Jason Hayes

Libertarian thought, policy, religion, the environment, tech, coffee, and Tabasco – the stuff of life
This is my personal blog - the thoughts and ideas expressed here are posted on my own time and are mine and mine alone.



Slimed in the Green Zone

Imagine that. These self-righteous wind bags stab our troops in the back for years; they preach to the world that the war is “lost” and that the troops are “caught in the middle of an escalating sectarian conflict in Iraq, with no end in sight,” or that the war in Iraq has been the “worst foreign policy fiasco in American history.” They do all of this and so much more, reassuring themselves all the while that they really do “support the troops” just not their mission.

Then, when they have a chance to breeze through the environment in which the troops exist, (an environment that they have made worse with their “surrender now” attitude) they are actually surprised that the troops don’t jump for joy at the sight of them.

I wonder what could be wrong?

Via Don Surber

The islamists are sooo brave

I just came across some more examples of the islamist’s bravery and thought that I would share them with you.

The brave and pure islamists can murder unarmed little girls who are walking home from school (just where do these females get off learning to read and write anyway?)

WITH their teacher absent, 10 students were allowed to leave school early. These were the girls the gunmen saw first, 10 easy targets walking hand-in-hand through the blue metal gate and on to the winding dirt road.

A 13-year-old named Shukria was shot in the arm and the back, and teetered into an adjacent wheat field. Zarmina, her 12-year-old sister, ran to her side, listening to the wounded girl’s precious breath and trying to help her stand. But Shukria was too heavy to lift and the two gunmen, sitting astride a single motorbike, sped closer.

As Zarmina scurried away, the men took a more studied aim at those they had already shot, finishing off Shukria with bullets to her stomach and heart.

Note that these are in addition to the numerous other examples that I have already posted or that are widely available on the Internet

The bravery and purity of the islamist cause is truly astounding, don’t you think?

Media backpeddles on Iraq

I recently posted on the issue of the New York Times offering up a positive view of the U.S. and the American military presence in Iraq (surprise!!).

That same theme was revisited by the Times in a July 30th op-ed, authored by two anti-war staff members from the left-leaning Brookings Institution. In this op-ed, the authors admit that the Bush-Patraeus surge strategy could actually be effective and the war in Iraq could end with a “sustainable stability” in the region. This theme is echoed in the title of this piece, “A War We Just Might Win.”

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

This theme was also echoed a few days ago on Chris Matthews’ Sunday news show.

Something happened on Sunday’s “Chris Matthews Show” that likely shocked virtually all viewers on both sides of the aisle: the panel, stocked with liberal media members as usual, actually discussed reasons why America shouldn’t pull troops out of Iraq.

In fact, not only was this issue seriously debated, but some of the statements made could have come from well-known conservative columnists like Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer.

Yet, this panel was comprised of the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, Time’s Michael Duffy, NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, and U.S. News and World Report’s Gloria Borger.

The shocking discussion was set up thusly by host Matthews:

Mike Duffy, you wrote a big piece for Time magazine last week highlighting three dangers Bush is pushing about if we withdraw: sectarian violence; safe haven for al Qaeda, and; a proxy war in Iraq fueled by its neighbors.

Duffy responded:

The Administration estimates that we have a thousand Iraqis dying a month at the current rate. That could explode, maybe ten times as many, if the U.S. leaves.

Later, Matthews asked Ignatius the following:

When we get a national intelligence estimate that says al Qaeda is back and strong, and all over the world, what good does this war in Iraq do to reduce that threat?

Great question. Even better, Ignatius by no means gave the normal liberal media member response (fasten your seatbelts):

Well, these struggles are different fronts of the same war. There is a radical Islamic movement that is active all over the world. It’s seeking to hit U.S. targets and targets of our allies…This national intelligence estimate says that it has regained its strength, and most important, it has regained a safe haven in northwest Pakistan. And, the big question the U.S. is going to have to decide: that’s a very stark warning, that they have, they have a platform to stage 9/11 level attacks. What are we going to do about it?

