? According to you, we were "loved" during that time.
This guy is bordering on being traitorous. He's feeding right into the hands of our enemies and he's looking like an idiot doing it. I'm just glad he has zero chance of winning the presidency, otherwise I'd be a lot more furious then I am now.
Travis
Labels: Dennis Kucinich, iraq, Syria
Pelosi: President's Policy is a Path to 10 More Years of War in Iraq - Yahoo! News
"President Bush's policy announced by General Petraeus is a path to 10 more years of war in Iraq. General Petraeus' testimony to Congress drew a bright line: redeployment is not an option; endless war in Iraq is the Administration's only option.
"Under the Bush plan, 130,000 Americans will remain in harm's way in Iraq at a cost of hundreds of billions of additional taxpayer dollars. This status quo policy was rejected by General James Jones, whose recent report stated that significant force reductions are possible and that we must reduce our military footprint in Iraq.
"The Bush-Petraeus plan of 130,000 Americans in Iraq for 10 more years is not a reduction in our footprint; it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to call that a new direction. It is a status quo plan that tells the Iraqi government that they do not need to change.
"The American people long ago rejected the President's plan to stay in Iraq, which is why they voted for a New Direction in 2006. Yet, with his veto pen and the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, the President is preventing the redeployment of our troops, the rebuilding of our military, and the refocusing of our nation's efforts on fighting terrorism."
10 more years eh Nancy? Have any proof of that? Redeployment is NOT an option because there is progress being made and you simply don't like it.
"The Bush-Petraeus plan of 130,000 Americans in Iraq for 10 more years is not a reduction in our footprint" You assume too much. Petraeus never said that we would have to remain at war in Iraq for 10 years.
"will be in Iraq in some way for 9 or 10 years" could mean anything. Hell, even one soldier in Iraq could mean "some way". We certainly aren't going to have 130,000 troops in Iraq in 9 or 10 years. It simply isn't possible. You're stretching the truth to fit your own personal agenda.
And finally, Americans voted in Democrats in 2006 for a variety of reasons, including Iraq. But you assume that's the ONLY reason you were voted in. If you truly believe that, you're in some deep trouble come election time.
Travis
Labels: idiocy, iraq, Nancy Pelosi
Officials: Bush to adopt Petraeus advice on troop withdrawals - CNN.com
Is anyone really surprised here? President Bush didn't really have a choice in the matter. With General Petraeus saying that there is progress and we can bring the surge troops home by next summer if things continue the way they are now, Bush wouldn't really have a leg to stand on if he chose otherwise.
Plus, had he not followed General Petraeus' advice, he would have looked like a hypocrite for saying "listen to the commanders on the ground".
Now that the firestorm has subsided ever so slightly, the real work is in prodding Iraqi lawmakers and their security forces to start getting on the ball about various issues.
That's where we need to focus on more than anything else. The local folks are starting to stand on their own two feet and driving out insurgents. We're not out of the woods yet, but I can see civilization.
Travis
Monday, September 10, 2007
Rick Jacobs: "Yes to Four More Years in Iraq" -- California Republican Party - Politics on The Huffington Post
For all the times I call out someone when they are wrong, occasionally I get to hear from them and they offer a rebuttal. I doubt I'll be hearing from Huffington Post blogger Rick Jacobs on his idiotic assumptions:
As the Petraeus/Crocker show starts tomorrow, think about this: a Republican White House victory in 2008. That'd mean four more years in Iraq and who knows what in Iran. It'd mean four more years of torture in prisons, of wire tapping our phones and computers, of making the environment worse, not working to reverse the damage. Four more years sounds far- fetched, doesn't it? The "surge" has failed. America's low standing in the world is matched by that of Bush's standing in the US. The Republican presidential candidates are in disarray. The American people "get it." The Republicans can't win again in 2008, right?
Well Rick, the surge HASN'T failed. Unless you want to discredit the guy who's been over there and seen what it has and hasn't accomplished. Or perhaps you haven't seen the testimony of the General seeing as how you posted this yesterday.
That I can forgive, but all reports and leaks coming out of Washington said that he had positive things to say. So you're simply making assumptions. Something I very rarely like to do.
