Filed under: History, Iraq, Military, National Security | Tags: Democrat Corruption, Propaganda Campaign, The Left, War in Iraq
I usually have the radio on in the daytime, because I can listen and get other stuff done. This morning I was startled by a caller who said: “I’m 22, and the people my age would never vote for a Bush because of the stigma attached to his name.” He added something to the effect that he didn’t dislike President Bush personally, it was the stigma. Stigma.
Liberals were as shocked and horrified as everyone else at the events on 9/11, the first attack on America since Pearl Harbor. The 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, (before 9/11) under Clinton, calling for regime change in Iraq, and supporting a transition to democracy passed the House 360-38 and unanimously in the Senate. Under the Bush administration, and after 9/11, there was a 1991 Resolution for the Use of Military Force against Iraq which passed the Democrat-controlled Senate 52-47 and the House 250-183. That was followed by the 1992 Iraq War Resolution that authorized military force against Iraq which also passed Congress with significant margins.
The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003, Baghdad fell on April 10, Coalition forces moved into Baghdad ending the 24 year reign of Saddam Hussein. On May 1, President George W. Bush declared major combat operations in Iraq over.
That month the Democratic Party launched a national campaign against America’s commander in chief, claiming that he had lied to the American people to lure them into a war that was “unnecessary,” “immoral, and “illegal.”
Until that moment, the conflict in Iraq had been supported by both parties and was regarded by both as a strategic necessity in the war launched by Islamic terrorists on 9/11. Saddam Hussein had launched two aggressive wars in the Middle East, murdered three hundred thousand Iraqis, used chemical weapons on his own citizens, and put in place a nuclear weapons program, thwarted only by his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War. Over the next decade, his regime defied sixteen United Nations Security Council resolutions attempting to enforce the Gulf War truce and stop him from pursuing weapons of mass destruction. In September 2002, the Security Council added a seventeenth resolution, which gave Saddam until December 7 to comply with its terms or face consequences. When Iraq failed to comply, Bush made the only decision compatible with the preservation of international law and the security of the United States by launching a preemptive invasion to remover the regime. Two days prior to the invasion, the Iraqi dictator was given the option of leaving the country and averting the war.
In June 2003, just three months after the fighting began, the Democrats turned against the war and launched a five-year campaign to delegitimize it, casting America and its Republican leaders as the villains. This betrayal of the nation and its troops on the battlefield was unprecedented. Major press institutions following the Democrats’ lead conducted a propaganda campaign against the war, blowing up minor incidents like the misbehavior of guards at the Abu Ghraib prion to international scandals, which damaged America’s prestige and weakened its morale. The New York Times and the Washington Post leaked classified documents, destroying three major national security programs designed to protect Americans from terrorist attack. Every day of the war, there was front-page coverage of America’s body counts in Iraq and Afghanistan designed to sap America’s will to fight. (David Horowitz: Take No Prisoners)
There’s your “stigma.”
Did you read the newspaper accounts of the doubling of the death toll in the war in Afghanistan under Barack Obama? Thought not. “Bush lied, People died,” was the chant. Propaganda designed to discredit the American president, who they were still furious with for defeating Al Gore, illegally, they were sure. A five year long propaganda campaign to be sure Bush got no credit. The ends justify whatever means you have to use. Americans are inclined to like Presidents who win wars. Can’t have that. Remember Bill Clinton complaining because he didn’t get to be a wartime president?
Filed under: History, Iraq, Military, Terrorism | Tags: Iraqi Democracy, U.S. Military, War in Iraq, Winning In Iraq
That’s what Michael Yon reports today in the New York Post. Michael Yon has been reporting on the War on Terror since December 2004 at Michaelyon-online.com. His latest book is Moment of Truth in Iraq , and I highly recommend it. The civil war, he says, is completely over. Muqtada al-Sadr has lost a lot of support among the Shia. Many view him as one whose influence derives solely from respect for his father.