The notion that, you know, a defeat for the United States and its allies in Iraq is costless in terms of the larger war against al Qaeda is just wrong. I mean, you know, bin Laden said again and again, “The Americans are weak. If you hit them hard, they’ll run away. They were hit hard in Beirut, they ran away. They were hit hard in Somalia, they ran away.”

If, if the Iraq experience shows the same thing, that will be emboldening.


Whether it’s Bush’s argument or not, I think anybody who rejects it out of hand hasn’t read Osama bin Laden’s writings.

In my previous post, I had admitted some surprise at the New York Times’ willingness to take a more reasonable stance on this issue; they typically parrot the ‘blame America first,’ ‘Bush lied and people died,’ ‘we need to pull out now’ line of argument. However, the continuation of the theme by the Times, followed by the open admission from the journalists on the Chris Matthews Show that an immediate pullout could have disastrous consequences for Iraq, the Middle East, the United States, and the remainder of the world indicates that there is something bigger going on here.

I am tempted to suggest that maybe a few, more reasonable, voices in the media are starting to be heard. Perhaps they realize that, despite their best efforts, the American people are not buying into the notion that we need to have another Vietnam, where American helicopters are filmed pulling the last diplomats off the roof of an embassy. Perhaps they realize that the people we are fighting in the war on terror won’t just stop in Baghdad if we pull out and that we will need to continue the battle against islamist fascism somewhere else. Perhaps, but their track record doesn’t seem to support this concept.

Given the vitriolic partisanship that the majority of the MSM typically engages in, I am hesitantly leaning more toward the idea that they are hedging their bets. They have seen how badly their ‘blame America’ mindset has failed; it simply has not won the hearts and minds of the American people. Additionally, the MSM is looking forward to the very real possibility that the Democratic Party will be in control of the Presidency and the Congress after the ’08 elections. They see that reality looming and realize that, if it occurs, they will need to start spinning the Democrats management of the war in a more favorable light.

At the very least, they know that Hillary will need cover for her previous support of the war after she wins the Democratic primaries. The media knows that they can’t just leave Hillary and their chosen party hanging out to dry as they did with the Republican Congress and the Bush administration and this admission that something could possibly be going right in Iraq is just the first forays by members of the media into that realm.

I hope that I am wrong, but I see no real indications that I am. I hope that more reasonable voices in the MSM are now daring to speak out over the constant din of anti-Americanism and Moveon.org talking points, but past history indicates that that notion is a bit naive. It is far more likely that portions of the MSM have started looking forward in time to when the Dems are going to have to win votes from the broader population, or to a time when they could control both the presidency and the Congress. They know that their allies in the Democratic Party will need media cover for the decisions that they will have to make (i.e. refusing to simply pull out of Iraq, to avoid ensuring al Qaeda’s unfettered proliferation in the Middle East) and they are now stepping up to provide shelter for them before the election gets into full swing.

It would be nice to think the media is just doing its job by providing balanced coverage on this important issue, but it is simply more realistic to admit that they are rallying the troops for (what they hope will be) Hillary’s big win in ’08.

New York Times Baghdad Bureau Chief: U.S. inhibiting violence in Iraq

John Burns, from the New York Times, is hardly the source to which you would expect to turn for positive news on the presence of America in the Middle East. But good news is exactly what Burns provided on the Charlie Rose show (on PBS).

Via newsbusters.org, we find the following quotes from Burns.

