The Democrats try to come up with a 50th way to run away from war in Iraq

Murtha's waving the white flag again, although maybe he thinks it's only slightly off-white as opposed to bleached white (a la scared sh*tless). WASHINGTON - House Democrats have drafted new Iraq legislation they hope will appeal to Republicans fed up with the war: Start withdrawing troops in two months but leave it up to President Bush to decide when to complete the pullout. [...] The House has passed similar anti-war measures in the past, but has been unable to push the legislation through the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and Republicans have routinely blocked such bills from advancing. Most recently, the House approved legislation that would have required troop withdrawals to begin this November and finish by April 1. Under his latest plan, Murtha said he envisions troop withdrawals to start in November and take about a year to complete. A draft of his proposal did not include a firm end date. So Genereal Patreus gets the requested "surge" in troops which he's only had now for a couple months (and which was overwhelmingly approved in the House and Senate), but since that didn't result in an immediate victory, surrender or all terrorists, peace on earth and goodwill toward men, the Dems resort to handwringing, wailing, and moaning again. And who better to do the handwringing for the Dems than the consumate handwringing professional, John Murtha. So we'd still have to start withdrawing troops in November, but date to finish withdrawal is slightly murkier than the original April Fools Day. Maybe at some point Murtha will realize the profound Freudian nature of that final exit date and put away his white flag once and for all... but I'm certainly not going to bet on it...

Terrorists using cheese in attack dry runs

In a blatant display of disregard for the welfare of perfectly good cheese, terrorist splodeydopes are using hunks of fine cheddar and brie cheeses in the place of, say, C4 on 9/11 style dry runs. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Police across the country should be on the lookout for what could be "dry runs" for a terrorist attack, the Transportation Security Administration advised after series of suspicious incidents occurred at U.S. airports. An unclassified advisory, sent July 20 from TSA to law enforcement agencies, raised the possibility that recent activity could be "pre-attack security probes." [...] The advisory details four incidents from the past 11 months in which screeners found unusual objects with items that could mimic bomb components in passengers' checked or carry-on bags. In one case last September, a couple in Baltimore, Maryland, checked a plastic bag with a block of processed cheese taped to another plastic bag containing a cell phone charger. Earlier this month in San Diego, California, a passenger checked a bag containing two ice packs covered in duct tape. The ice packs had clay in them instead of the normal blue gel. In the name of all good cheeses everywhere, contact your elected officials! Something must be done to prevent further harm to the fine cheeses of this great nation! Oh, and the people too... hate to see something bad happen to them either...

Patton takes on terrorism, fascism, and Harry Reid

Thought something like this would be the perfect post after a brief hiatus in blogging... Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt

John Edwards dismisses the GWOT as a bumper sticker slogan

It's nice to know that our candidates for president take national secrurity and the most important issue of our day so seriously. NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S.-led war on terrorism is "a bumper sticker, not a plan" that has weakened Washington's global standing, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said on Wednesday as he unveiled his defense policy plans. [original speech text here.] [...] "By framing this as a 'war,' we have walked straight into the trap that the terrorists have set -- that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam," said the former senator from North Carolina. [...] "Finally, we need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world in Iraq's future -- including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe," Edwards told a meeting of the New York-based think tank. The council has invited all the presidential candidates to speak, and Edwards was the first in the series. Gee I thought pursuing terrorists and the nations that sponsor them sounds like a pretty good idea to me, but Edwards would rather pull all the troops out and have them prevent al Qaeda from making Iraq a stronghold from somewhere other than in Iraq. Maybe he can work out with Murtha a way to have our troops fight al Qaeda in Iraq from Okinawa. That's be great. And while we're wishing on a star, I could use a couple million bucks. Maybe Edwards will give me a donation from his high volume of bumper sticker sales. And I'd like to see how this diplomatic offense would work... Bomb them with paperwork? Staple them to death? Hope the terrorists suffer severe paper cuts? And pray that when they promise to never kill innocent people again they actually mean it? Edwards, why don't you use some of your millions and buy yourself a clue?

