Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

The NY Times and NBC News are going to be “collaborating” in their coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Interesting, that word “collaboration,” Vichy is the first word to come to mind. So it’s official, rather than trying to bounce off each others tactics the two Liberally slanted sources of “news” will be openly conspiring together to slant the “news.”

Executive editor of the paper, in a message to the staff said:

“In brief, the arrangement goes like this: We will give NBC stories, graphics, pictures and The Caucus blog for their Web site. They will give us video for ours along with links that should expose many new readers to our online journalism.”

And it begins, I guess with video and article about the woman who would be president. Collaboration it is…

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

According to an editorial written by Australian professorial fellow and emeritus professor at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, Riaz Hassan, (“Interrupting a history of tolerance?”):

“The Zionist project for a Jewish state was predicated on centuries of Jewish sufferings in Europe.

Anti-Semitism was not an entrenched characteristic of Islamic ideology and history until the 20th century. Without doubt, European anti-Semitic writings and their translation into Arabic during the 19th century and German National Socialism in the 20th century were instrumental in instigating anti-Semitism throughout Arab lands.”

Strange revelation, not so much from Hassan, but more due to its publication in The Korea Herald today, following the extension of the deadline set by the Taliban for the release of 22 South Koreans for roughly the same number of Taliban in Afghanistan.

Pope Benedict recently chimed in on the hostage situation that may lead to the murder in cold blood of the 22 Christian missionaries calling the exploitation of innocent people as a "grave violation of human dignity:”

"Unfortunately the usual practice of exploiting innocent people for their own ends is spreading among armed groups. It is a grave violation of human dignity that clashes with every elementary norm of civility and rights and gravely offends divine law.”

Hopefully this will not exacerbate the situation as according to Professor Hassan in the September 26, 2006 issue of the Daily Times of Pakistan in his “VIEW: The Jihad and the West:”

“The need for a dialogue between Islam and the West has never been more acute than now, but Pope Benedict XVI’s recent description of Islam as “evil and inhuman” is clearly not the best approach. In his lecture on Faith and Reason at Regensburg University, the pope quoted the 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor Manuel II Palaeologus as saying, “Show me just what Muhammad [peace be upon him] brought was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by sword the faith he preached.” Notwithstanding the Vatican’s statement that the pope meant no offence and, in fact, desired dialogue, in the eye of many Muslims his remarks only reinforced a false and biased view of Islam — not conducive to dialogue.”

In another example of intolerance toward radical Islam the South Korean government has asked YouTube to remove video clips from 2004 that “showed Koreans condemning Islam after a Korean translator was killed in Iraq in 2004, and a Korean woman preaching Christianity to a group of Afghan children. It was not disclosed who posted the videos, which have now been taken down.”

Further in the effort to avoid provoking the Taliban, “the Korean Government Information Agency asked Youtube last Friday to delete the content on the grounds that it falsely portrays Christians and Koreans alike.” The Christian portrayal refers to a quote from a YouTube post that said, "I am Korean myself and right now 90 percent of Korean public also think that those stupid Korean Christians deserve what has happened."

So in the effort to bring the 22 hostages home safely a view of the world that the likes of the Taliban most violently represents is wiped from the public record.

Good luck with real negotiations.

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

How is the board feeling this morning, betrayed? Who do O’Hanlon and Pollack think they are returning to Iraq and actually viewing what it is like on the ground today and actually reporting back that Iraq has improved since their last visit?

Michael O’Hanlon recently wrote on June 10, 07 in the same pages of the NY Times that “Cities like Kirkuk and Mosul remain tinderboxes.” Today, writing of Tal Afar and Mosul:

“This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq.”

In the January 2005 issue of Policy Review, O’Hanlan wrote “Iraq Without a Plan,” (reproduced by permission of Policy Review at The Brookings Institution) which he opened with:

“The post-invasion phase of the Iraq mission has been the least well-planned American military mission since Somalia in 1993, if not Lebanon in 1983, and its consequences for the nation have been far worse than any set of military mistakes since Vietnam.”

