Powered by Max Banner Ads
Video: Katie Couric Holds Barry Accountable
Congratulations to Katie Couric for having the courage to ask Barry a few tough questions. Unlike the rest of the media, Katie held Obama’s feet to the fire as it relates to the surge and his continued failure to support it. I think at least in this instance Obama was revealed for who he really is — a guy that doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.
(hat tip to Hot Air)
Criticism Of Surge In Iraq Disappears From Obama’s Website
Barack Obama has been adamantly opposed to the troop surge in Iraq since the day it was announced. Even in the face of incredible he continues to deny progress. However, over the weekend his website underwent some magical changes.
Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.
“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.”
The last part is what I find very strange. His website now talks about improvements but a campaign aide is assuring people that Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge.” Well which is it? Is his website now lying to people? Sounds to me like he’s just too prideful to admit that he was dead wrong on the surge.
Obama likes to talk about his “good judgment” even though he showed a stunning lack of it by presuming he knew more about Iraq than the Generals.
Changing website rhetoric and not admitting when you’re wrong is not “change we can believe in.”
Petraeus Says No Troop Increases For Iraq
General David Petraeus enduring his second day of grilling by Congress said today that he’s not willing to commit any further troops to Iraq even if the security situation were to deteriorate.
He also repeated his plans to continue reducing the number of U.S. forces in Iraq to pre-surge levels, or about 140,000 troops. That level should be reached by this summer at which point there will be a pause in troop reductions to allow for adjustments on the ground and a hard look at the security situation across the country.
The fact that Petraeus is unwilling to even leave open the possibility for troop increases speaks to just how close to tapped out our troop rotation situation is. With more troops needed in Afghanistan, there simply isn’t anymore troops available to rotate through Iraq again even if we wanted to.
President Bush is also supposed to announce plans to cut the combat tours of active-duty soldiers from 15 months to 12 months. The reduced deployments will not apply—at least initially—to any soldiers currently serving in Iraq, unless conditions improve to the point that commanders believe some could go home early.
-Chris Jones
Petraeus/Crocker Talk Progress, Democrats Talk Defeat
The much anticipated appearance of Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker kicked off today, with the first of 2 scheduled hearings today having just concluded.
It was fairly predictable, with Republicans listening to what Petraeus/Crocker had to say about the current state of things in Iraq. No sane person can at this point deny the very significant progress that’s been made since the surge began, unless of course your a liberal Democrat.
Democrats on the panel of course tried to get Petraeus to say the mission wasn’t worth it and to say the the current policy in Iraq is a failure. He was of course unable to say those things given the fact that neither of them are true.
Gen. Petraeus went on to lay out his plan going forward, which included recommending a 45-day “period of consolidation and evaluation” once the extra combat forces that President Bush ordered to Iraq last year have completed their pullout in July. He did not commit to a timetable for resuming troop reductions after the 45-day pause.
“At the end of that period, we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions,” Petraeus said.
“This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit,” he added. “This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable. However, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard a sacrificed so much to achieve.”
President Bush has said he intended to accept Petraeus’ recommendation. On Thursday, the president will make a speech about the war and give further details.
-Chris Jones
Pentagon Plans “Mini-Surge” of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan
The Pentagon said on Wednesday U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was considering sending an additional 3,000 Marines to thwart any Taliban spring offensive, bringing to around 30,000 the number of American servicemen and women in Afghanistan.
Around half the U.S. contingent serves in a 40,000-strong NATO-led International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF), while the rest conduct missions ranging from counter-terrorism to reconstruction to training Afghan troops.
Zahir Azimi, a spokesman for Afghanistan’s Defence Ministry, said the increase in troop numbers would help anti-insurgency operations as the new national army continued to grow.
As usual, if we want something done right we have to do it ourselves. The vast majority of NATO allies participating in Afghanistan have been wary of increasing their efforts in the region because of a dip in political support at home.
The countries that are participating usually have a heavy set of restrictions placed on them regarding what they’re allowed to do.
Most are limited to performing “peacekeeping” operations only and therefore cannot aggressively assist in hunting down Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces.
However, NATO’s de Hoop Scheffer pointed to recent smaller additions from countries such as France, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland — which on Wednesday announced it would add 400 troops and helicopters — to its existing 1,200-strong contingent.