Secondly, what makes you think a Republican would have us in Iraq another 4 years? General Petraeus is saying that we can start bringing a lot of our guys home at the end of next summer if things keep going the way they are now.
If America has such a low standing, why are there people STILL coming to America to build better lives for themselves?
And if American's "Get it". Why do 72% of them say that no matter what General Petraeus says in his report, it won't change their mind about Iraq? That's pretty close minded if you ask me.
Governor Schwarzenegger gave the delegates a talking to on Friday night, explaining that they had left the voters behind, that they had to address issues such as the environment and healthcare if they hoped to win another election. This was on the heels of his having called the Electoral College dirty tricks initiative part of a "loser's mentality" for those who seek to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Any candidate will lose the election if they don't pay attention to voters needs. It doesn't matter which side of the aisle you're on. Plus, the "loser's mentality" is what Democrats were wanting to do right after the 2000 and 2004 elections. There were calls for reforming the Electoral College votes to more of a popular vote right afterwards that didn't go very far. So if Democrats wanted to change the rules then, they shouldn't have a problem with changing the rules now right?
Travis
Labels: Assumptions, Huffington Post, idiocy, iraq
Iraq 'surge' working, Petraeus tells Congress - CNN.com
Wow, that certainly isn't going to jive with anti-war Democrats.
The troops "surge" in Iraq is improving the security situation in the country, Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress on Monday.
Gen. David Petraeus arrives for testimony to Congress on Monday.
He said U.S. forces could be reduced to pre-surge levels by next summer.
Petraeus said he has recommended the withdrawal of a Marine expeditionary unit later this month and a brigade combat team in December, plus the "reduction of eight further brigade teams and the battalion combats in 2008 until we reach the pre-surge levels of 15 brigade combat teams by mid-July 2008."
Responding to pre-hearing criticism that he would be repeating the Bush administration line on Iraq, Petraeus in his opening statement said the testimony was his alone.
Petraeus said coalition forces had seen good success against al Qaeda in Iraq, knocking it "off-balance" and pursuing its leaders relentlessly. Watch the hearing live
The general said that tribes and local citizens have rejected al Qaeda and other insurgents, especially in the volatile Anbar province.
The general called this the "most significant development in the past six months."
Despite successes, "the level of civilian deaths is still too high," Petraeus said.
Before Petraeus began to testify, the head of the House Armed Services Committee challenged Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker to convince him that the war effort in Iraq is worth continuing.
Basically, he's saying that some soldiers will be home by Christmas. He's also saying that we should be back to "pre surge" levels in less than 9 months. What's not said in the article, but I watched on the video, was that if we see the continued trend, we'll be bringing our soldiers home after July 2008. Petraeus also said that to predict when troops should come home past that wouldn't work because of previous attempts at that is simple naive.
Hell, even DailyKos is stunned. Here's his whole take on the report:
We won! Therefore, our troops need to stay there forever.
Or something like that.
Sounds like the ramblings of a sore loser.
Travis
Labels: General Petraeus, iraq
General Petraeus' Live Testimony
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US surge has failed - Iraqi poll
And now for the differing opinion. The BBC is reporting that a recent poll shows that the Iraqi's think that the "surge" has failed. Let's take a look at their numbers shall we?
IS VIOLENCE JUSTIFIED?
"Thinking about the political action of other people, do you find each of these items to be acceptable or not acceptable?"
Attacks on coalition forces
All
Sunni Arab
Shia Arab
Kurds
Acceptable
57%
93%
50%
5%
Not acceptable
43%
7%
50%
94%
BBC/ABC News
One of starkest statistics from the poll is the overwhelming support for attacks on coalition forces among Iraq's minority Sunni population; 93% of those surveyed said they considered it acceptable.
The numbers were exactly opposite when they asked about attacks on Iraqi forces.
Funny though, Iran is supporting Shiite Muslims in their attacks on US troops. So you have to wonder if the result is a bit skewed on that number. Hell according to the CIA Factbook, Iraqi is "60-65% Shiite". So if Iran is supporting them, how do you suppose they'll answer? Do you think that Hitler would answer that he supports the Jewish folks because it's the right thing or the truthful thing?
The one thing that I've been telling people all along is one of the main complaints.