Al Qaeda and bin Laden's direct role in Iraq

It's always nice to see intel declassified that supports the war in Iraq and the GWOT in general... even if it's released 2 years late and so infrequently it can be easily ignored by the MSM. That's why you guys read blogs though... NEW LONDON, Connecticut (Reuters) - Trying to rally support for an unpopular war, President George W. Bush used declassified intelligence on Wednesday to equate the U.S.-led fight in Iraq with the broader battle against al Qaeda. [...] The White House said the intelligence declassified on Tuesday provided further evidence of bin Laden's connections to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of Iraq's al Qaeda wing, who was killed in a U.S. air strike in June 2006. Bush said bin Laden had ordered Zarqawi in January 2005 to form a cell to conduct attacks outside of Iraq and to make America his "number one priority." Yes this is 2 year old intelligence, but I sure wish Dubya would release this stuff in a more timely manner. No wonder his approval rating is at 33 (sad thing is that the Democratic Congress has a 29% approval rating) and support for the war is dwindling. But of course the article is quick to dismiss the report as "politically motivated". Well duh! He's got to try to gain some political support from the public because the MSM is fighting him tooth and nail at every step of the way. If the media simply reported the news and didn't spin it for their own motives, he wouldn't have to have timely releases of declassified intelligence to scrap for public approval.

Signs the surge is working

Charles Krauthammer has a novel idea to determine if its working: talk to the people on the ground making the decisions to find out what's going on. You'd think something so profound yet simple would have occurred to some others in the MSM, but apparently they're too busy reading their Democrat talking points... The news from Anbar is the most promising. Only last fall, the Marines' leading intelligence officer there concluded that the U.S. had essentially lost the fight to al-Qaeda. Yet, just this week, the marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, returned from a four-day visit to the province and reported that we "have turned the corner." Why? Because, as Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, the Australian counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, has written, 14 of the 18 tribal leaders in Anbar have turned against al-Qaeda. As a result, thousands of Sunni recruits are turning up at police stations where none could be seen before. For the first time, former insurgent strongholds such as Ramadi have a Sunni police force fighting essentially on our side. Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a major critic of the Bush war policy, now reports that in Anbar, al-Qaeda is facing "a real and growing groundswell of Sunni tribal opposition." And that "this is a crucial struggle and it is going our way -- for now." Baghdad's a bit more of a mixed bag, but don't take my word for it. Read the rest at Real Clear Politics.

More good results from Gitmo

As much as liberal weenies have complained about Gitmo and how we're violating the civil rights of the prisoners there, we continue to get good results in the form of confessions for attacks perpetrated against the United States and if we're getting confessions, I'm sure we're getting actionable intel as well. And here's the latest. Waleed bin Attash, a prisoner at Gitmo just confessed to planning and purchasing materials for the attack on the USS Cole and the two attacks on our African embassies. You remember, those attack on US sovereign territory, before we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam, before Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban, before the GWOT, before 9/11; way back when al Qaeda was at war with us even though we'd done nothing to provoke them besides exist. Now of course we're at war with them and the liberal world condemns us for it, but that's another story... WASHINGTON — Waleed bin Attash, a suspected key al-Qaida operative, confessed to plotting the bombings of the USS Cole and two U.S. embassies in Africa, according to a Pentagon transcript of a hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. More than 200 were killed in the simultaneous attacks on the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. And 17 sailors were killed and dozens injured when suicide bombers steered an explosives-laden boat into the guided missile destroyer Cole on Oct. 12, 2000. "I participated in the buying or purchasing of the explosives," bin Attash said when asked what his role was in the attacks. "I put together the plan for the operation a year and a half prior to the operation, buying the boat and recruiting the members that did the operation." The point of this and the previously released transcript, is an effort by the military to determine whether several Gitmo detainees can be classified as enemy combatants in which case we'd be able to hold them indefinitely. I vote for indefinitely. How about you?

