Like Michael Yon, Bill Roggio brings the daily life of the Iraq War home. Here is his latest report from one of the hottest battle fronts in Iraq. Bill effortlessly brings personality to the Iraqi and US soldiers who are sacrificing so that we may have a safer world. And thank you, Bill, for the risk you take so that we may know a little more about Iraq, today.
Life with Iraqi forces and U.S. Marines at Battle Position Beirut
We exchanged stories and discussed our families. They noticed the picture of my daughter on the open Instant Messenger window, and asked for more. I shared photographs of my family, which brought forth smiles and hearty claps on the back. Many of the soldiers are married and have children, and expressed that they missed their families as well. This is a universal bond all soldiers share.
The Marines of 1st Platoon of Lima Company have varied opinions of the Iraqi soldiers, which range from unimpressed to pleasantly surprised at their courage and fighting abilities. Several explained how Iraqi troops saved their hides during Operation Steel Curtain, when the Iraqis identified a home the Marines were going to enter as being rigged with IEDs. When Explosive Ordnance Disposal arrived on scene and detonated the device, the entire house was destroyed in the blast. "“Most of our squad would have been killed in that house. They saved my and my friends'’ lives that day"” said Lance Corporal Mendoza.
You can follow Bill at ThreatWatch.org
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
This is why you read The Belmont Club
On the tenth of May, 1972 Lieutenant Randy Cunningham and his RIO, LT(JG) Willie Driscoll, flying a Phantom F-4J, ShowTime 100, would shoot down two MIGs, making them the first American aces of the Vietnam War. Then they would shoot down a third.
Well done, Wretchard.
Well done, Wretchard.
Thank you, Senator Lieberman
Joe Lieberman, Democratic Senator from Connecticut, has given us a perspective on Iraq that America has not seen from the mainstream media. And he seems to be the only Democratic leader with the political guts to tell us this truth. Here are a couple of notes from his article in the Wall Street Journal’s on-line editorial page, Opinion Journal. (Free Registration Required).
I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.
The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.
Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.
What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.
These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too.
I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."
Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.
I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.
The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.
Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.
What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.
These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too.
I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."
Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
heaven charges a high price for freedom
From John O'Neil in the NY Sun (via. Michelle Malkin, who keeps us informed):
On December 23, 1776, with Washington's army freezing in tatters at Morristown, Thomas Paine in "Common Sense" wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls." He noted many mistakes by the American army, but noted that "tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered" and that heaven charges a high price for freedom because it is so precious. It was a time when "the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot shrink ... " but those who stood firm would someday receive the love and appreciation of the nation.
On December 23, 1776, with Washington's army freezing in tatters at Morristown, Thomas Paine in "Common Sense" wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls." He noted many mistakes by the American army, but noted that "tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered" and that heaven charges a high price for freedom because it is so precious. It was a time when "the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot shrink ... " but those who stood firm would someday receive the love and appreciation of the nation.
Michael Yon is our eyes
Michael Yon is our eyes. See this inspiring photo essay of the children of Iraq. Michael Yon lets us see beyond the headlines of the mainstream media. I often wonder what would happen if a mainstream media outlet, say the Today show, would go to this school for a week and show all of the happy children and the hustle and bustle of a functioning, free Iraq. Besides the fact that these media outlets have no desire to show this side of the Iraq War - the successful side - I think there is tragic reason that this will not happen. The sad truth is that the terrorist’s main weapon (whether they are a willing participant or not) is the mainstream media. And a high profile target as well as a live feed would present the ultimate target. Until then, we will rely heavily on the courage and perseverance of the Michael Yons of the world. Thank you again, Michael.
Monday, November 21, 2005
"Breathtaking"
Ralph Peters (retired army officer) writes in the NY Post today about the distasteful policies of the Democratic Left. The obvious motivations to sacrifice all that has been the Iraq war in order to gain political power. Here are some lines from his article:
Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.
America's security? Hah! As long as the upcoming elections show Democratic gains, let the terrorist threat explode. So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war? So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids? So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?
For God's sake, don't talk about democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy wasn't much fun for the Dems in 2000 or 2004. Why support it overseas, when it's been so disappointing at home?
The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.
There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.
We won't even talk about the effect quitting while we're winning in Iraq might have on the go-to-war calculations of other powers that might want to challenge us in the future. Let's just be good Democrats and prove that Osama bin Laden was right all along: Americans have no stomach for a fight.
Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.
America's security? Hah! As long as the upcoming elections show Democratic gains, let the terrorist threat explode. So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war? So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids? So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?