Jobs - 80%% are "quite bad" or "very bad".
Electric Supply - 93% "quite bad" or "very bad"
Clean Water - 75%
Take these things out of the equation and Iraq will prosper past your wildest dreams. I've spoken with Iraqi civilians and US troops and that's the three biggest complaints. I've written about it before back in MAY.
The number of people wanting coalition forces to leave immediately rose since February's poll but more than half - 53% - still said they should stay until security improved.
Even the Iraqi's know that the security situation needs to improve or drastic things will happen.
So there you have it. A differing opinion on the war in Iraq. I wonder if the mainstream media or Dailykos would ever have the courage to do such a thing. Nah, I doubt it.
Travis
Congress expected to grill general on violence data - CNN.com
Well the day has finally arrived and General Petraeus now has to go in front of Congress and give his report on the situation in Iraq. Cpan is going to be covering the event live, so here's a link to that. I believe it's starting at 12:30 Pacific Standard Time.
Of course, the liberals out there are already decrying his thoughts and position:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, told "Fox News Sunday" that Petraeus' position of authority in Iraq clouds his view.
"General Petraeus is there to succeed," Feinstein said. "I don't think he's an independent evaluator."
General Petraeus also knows that to lie to Congress is not only a crime, but it's dishonorable to do so. To question his character BEFORE you even get a chance to hear him out shows great disrespect towards a man that Democrats said that they would listen to just a few short months ago when they thought they'd get the guy to echo their sentiments. Now that he's not, they are attacking him at every angle.
Republican Sen. Arlen Specter -- who opposed sending additional troops to Iraq -- said Sunday he intends to examine Petraeus' testimony.
"We're going to look behind the generalizations that Gen. Petraeus or anybody gives us and probe the very hard facts to see exactly what the situation is," the Pennsylvania lawmaker said on CNN's "Late Edition."
"Unless we see some light at the end of the tunnel here, very closely examining what Gen. Petraeus and others have to say, I think there's a general sense that there needs to be a new policy."
Sounds fair to me. Look at the evidence, if something's working, keep at it. If not, try something else. Where's the problem with that? But even ordinary American's aren't as open minded as that:
A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll taken last month found about two-thirds of Americans -- 64 percent -- oppose the Iraq war, and 72 percent say even if Petraeus reports progress, that won't change their opinion.
So 72% of Americans have made up their mind and won't even consider the option of finishing up the job in Iraq. Those same 72% will scream out for answers if Iraq becomes a terrorist wasteland and attacks on American originate from there. You don't have to believe me. Just look it up. Everywhere after 9/11 people wanted answers. "Why weren't the dots connected?" A fair question, but then when you give them the answer, they seem dumbfounded. "You mean Clinton was too involved in the Monica scandal to defend America from a known threat??"
Hell, even one of the posters on the article "Chris" doesn't seem to get it:
This is ridiculous. When will people stop looking at numbers. This is about lives, both American and Iraqi, that are being thoughtlessly lost. Here's an idea: Leave the country and see if violence goes down. It probably will.
So he's willing to leave Iraq and just "hope for the best". He's willing to risk American and Iraqi lives on a "probably will". That's not long term thinking and it certainly isn't something that wouldn't come back and bite us in the ass.
Travis
Labels: General Petraeus, iraq
Volunteers collect Baghdad's nameless dead - CNN.com
Here's where we start to see the media propaganda machine get put into high gear. CNN is running a tear jerker story about a man who takes care of the Baghdad dead voluntarily. A noble cause if there ever was.
CNN's painting it as a "oh my God, things are horrible there" story. However, I'll put it into context for you.
Most of the dead are believed to be victims of sectarian animosity, slain after they were kidnapped or assassinated in so-called extra-judicial killings or in massive bombings.
True, most of the dead are probably done in by sectarian violence. However, how many of them are victims of crimes?
Such grim volunteer work isn't entirely new to the region. Under former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, the sheik said, they often buried more than three dozen unidentified corpses a month.
So, let's assume that these three dozen people were all victims of crime. Just an assumption, I know, but let's assume for the sake of the argument.