“You cannot say the allies are not active enough, because they are active … But I still think we can do better,” he told reporters at an event in Brussels, noting persistent shortfalls in NATO’s forces.
I always find it interesting when I hear critics say that America has no business acting like the world’s policeman, but we’re the only ones who ever step up to the plate when it comes time to commit troops to anything (with the exception of Canada, Great Britain, and Australia).
Anytime a region of the world goes up in smoke, countries look to America to do something about it. But on the rare occasions that America looks to the rest of the world for assistance, suddenly we’re on our own.
-Chris Jones
London Telegraph Makes Gen. Petraeus Person Of The Year
Time magazine got it wrong, but London’s Sunday Telegraph gets it right. The Telegraph has made General David Petraeus its “Person Of The Year” and wrote a great piece about the man called General Petraeus: man with a message of hope.
He has been the man behind the US troop surge over the past 10 months, the last-ditch effort to end Iraq’s escalating civil war by putting an extra 28,000 American troops on the ground.
So far, it has achieved what many feared was impossible. Sectarian killings are down. Al-Qaeda is on the run. And the two million Iraqis who fled the country are slowly returning. Progress in Iraq is relative – 538 civilians died last month. But compared with the 3,000 peak of December last year, it offers at least a glimmer of hope.
Nonetheless, why should we choose to nominate Petraeus?
…the reason for picking Petraeus is simple. Iraq, whatever the current crises in Afghanistan and Pakistan, remains the West’s biggest foreign policy challenge of this decade, and if he can halt its slide into all-out anarchy, Gen Petraeus may save more than Iraqi lives.
A failed Iraq would not just be a second Vietnam, nor would it just be America’s problem.
It would be a symbolic victory for al-Qaeda, a safe haven for jihadists to plot future September 11s and July 7s, and a battleground for a Shia-Sunni struggle that could draw in the entire Middle East. Our future peace and prosperity depend, in part, on fixing this mess. And, a year ago, few had much hope.
It appears that not only are U.S. troops awed by Petraeus, but the British, Irish, Australians, and others are as well.
…it should be pointed out that British commanders hold Gen Petraeus in similarly high regard.
Several Northern Ireland veterans who worked with him in Baghdad this year came away with the opinion that it is now America, not Britain, that is the world leader in counter-insurgency.
I think it says a lot that our British friends recognize the positive turn of events in Iraq and the man responsible for that turnaround. In America on the other hand we have despicable groups like MoveOn.org who traffic in garbage like the now infamous “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” advertisement.
-Chris Jones
Terror On The Run: The NY Post Gets It Right On Iraq
Anyone who hasn’t read the incredibly good column by Ralph Peters about the Iraq war, you’re missing out. He reflects on the current state of affairs in Iraq as we enter 2008, and how disgraceful the media coverage has been on the Iraq war since things have started turning around.
When the war was going badly it was on the front page of every paper in the country, but since the success of the troop surge your lucky to find it in the paper at all.
Of course, when someone is murdered or blown-up the war immediately returns to the front pages for as long as it takes to clean up the bodies.
As 2007 drew to a close, embarrassed journalists sought to play down American military successes and avoided questioning Democratic presidential contenders about their predictions of inevitable failure in Iraq. Magically, Iraq disappeared from the headlines – except on those rare occasions when a problem could be reported. At the close of a year of stunning progress, media stories on New Year’s Eve leapt to report that 2007 had been the deadliest year for US troops.
You had to read deep into the columns to learn that those casualties occurred in the first half of 2007, as we battled and defeated the terrorists and militias – or that, in recent months, American and Iraqi casualties have plummeted as a relative peace broke out.
Still, all that was just hushing up dirty family secrets in the media clan and an effort by left-leaning journalists and editors to protect the politicians they favor.
The greatest media story of 2007 was the one you never read (unless you read The Post): The year was a strategic catastrophe for Islamist terrorists – and possibly a historic turning point in the struggle against al Qaeda and its affiliates.
When the media realized that Iraq could no longer be used to flog the Bush Administration with on a daily basis, they immediately turned their sites to Afghanistan. When the U.S. is involved in military conflict, today’s media looks for a negative story anywhere it can find one.