For God's sake, don't talk about democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy wasn't much fun for the Dems in 2000 or 2004. Why support it overseas, when it's been so disappointing at home?
The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.
There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.
We won't even talk about the effect quitting while we're winning in Iraq might have on the go-to-war calculations of other powers that might want to challenge us in the future. Let's just be good Democrats and prove that Osama bin Laden was right all along: Americans have no stomach for a fight.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
History Behind the Iraq War
Mudville Gazette has compiled an extensive timeline leading up the Iraq War. It reminds us that the Iraq war was not inspired by 9/11. It had been building throughout the 90's. September 11th only served to teach us that we cannot take the risk of containing these threats.
"One of the most blatant - and most effective - examples has been the highly successful propagation of the idea that the war in Iraq began as a misguided result of the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11th 2001. To achieve this feat of near-universal denial requires the dismissing of over a decade of real history - years in which a handful of Americans drew a line in the sand on distant shores - a line crossed repeatedly and re-drawn too frequently by too many hands to be forgotten so swiftly."
"One of the most blatant - and most effective - examples has been the highly successful propagation of the idea that the war in Iraq began as a misguided result of the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11th 2001. To achieve this feat of near-universal denial requires the dismissing of over a decade of real history - years in which a handful of Americans drew a line in the sand on distant shores - a line crossed repeatedly and re-drawn too frequently by too many hands to be forgotten so swiftly."
Friday, November 18, 2005
James Lileks on Hugh Hewitt's Radio Show
Here is the transcript. I feel the same way. "They can't seriously be talking about this..."
HH: I'm joined now by James Lileks. He is a columnist extraordinaire for the Newhouse News Service, Minneapolis Star Tribune, one of the most widely read internet sites in America, Lileks.com, author of many such books. And today, not a funny guy, though he normally is. James, what do you make of this week?
JL: I've had it with a lot of them. And if this wasn't serious, I'd be sitting back laughing. But it's not something to laugh about. What we have here is every single cliche that the left has been hammering into a sheet of tin since the beginning, made true. 1. Quagmire. We actually have a quagmire now, except it's a political quagmire of will. 2. We have the brual Afghan winter, except it's manifesting itself here as a brain freeze in the Senate, which appears to be a collection of the most obsequious, boozebags, clucksers and well-oiled weather vanes that we've ever seen leading this country. You can even throw in a plastic turkey, because that's pretty much what they've shown themselves to be. What is astonishing about this is that the people who are responsible, and who have their hands on the lever of power, have chosen this moment in history to reveal themselves as being incapable of understanding A) what happened, B) what is happening now, and C) what will happen if they continue on their course of action. In other words, they misunderstand the past, the present, and the future. It's astonishing.
HH: Let's talk about each of those. What have they forgotten?
JL: Well first of all, this preposterous argument that we've been going on for the last God knows how long about Iraq and al Qaeda and 9/11, and that whole context, has been completely forgotten. If you read the papers and you listen to Harry Reid bleating about the fact that the president had the audacity to strike back at what the people saying...the entire Democratic Party seems to believe that the nation of Iraq was formed out of whole cloth and imagination in 2003, for the sole purpose of having an invasion, so we could go over there and fail. That seems to be it. They've forgotten entirely what their party and everything in the media who had access to a newspaper knew about Iraq in the 90's. All right? So to completely obliterate that context is not only an act of astonishing stupidity, it is dangerous. It's stands up in the context of saying it completely ignores what we went through in the 90's, and what we were facing after 9/11. There's a piece that Powerline linked to today. It's an interview with an Iraqi arms inspector, and I think in Front Page Mag. And it's just...gruesome detail about what was going on, and the way that they were shifting their stuff around, and what we knew about their capabilities. And to have that argument at this point is just stunning.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Terrorist Victory
This is not an over-reaction. The US senate gave the terrorist their first victory this week with an amendment stating:
"2006 is designated as 'a period of significant transition to full sovereignty . . . thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.' "
Read Betsy's post emphasizing senator McCain's article in the NY Post.
My Message:
The terrorist can only win their War on Freedom if the American people become weak and tired of the war. And this amendment demonstrates that they might have a chance at victory. What does victory for the terrorists mean? It means that Iraq falls into chaos and becomes the new Afghanistan. It means shelter and safehaven for those who want to kill Americans. It means 2000+ of our bravest men and women died for nothing. It means no nation on the planet will be afraid to attack the weak United States or any other country, for that matter. It means more terrorist attack on US citizens. It means we're back to September 10, 2001, when we thought we couldn't be hurt by them over there.