Rudy Giuliani slams the nonbinding resolution against the war and the government officials who support it

Amen Rudy! GIULIANI: I mean, you can look at the practical and common sense conclusion on that anyway you want. But there's something more important than that. We have a right of free speech in this country and we elect people to make decisions. Here's what I would prefer to see them do, though, if you ask me what's my view on that. The nonbinding resolution thing gets me more than are you for it or against it. I have tremendous respect for the people who feel that we either made a mistake going to war, who voted against the war, who now have come to the conclusion, changed their minds, they have every right to that, that it's wrong, you should, in a dynamic situation, keep questioning. What I don't like is the idea of a nonbinding resolution. KING: Because? GIULIANI: Because there's no decision. KING: But it's a statement. GIULIANI: Yes, but that's what you do. That's what Tim Russert does and that's what Rush Limbaugh does. That's what you guys do, you make comments. We pay them to make decisions, not just to make comments. We pay them to decide. The United States Congress does declarations, the war. We pay them to make decisions. Amen. If they're so opposed to the war, defund it. So put your money where your mouth is Democrats (and White Flag Republicans). Put up a resolution to defund the war, something that would actually be a decision, or are you afraid of the consequences?

Aussie PM John Howard rips Barack Obama

It's put up or shut up, and John Howard has been a staunch ally and understands what's at stake in the GWOT and in Iraq. So he gets to make comments like this. National Post - In a rare intervention by a foreign leader into U.S. domestic politics, Australian Prime Minister John Howard ridiculed a proposal by Mr. Obama to completely withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq over the next 13 months. Mr. Howard's unexpected criticism of Mr. Obama -- an underdog candidate to win his party's presidential nomination -- stunned Democrats even as U.S. conservatives joined the attack on the Illinois senator's dovish foreign policy views. "If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March, 2008, and pray as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats," Mr. Howard told an Australian broadcaster. I wonder if Obama will put that on his campaign bumper sticker? UPDATE @ 11:56am: This story has gone around the world and back again and everyone's got an opinion. Obama responded to Howard's remarks... "I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Mr Obama told reporters in the mid-western US state of Iowa. I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric." As far as I'm concerned those 1400 could simply be cooking meals over there and it's still notable and as a nation we ought to be thankful. Or we can be like Obama and look a gift horse in the mouth. You decide... Howard won't take that lying down and he of course refuses to retract any part of his statement. What I have done is to criticize Sen. Obama's views on a particular issue, and I don't retreat in any way from that criticism," Howard said. "I think if America is defeated in Iraq that will be catastrophic for the West and it will have tremendously adverse consequences for Australia." Howard, who trails the opposition Labor Party in his re-election bid this year, criticized his opponents as being hypocritical. "Apparently it's all right for people in the Labor Party to regularly criticize the Bush administration's policy on Iraq -- and they do that almost on a daily basis," Howard said. "Yet my criticism of the policy position of somebody who is not president -- and is not even the Democratic candidate for the presidency -- that is interfering in American politics and is absolutely to be forbidden." Can't disagree with that. If you disagree and/or hate George Bush, that's fine. Speak your mind, no one will judge you. Of course if you agree with him you're an idiot. Expect to be shunned.

It's always fun mixing it up with dissenting, anonymous commenters...

