August 31, 2007
The sheets of paper seemed to be everywhere the lawmakers went in the Green Zone, distributed to Iraqi officials, U.S. officials and uniformed military of no particular rank. So when Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) asked a soldier last weekend just what he was holding, the congressman was taken aback to find out.In the soldier's hand was a thumbnail biography, distributed before each of the congressmen's meetings in Baghdad, which let meeting participants such as that soldier know where each of the lawmakers stands on the war. "Moran on Iraq policy," read one section, going on to cite some the congressman's most incendiary statements, such as, "This has been the worst foreign policy fiasco in American history."
The bio of Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.) -- "TAU (rhymes with 'now')-sher," the bio helpfully relates -- was no less pointed, even if she once supported the war and has taken heat from liberal Bay Area constituents who remain wary of her position. "Our forces are caught in the middle of an escalating sectarian conflict in Iraq, with no end in sight," the bio quotes.
"This is beyond parsing. This is being slimed in the Green Zone," Tauscher said of her bio.
My question – are the quotes accurate? Yes, in fact, they are. So how is it "sliming" if one accurately quotes the public words of a member of Congress? They strike me as honest, straight-forward comments that hardly can be described as defamatory.
Unless, of course, the representatives in question have defamed themselves and revealed their own personal sliminess by their criticisms of the Iraq war and their willingness to undercut the troops and their mission.
Especially when the polls show that over half of Americans believe victory is attainable.
Posted by: Greg at
09:56 AM
| Comments (67)
| Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.
August 29, 2007
Last December, when the Marine Corps charged four infantrymen with killing Iraqi civilians in Haditha, Iraq, in 2005, the allegation was as dark as it was devastating: after a roadside bomb had killed their buddy, a group of marines rampaged through nearby homes, massacring 24 innocent people.In Iraq and in the United States, the killings were viewed as cold-blooded vengeance. After a perfunctory military investigation, Haditha was brushed aside, but once the details were disclosed, the killings became an ugly symbol of a difficult, demoralizing war. After a fuller investigation, the Marines promised to punish the guilty.
But now, the prosecutions have faltered. Since May, charges against two infantrymen and a Marine officer have been dismissed, and dismissal has been recommended for murder charges against a third infantryman. Prosecutors were not able to prove even that the killings violated the American military code of justice.
Now their final attempt to get a murder conviction is set to begin, with a military court hearing on Thursday for Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, the last marine still facing that charge. He is accused of killing 18 Iraqis, including several women and children, after the attack on his convoy.
If the legal problems that have thwarted the prosecutors in other cases are repeated this time, there is a possibility that no marine will be convicted for what happened in Haditha.
Could it be that what we had was a rush to judgment by the MSM and the cut-and-runners? Will the press look at that possibility?
No, they will instead continue to besmirch the names of heroes and wonder aloud about how the military justice system is broken, rather than consider that the media reporting was flawed and that the war's opponents have such low regard for the truth that they acted as a high-tech lynch mob that convicted these men before the charges were even brought.
After all, that story wouldn't fit the template that they are using to cover the war.
Posted by: Greg at
09:42 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.
August 18, 2007
"I f*cking told you nothing but bacteria would live!"
H/T Jawa Report
Posted by: Greg at
12:07 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.
Guess what -- they are sticking to the plan.
The White House plans to use a report next month assessing progress in Iraq to outline a plan for gradual troop reductions beginning next year that would fall far short of the drawdown demanded by Congressional opponents of the war, according to administration and military officials.One administration official made it clear that the goal of the planned announcement was to counter public pressure for a more rapid reduction and to try to win support for a plan that could keep American involvement in Iraq on “a sustainable footing” at least through the end of the Bush presidency.
The officials said the White House would portray its approach as a new strategy for Iraq, a message aimed primarily at the growing numbers of Congressional Republicans who have criticized President Bush’s handling of the war. Many Republicans have urged Mr. Bush to unveil a new strategy, and even to propose a gradual reduction of American troops to the levels before this year’s troop increase — about 130,000 — or even lower to head off Democratic-led efforts to force the withdrawal of all combat forces by early next year.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of their reluctance to discuss internal White House deliberations publicly.