Victory for the terrorists is not an option, and we should be ashamed that we are giving them hope. We must support Iraq so that it will never be 9/10/01 ever again.
"2006 is designated as 'a period of significant transition to full sovereignty . . . thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.' "
Read Betsy's post emphasizing senator McCain's article in the NY Post.
My Message:
The terrorist can only win their War on Freedom if the American people become weak and tired of the war. And this amendment demonstrates that they might have a chance at victory. What does victory for the terrorists mean? It means that Iraq falls into chaos and becomes the new Afghanistan. It means shelter and safehaven for those who want to kill Americans. It means 2000+ of our bravest men and women died for nothing. It means no nation on the planet will be afraid to attack the weak United States or any other country, for that matter. It means more terrorist attack on US citizens. It means we're back to September 10, 2001, when we thought we couldn't be hurt by them over there.
Victory for the terrorists is not an option, and we should be ashamed that we are giving them hope. We must support Iraq so that it will never be 9/10/01 ever again.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Another type of "Temporary Guest Worker"
I'm sure Walt Gaya is not in the same immigration status for which the phrase "temporary guest worker" was coined. But this story from Michael Yon brings awareness to non-US citizens fighting for freedom in the United States Military. Tell me there aren't other stories out there besides "Car bomb kills...". This story bring us two pieces of information. 1) Brave man and women, who do not yet have their US citizenship, are sacrificing their lives along with their comrades so that we may live the American Dream. And 2) There is an audience out there for good stories. Unfortunately the road to this audience goes through the gauntlet of the liberal mainstream media. Michael tells us that, when the Associated Press picks up a story, the story makes it to the great audience of the mainstream media. And the audience relishes it. If this audience had the means to get their information from alternative media, they would hear of these heroic and tragic stories regularly. And they would have the information necessary to make informed decision. Instead, they are deluged with the negative, and feel powerless to act.
And God bless you, Walt Gaya, and all of those who have sacrificed for America.
And God bless you, Walt Gaya, and all of those who have sacrificed for America.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
If I were a ghost writer...
...I'd be Lorie Byrd. Clear and to the point. The democratic strategy that puts congressional power above victor over terrorism (and the lives of the citizens of the United States) is coming crumbling down. And it's about time.
Don't miss the RNC video link on her post. Now that I think of it, when was the last time I heard about the RNC?
Don't miss the RNC video link on her post. Now that I think of it, when was the last time I heard about the RNC?
Un-writing Re-written History
It's about time, President Bush. Hope it isn't too late. Here is a good post containing a small piece of the important message the President is finally conveying, Bush Lays the Wood to Terrorists, Democrats. Go read it. It's short. Hear the President's voice, because you may not hear it elsewhere.
My 2 cents:
If you've read some of my posts, you know I am a supporter of President Bush's strategy for winning the War on Terror. Yes, Strategy. I know the strategy. I listened to the President before we removed the Taliban from Afghanistan. I listened to the President before we invaded Iraq. And his message has not changed. Take out the terrorists, and those who support them, before they can take us out.
But his political opponents are capitalizing on the population's short-term memory. By making false charges about "misleading intelligence", the democrats have convinced a majority that the President "lied to take us to war". Of coarse, this is not true, but if the citizenry get this message only, over and over again, from every direction, then they will start to question their memory. "The war was about WMD" is another misleading statement that the Democrats have convinced the American people of. What I heard the President say was, that Iraq was just part of a Global War on Terror. Iraq was just one source of terrorists, and terrorist aids. And today's reinforcing message is that Everyone agreed before the war that Iraq was a threat. And Everyone agreed after the war was started that Iraq was the party that was misleading Everyone. Believe it because it's the truth. The truth spoken by both political parties and by other nations around the globe.
My 2 cents:
If you've read some of my posts, you know I am a supporter of President Bush's strategy for winning the War on Terror. Yes, Strategy. I know the strategy. I listened to the President before we removed the Taliban from Afghanistan. I listened to the President before we invaded Iraq. And his message has not changed. Take out the terrorists, and those who support them, before they can take us out.