The Iraqi Army continues to grow stronger and more professional by the month. Even the National Police, who last year were thought of as militia members in uniform and drew attacks, are slowly gaining acceptance and respect. U.S. soldiers’ mentoring is working, and bonds of trust are being built between U.S. and Iraqi soldiers, police and citizens. “The United States”, says Yon, “has a new ally in Iraq. And if both sides continue to nurture this bond, it will create a permanent partnership of mutual benefit.”
Iraqis are tired of war and ready to get back to school, to business and to living life as it should be.
Do read the whole short article. The media have lost interest in Iraq, and prefer to think of it, if they think of it at all, as Bush’s failed war. It is instead, a great Bush success. It’s hard now to remember what an awful situation Iraq was in 2003.
I remember the Iraqis voting for the first time. We all remember the purple fingers. U.S. soldiers guarding the Iraqis lined up to enter the polling place noted a very pregnant Iraqi woman in line. She went into labor while she waited in line, and a U.S. Medic came to her aid, delivered the baby, and the woman planted the baby in the soldier’s arms, and went in to vote.
Do not belittle Iraqi democracy. A people who endured the torture, the terror and brutality of a tyrant like Saddam Hussein could teach us a few things about the importance of the right to vote.
Filed under: Election 2008, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Military, Politics, Terrorism | Tags: Democrat Demagogues, Liberal lies, War in Iraq
“I’ve fought for open, ethical and accountable government my whole public life.”
BWA HA HA HA!
Filed under: Foreign Policy, History, Iraq, Military, News, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Uncategorized | Tags: Foreign Policy, Iraqi Air Force, Things the Media Didn't Tell You, U.S. Military, War in Iraq
The guys at Argghhh! The home of two of Jonah’s Military Guys post a little article on why they blog, and it is a heartwarming story:
KIRKUK,Iraq — The first class of Iraqi Air Force student pilots were awarded their flying wings as part of a graduation ceremony here, Oct. 13.
Nearly a year after the three trainees, Iraqi 2nd Lieutenants Hassan, Majid and Habeeb, entered the program, the success of the Joint Iraqi Flying Training Wing and 52nd Expeditionary Flight Training Squadron came to a pivotal point in building a credible objective air force capable of conducting sustained operations in defense of the country.
As operations expand and the number of students being trained increases, the Iraqi Air Force will move close to developing the foundational capabilities that will allow it to sustain independent operations and grow to meet future demands. The new Iraqi Air Force stood up after the invasion in 2003 but, until today, all pilots were veterans who rejoined the force….
That’s what happened, and news, but you won’t find much about it in the mainstream media. But that wasn’t the heartwarming part. That came after a speech by U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen Brooks Bash, Coalition Air Force Transition Team commanding general. (Try to get all that on a business card!)
The important part came in a speech by a Distinguished Visitor when his speech was interrupted by a standing ovation:
One of the kids nudged me when the DV started getting passionate in his address. “He is saying that for the first time in our history, we are not doing things for one man, but we are doing it for all the people of Iraq. He is saying the US has showed us how, and we must not forget when we thank God every day, we must also ask him to bless the US.”
Well, an additional thanks to bloggers who tell us the things that do not grace the elite pages of the mainstream press. Because they’re important. And they’re things we need to know.
Which is one of the reasons that the mainstream media is failing in prestige, influence and readership. They no longer understand what is important outside of their immediate circle, and we are beginning to really notice.
Filed under: Iraq, Military, Terrorism, The Constitution | Tags: Foreign Policy, Liberal lies, War in Iraq
The Obama campaign objected to the article from Amir Taheri that I quote in the article below. The campaign’s response says that Taheri’s article was “filled with distortions”, but their rebuttal centers on a technical point: the differences between two Iraqi-US accords that are being negotiated — the Status of Forces Agreement which will set rules governing US military personnel in Iraq (SOFA) and the Strategic Framework Agreement, to settle the legal basis for the US military presence in Iraq in the years ahead (SFA).
One agreement cannot be settled without the other, for the two are interlinked. The Obama campaign waffles and misconstrues, but the record ends up confirming just what Taheri suggested in his article:
Obama preferred to have no agreement on US troop withdrawals until a new administration took office in Washington.