This person wasn't exactly a troll, but did their best to cover their tracks... So I thought I'd post their original comment as well as my repsonse. It's so much easier to read when you don't have to scroll through those tiny Haloscan comments windows... I stumbled across you blog. it's so fascinating to read a conservative perspective on war. The problem I have with Iraq war is the number of Iraqi deaths. The fucked up situation in Iraq wasn't created by Americans...it happened way before all of that with the division of the Ottoman empire...the formation of a multi-tribed nation state later living under a dictator... the problems are complex but why are American troops in there trying to liberate a country and killing so many people in the process? THere's this paternalistic attitude that only Americans can save these people because they are too uncivilised to govern themselves. They support unpopular governments that promote the American agenda. While the idea of saving a country from an evil dictator is noble (and Hollywood) the reality is the dictator is dead, there are more people dying. What is being gained from this war? Meanwhile North Korea has nukes, and after seeing what happened in Iraq I'm sure more countries will be nuking up to protect themselves. The only country that has ever dropped a nuke on a civillian population is us. More people will die for nothing. So many in Iraq already have. An American life is not worth more than an Iraqi life. All life is equal. You people amaze me with your over simplification of issues. I guess it makes the world an easier place to live in. Have a nice life. - Interest A fabulous comment, no? So here's my reply... Hey, thanks for stopping by. Other perspectives are always welcome here. I can appreciate your concern for the Iraqi civilian casualties, and I agree that the problem in Iraq (and the Middle East in general) is based on issues and hatreds centuries old. We are coming into this fight a bit late... And that's about where my agreement with you ends. 99% of civilians killed in Iraq were murdered by the insurgents in an effort to break the spirit of not just Americans, but Iraqis as well. They're certainly not being killed by US troops. All you have to do is read any newspaper or tune to any news program to see the latest car bomb at a market, mosque, or recruitment center. And since you appear to by confused by who's who over there, our guys are the ones wearing uniforms, in jeeps, holding guns. You know... normal soldiers. The bad guys are hiding among the innocent, using them as shields, blowing them up in an effort to blackmail us. What I love about the liberal perspective is how they make the terrorists moral equivalents to our troops. They kill civilians, we kill terrorists. Apparently that's a distinction only those not blinded by their liberal hate can recognize. As far as the popularity contest, you'd prefer be the main priority of the US government, the Iraqi government is only unpopular with the insurgents. The average Iraqi was thrilled at the chance to vote on their leadership. Just see the poll turnouts. And they're damn thankful we ignored the rest of the world and helped free them from the oppressive, genocidal, murderer that had been ruling their country. As far as North Korea and their nukes, you've got a great example of what happens when you ignore the rest of the world and rely 100% on diplomatic efforts. Kim Jong Il flat out lied to Clinton, signed the nuclear proliferation treaty, and then went ahead with his nuclear programs anyway. We didn't attack NK, or anywhere nearby that made him fear for the safety of his nation. Evil dictators don't need an excuse for their nuclear agendas, and saying they'd only pursue nukes because we are in the region is a gross, childish oversimplification. Sure we've got nukes and yes we've used them and we did so to force the hand of an adversary unwilling to surrender. How long should we have let that war drag on? That of course brings us to your million dollar question, why are we there? How's national security, global war on terror, and freeing an oppressed people strike you? And wouldn't you know it, that also shows that we value Iraqi life just as much as we value American life. We value it so much that we're sending our own sons and daughters there, risking their lives for the lives of Iraqis. Some might even argue we're valuing the lives of the Iraqis more than our own. Regardless, it certainly doesn't prove we don't value Iraqi lives. So when you're done oversimplifying things with your pacifist hopes and dreams that we ought to be trying to make a world were all problems are solved with hugs and puppy dogs, I'll be having a nice life. In reality. Anyone want to add something? Feel free to leave a comment! And hopefully, in the next couple days, I'll get a chance to repsond to a global warming email I got. This guy didn't like the little Al Gore image over on the left... So check back soon for that!

What to do with Iran...