Pollack in January wrote a Saban Center Analysis, also available at The Brookings Institute; “Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover from an Iraqi Civil War.” In May it was The New Republic with “Civil Defense: The Surge That Would Really Save Iraq”

The bottom line is that O’Hanlon and Pollack left of Center foreign policy analysts, are anti-Iraq heroes to the likes of the NY Times Editors and the rest that are so far Left they almost fall off; so their writing of improvements will make many vested in defeat very unhappy.

“Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”

If Harry Reid insists on not believing General Petraeus, will he believe these two? We’ll have to wait until after his weekly conference call with MoveOrg, Kos and the rest.

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Nothing but tough love from Tehran's substitute Friday prayers leader Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati this morning. Speaking to the congregation of recent talks with the U.S. he said:

“Iran is ready to do whatever the Iraqi people and government demand to provide Iraq with security. In the talks, we tried to make the Americans understand their mistakes in Iraq. The Americans were frankly reminded about their mistakes in Iraq and they were asked why they were still lingering in an Islamic country which has an elected government."

“There is a collection of hooligans in Iraq now. If the Americans and the British were not in Iraq, the government in Baghdad could deal with these terrorists and mischief-makers."

"The more the occupiers remain in Iraq, the more loss they would inflict on themselves. They are getting more and more hated by the world people and they would eventually have to withdraw from Iraq with shame.”

The minister of love also made note of the anniversary of the “33-day war” between “Lebanese Hezbollah” and the “Zionist regime,” and said:

"The victory was not only for Hezbollah but also for Islam and the Muslims. The Lebanese are for a government which would not be a puppet regime and do not let the dirty Zionists bully them."

"Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Islamic government in Iraq are also the winners."

Praise Allah, Mohammed (PBUH) and all that rot.

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

If it bleeds it leads is one reason we are all too well aware of as to why the news has more good then bad; even when more good than bad may have happened. Watch any local newscast and the coverage is wall to wall crime, accidents and anything that might bring in the viewers hoping for some action and car chases.

In Iraq, from Abu Ghraib, Fallujah to Haditha, the truth isn’t nearly as important as the story; much like the Duke Lacrosse players in their travails and tribulation facing prison time for a rape they did not commit nor even happened.

All this is unfortunate for us in that it leads to an acceptance of what isn’t as those it is, which brings us to all the horror stories of our soldiers in Vietnam as baby killers and presently our heartless “killers” in Iraq. Perhaps if the media wasn’t so starved or easily self-mislead toward the worst in us in a war they disagree with we might have a true picture of what exactly is going on.

Mackubin Thomas Owens, contributing editor at NRO had a great column yesterday that I had hoped to bring attention to, however failed on that task. From John Kerry and the “Winter Soldier Investigation” from Vietnam, to Stephen Glass of National Review fame, Owens reveals a reason that we should all take what we hear of atrocity with a grain of salt before we go on the rampage beating ourselves, our military and our nation down as though it is not worthy of spitting on.

Owens does not deny the reality that horrible things happen and anyone that does is obviously a fool probably cannot speak beyond the monosyllabic. That said however, it is a fool that in knee jerk order accepts that which paints what our military does as everything but honorable as though each member in its ranks cheered on the anomaly, not “new management” at Abu Gharaib.

A personal anecdote shared by Owens during his time in Vietnam goes:

“I heard of an atrocity just after I joined the unit. A Marine who was scheduled to rotate soon recounted an incident that he claimed had occurred shortly after he had arrived in the unit about a year earlier. According to his story, members of a sister company had killed some North Vietnamese soldiers after they had surrendered.

Some months later, I happened to overhear another Marine who had joined my platoon after I took it over relate exactly the same story to some newly arrived men, only now it involved me and my platoon. I had a little chat with him and he cleared things up with the new men. But that episode has always made me wonder how many of the stories have been recycled and how many accounts of atrocities are based on what veterans heard as opposed to committed or witnessed.”