After the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, that number rose to around 250 a month, he said. Following last year's Askariya bombing, the volunteers buried as many as 2,000 per month. The numbers now are back in the low hundreds, the sheik said.
So, "low hundreds". Does that mean 200? 300? Well since they don't say, I'm going to assume 300. The reason why is because they say "low" and that's not "mid" or about 500. Granted, I don't like to assume anything, but I am only assuming for the sake of the argument.
With a population of around 7 million, a murder rate of 300 a month translates to one murder per 1,944 people. In contrast Philadelphia, the nations worst murder rated city, has a murder rate of 406 people for a population of around 5.8 million. That translates to one murder per 14,285 people. Sounds bleak doesn't it? With a murder rate of 7.34 times the worst US city, it does indeed sound bad.
However, this is in a war zone. This is with people who knowingly cut people's heads off and strap explosives to their bodies and kill hundreds of people. Bad? You bet. As bad as they want you to believe? Not in the least. I'd be satisfied with a murder rate in Baghdad similar to that of a normal American city.
How do we do that? Well according to Democrats, we pull out of Iraq and it'll be sunshine and rainbow land! So if you think that all of a sudden that by pulling out that more violence won't be there, you're deluding yourself. I'm certainly not saying we should stay there indefinitely, but we certainly shouldn't leave if we are making progress towards significantly reducing the violence in Iraq.
Travis
Labels: iraq
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Iraq says won't disband police despite U.S. report | Reuters
Well thank God they actually have a brain in their heads:
Iraq's Interior Ministry said the report represented only one point of view and that while sectarianism was an issue it was being dealt with, and in any case was not widespread.
"We respect that point of view but we disagree with it," ministry spokesman Brigadier-General Abdul-Kareem Khalaf said.
"We admit there were some problems before due to sectarian loyalties but this involved just a few people. It was not widespread ... it does not reach the level of disbanding the police," Khalaf said.
"We have taken many steps to end these violations," he said.
Disbanding any police force, regardless of the level of corruption, would lead to widespread chaos and violence. With respect to General Jones, I don't think he thought this one through enough to see the long term consequences of a disbanding of the Iraqi police might have on the nation.
Travis
Dems already discount war report - - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper
They're discounting it because they know it's going to contain things that they don't want to hear: That progress is being made in Iraq and that enough progress has been made to warrant more time.
What's worse is that they haven't even SEEN the fucking thing and they are already discounting it. Why? Because they're trying to do a preemptive strike against the President and undermine the war in Iraq.
"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.
"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "
The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."
They are calling it the Bush report because they are trying to get American's who don't have a clue about how this report is going to be made, tricked into thinking that it's all a White House washout. Bush couldn't claim progress if Petraeus isn't claiming progress. General Petraeus is scheduled to testify before Congress about the progress in Iraq. Any discrepancy between what he says to them and what Bush says in the report will be torn apart within hours.
These people have made up their mind already about the war in Iraq and have lied to the American people. They trusted General Petraeus to deliver an honest report in September about the progress or lack thereof in Iraq. Now that they have a gist of what's going to be in it, they don't like it and now are trying to undermine the credibility of a four star General.
That reeks of playing politics with the lives of our soldiers in Iraq. General Petraeus has already said that we can probably maintain the same amount of security with less forces within a few months if things look good. That's counter to what Democrats say that Bush wants. So if we can do the same with less, then that's what we should do. We should trust the guy who knows counterinsurgency like the back of his hand instead of trying to force their own naive views upon the military.
Democrats said they put more faith in a report Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office that showed Iraq failed to meet 11 of 18 political and security benchmarks set by Congress.
Ok, then let's go with that. 11 out of 18 failed to be met so far. That means that 7 have been or are close to being done. So you're willing to bail out when they're almost 1/2 way done with those benchmarks? Democrats love to talk about soldiers dying for nothing, but they won't tell you that if they pull out of Iraq like they want to and Iraq spirals out of control, those who've fought and died to achieve what we have done so far will indeed be for nothing.
"We will see what the Bush report will be at the end of next week," Mrs. Pelosi said. "The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made. They might want to find one or two places where there has been progress but the plural of anecdote is not data."
She said Democrats were determined to uncover "the ground truth in Iraq."