The media has been slowly ramping up it’s negative coverage of Afghanistan, using misleading headlines and other tactics to mislead the public into thinking we’re losing yet another war.
Instead, as Iraq improved, we only heard how things were turning bad in Afghanistan. Political and media critics of our efforts to defeat Islamist terror attempt to discourage the American people (and voters) by downplaying progress anywhere and by raising the bar for success impossibly high.
As this column has maintained for years, Afghanistan is never going to become Iowa. Much of the country is still decades away from the electric light. Impoverished, backward and torn by three decades of war, it just isn’t going to meet civics-class norms anytime soon.
But the essential question regarding Afghanistan isn’t how closely Kandahar resembles Des Moines this week, but simply this: “Is Afghanistan a better place today, for the Afghan people and for our own security, than it was 9/10/01, when religious fanatics ruled the country and al Qaeda had a homeland?”
The answer, of course, is “Yes!”
But that won’t do for journalists or pols who’ve staked their reputations and careers on America’s failure. And now we’re seeing a shift to declaring all our efforts in vain because of the rising terror threat in Pakistan.
The media very much wants the public to be aware that the beginning of 2007 was the deadliest year for our troops in Iraq. What they don’t want the public to know and likely will never tell, is that 2007 was the deadliest year for terrorists worldwide since 2001.
-Chris Jones
USA Today: Surge is Working, Democrats Lost in Time Warp
You can add USA Today to the list of main stream media that has begrudgingly acknowledged that President Bush’s surge strategy in Iraq is working. Not only is it working, but it’s continuing to work.
USA Today further acknowledges what most rational Americans have known for some time. That Congressional Democrats are living in perpetual denial about the war in Iraq. Harry Reid is like a parrot that just keeps squawking, “The Surge isn’t working!,” even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, seem lost in a time warp. They could try to impose new benchmarks that acknowledge the military progress. Instead, too many seem unable or unwilling to admit that President Bush’s surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond their initial predictions. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who in the spring declared the war lost, said last week that “the surge hasn’t accomplished its goals.” Anti-war Democrats remain fixated on tying war funding to a rapid troop withdrawal. Yet pulling the troops out precipitously threatens to squander the progress of recent months toward salvaging a decent outcome to the Iraq debacle.
Even John Murtha one of the most despicable members of Congress finally acknowledged that the surge is working. Much to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s chagrin, the war is in fact not lost and we’re finally making progress.
Yet “dumb and dumber” still keep trying to undermine the war effort by dragging their feet on funding, or putting time tables for withdrawal. Democrats for years complained that President Bush was being stubborn and needed to “change course” in Iraq.
They were right about that initially, and all the criticism was justified. So finally, the President fired Rummy and brought in Bob Gates. After that he brought in General Petraeus to implement his counter-insurgency strategy along with an infusion of 30,000 troops to Baghdad.
So while a little late to the game, President Bush did “change course” in Iraq and we’re finally getting a handle on things. It’s time now for Democrats to do a little self-reflection and take their own advice about not being stubborn and refusing to change course.
Democrats should realize that acknowledging progress in Iraq, doesn’t mean they can’t still hate the President with every fiber of their being as they so clearly do.
There is no doubt that Iraq remains a deadly place, and the Iraqi government is not acting like much of a government. To be fair, it was almost impossible for the government to really function with violence of almost biblical proportions taking place in the capital.
With violence finally subsiding to a large extent, we’re gonna have to give the Iraqi government more time to get on it’s feet. I don’t know how much time, but I suspect as long as it takes.
-Chris Jones
Cheney: Iraq to be self-governing by 2009
Vice President Cheney is predicting that Iraq will be a self-governing democracy by the time he leaves office, calling the current U.S. surge strategy “a remarkable success story” that will be studied for years to come.
“I am fairly confident we’ll have [Iraq] in a good place, where we’ll be able to look back on it and say, ‘That was the right decision. It was a sound decision going into Iraq,’”
“We’ve got a lot of work to do. We’re sort of halfway through the surge, in a sense. We’ll be going back to pre-surge levels over the course of the next year.”
The Vice President also said that he has no reason to to doubt the newly released National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. He said he thinks the intelligence community is doing the best job it can with the limited amount of information that’s available. He also made it clear that the Administration remains very concerned about Iran.