It's funny to see this coming from the LATimes, but it's an op-ed that basically says diplomacy's failed, start bombing Iran. So if sanctions won't work, what's left? The overthrow of the current Iranian regime might offer a silver bullet, but with hard-liners firmly in the saddle in Tehran, any such prospect seems even more remote today than it did a decade ago, when students were demonstrating and reformers were ascendant. Meanwhile, the completion of Iran's bomb grows nearer every day. Our options therefore are narrowed to two: We can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it. Former ABC newsman Ted Koppel argues for the former, saying that "if Iran is bound and determined to have nuclear weapons, let it." We should rely, he says, on the threat of retaliation to keep Iran from using its bomb. Similarly, Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria points out that we have succeeded in deterring other hostile nuclear states, such as the Soviet Union and China. Go figure... the MSM runs around in circles screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." I don't know that I'd totally throw in the towel on revolutionary elements within Iran, but time is short. If that's still an option, something needs to happen there fast. Besides that, our options are bleak if we continue to put all our eggs into the diplomacy basket. Do we simply sit back and hope Israel can take out all of Iran's reactors? If that fails we're faced with a nuclear Iran, and what Koppel fails to realize is that this would be more than just a cold war. Iran would be more than willing to pass a nuke off to a terrorist group. Why else could they want an Iranian, Saif Adel, to take bin Laden's place as al Qaeda's leader? That'd certainly be convenient, wouldn't it? And what about the power shifft in the region? Israel's nuclear program is probably the only reason they still exist, along with their willingness to pre-emptively strike at those attempting to develop nukes. Would a nuclear Iran send Iraq's fledgling democracy into a tailspin? And Syria could easily hop on the coat tails of their nieghbor. Syria's going to continue to get bolder as we continue to wring our hands, so we'll get more demands from Syria, like their current demand for a timetable of our withdrawal from Iraq. Should we take bets on what Iran wants to discuss with this summit they've invited Syria and Iraq to? They say it's about the sectarian violence, but if you take what Ahmadinejad tells you at face value, I've got some great beach front property in Arkansas I'd love to sell you. I'd like to keep the "bombing Iran back to the stone age" option on the shelf, but we're painting ourselves into a corner here...

British General say Iraq is worse because we're there

But did General Richard Dannatt really say that? In the Daily Mail interview, Dannatt said: "I don't say the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them." Britain should get "out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems," he told the newspaper. First off the Daily Mail is well known for its opposition to the conservative government’s policies… Think New York Times… Second, what’s he really saying here? Is he discussing Britain’s popularity around the world or the current climate of unrest in Iraq? Sounds like the former, but regardless, is that really true? Will things around the world get better if foreign troops leave Iraq? The Iraqis don’t think so, and I don’t think Muslims around the world will all of a sudden be at peace as soon as we leave Iraq. They flew planes into the WTC long before we were in Iraq. They bombed the USS Cole long before Iraq. They bombed 2 American embassies in Africa long before Iraq. And here’s a host of others’ opinions on the necessity of the Brits (and our) presence in Iraq. And now the good General has come back out and clarified his comments that appear to have been taken out of context saying that the troops should come home soon, Gen Dannatt said there was not "a piece of paper, however thin" between him and the government. The general refused to back down on the substance of his remarks and to some degree compounded them. "I am not a maverick in this sense. I am soldier speaking up for his army. I am just saying come on, we can't be here forever at this level," he told Radio 4's Today programme. "I have got an army to look after which is going to be successful in current operations, but I want an army in five years time and 10 years time. Don't let's break it on this one." In another interview, with Sky News, Gen Dannatt said: "The army is exceptionally busy so I want to see this mission successfully concluded, but I also want to make sure I've got an army that's not so exhausted that it's still there and can do the job in five years' time, in 10 years' time ..." And again the paper tries to take his comments and infer ulterior meanings from them, but all he’s doing is looking out for his troops, and acknowledging commonly held beliefs that we’re not going to be in Iraq forever, but while we’re there, we’re there to win. These are hardly that inflammatory. We’re there. We’re needed. And we’ll be there for several years, but not at the same troop levels we have now. Use your heads people. The Iraqi army and police force are growing and quickly become more and more capable. We’ll get there…. It’s just a matter of when.

Johns Hopkins Iraqi Casualty report - a full disclosure

The Lancet report hit piece put out by Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, claims 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war. A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates. The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics." In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer. "Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement. The Lancet is a British medical journal that seems to have tarnished itself here by letting itself get dragged into leftwing moonbat territory. How could this happen you ask? When the editor of the publication is a well known hippie tree hugger pacifist, it's not that hard to imagine. LGF has video of Lancet editor Richard Horton at a UK Stop the War Coalition demonstration called "Time to Go." He was the featured speaker, and shared the stage with the likes of George "Iraq is fighting for all the Arabs. Where are the Arab armies?" Galloway. And that's on top of basing these results on household interviews and the obvious political timing of releasing this report now. It's not like Horton has a biased opinion on this or anything... UPDATE @ 3:03pm: Thanks to commenter Lawrence for the link to NewsBusters that has info that the NYT did the same thing The Lancet boobs did.