  • I think it`s pretty clear that the majority Shiites are increasingly confident that if the U.S. troops go, they will have the upper hand. The 60 percent majority they have, the control of the armed forces that they have. The oil resources in the south would give them quickly an upper hand in what would be in effect an all-out civil war.
  • But the one thing I think that virtually all of us who – who work here or have worked here for any length of time agree is that the levels of violence would eclipse by quite a long way the bloodshed we`ve seen to date.
  • Well, I think, quite simply that the United States armed forces here — and I find this to be very widely agreed amongst Iraqis that I know, of all ethnic and sectarian backgrounds — the United States armed forces are a very important inhibitor against violence. I know it`s argued by some people that they provoke the violence. I simply don`t believe that to be in the main true. I think it`s a much larger truth that where American forces are present, they are inhibiting sectarian violence, and they are going after the people, particularly al-Qaeda and the Shiite death squads, who are provoking that violence. Remove them or at least remove them quickly, and it seems to me — controversial as this may seem to be saying in the present circumstances, while I know there`s this agonizing debate going on in the United States about this — that you have to weigh the price. And the price would very likely be very, very high levels of violence, at least in the short run and perhaps, perhaps – perhaps for quite a considerable period of time.
  • You know, I don`t want to wade into the debate that`s going on in Washington because I understand that – that a very important element of that debate is weighing as everybody on both sides I think understands, the price of staying against the price of going. And there`s no doubt that the price of staying is very, very high in American blood, to begin with, and American treasure too. But it seems to me incontrovertible that the most likely outcome of an American withdrawal any time soon would be cataclysmic violence. And I find that to be widely agreed amongst Iraqis, including Iraqis who strongly opposed the invasion. And especially amongst Sunnis, a minority who ruled here, whose power was usurped by the invasion and who now find themselves facing Shiite militias and 350,000 man and woman Shiite-led Iraqi security force, that`s to say army and police, which is overwhelmingly Shiite and would be likely, first of all, to disintegrate in the face of a civil war, but with its principal units falling on the Shiite, not the Sunni side of that war.
  • General Lynch feels, as do the other commanders of the surge, that they have made substantial progress. And that they`re likely to make more if they`re given time. They know they don`t have beyond March of next year because March 31st, 08 is the deadline the Pentagon has set as a matter of troop limits to how long they can support the surge. But they believe that if they`re given that amount of time, they can make a real difference in the levels of violence. They`ll have more time to train up Iraqi forces to come in behind them and hold those areas.
  • A senior American official told me just the other night that he had been to see Tariq Al Hashimi, who – the Sunni vice president, a former Saddam army officer who never joined the Baath Party and left Iraq in the early `90s. In other words, a Sunni who – who has genuine credentials as a moderate. Tariq Al Hashimi asked this senior American official, “is your Congress really serious about withdrawing troops?” And the American official said to him, “you`d better believe that it may be. This is a serious debate and it`s very finely balanced, and it could – it could fall in favor of withdrawing those troops and withdrawing them on a fairly rigorous, tight schedule.” Tariq Al Hashimi responded to that by saying “then we will all be slaughtered,” then we will all be slaughtered.

The newsbusters post also provides the link to this video of the Charlie Rose show.

Watch it. This is revolutionary stuff – a New York Times employee admitting something positive about the U.S. military.

Amateur Theatrics: Iraq pull out plan fails

If the American people were really behind what the Democrats in the Senate are doing, our fearless leaders would have no problem mustering the votes they need to pull the troops out of Iraq. Despite four years of consistently negative press (and deliberate Democrat and MSM attempts to malign the troops and ignore their successes in Iraq – they have been unable to convince people that the so-called war on terror is unnecessary). Their consistent attempts to turn the issue into a political tool for their own personal gain have once again failed and, not surprisingly, many of those forced to endure this latest media stunt are rightly tagging it as amateur theatrics.

The Senate rejected a plan Wednesday to bring home U.S. troops from Iraq by early next year after spending an all-night session debating whether to demand President Bush change the mission.

The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and move toward passage.

There’s no getting around the fact that all reasonable people want the war to be over. We’re all tired of the loss of lives, the expense, and the fact that we are facing the potential that the war on terror could suddenly become a whole lot larger than it currently is. The only people on the planet that want the war to continue are the islamist terrorists who dream of a world where their sick and twisted concept of religion reigns supreme and who are willing to sacrifice the lives and well-being of anyone and everyone to see their dreams come true.

Sadly, however, as was the case in previous wars, when one side desires conflict above all else, peaceful and rational people are forced to stop their initiation of aggressive force. We may not like it; we may say it is a cliché, but the simple fact is that if we don’t fight them over there, we will fight them over here. One need only look at the situation in Gaza to see just how disruptive and deadly the islamist threat can be. However, our refusal to bow to terrorist pressure is making a difference. As the just release National Intelligence Estimate noted,

worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 2001 have constrained al-Qaida’s ability to attack the U.S. again and convinced terror groups that U.S. soil is a tougher target.

I personally have grown weary of the many foibles and faults evident in the Bush administration. However, when looked at honestly, one cannot deny that they have been very effective in keeping the U.S. safe from further islamist attacks; attacks that have been going on, without interruption, in Spain, the U.K., Pakistan, and other areas around the world.

Whether the Democrats and others who are against the war on terror like to admit it, we have been effective in constraining the actions of al Qeada and their ilk. And regardless of the fact that I may disagree with the Bush administration on other issues, I cannot support the notion that the war on terror is the fault of the U.S., or the larger western world. In this case, Bush is right. We’re in this conflict for one primary reason and that is the murderous and totalitarian intentions of islamist fascists around the world.

What is also obvious here, is that the majority of the free world knows it and is willing to admit it and Democrat attempts to use cheap, amateur theatrics as a means of evading this fact are both naive and dangerous.

Waiting on Murtha’s apology

On the issue of Marines being charged with murder in the Haditha incident, this news has recently come out,

The government’s case against a Marine accused of fatally shooting Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha lacks sufficient evidence to go to a court-martial and should be dropped, a hearing officer determined.

The murder charges were brought against Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt for killing three Iraqi brothers in November 2005.

The hearing officer, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, wrote in a report released by the defense Tuesday that those charges were based on unreliable witness accounts, insupportable forensic evidence and questionable legal theories. He also wrote that the case could have dangerous consequences on the battlefield, where soldiers might hesitate during critical moments when facing an enemy.

“The government version is unsupported by independent evidence,” Ware wrote in the 18-page report. “To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.”

Prosecutors allege Sharratt and other members of his battalion carried out a revenge-motivated assault on Iraqi civilians that left 24 dead after a roadside bomb killed a fellow Marine nearby. …

“Whether this was a brave act of combat against the enemy or tragedy of misperception born out of conducting combat with an enemy that hides among innocents, Lance Corporal Sharratt’s actions were in accord with the rules of engagement and use of force,” Ware wrote.

He said further prosecution of Sharratt could set a “dangerous precedent that … may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and its mission in Iraq.

Even more dangerous is the potential that a Marine may hesitate at the critical moment when facing the enemy,” he said.

emphasis added

So now we should all be expecting Murtha’s open and public apology for slandering that Marine as a “cold-booded murderer.”

Anyone else thing that we’ll keep waiting and waiting and waiting …

Islamists try to fool 6-year old into carrying out suicide attack

The islamist terrorists are denying that they would use a child as a homicide bomber. However, media reports are saying that the Taliban tried to trick a six-year old boy into strapping on a bomb belt and attacking U.S. soldiers.

The story of a 6-year-old Afghan boy who says he thwarted an effort by Taliban militants to trick him into being a suicide bomber provoked tears and anger at a meeting of tribal leaders. …

Though the Taliban dismissed the story as propaganda, at a time when U.S. and NATO forces are under increasing criticism over civilian casualties, both Afghan tribal elders and U.S. military officers said they were convinced by his dramatic account.

Juma said that sometime last month Taliban fighters forced him to wear a vest they said would spray out flowers when he touched a button. He said they told him that when he saw American soldiers, “throw your body at them.”

The militants allegedly cornered Juma in a Taliban-controlled district in southern Afghanistan’s Ghazni province. Their target was an impoverished youngster being raised by an older sister — but also one who proved too street-smart for their plan.

Once again, the islamist are denying their cowardly attempts to pack a child with explosives and use him as their weapon. However, since I have posted previously about islamist terrorists lining a girl’s school with explosives, teaching their children to behead so-called American spies, and executing bus loads of high school students, I am inclined to believe the American soldiers and tribal leaders on this one (unlike some in the MSM).

Additionally, since it is known that the islamist terrorists have also forced people with learning disabilities (like Down’s Syndrome) to act as suicide bombers in their sick terror plots, I have no trouble believing that they would use a small child in the same twisted manner.

Suprise! Haditha reporting missed the facts

Not really surprising to see that Time magazine and the other major media outlets (to say nothing of a few of our elected representatives) got a lot — if not most — of the information on the Haditha issue completely wrong.

When it comes to the November 2005 Haditha incident, which the media has characterized as a wanton massacre of 24 innocent civilians, it seems it is the truth that has been massacred — by the news media.

As Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, long heralded as one of the bravest and most skillful Marine officers in the Corps, faces charges that could send him to prison for failing to adequately investigate the incident, defense attorneys for both the colonel and the other Marines have been unable to cite in open court the evidence that clearly exonerates him and all of the other accused Marines.

As a result, the media has emphasized all of the erroneous charges leveled by the prosecution, most of which rely on suspect testimony from anti-American Iraqis — some of them insurgents.

As NewsMax.com has previously revealed, the bulk of that exculpatory evidence is contained in the eight hours of videotaped testimony offered by the battalion intelligence officer (designated S2), all of which up until now has been highly classified and therefore unusable in open court and kept from the notice of the American people. …

The evidence clearly shows that a great miscarriage of justice has been imposed on a group of some of the bravest and finest of Americans — the men of the Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.

Please go read the evidence that was held back. It essentially shows that the media and Murtha focused on the briefest of time spans in an almost full day of fighting with islamist terrorists as the foundation for their charges against the Marines. It is suggested that they deliberately ignored the remainder of the day’s activities. So it appears that they selected and ran with severely limited information, as a means of supporting their prejudicial views that the American military is populated by ruthless murderers.

What Murtha, Time magazine, and much of the MSM did to these men (and continue to do to the brave men and women in our military on a near daily basis) is as disgusting and abusive a betrayal as I have ever seen. The members of the media that were involved with this smear campaign need to stand up and publicly apologize for attempting to destroy the lives of these people. Additionally, WP reporter Ellen Knickmeyer, Time reporter Tim McGirk and John Murtha should (at the very least) resign.

Gore speech in ’92: Bush Sr. ignored Iraqi ties to terror

Something doesn’t compute here. If this is true,

Then this would have had to have been a lie,

“He betrayed this country!” Gore shrieked in a red-faced Dean-like frenzy at a rally of Democrats on Sunday in Tennessee, the home state that rejected him in 2000.

“He played on our fears! He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure pre-ordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!” …

“It is not a minor matter to take the loyalty and deep patriotic feelings of the American people and trifle with them.” Then he screamed, “The truth shall rise again!”

Now if Mr. Gore can so easily flip his beliefs for personal and political gain — from Bush 1 betrayed the country for not going after (a terror funding and supporting) Saddam fast or hard enough, to Bush 2 betrayed the country for going after Saddam too hard and too fast when we weren’t 100% sure about whether he was really all that bad — just how much faith would an intelligent individual put in any of his other political games.

Nod to Darcey

Update: It just hit me that Gore’s political maneuvers nuance must be where Kerry got his “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it” concept. Standard issue, liberal playbook material – Never tie yourself to any one goal/objective or philosophy, other than arrogating additional power to yourself and the government. Always be for or against whatever the people standing in front of you are for or against.

No easy answers

A few days back, I posted this

Like I said a few days ago — I would watch for further signs that Iraqi PM was siding with the Mahdi army. Since rumor has it that he is removing any police or military types that are actually effective at stopping al Sadr’s goons, it is becoming more and more clear that Maliki is likely in bed with his Shiite pal al Sadr.

Today I read this.

The mosque of Imam Kadhim, the most revered Shiite shrine in Baghdad, is a tempting target for Sunni insurgents. To protect it, Iraqi and U.S. troops rely on the Mahdi Army, the same Shiite militia that Washington considers a threat to Iraq’s stability…

With tacit American approval, plainclothes militiamen loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr set up impromptu checkpoints and patrol alleys day and night near the mosque.

The Americans believe that tolerating a discreet role for the Mahdi Army, which U.S. officers refer to by its Arabic acronym JAM, is better than either picking a fight with the militia or taking the blame if Sunni extremists manage a repeat of the February 2006 bombing of another Shiite shrine in Samarra…

I have to admit that Debbie is correct.

I’ve found that diplomacy is very tricky business involving lots of give and take, being very precise with words used, perception by one’s friends and enemies. Frankly it sucks. I prefer open, honest, all cards on the table discussions. What Americans don’t seem to understand about our situation in Iraq, is WE DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT’S GOING ON, nor should we.

There are a ton of things going on over there that I can’t even begin to track. I guess it’s like science; the more we learn, the more we have to admit that we don’t know.

Maliki in Iran’s back pocket?

Like I said a few days ago — I would watch for further signs that Iraqi PM was siding with the Mahdi army. Since rumor has it that he is removing any police or military types that are actually effective at stopping al Sadr’s goons, it is becoming more and more clear that Maliki is likely in bed with his Shiite pal al Sadr.

Given the fact that al Sadr ran, like a frightened little girl, to his pals in Iran at the first sign of the US surge, it’s not too terribly hard to believe that Maliki might have ties to Iran. Seeing this latest post from Jihad Watch wasn’t all that reassuring.

An investigative article by journalist Mahdi Mustafa, published March 31, 2007 in the Egyptian government weekly Al-Ahram Al-Arabi, featured photographs of documents indicating that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has ties with Muqtada Al-Sadr and with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. [1]

The following are the main points of the article:

Al-Maliki Calls to Withdraw Iranian Revolutionary Guards Commanders from the Iraqi Front in Order to Protect Them

The first document, labeled “secret, personal, and urgent,” is a January 2007 letter from Al-Maliki’s office to the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, with copies to the presidency of the [Shi’ite party] Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and to the Al-Shahid Al-Sadr organization.” [2] In it, Al-Maliki requests that the commanders of the Mahdi Army, who have ties with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, be pulled off the Iraqi frontlines, in order to protect them from being arrested or killed.

It’s time to stop listening to Harry Reid’s race to surrender and stop playing PC political games with these guys. We need to let our guys on the ground over there start breaking skulls. Get rid of these people that are working with the terrorists and the government of Iran to defeat us at the same time as we are training their troops and rebuilding their society for them.

UPDATE: I’m kind of liking this fellow’s comment.

Now they want to kill little girls

Interesting to see just how low the islamist fascists will go in their attempts to bring darkness, chaos, and hate to the world. In their latest scheme, among other things, they actually wired a girl’s school with various explosives, lined the ceiling and floor with artillery shells and filled a propane tank with explosives and buried it under the floor.

American soldiers discovered a girls school being built north of Baghdad had become an explosives-rigged “death trap,” the U.S. military said Thursday.

The plot at the Huda Girls’ school in Tarmiya was a “sophisticated and premeditated attempt to inflict massive casualties on our most innocent victims,” military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said.

The military suspects the plot was the work of al Qaeda, because of its nature and sophistication, Caldwell said in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

The plot was uncovered Saturday, when troopers in the Salaheddin province found detonating wire across the street from the school. They picked up the wire and followed its trail, which led to the school. Once inside, they found an explosive-filled propane tank buried beneath the floor. There were artillery shells built into the ceiling and floor, and another propane tank was found, the military said.

I guess that their version of “god” likes it when grown men murder little girls.

They call America the “great Satan,” but only something Satanic could take pleasure in murdering innocent children like this.


It may be time

I have always said that so long as the Iraqis were willing to stand up and do for themselves, and that we were progressing toward their taking over the security responsibilities for their country, it was a worthwhile endeavor to stay and help them.

Recognizing that this story is coming from a MSM media outlet — and is therefore, automatically suspect until reliable sources confirm it — if the Iraqi government is now propping up the Mahdi army and removing Sunni officials that are actually effective in stopping sectarian violence, I would argue that it is time to either deal very strongly with al-Maliki, or begin to face the fact that some in the Iraqi population simply refuse to have peace. Then we’ll either have to hammer those factions hard, or toss in the towel. We can’t have our own side kicking the stool out from under us like this.

A department of the Iraqi prime minister’s office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad.

Since March 1, at least 16 army and national police commanders have been fired, detained or pressured to resign; at least nine of them are Sunnis, according to U.S. military documents shown to The Washington Post.

Although some of the officers appear to have been fired for legitimate reasons, such as poor performance or corruption, several were considered to be among the better Iraqi officers in the field. The dismissals have angered U.S. and Iraqi leaders who say the Shiite-led government is sabotaging the military to achieve sectarian goals.

“Their only crimes or offenses were they were successful” against the Mahdi Army, a powerful Shiite militia, said Brig. Gen. Dana J.H. Pittard, commanding general of the Iraq Assistance Group, which works with Iraqi security forces. “I’m tired of seeing good Iraqi officers having to look over their shoulders when they’re trying to do the right thing.”

American troops can’t be over there, training Iraqi officials, so they can be removed by Maliki and his goons for doing a good job.

Additionally, if it is shown that the WaPo is blowing up a minor incident to make a political case against the war in Iraq, they need to be castigated and outed as making the troops lives a whole lot harder.

The vultures are circling

You can love him, or hate him for all the things he says. However, I believe that Limbaugh has a real point when he argues that the Democrats appear to be setting themselves up for a massive electoral blowout sometime in the next few election cycles.

They’re reconstructing the exact circumstances they created post-Vietnam going into Watergate and that they think led them to the Promised Land. Of course they lost in a 49-state landslide with George McGovern as their nominee. Guess who Democrats are talking to about advising them for their future? They’re out there having conferences with George McGovern. They have a perverted sense of their own success. When it’s defined and when it happens, or how it’s defined and when it has happened, this is something that’s just going to take time to play out. (from the April 3, 2007 radio show)

It isn’t enough that they are actively underming our international diplomacy efforts (and those of our closest allies); it isn’t enough that they regularly undermine the men and women serving in our miltary; and it isn’t enough that they are actively misrepresenting the last elections results as a public demand for our defeat in Iraq.

Now it appears that they are going to turn the death of Pat Tillman and the subsequent mishandling of the investigation into his death into another one of their grandstanding, beat up on the military, media circus events. (thanks to AJ for this one)

Congress will not find out anything that is not already in the record, so the clear purpose of this is to bash the military. Friendly fire is a horrific fact of war, and people do not respond well to the fact they may have killed our own. When your entire responsibility is to your buddies and your comrades, friendly fire is the worst kind of mistake. Being killed is probably preferrable. So all Libs are going to do is use the corpse of Pat Tillman to try and besmirch our military over a painful and terrible mistake nobody feels good about. And for that they will be viewed as the partisan vultures they are. Becase only vultures feed on the corpses of the dead for sustanence and power. As usual, the Libs in Congress have no moral or ethical bounds to their lust for power and revenge. This will be a pathetic sight to watch, and my heart goes out to the families of these brave souls who sacrificed for all of us. They deserve better than to be props in a partisan smear campaign.

There’s nothing like using the bodies of our soldiers as a platform for your next stump speech to really get the base all fired up.

One hopes that the electorate will see this offense for what it is.

Barbara Boxer being “civil” to Condi Rice

Does anyone else out there remember the non-stop kvetching by Boxer and her feminist friends over the past 30+ years? How about their hysterical charges that marriage and raising kids was nothing more than a jail sentence for women? Wasn’t it the hard core feminists like Boxer and Pelosi that claimed that all women had a duty to eschew the traditional family roles of getting married, settling down, having kids, and mom staying home and raising the kids? Wasn’t it also Dems, like Boxer, who claimed that the Democratic Party was the right and proper home for disenfranchised minorities?

Now if all of the above are true – and they are – why is it that Senator Boxer spent a good part of her time yesterday beating up on a single, African-American, career woman? Why was the foundation of that attack laid on the fact that this woman did not take part in the “traditional family”? Why is it that Barbara Boxer actually tried to further disenfranchise Dr. Condoleeza Rice solely because she was not married and did not have children?

A ferocious Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, told her that military fighters and their families were paying the price for a conflict that had taken the lives of more than 3000 American troops and wounded nearly 23,000.

“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young,” she told the unmarried Dr Rice. “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, within immediate family.”

Dr. Rice epitomizes everything that Boxer and her left-wing, feminist friends claim to have supported over the past several decades. She pulled herself up and out of an early life in the poverty-stricken, segregated south. She worked hard, excelled, and became very successful. Moreso, she created her own success; she did not need to attach her caboose to the leading engine of a male up and comer, like a certain Senator from New York..