Instances of atrocity are undeniable in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere; they happen in Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon and we’re not there. As a matter of fact horrible acts are committed daily all over the world. This is not to justify the action of those that commit them, but to allow ourselves the calm that should come knowing that it is not in our military’s first instinct to commit them.

We should doubt that which we read or see in the news until we know more. All the claims of support of our troops is nothing if you expect the worse of them.

From Wednesday’s NRO, Mackubin Thomas Owens, “Stephen Glass Meets the Winter Soldiers.”

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Was it a success? Or was it just another debate but with a face on the question? Was it just wishful thinking on my part or was there a brief nano-second(?) of a bust to the right of the person with the first question (his left)?

Yesterday I had concerns about the YouTube angle of the debate making it more of an entertainment extravaganza and said, “I cringe to contemplate faux sincerity from the candidates in response to a question asked by a “real live” previously recorded video of an American citizen.”

Having actually viewed the debate, I didn’t actually cringe at these home made video questions, but just the same the whole addition was kind of useless. Overall I thought the setting and tone of the “show” was good; it was actually better than I had expected. However (seven letter word for “but”), the content was “as expected,” which is unless you’re an easily convinced monkey there was nothing of any use.

Last night a couple hours after the “show” I was a guest on Political Vindication Radio with hosts Shane and Frank the authors of Political Vindication (archive here and previous visit here, entire archive here). As usual it was a lot of fun and I think you will find informative; even if you just agree. You can also listen to their weekly show “Live” every Wednesday nights at 6:00PM Pacific Time by going here.

I’m sure there are many opinions out there as to how things went, but one that I find interesting is from Byron York and his take on “Obama’s Bad Night,” at NRO. Yes, now when I think of it, he did come off as an amateur, but in my partisan way it is and was difficult to take any of them seriously.

Last night Shane, Frank and I did take notice of Senator Clinton’s (speaking of “Hillary,” was the questioner that used her first name a “Plant?”), response to the question regarding the “leadership” question answered first by Obama (the one York sees as revealing), her answer from CNN:

“Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy. And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.”

Her response we agreed was pretty impressive, at least as impressive as an answer from a Democrat presidential candidate is concerned. What I find galling is the impression one gets and the easy skirting of a question, the answer to which everyone is impressed with.

We certainly wouldn’t want a new president jumping in with both feet in the ignorance of where those feet might land; but does this new president have to start at the beginning again? It sounds like we would be getting right back into the game of the “discussion” is the “fix.” We meet, therefore the problem is resolved. Where has a President “Clinton” been all these years while not in the Oval Office that she would really question or wonder what the intentions of an Iran would be? Has she not been paying attention? Has she been too busy as everyone else has been going over the same “we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq” mantra without realizing the time has passed and we’re now looking at the year 2007?

This is the main problem I find with our politicians these days, but especially so with the Democrat party politicians. What they have honed is the skill of avoiding responding and/or doing anything about something that may come back to haunt them. This is a part of the reason; I believe President Bush has gotten as much flack as he has. My belief is obviously naïve to a degree, but you can count on the fact that none of these candidates from the Democrat Debate last night will ever make a tough call as President Bush has with regard to Iraq.

We will instead jump on back to the good old days, when diplomacy alone was the answer; not so much because it gave us answers, but because the process was on-going and took time to bear fruit and allowed the politicians to make believe things were working for something, anything they said it was.

I don’t think the next president will have much time to “know what the intentions are,” before some serious decisions will need to be made. Will any of them have what it takes? Not from this group.

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

The term “quagmire” and the beginnings of its overuse hark back to the Vietnam War; becoming part of the popular lexicon following the publication of David Halberstam’s Pulitzer Prize winning account of the Diem/Kennedy years of the Vietnam War, "The Making of a Quagmire."