Even one of their own, Representative Brian Baird agrees that we should stay a little longer until they get back on their feet. He voted originally against the Iraq war. What do Democrats do about that? They try to run smear campaigns against him and discount his own findings. He went to Iraq and specifically asked to go into areas and get the full picture, not a "dog and pony show". But other Democrats didn't like that he came to a conclusion that differs from their own.
That's playing politics with soldiers lives and the lives of Iraqi civilians.
So go ahead, discount General Petraeus, you're only showing yourselves to be petty and weak when you don't get your way.
Travis
Labels: Democrats, General Petraeus, iraq, Politics
26,000 U.S., Iraqi troops conduct offensive - CNN.com
With more than 1/2 of the operation involving Iraqi troops, you can't tell me that they aren't starting to get on their feet.
We're starting to push militants out of Iraq. Some Moqtada al-Sadr's men are honoring his suspension orders, so the violence levels are bound to go down.
While I'm not happy with the speed of things, I think the Iraqi's can do more, I am glad to see the progress is indeed being made.
Travis
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Keith Olbermann Twists Words Yet Again
Here's a transcript of his latest rant, but there's a few problems of course:
Finally tonight, a Special Comment about Mr. Bush’s trip, and his startling admission of the true motive for this war, which was revealed in his absence.
And so he is back from his annual surprise gratuitous photo-op in Iraq, and what a sorry spectacle it was.
But it was nothing compared to the spectacle of one unfiltered, unguarded, horrifying quotation in the new biography to which Mr. Bush has consented.
As he deceived the troops at Al-Asad Air Base yesterday with the tantalizing prospect that some of them might not have to risk being killed and might get to go home, Mr. Bush probably did not know that, with his own words, he had already proved that he had been lying — is lying… will be lying — about Iraq.
He presumably did not know, that there had already appeared those damning excerpts from Robert Draper’s book “Dead Certain.”
“I’m playing for October-November,” Mr. Bush said to Draper.
That, evidently, is the time during which, he thinks he can sell us the real plan.
Really Keith! Do tell!
Which is, to quote him: “To get us in a position where the presidential candidates, will be comfortable about sustaining a presence.”
Comfortable, that is, with saying about Iraq, again quoting the President, “stay longer.”
And there it is, sir. We’ve caught you.
I'm confused, how do you catch someone when they say something out loud?
Your goal is not to bring some troops home — maybe — if we let you have your way now;
How do you know that? You're grasping at straws Keith. "I'm playing for October-November" could very well mean "I'm trying to get Iraqi violence levels down to acceptable levels around October or November. I want the American people more comfortable to keep US troops in Iraq until the Iraqi's are more able to stand on their feet, presumably within the next few months." Keith, you're assuming things. We all know that the President isn't exactly the best at public speaking.
Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual withdrawal;
How do you know that? You're assuming.
You are, to use your own disrespectful, tone-deaf word, playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into this bottomless pit with you, and take us with him, as we stay in Iraq for another year, and another, and another, and anon.
So he's trying to get other Republican Presidential nominees to see the progress in Iraq and be ok with keeping them there if the need does arrive?
Everything you said about Iraq yesterday, and everything you will say, is a deception, for the purpose of this one cynical, unacceptable, brutal goal — perpetuating this war indefinitely.
We simply can't afford to be at war forever. No one has even suggested it. Well except you.
War today, war tomorrow, war forever!
And you are playing at it!
Playing!
A man with any self-respect, having inadvertently revealed such an evil secret, would have already resigned and fled the country!
You have no remaining credibility about Iraq, sir.
You had none to start with Keith.
And yet, yesterday at Al-Asad, Mr. Bush kept playing — and this time, using the second of his two faces.
The President told reporters, “They, (General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker) “tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces.”
And so, Mr. Bush got his fraudulent headlines today: “Bush May Bring Some Troops Home.”
What makes it fraudulent? If General Petraeus says "we should bring down troop levels", how can you possibly argue with that? He's the guy on the ground, he's the one with the experience and he's the one who's actually making a difference. Oh wait, that's right, he's also the one that Democrats are already calling a "Political Hack" and other nasty names because they know he's going to show positive results and it'll completely take the wind out of Democrats argument of complete and immediate withdrawal.