“We still think there’s need to continue the course we’ve been on to persuade the Iranians not to enrich uranium,” he said. “The long pole in the tent in terms of developing nuclear weapons, traditionally, historically, has been developing fissile material, either highly-enriched uranium or plutonium. In this case, they’re embarked upon the program to develop uranium, obviously.”
The Vice President also acknowledged that the Administration pretty much had to release the NIE, because it wouldn’t have stayed secret for very long. I suspected that was probably one of the reasons it was released. Unfortunately, nobody at any level of the government can keep their damn mouths shut anymore.
It really is ridiculous for Bush critics to seize upon this intelligence estimate as proof that Bush lied again. Liberals for some reason equate lying with being wrong. Secondly, the Israeli’s are saying today they believe the intel estimate is dead wrong.
I personally view the intel estimate with deep suspicion. Our intelligence community has gotten it wrong a lot recently, so just because they say Iran has “suspended” its weapons program doesn’t mean a whole lot to me. We should continue to exert as much political pressure as we possibly can on Iran, because at the very least they’re killing our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-Chris Jones
Harry Reid: “The Surge Isn’t Working”
Democrats are increasingly bailing on their previously held view that the troop surge in Iraq has been a “failure,” but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn’t ready to jump on the bandwagon with other Democrats who say the surge has worked.
“Dingy” Harry held a press conference today to announce that of course “The f*cking surge isn’t working.” It’s getting to the point where Harry Reid is just a joke. He’s a walking cadaver that talks only of failure in the face of unrelenting positive developments.
The fact is that Harry Reid made up his behind before the surge even started that it wasn’t going to work, and nothing is going to convince him otherwise.
Reid also accused President Bush of bluffing about the potential layoffs of 100,000 Pentagon employees if the war funding doesn’t come through immediately. Bush says civilian employees will be furloughed because the Pentagon will have to pull from regular accounts to fund the war due to the Democrats’ intransigence on Iraq funding.
-Chris Jones
Hell Freezes Over: Murtha Says The Surge Is Working!
I honesty didn’t think a single one of the “defeatocrats” had the “stones” to admit that the troop surge in Iraq is working. Apparently, hell has in fact frozen over or I’m experiencing the initial signs of schizophrenia, because it appears that John Murtha has finally admitted what most people already know. That the troop surge he promised would not work is working!!
“I think the ’surge’ is working,” the Democrat said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president’s decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year. But the Iraqis “have got to take care of themselves.”
Violence has dropped significantly in recent months, but Mr. Murtha said he was most encouraged by changes in the once-volatile Anbar province, where locals have started working closely with U.S. forces to isolate insurgents linked to Al Qaeda.
Democrats in recent weeks have used every excuse conceivable for why things are improving in Iraq, steadfastly maintaining that even if things are getting better it’s not because of the troop surge.
They could chalk it up to a an act of god (or Allah as the case may be), but as we all know Democrats are a secular “peoples” so that’s also out.
Provided Mr. Murtha doesn’t suddenly hold another press conference and accuse our troops of “murdering civilians in cold blood” we might just be on the right track.
-Chris Jones
More Good News In Iraq, More Pain For Democrats
The American military says the weekly number of attacks in Iraq has fallen to the lowest level since just before the February 2006 bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra, an event commonly used as a benchmark for the country’s worst spasm of bloodletting after the American invasion nearly five years ago.
Data released at a news conference in Baghdad showed that attacks had declined to the lowest level since January 2006. It is the third week in a row that attacks have been at this reduced level.
The statistics on attack trends have long been a standard measure that the American military has used to assess violence in Iraq. Because the data have been gathered for years and are deemed generally reliable they allow analysts to identify trends.
Military officials said the attacks were directed against American and Iraqi forces, as well as civilians. But since the source for the data is American military reports, and not the Iraqi government, the figures do not provide an exhaustive measure of sectarian violence.
Nonetheless, the figures added to a body of evidence, compiled by American and Iraqi officials, indicating that the violence had diminished significantly since the United States reinforced troop levels in Iraq and adopted a new counterinsurgency strategy.
Rough translation…THE SURGE IS WORKING!!!!
So then why do Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi continue to call for a change in strategy???
Posts