Just about every military intervention of the U.S. since Vietnam has been referred to as a “quagmire,” in one form or another. It has become a catchphrase that speaks volumes, however elicits no details other than the minds eye portrays. Once labeled a “quagmire” a war or battle has likely heard its last level headed remark made about it; that goes for those in support of or against the conflagration in question.

There has to be a time that we will remove the majority of our forces from Iraq, however, a specific date cannot be selected and certainly not when things might be taking the kind of turn that may give us the first glimmer of a paced exodus that is actually based on a workable improvement; a real possibility of ‘perhaps they can take the helm on their own.’

The “quagmire” admitted to is a “quagmire” more of the mind than of the physical reality of one. Physically “quagmire” is a measurement of degree and subjection that is thought of differently depending upon the point of view, so to me it is a fairly useless assessment as to any movement forward or backward. One can get from point A to point B through the thick mud or “quagmire” an inch at a time or in a barely perceptible manner and if so, do we judge it before getting to B prior to actually getting there?

“Quagmire” is most realistically descriptive of the mental “quagmire” that so many involved directly and indirectly are dealing with when we discuss Iraq. It is best illustrated this morning in The NY Times in an article entitled, “Standing Against the War, but Unsure How to End it.” Forget about whether the toilet paper is speaking on either side of the political spectrum. Read what is actually being said; “Now, what do we do now? Walk away? We should really ramp it up, or get out now” and “It’s fighting between Republicans and Democrats, I don’t even know that they’re really looking at doing anything.” No one quite knows how to end it and one reason for that is no one knows what “end it” means.

If we pull out on Bill Richardson’s timeline (all out by March/April ’08) or even the, dare I say more realistic Joe Biden time frame (at least a year at minimum); what “end,” are we talking about? It would perhaps be the “end” to our concentrated and numeric involvement, but that is not truly an end is it? I don’t believe it would be unrealistic to envision that it would continue and worsen in the overall region, having ramifications that make our involvement now appear trivial.

If we stick it out and see the “surge” through to September awaiting the report of General Petraeus it won’t be over either. Many seem to believe and I’m sure will fight tooth and nail to use his interim report as “proof” the “surge” is not working and Iraq is “lost.” However, the “surge” is a prime example of the day to day morphing of the battlefield and how our unrivalled military addresses it. It is the politics of the battlefield; not the battlefield of politics.

This morning, the “U.S. Is Seen in Iraq Until at Least ’09, is an article on a classified plan, “which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador.” The “plan” is not an end either, but it strikes me as a move forward (no promises) that has the means to turn our mental “quagmire” on its head but only if we allow it.

As quoted earlier, “it’s fighting between Republicans and Democrats,” really does describe pretty appropriately what a major problem is with our effort in Iraq. It would be nice if both sides of the aisle stepped back and perhaps viewed this latest as the beginning of a realistic possibility for a draw down. Step back, avoid calling it Bush’s plan or a Democrat plan; call it the “military” plan that may allow us to pull all of our heads out of our “quagmire.”

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation: http://demediacraticnation.blogspot.com/2007/07/general-andrew-sullivan-dishonors.html

“Well, to be candid, that’s a hypothetical that I’m just not prepared to address. We are determined to do all that we can, while we’re given the opportunity to try to bring this to as successful as reasonable a conclusion as is possible, and that is really what is just what I’m devoting all my intellectual energy and physical energy to at this point in time, not thinking about what the implications of not getting it right are.”

-- spin from one on the side of Cheney and “extremist, Republican partisans,” General Petraeus in response to Hugh Hewitt’s question of what we might expect as the consequences of defeat in Iraq.

It is unfortunate; though not surprising that Andrew Sullivan would have qualms about General Petraeus’ interview with Hugh Hewitt yesterday and chose to pre-emptively judge the move on the part of the general as “working from the agenda of extremist, Republican partisans.”