But his political opponents are capitalizing on the population's short-term memory. By making false charges about "misleading intelligence", the democrats have convinced a majority that the President "lied to take us to war". Of coarse, this is not true, but if the citizenry get this message only, over and over again, from every direction, then they will start to question their memory. "The war was about WMD" is another misleading statement that the Democrats have convinced the American people of. What I heard the President say was, that Iraq was just part of a Global War on Terror. Iraq was just one source of terrorists, and terrorist aids. And today's reinforcing message is that Everyone agreed before the war that Iraq was a threat. And Everyone agreed after the war was started that Iraq was the party that was misleading Everyone. Believe it because it's the truth. The truth spoken by both political parties and by other nations around the globe.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
You're Welcome
Undoubtedly, this is a marketing campaign for tourism and industry. But you have to believe there is sincerity in the message, too.
Kurdistan (Northern Iraq) launches national ad campaign in the US
Kurdistan (Northern Iraq) launches national ad campaign in the US
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Find me someone who has debunked this.
Norman Podhoretz goes blue in the face re-re-reitereating why this war is not "George Bush's War". But at this point, you gotta believe no one is listening.
This is via Instapundit. My portal to the blogosphere.
This is via Instapundit. My portal to the blogosphere.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Tell Me Why They Are Rioting
I have had two thoughts throughout the Paris riots. 1) why has the main stream media been reluctant to mention that a large portion of the rioters are Muslim? and 2) Tell me more!
Somewhere in the area of 40% of the rioters are Muslim. Yet, the media seems to mention this as an aside halfway through their report. In contrast, the words "predominantly black neighborhood" were used quite frequently in reference to the New Orleans disaster. No conclusion needs to be drawn from the fact that they are Muslim. But is is a significant fact, and it should be stated, as it may become significant.
And most of the reports I have seen from the AP and Reuters have been described "250 cars burned, 2 schools burned, youths" etc. There is more to this story. Are they rioting in the name of Islam? Are they truly "youths"? Clive Davis has done a nice jobof putting these riots in perspective (France-1, France-2). He has helped me gain some knowledge of the situation. In a nutshell, these neighborhoods were areas off-limits to the French authority. They were self governed by gangs. The government decided it had gone on too long and decided to take back authority. And the gangs resisted. So they are gangs - young people who had been free from the law and now they are resisting. From this perspective, the Muslim aspect is not a factor. But it is still a fact and should not be minimized as it could become a factor.
Somewhere in the area of 40% of the rioters are Muslim. Yet, the media seems to mention this as an aside halfway through their report. In contrast, the words "predominantly black neighborhood" were used quite frequently in reference to the New Orleans disaster. No conclusion needs to be drawn from the fact that they are Muslim. But is is a significant fact, and it should be stated, as it may become significant.
And most of the reports I have seen from the AP and Reuters have been described "250 cars burned, 2 schools burned, youths" etc. There is more to this story. Are they rioting in the name of Islam? Are they truly "youths"? Clive Davis has done a nice jobof putting these riots in perspective (France-1, France-2). He has helped me gain some knowledge of the situation. In a nutshell, these neighborhoods were areas off-limits to the French authority. They were self governed by gangs. The government decided it had gone on too long and decided to take back authority. And the gangs resisted. So they are gangs - young people who had been free from the law and now they are resisting. From this perspective, the Muslim aspect is not a factor. But it is still a fact and should not be minimized as it could become a factor.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Shhh... They're Muslim.
Today, we live in a world where the main stream media can't say that the riots in Paris are in an Muslim community. For seven days, now there has been violence and rioting in the suburbs of Paris. A suburb "five miles from the Elysee Palace. Five miles from where Jacques Chirac sits." And a suburb that is predonenetly Muslim. A poor, state funded, welfare suburb that is heavily unemployed, and essentially lawless. The above quote is from an eye opening interview of Mark Steyn by Hugh Hewitt. The gist of the conversation is about the nature of these rioting communities and how the main stream media has been reluctant about telling it's audience that these riots have a heavy Muslim population. Why does it need to be hidden several paragraphs into the article?
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Media and Perception with France
Here's an interesting post from Roger Simon that made me think. An American living in France tells about how there are more pro-Americans in France than you might think. I guess I've been duped again. Since I hear "French opinion" through their media, I perceive that the French are anti-American. The French media are liberal, and they support their government. Alternatively, I imagine that the French (and others outside of America) get their information from our media, a liberal establishment that is biased against our ruling political party. So, to me, it looks like "the French" hate us. And to them, they see a negatively slanted view of Americans, which only encourages them to hate us. But as I should know by now, there is more to the story than is presented in the main stream media.
A side note: This post also demonstrates the effectiveness of weblog technology. The body of the referred to post presents a view of French law. Multiple commentors correct those statements. This supports the theory that blogs are self regulating which preserves legitimacy
A side note: This post also demonstrates the effectiveness of weblog technology. The body of the referred to post presents a view of French law. Multiple commentors correct those statements. This supports the theory that blogs are self regulating which preserves legitimacy
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
The Obvious is Not-So Obvious to All
Jeff Jacoby couldn't say it any more clearly. You may not be getting the whole story.
----------
WHAT WAS the most important news out of Iraq last week?
That depends on what you consider ''important." Do you see the war against radical Islam and Ba'athist fascism as the most urgent conflict of our time? Do you believe that replacing tyranny with democratic self-government is ultimately the only antidote to the poison that has made the Middle East so dangerous and violent? If so, you'll have no trouble identifying the most significant development in Iraq last week: the landslide victory of the new Iraqi Constitution.
...
But that isn't how the mainstream media saw it.
Consider The Washington Post. On the morning after the results of the Iraqi referendum were announced, the Post's front page was dominated by a photograph, stretched across four columns, of three daughters at the funeral of their father, Lieutenant Colonel Leon James II, who had died from injuries suffered during a Sept. 26 bombing in Baghdad. Two accompanying stories, both above the fold, were headlined ''Military Has Lost 2,000 in Iraq" and ''Bigger, Stronger, Homemade Bombs Now to Blame for Half of US Deaths." A nearby graphic -- ''The Toll" -- divided the 2,000 deaths by type of military service -- active duty, National Guard, and Reserves.
...
But that isn't a message Big Media cares to emphasize. Hostile to the war and to the administration conducting it, the nation's leading news outlets harp on the negative and pessimistic, consistently underplaying all that is going right in Iraq. Their fixation on the number of troops who have died outweighs their interest in the cause for which those fallen heroes fought -- a cause that advanced with the ratification of the new constitution.
----------
Read the whole thing.
----------
WHAT WAS the most important news out of Iraq last week?
That depends on what you consider ''important." Do you see the war against radical Islam and Ba'athist fascism as the most urgent conflict of our time? Do you believe that replacing tyranny with democratic self-government is ultimately the only antidote to the poison that has made the Middle East so dangerous and violent? If so, you'll have no trouble identifying the most significant development in Iraq last week: the landslide victory of the new Iraqi Constitution.
...
But that isn't how the mainstream media saw it.
Consider The Washington Post. On the morning after the results of the Iraqi referendum were announced, the Post's front page was dominated by a photograph, stretched across four columns, of three daughters at the funeral of their father, Lieutenant Colonel Leon James II, who had died from injuries suffered during a Sept. 26 bombing in Baghdad. Two accompanying stories, both above the fold, were headlined ''Military Has Lost 2,000 in Iraq" and ''Bigger, Stronger, Homemade Bombs Now to Blame for Half of US Deaths." A nearby graphic -- ''The Toll" -- divided the 2,000 deaths by type of military service -- active duty, National Guard, and Reserves.
...
But that isn't a message Big Media cares to emphasize. Hostile to the war and to the administration conducting it, the nation's leading news outlets harp on the negative and pessimistic, consistently underplaying all that is going right in Iraq. Their fixation on the number of troops who have died outweighs their interest in the cause for which those fallen heroes fought -- a cause that advanced with the ratification of the new constitution.
----------
Read the whole thing.
Politics is Short Sighted
The continuous attacks on the Bush administration over the war in Iraq are political games being played with the lives of the Iraqi people, US soldiers and the citizens of this great country. Look at this little collection of from 1998 and tell me why we shouldn't be united in completing our goal to rid the world of terrorism.
---------
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'...
It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.
***********
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, October 9, 1998
-------
This is not President Bush's war. This is America's war, started by the American government, started to protect the American people, started long before George W. arrived in the white house. We need America to finish the fight. Politics is poisoning the war. Iran is a threat. Syria is a threat. And how deterred can they feel when they see such a divided foe? The anti-war, anti-democratic-Iraq forces of the democratic party are inspiring the terrorists who are killing US soldiers and innocent Iraqi people every day. We need to win this war. Politics stands in the way.
---------
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'...
It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.
***********
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, October 9, 1998
-------
This is not President Bush's war. This is America's war, started by the American government, started to protect the American people, started long before George W. arrived in the white house. We need America to finish the fight. Politics is poisoning the war. Iran is a threat. Syria is a threat. And how deterred can they feel when they see such a divided foe? The anti-war, anti-democratic-Iraq forces of the democratic party are inspiring the terrorists who are killing US soldiers and innocent Iraqi people every day. We need to win this war. Politics stands in the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