Administration officials involved in drafting the new strategy said the White House intended to argue that the troop increase ordered by Mr. Bush had succeeded on several levels in providing more security, with fewer sectarian killings and suicide attacks, and had established the conditions for a new approach that would begin troop cuts in the first half of next year.
At the same time, the administration will use the occasion to argue that vital American interests in Iraq and across the Middle East require a sustained commitment of American forces and that any rapid withdrawal would be catastrophic for the United States and its regional allies.
I don't see why there is any need to present this as something new. This was the announced plan from the beginning. If anything, it is new to the American public because the MSM wasn't particularly interested in reporting anything beyond "MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ" when the Surge began. The only thing that will be "new" is the assessment of how the strategy is working and the exact timetable for victory -- as opposed to the deadline for defeat that the war's opponents are putting forward.
Similar thoughts from Captain Ed.
Posted by: Greg at
01:30 AM
| Comments (213)
| Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.
August 13, 2007
Five weeks ago, the New York Times insisted that the US must leave Iraq immediately, despite the potential for chaos and bloodshed.
It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
Today, on the other hand, the New York Times insists that the chaos that would follow a US withdrawal is reason enough to stay in Iraq -- and to keep troop levels high.
The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.But there should be no illusions about trying to continue the war on a reduced scale. It is folly to expect a smaller American force to do in a short time what a much larger force could not do over a very long time. ThatÂ’s exactly what the British are now trying to do. And the results are painfully plain to see.
Now wait just a minute -- In July you said that such chaos was no reason to stay, and it was a part o the reason for leaving. Now you say it is the reason to stay? Why the reversal?
Oh, and the editors give a signal about how little the New York Times values our troops. They make it quite clear that they believe the US has failed in Iraq -- but insist that more American soldier must die to continue that "failed mission". I wonder -- will they ever consider giving success a chance? Well, perhaps the wind will have changed to that direction by September.
More At NewsBusters and Don Surber
Open Trackbacking At Right Pundits, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, Mark My Words, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Wake Up America, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern dreams, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
04:44 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 4 kb.
August 09, 2007
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons' decision not to enlist in the military, saying they're showing their support for the country by "helping me get elected."Romney, who did not serve in Vietnam due to his Mormon missionary work and a high draft lottery number, was asked the question by an anti-war activist after a speech in which he called for "a surge of support" for U.S. forces in Iraq.
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, also saluted a uniformed soldier in the crowd and called for donations to military support organizations. Last week, he donated $25,000 to seven such organizations.
"The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it," Romney told some 200 people gathered in an abbey near the Mississippi River that had been converted into a hotel. "My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."
He added: "One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."
Of course, the press gets the story wrong, too -- as the video shows, Governor Romney pointed out that there are many ways to support the troops and their families, big and small.
Now if the Left wants mandatory, universal military service (none of these namby-pamby "public service" programs -- real military service), then let them say so, and explain how degrading the readiness of the American military for political purposes is in the national interests. Or if they want to create a second-class citizenship for those who have not served in the military (sort of a fascist fantasy, I'd argue) then let them make that argument. But as long as we have an all-volunteer military, military service (or lack thereof) should not be an issue, especially with regard to the children of candidates and not the candidates themselves.
Oh, and by the way -- if that whiny Leftist really believes her rhetoric, I guess she'll have to give her vote to either John McCain or Duncan Hunter, both of whom are vets with children in the military. Unless, of course, she is just a liberal hypocrite.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Conservative Thoughts, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern dreams, High Desert Wanderer, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
01:55 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 529 words, total size 5 kb.
August 08, 2007
Army investigators have concluded that the private whose dispatches for the New Republic accused his fellow soldiers of petty cruelties in Iraq was not telling the truth.The finding, disclosed yesterday, came days after the Washington-based magazine announced that it had corroborated the claims of the private, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, except for one significant error.
"An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by Pvt. Beauchamp were found to be false," an Army statement said. "His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."
TNR wants to claim that their investigation is more authoritative. BULL! TNR just wants to create this generation's John Kerry, making false charges of troop misconduct to undermine a war they oppose.
Posted by: Greg at
02:42 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.
61 queries taking 0.2913 seconds, 455 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