While the reality is, we know from what he told Draper, that the President’s true hope is that they will not come home; but that they will stay there, because he is keeping them there now, in hope that those from his political party fighting to succeed him, will prolong this unendurable disaster into the next decade.
You're assuming again Keith, it seems to be a pattern with you.
But, to a country dying of thirst, the President seemed to vaguely promise a drink from a full canteen — a promise predicated on the assumption that he is not lying.
Yet you are lying, Mr. Bush. Again. But now, we know why.
You gave away more of yourself than you knew in the Draper book
And you gave away more still, on the arduous trip back out of Iraq — hours in the air, without so much as a single vacation.
“If you look at my comments over the past eight months,” you told reporters, “it’s gone from a security situation — in the sense that we’re either going to get out and there will be chaos, or, more troops. Now, the situation has changed, where I’m able to speculate on the hypothetical.”
Mr. Bush, the only “hypothetical” here is that you are not now holding our troops hostage.
Hardly. Now the "hypothetical" is when can we bring troops home and how are the Iraqi security forces doing?
You have no intention of withdrawing them.
But that doesn’t mean you can’t pretend you’re thinking about it, does it?
That is your genius, sir — as you see it, anyway.
So, I'm confused, is Bush a genius or an idiot. Liberals flip flop on this so many times. But then again, they flip flop like a fish out of water, so it's not surprising.
You can deduce what we want — we, the people, remember us? — and then use it against us.
You can hold that canteen up and promise it to the parched nation.
Ooooh a metaphor! I'm impressed!
And the untold number of Americans whose lives have not been directly blighted by Iraq — or who do not realize that their safety has been reduced and not increased by Iraq — they will get the bullet points: ‘Bush is thinking about bringing some troops home. Bush even went to Iraq.’
Yes, because after Generals on the ground have said we've captured or killed almost 4,000 Al-Qaeda members, we certainly are much less safe aren't we? Al-Zahirwi has said that Iraq is Al-Qaeda's main focus point now, we've seen evidence of that statement to be true, so we must indeed be less safe! It all makes sense now!
You can fool some of the people all of the time, can’t you, Mr. Bush?
You are playing us!
And as for the most immediate victims of the President’s perfidy and shameless manipulation — those troops, yesterday sweating literally as he spoke at Al-Asad Air Base…
Tonight, again sweating figuratively in The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death…
The President saved, for them, the most egregious “playing” in the entire trip.
“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.”
One must compliment Mr. Bush’s writer.
That, perhaps, was the mostly perfectly crafted phrase of his Presidency.
But well crafted or not, is it true? I believe it is. I believe it's the right thing to do. Politicians, especially Democrats, will say or do anything to keep themselves in power and they see positive results coming from Iraq and with their constituency saying "get out of Iraq now!", they are stuck either looking like a pandering bunch of idiots, or a dangerously short sighted bunch of idiots.
For depraved indifference to Democracy, for the craven projection of political motives onto those trying to save lives and save a nation, for a dismissal of the value of the polls and the importance of the media… for a summary of all he does not hold dear about this nation or its people — nothing… could top that.
As if, sir, you listened to all the “calm assessments” of our military commanders –rather than firing the ones who dared say The Emperor Has No Clothes, and The President, No Judgment;
Pretty hard to dismiss General Petraeus isn't it? I mean he can do it, but it would be political suicide to do so.
As if, sir, your entire presidency was not a “nervous reaction”, and you yourself, nothing but a Washington politician;
As if, sir, “the media” does not largely divide into those parts your minions are playing, and those others who unthinkingly and uncritically serve as your echo chamber, at a time when the nation’s future may depend on the airing of dissent.
And as if, sir, those polls were not so overwhelming, and not so clearly reflective of the nation’s agony and the nation’s insistence.
But this President has ceased to listen.
Why? Because there are vast consequences to withdrawal that Democrats simply don't see? They don't know about the 1991 slaughter of Iraqi citizens that rose up against Saddam that we encouraged? They don't think that we'd have a nation of pissed off people if we pulled out and they were summarily slaughtered as well?
This President has decided that night is day, and death is life, and enraging the world against us, is safety.
To tell you the truth, I could give a shit what the world thinks of us. I only care about the safety and security of America.
And this laziest of Presidents, actually interrupted his precious time off to fly to Iraq to play at a photo opportunity with soldiers, some of whom will — on his orders — be killed before the year, maybe the month, is out.
Just over 500 days remain in this Presidency.
Consider the dead who have piled up on the battlefield in these last 500 days.
Consider the singular fraudulence of this President’s trip to Iraq yesterday, and the singular fraudulence of the selling of the Petraeus Report in these last 500 days.
Consider how this President has torn away at the fabric of this nation in a manner of which terrorists can only dream in these last 500 days.
And consider again how this President has spoken to that biographer: that he is “playing for October-November.” The goal in Iraq is “To get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence” and consider how this revelation contradicts every other rationale he has offered in these last 500 days.
In the context of all that… now, consider… these next 500 days.
Mr. Bush, our presence in Iraq must end.
Even if it means your resignation.
Won't happen.
Even if it means your impeachment.
REALLY won't happen. Democrats simply don't have the backbone to do it. So whine all you want, we all know you're full of hot air. They also don't have the votes, or the criminal charges.
Even if it means a different Republican to serve out your term.
President Cheney? Yeah, I'm sure that Democrats would go for that.
Even if it means a Democratic Congress — and those true Patriots among the Republicans — standing up and denying you another penny for Iraq, other than for the safety and the safe conduct home of our troops.
Go for it. Hell, I double dare you to do it. You'll end up getting the reputation that you so richly deserve just like the one you got after Democrats defunded the Vietnam war. Ones of cowardice and undermining troops with no money to pay for proper equipment and supplies.
But alas, Democrats don't have the backbone to do it. They are too worried about doing what's popular instead of what's "right" in their minds. They lack the courage, the conviction, and the moral radar to actually do anything about the Iraq war, which they are so enraged about.
This country cannot run the risk of what you can still do to this country in the next 500 days…
Not while you, sir… are playing.
And you sir, are assuming, grasping at straws, and trying to rile up people who aren't going to have the intestinal fortitude to stand by their principles.
Travis
Labels: Democrats, idiocy, iraq, Keith Olbermann, Politics, Republicans
U.S. report says Iraq Interior Ministry 'dysfunctional' - CNN.com
An independent report is now saying that the Interior Ministry is "dysfunctional and sectarian" and should be "disbanded and reorganized". Didn't we already do that once and it came back to bite us in the ass when people were all of a sudden unemployed and pissed?
Well at least the Pentagon isn't going down that road again:
The Pentagon said Wednesday it does not agree with the report's recommendation that the Iraqi National Police be disbanded.
Think about that for a minute, they want to disband the Iraqi police force. Sure, there's always going to be rogue officers and corruption in any police department, even ones here in the US, but to completely disband the police is insanity.
But then they turn around and make this comment:
The report says the "Iraqi Police Service must be better trained and equipped," and the commission "believes that the Iraqi Police Service can improve rapidly should the Ministry of Interior become a more functional institution."
So do they need just better training and equipment or do they need to be disbanded and reorganized?
But it's not all bad news.
The report has promising words for the Iraqi army, special forces, navy and air force, describing them as "increasingly effective" and "capable of assuming greater responsibility for the internal security of Iraq."
So the Iraqi police force needs work, but the military is working out pretty well. If that's the case, then work on the police force, don't disband them. It'll lead to lawlessness and higher levels of violence.
Do I really need to get a job writing reports for Congress? Because it appears that these idiots don't have a clue when it comes to repercussions of their words.
Travis
Labels: Congress, iraq, Report
Couric: 'Real Progress' In Iraq
Even Katie Couric is seeing "real progress" in Iraq. Journalists are some of the most liberal people on the planet, and if they are starting to see progress in Iraq, do you think that others might follow suit and want to actually stay until the job is done in Iraq?
Probably not, but it is telling when a major news reporter like Couric says things like "We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability," Couric said Tuesday. "I mean, obviously, infrastructure problems abound, but Sunnis and U.S. forces are working together. They banded together because they had a common enemy: al Qaeda."
It's what I've been telling you all along. Things are getting better, but you don't see that from the various liberals who want an immediate pull out of Iraq.
Jon Soltz, whom I do respect as a former soldier, won't even admit that. Take a look at this video:
Mr. Soltz won't even admit that progress is being made (at the roughly 2 minute mark remaining) when he's presented with facts about the progress in Iraq.
What I do wonder is if Jon Soltz saw things in Iraq during his time there and that has skewed his vision of what's going on there now. Mr. Soltz berated Dan Senor about "not going to be lectured by you" But he will be "lectured by General Petraeus". Well if that's the case Mr. Soltz, then why not wait for his report?
What's really telling is that Jon Soltz actually ADMITS there's positive progress in Iraq at the 1:45 left mark when he says: "There are not troops in Anbar Province because there's a political reconciliation."
He just blew his argument out of the water. Sorry Jon, I respect you very highly about your service to this country, but I believe you are wrong on this and people who are going there now have a better idea of what's going on.
Travis
Labels: iraq, Jon Soltz, Katie Couric
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Judge: 'Chemical Ali,' 2 others to be hanged - CNN.com
I asked about this just a little while ago, but an Iraqi judge has upheld the death sentence for Ali Hass an al-Majeed AKA "Chemical Ali". According to Iraqi law, the sentence must be carried out within 30 days, although he's likely to die within a much shorter time frame. My guess is no more than two weeks. For those of you who don't know, Chemical Ali orchestrated the 1988 gas attacks that you hear about in the news. Here's some of his handiwork:
Travis
Labels: Chemical Ali, Death Sentence, iraq
Back to work: Congress faces tough choices on Iraq - CNN.com
Well Congress is back to work and their top agendas are Iraq, the SCHIP, and the mortgage crisis going on.
I think what you'll find is that not a lot is actually going to get done on the Iraq front until you see the report from General Petraeus next Monday. What's worse is that even with positive parts leaking out into the wild world, you're seeing Democrats already trying to spin it towards getting us out of Iraq asap.
The same report will also be cited by anti-war Democrats who say military success has little relevance given the failure of Iraqi politicians to stop sectarian fighting and create a viable government.
Does the Iraqi Parliament need to get on top of things? You bet your ass they do, but to leave Iraq is indeed a vast mistake. With the threats we are getting already from other nations such as Iran, leaving Iraq without a stable government would be a big mistake by anyone who has a brain's measure.
Travis
Labels: Congress, Democrats, iraq, Politics
Friday, August 31, 2007
Reid Opens Door to Pact With Antiwar Republicans - washingtonpost.com
You all know the only reason why Reid is willing to "negotiate" now is because he knows that his previous statements of "the war is lost" has pissed off a LOT of people and now he has to do something to make it appear like he's on top of the issue.
"I don't think we have to think that our way is the only way," Reid said of specific dates during an interview in his office here. "I'm not saying, 'Republicans, do what we want to do.' Just give me something that you think you would like to do, that accomplishes some or all of what I want to do."
Bullshit. He was thinking that his way was the only way until he got smacked back by the votes and vetoes of the President. Now that his constituents are pissed, he's rethinking his way around things to try to appease them.
Good job Reid, appeasement always works. :)
Travis
Labels: iraq, Politics, Republicans, Senator Harry Reid
"Redacted" stuns Venice | Entertainment | Entertainment News | Reuters.com
Director Brian De Palma is trying to use a few instances of horrors in Iraq to try to pursue his angle of getting American troops out of Iraq.
A new film about the real-life rape and killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers who also murdered her family stunned the Venice festival, with shocking images that left some viewers in tears.
It's the same one sidedness that you'd expect from people like Michael Moore.
Yes the rape and killing of an Iraqi girl and her family did happen. It also meant that soldiers who did an dishonorable, shameful, and horrific act went to prison for their various roles in the attack.
I've made several points both good and bad about Iraq, but because Brian De Palma wants to push his agenda through the eyes of cinema, he doesn't push for the positives. His movie doesn't show schools being opened for the first time, citizens rising up against terrorists, bloodshed going way down, etc.
That's not to say I don't enjoy his other movies, but the difference is that they are just movies, not depictions of real life while you try to push a semi-hidden agenda.
Travis
<