This, he believes “renders Petraeus’ military independence moot,” but before passing judgment he’ll “wait for the transcript,” wee bit late on the withholding of judgment already. Believing Petraeus a willing cog or just allowing himself to be used by the “Republican propaganda machine” are charges of a partisan crime that leave Sullivan believing the he now knows “whose side” the general “seems” to be on.

I don’t blame the rising of anyone’s hackles when something they believe in the success of (losing Iraq in this instance), may be thwarted by someone in the top tier, someone whose judgment we should all be able to trust. I do however, question their judgment when they lay it all on the line and plant the seed, so to speak, for forwarding the argument of doubt for September based in part on an interview unheard or transcript unread (unavailable at the time of Hewitts post regarding the interview, therefore unavailable to Sullivan as well).

Sullivan inserts the next piece in the puzzle that is the Democrat propaganda plan of attack for the general’s report in September on the progress in Iraq.

Accusing someone of Hugh Hewitt’s caliber of being a tool of “extremist, Republican partisanship” is a sad statement just because you disagree with his views on various issues. A more “moderate” voice in the media to Sullivan is what or who; CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN or any of the rest? Interviewers from these fonts may well be more to Sullivan’s liking, they would however ask more leaning question, the answers of which they would use to spin the continuing tale of utter desperation, abject failure and to quote the Time’s editorial board, the “colossal waste of the nation’s blood and treasure.”

No, we hear from these purveyors of “selective prescience” much too much these days and take what they feed us as reality; when the reality is it offers a very incomplete and unbalanced diet in its best of reporting. An interview by Hugh Hewitt, whose questions you can listen to or read, combined with the answers to these questions as provided by someone in a real leadership position should be viewed as the least of the partisan means of getting the information.

To believe the General Petraeus as partisan when his life’s work has been dedicated to the defense of his nation and now the protection of the soldiers under him as well is to take the chance of dishonoring someone that likely has more honor in one finger than many can hope to have in their entire being. Not withstanding this syrupy judgment of a man I do not know; regardless of the interviewer, someone in Petraeus’ position should be provided with a modicum of the benefit of the doubt; it is after all the general whose judgment we will need to rely upon come September.

Based upon how things are going now, I expect to hear that things are looking up (up from where of course is another question) and that likely more of what has been taking place with the “surge” offensive will be necessary. I will look upon this as hopeful and positive while others will see it as proof our entanglement in Iraq does not have a set date, time and second for completion; they will want and require that. If the threats we face are to be driven back we cannot let them have what it is they want as it’s an excuse to accomplish nothing.

Having read the transcript I think it high time that Sullivan and Harry Reid start believing the general and considering what he sees. I don’t think it has a whole lot to do with anything November 2008 related.

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation: http://demediacraticnation.blogspot.com/2007/07/stymied-ny-times-and-democrats.html

The NY Times editorial board is at it again with (italics mine) “Stymied by G.O.P., Democrats Stop Debate on Iraq:”

“After Senate Republicans yet again thwarted a proposal to withdraw American troops from Iraq,…”

Oh, wait…sorry, my bad…this colorful use of leading connotation is actually a “news” article. The article does however, have a nice and even-handed treatment of the debate with its “In Their Own Words: Comments from the Senate Floor” multi-media pop-up consisting of “words” from four Democrats and a Republican; so I guess we’re on balance there.

The Editorial board is just a bit more judgmental, even with their lack of contemplation on all the “news that isn’t fit to print.”

“The nation’s anguish over the Iraq war was kept on hold in the Senate yesterday as the Republican minority maintained serial threats of filibuster to buy time for President Bush’s aimless policies.”

Sadly for the nation and the paper an attempt to vote on something months before the agreed to Petreus report in September is now scheduled to take place when it actually was. A time when the realities of the report will still be ignored by the “old fart of a gray lady” and the Democrats. In Septembers time a pull-out probably won’t be appropriate, especially if things are improving, otherwise what is the point of anything we are doing, if not to try and see it succeed.

Cherry picking through the editorial like the Dems recently did with the NIE I offer a few “pie” worthy morsels. Beyond that, I cannot stomach much more of the arrogant ignorance.