Obama has changed position on another key issue. In [an] NBC report, he pretends that US troops do not have a “clear mandate.” Now, however, he admits that there is a clear mandate from the UN Security Council and that he’d have no objection to extending it pending a bilateral Iraq-US agreement.
This may seem technical, but it is important to understand. Obama is merely a candidate for the office of President of the United States. He has no authority and no right to pretend to any. Senators don’t get to run around the world trying to make policy. Democrats seem to have lost a sense of the constitution, and what rights are given to what branch of the government. Former presidents have no business going around the world making foreign policy speeches. Candidates who claim expertise in constitutional law should know better. It should be an election changing error on Obama’s part.
Obama has demonstrated a great lack of understanding of American foreign policy, of our position in the world, and of our responsibilities and challenges. His claim that he knows more about foreign policy than his opponents because he lived in Indonesia when he was 6 to 10 and has relatives in Africa is laughable. He sneered at senatorial trips abroad when they met with government officials, as unimportant, yet is with governmental officials that the American government must deal. In his own meetings with foreign officials, as in the case of Iraqi officials he seems more interested in using them to further his ambitions than in learning from them.
In a long interview with the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, [Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar] Zebari says’ “Obama asked my why, in view of the closeness of a change of administration, we were hurrying the signing of this special agreement, and why we did not wait until the coming of the new administration next year ang agree on some issues and matters.”
Again, note that Zebari mentions a single set of agreements, encompasssing both SFA and SOFA. Zebari continues’ “I told Obama that, as an Iraqi, I believe that even if there is a Democratic administration in the White House it had better continue the present policy instead of wasting a lot of time thinking what to do.”
He now talks of “the prospect of lasting success,” perhaps hoping that his own administration would inherit the kudos…He has even abandoned his earlier claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was “illegal” and admits that the US-led coalition’s presence in Iraq has a legal framework in the shape of the UN mandate.
In other words, Obama was trying to derail current US policy, whild Zebari was urging him not to “waste time.”
…Obama no longer talks of “withdrawal” but of “redeployment” and “drawdown” — which is exactly what is happening now.
While I am encouraed by the senator’s evolution, I must also appeal to him to issue a “cease and desist” plea to the battalions of his sympathizers — who have been threatening me with death and worse in the days since my article appeared.
Obama’s ambitions have run away with him, and his desires exceed his knowledge of the office he seeks. It is very important to look closely at his claims and his promises , and consider what the facts are and if his promises hold water. They don’t.
Filed under: Election 2008, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Liberalism, Military, News, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics, Terrorism, Uncategorized | Tags: Democrat Demagogues, Liberal lies, News, United States, War in Iraq
According to Rasmussen Reports, voter confidence in the War on Terror is at the highest level ever recorded simce Rasmussen Reports began regular tracking in January 2004. Fifty-four percent (54%) of American voters now think the United States and its allies are winning the war. The previous high-water mark for optimism — 52% — was reached a handful of times in September and October 2004.
Optimism about the situation in Iraq is also at an all-time high. Forty-eight percent (48%) now expect the situation in that troubled country to get better over the next six months. Only 17% expect thing to get worse. In addition to being the most optimistic assessment ever recorded, these numbers reflect a remarkable turnaround over the past year. Last August, just 27% thought things were going to get better while 47% were pessimistic.
Discovering, in the middle of your huge televised national convention, that your message on the war and Iraq is a little off, must be uncomfortable. But never mind, we’ll just drop it all down the memory hole.
Filed under: Conservatism, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Military, News, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics, Terrorism, Uncategorized | Tags: Capitalism, Military, Politics, Victory in Iraq, War in Iraq
From the President’s strategy for victory in Iraq:
VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED
As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come come in the form of an enemy’s surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event — there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:
In the short term:
•An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
In the medium term:
•An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, nd well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
In the longer term:
•An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
•An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
•An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
Not mentioned in the President’s strategy — Kuwait, invaded by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, is opening an embassy in Iraq. Or, if you are not impressed by that: