"The War is Lost"

Of course, you should be tempted to dismiss what follows as more propaganda from a warmongering lackey of the world Zionist neocon conspiracy. Still, did you know that Harry Reid once demanded that we go to war on the basis that Saddam had broken the 1991 armistice accords, but now claims he was duped about WMD by Chimpy?

This defeatist argument for withdrawal ("things have changed", or "the war is lost") is the one that disturbs me the most, not just for its false logic, but because of how it critically undermines morale and current efforts. Can you imagine being a soldier fighting in Iraq right now while a politician back home declares your efforts worthless?

Patraeus was confirmed by the Senate in a vote of 81-0 in January of this year. And yet, now some of those same Senators that unanimous confirmed him for the position (presumably because they believed his expertise was necessary for achieving our goals in Iraq?) now support legislation that would cut funding the troops --while they are still in the field fighting. Something Reid said he wouldn’t do:

“As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that’s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don’t want us there, and it doesn’t work well to do that.” –Reid, 2005

"Now he's the commander in chief, and we're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds, even though there are some on the outside who suggest that,'' House leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said. "I think we want to make sure that the troops have everything that they need." -- Harry Reid, November 30, 2006

Absolutely shameless.

The original goals of the policy –to remove Saddam’s threat of WMD and affect a reform of the geopolitics of a backwards region that exports terror --remain as valid as when they were originally articulated, not just by the president, but by many democratic members of congress back in 2002. If we retreat, the enemy will not go gentle into that goodnight. They will take a withdrawal from Iraq as a sign of weakness, as they have in the past, and be emboldened to strike.

With the stakes involved, why isn't congress spending its energies supporting Patraeus's new plan instead of undermining it? How do democrats think things will play out if they succeed in their legislative aims???

Maybe the answer to that question is why they are so reluctant to engage in public dialogue about it.

The only thing that has changed from the original commitment by congress is their willingness to abandon our obligation to a policy they authorized for partisan, political gain. The Iraq insurgency, just as with the Vietcong, knows they can’t win militarily. Most of the attacks are basically publicity stunts aimed primarily at the MSM and American and western public opinion. America may very well lose the war through a collective loss of will and that is precisely the terrorist strategy for their success. Makes you wonder who Reid's constituency is.

Good times.

Religion of Peace

AP caption: "Palestinians plant an olive tree in memory of the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings, along the route of Israel's separation barrier in the West Bank village of Maasarah, close to Bethlehem, Friday, April 20, 2007. Palestinians planted 32 olive trees, one for each victim at Virginia Tech."

How touching. Gee, I sure hope none of those killed at Virginia Tech were supporters of Israel.

Meanwhile, a Palestinian parliament speaker calls for the extermination of Americans and the Jews:

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1426wmv&ak=null

Remember When

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.

The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community. This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction -- the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina) Addressing the US Senate September 12, 2002

http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

Is this really reporting?

Bombings raise questions about `surge'

By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer 21 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - U.S. and Iraqi officials have voiced cautious optimism that the 2-month-old security operation in Iraq might be working. A suicide bombing at parliament and another that sent a Baghdad bridge crashing into the Tigris River delivered a powerful message that the American-led crackdown may be too late.

Why is a "reporter" using terms like "may be" or "might be"? Is his job to accurately identify and communicate events as they transpire to the public, or is it to speculate? In what universe is this considered a reflection of good journalistic standards for objective reporting?

Weapons of Mass Deception

Why isn't this story, instead of the Imus flap, headline news???

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070412/NEWS03/304120012

Well, on second thought, this Christopher Paul character probably does take his orders from Rove as part of the administration's "Politics of Fear" covert program. Jee, I almost got suckered in there by BushCo again.

Quotes of the Day

"If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism."

"It is bad enough that so many people believe things without any evidence. What is worse is that some people have no conception of evidence and regard facts as just someone else's opinion. "

It's So Simple

On my morning commute the other day I snapped this quick photo of a lone, brave citizen providing an almost unheard of dissenting message. If only I could reduce my understandings to a bumper-sticker mentality...