“Republicans are doing the public a real disservice and playing an increasingly risky hand by delaying sober consideration of the war.”

So, the board and Democrats are drinkers? The Democrats and board do not consider anything in sober terms and this editorial is example of the usual condescending vitriol the editors do best.

“The Iraq war stands apart as a watershed issue — a downward spiral that the public increasingly sees as a colossal waste of the nation’s blood and treasure.”

This, thanks in no small part to the continual misleading hammering and one sided reporting from the MSM and Democrats.

“In postponing real action to September and beyond, Republicans laughed off the all-night debate as a “slumber party” of “twilight zone” theatrics by the Democrats. In fact, Bush loyalists seem trapped in the twilight zone, ducking their responsibility to represent constituents by applying credible pressure on the president to come up with an end to his sorry war.”

“In postponing real action to September…” or postponing the “theatrical” debate and vote brought up two months earlier than agreed to when all agreed to Petraeus and the “surge” plan. The board, like the Democrat majority obviously takes part in the weekly conference calls with the likes of the MoveOn.orgers….pathetic.

The board speaks of a “ducking” of responsibility on the part of the Republicans as though the support they offer is only in deference to the president, while painting the “majority” as pushing a pullout as the only appropriate thing to do or some kind of selfless calling. Ignoring the “ducking” of responsibility of the majority and itself regarding the real on the ground realities of what the piece Iraq plays in the entire puzzle that is the greater war on terror.

Who is ducking responsibility?

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

While the sleepover took place and the theatrics were going full bore sans fireworks, while the Democrats or Reid’s Rosies moaned of the “distraction” that Iraq is from “real” terror the world continues to spin.

Iran and it’s proxies in Iraq and elsewhere in the region have been all but forgotten. This is one of those subjects of debate the media aids and abets the Democrat party as it tries to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. There are so many pieces to this war on terror that regardless of size need to be addressed; Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere. It all continues apace.

The Rosies apply the makeup, have their jammies pressed, teeth brushed and put on their latest off-Broadway hit; who says sequels can’t draw in the crowds.

“Negotiations” with the IAEA continue with Iran as the lead in the show recites his practiced lines. Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini discusses efforts to avoid a third resolution against Iran, while stating what “appeared to refer to an agreement reached last week between Iran and the UN's nuclear watchdog for a new negotiations framework,” which the UN hailed recently.

This “new negotiations framework” stems from June 25 when Iran “invited an International Atomic Energy Agency team to Tehran to work on clearing up suspicions about its nuclear program, an IAEA spokeswoman said Monday.” Excitedly hailed at the time as forward momentum in the quest to cease the Islamic Republics nuclear ambitions by the UN, Iran and MSM, we are only now seeing that it is part and parcel in the stretching out of negotiations to allow Iran to achieve its ends during the farce of “negotiations.” After all Iran, “‘invited the IAEA to send a team to Tehran to develop an action plan for resolving outstanding issues related to Iran's past nuclear program,'” which is only a promise to continue the same.

Reid and the Rosies rant while Hussain Shariatmadari, an adviser to the Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei, claimed Iranian ownership of the Gulf Arab state of Bahrain stating:

"The public demand in Bahrain is the reunification of this province with its motherland, the Islamic Iran."

The statement made sometime around July 13^th has not been “formally disavowed” by Tehran, which adds further insult to injury to those that continue to believe that Iranian proxies in Iraq are not participating under the orders of the government in Tehran and the Mullahcracy. To Shariatmadari, “it goes without saying that such an indisputable right for Iran and the people of this province should not and cannot be overlooked.”

Does this speak kindly to the “peaceful” use of nuclear technology? How about the fact that “Iran has marked 600 targets in Israel for missile strikes if it is attacked, the Qatari newspaper Al Watan quoted Sunday diplomatic sources in Damascus as saying. The report said the targets are within reach of Iranian missiles and would be completely destroyed if Israel should attack Iran or participate in an American attack on it.” This threat also includes attacks against Syria within its protective umbrella.

This is not the “peace” we think of, but “peace” has a very wide ranging definition when practiced by the likes of the Iranian regime.

During the Cold War peace between the major powers was maintained via proxy and the promise of mutual assured destruction. Today and over the past 30 years this has been the practice of Tehran with an almost light speed increase in these efforts recently. Assuming history will repeat itself to the tee that some feel it has or does, i.e. Iraq is Vietnam; dangerously disregards the danger inherent in a new Cold War, this one with an nuclear armed enemy that reveres martyrdom in death.

So, to Reid and the Rosies, the UN, and the MSM thanks for making the assured destruction of many a possibility with your lack of seriousness in these grave issues.

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

The NYTimes Editorial board sees the recent release yesterday of “The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland,” as having a message, the message being, “Be very afraid. And don’t question the president.”

Oddly, the board chooses that as the underlying message as though it and others in the business of propaganda are having their right to free speech challenged. Here’s an idea, why not hold off on the knee jerk reaction, pause and just ‘listen to the president?’ That way you might spend a little less time reacting as though we’re stuck in some bizarre time warp in an alternate universe that never recognizes anything changing. Has the board heard of a general by the name of Petreaus? Do they know that President Bush won in 2004 or are they stuck somewhere?

Acknowledging “the report’s conclusions” as “disturbing,” is a start; but they fail with their ultimate conclusion. Their conclusion is more in line with an ‘we told you so,’ as in the case on the ground doesn’t matter so much as that we were right; at this point they prepare to move forward from their roughly 2003 posture. Why else would they say, “if the report is given an honest reading, it is a powerful rebuke to Mr. Bush’s approach to the war on terror. It vindicates those who say that the Iraq war is a distraction from the real fight against terrorism.”

If not mistaken a “distraction” is something to be ignored or if nothing else, the response to a “distraction’ should be muted or minor, while efforts are concentrated on the bigger task at hand. The Board however, distracts itself during the course of its tizzy when noting Iraq as a distraction, then near closing noting when in reference to their statements that al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the invasion that “we’ve seen no evidence of that, and none was in the intelligence report.”

So there is an acknowledgement of the fact that al Qaeda is in Iraq regardless of their time of entry or birth there. Why then, close with “Congress surely can see through the president’s fear-mongering and show Mr. Bush the exit from Iraq that he refuses to find for himself.” The board’s closing reveals that they are still fighting an old, old battle which prevents them from truly seeing today; else wise why would we grope for the exit as though this would resolve it all as we head on back or increase our efforts in the Afghanistan region, which may prove to be a “distraction” to the reality of what Iraq has become.

The board’s perceived enemy is the Bush Administration, viewing it as the real enemy, as the makings of a fascist if not fascist administration already. The Times editorial board has a myopic view of what fear mongering is when they cannot recognize their own brand of it.

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Judging this Congress as the most dishonest ever would be a tough call; I'm not going to make it as I do not know enough about all the different congresses. Regardless of the "most" it is extremely dishonest just the same as offering anything of worth is not what they have come to do. They won last November by saying nothing and this is what they are doing right now, nothing.

The Democrat Majority is in place for one reason and one reason only; power. This Congress is their precursor to 2008; what they will offer after that is anyones guess as they are only familiar with the tactics they have employed from the beginning of the Bush Presidency.

They appear to be the insurgency in our midst; no goals beyond running the present leadership out. They hurt our efforts daily in Iraq and elsewhere with their theatrics and misleading statements.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona has an essay up this morning, "Up All Night," as does Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, "Dark Night of the Senate." Sigmund, Carl and Alfred also has a very timely piece, 'Feeling' History's Future"

Obviously preaching to the choir, but the choir really needs to kick it in right about now. The new "leadership" has done nothing but propagandize about the Iraq theater from day one; they're painting September's report as failure today. What kind of argument is that?