One would think that her success, despite such overwhelming odds, would have the feminists singing Dr. Rice’s praises. Instead, they take every chance to bash and abuse her for not holding their victim-mentality view of this country and the world. They hate her because she was (is) effective and successful without their government aid programs and without engaging in their hate-filled rants and personal smears.

With her comments yesterday, Senator Boxer proved that she and her party are in no way interested in seriously dealing with the issues in Iraq. Neither are they interested in helping to lift up women and minorities. She proved – beyond a shadow of a doubt – that she and her party are all about the politics of personal destruction, political theater, and getting the next big headline. If they have to abandon their so-called feminist and multi-cultural principals to score a hit on a political enemy, so be it. Anything and everything to keep their hold on POWER!

Lastly, Senator Boxer should remember that the islamist hordes do not only hate American mothers and fathers. They hate, and want to kill or forcibly convert, all Americans (and anyone else who is not exactly like them). The islamist fascists would jump just as high and scream “Allahu Akbar” just as loud when pressing the detonator to murder a single African-American woman, as they would a married, Caucasian, grandmother.

We all have a stake in this war, Senator, and we all lose when you redirect serious inquiry into the war effort onto your petty personal attacks.

Senator Boxer, you owe Dr. Rice, and the rest of the country, a personal apology.

Sheehan tells Dems, “you better shape up”

This one had to hurt the Dems, they have never had to face any serious pressure from the fringe; they have always been pals with them. They could always rely on the moonbats to back them up in the battle against the demon Republicans and that Hitler-wannabe George Bush. But now …

The war in Iraq and congressional scandals, twin forces that helped Democrats recapture the House and Senate, collided yesterday when antiwar protesters’ shouting forced House Democratic leaders to cut short a press conference hyping their proposed reforms.

House Democratic leaders had gathered in the Cannon Caucus room to discuss wide-ranging and symbolic changes to the House rules, including a complete gift ban and new restrictions on travel, earmarks and legislative procedures when activists, including Cindy Sheehan, drove lawmakers from the microphones. …

But when Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) stepped up to pronounce that Democrats fundamentally would “change the relationship between lawmakers and legislators,” Sheehan and her allies started shouting, “De-escalate, investigate, bring our troops home now!”

Emanuel’s aides said he was willing to talk to Sheehan and her cohorts, but he and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and incoming Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) headed inside the Cannon Caucus room when it appeared the shouting would not stop.

“They are not including the peace movement’s voice,” Sheehan said, adding that she would have talked to Emanuel and the other leaders had she noticed them waiting to listen. After the leaders huddled inside the closed-door meeting, the shouting stopped and the protesters left.

The chickens (no pun intended) are coming home to roost. The fringe is now stepping up and demanding that the Dems pay them back for delivering the November elections, and the initial reaction by the Democratic leaders – running away – does not bode well for their continued alliance.

Watch for Sheehan, MoveOn, Code Pink, and the others to become more strident and bellicose and watch for the Dems power base to self-implode when it becomes obvious that the ideas motivating the moonbats are disfunctional.

Iraq has experienced the equivalent of the Marshall Plan

Any guesses as to why the MSM has waited until after the election to start printing positive news about the goings on in Iraq?

When and if the smoke ever clears in Iraq, Pentagon officials say the world finally will see a minor miracle.

“Most Americans don’t understand something equivalent to the Marshall Plan has been accomplished in Iraq,” said Dean G. Popps, principal assistant secretary of the Army for acquisitions, logistics and technology.

The Army is the program manager for $20 billion in U.S. taxpayer money that flowed to Iraq after the 2003 invasion to spur a building boom of more than 4,000 projects.

Amid constant deadly threats from bloodthirsty insurgents, and without a viable Iraqi private contracting sector, the Army Corps of Engineers has supervised the construction of electric grids, health care centers, schools, water and sewage treatment facilities, police stations, academies and border posts.

Not counting the deteriorating security situation, no facet of the Iraq war has received more negative press than the U.S.- and Iraqi-financed reconstruction. The Washington Times, along with other newspapers, has published a series of articles on setbacks and corruption. But, the Pentagon contends there is another storyline.

“It’s quite a heroic story maligned often by the news media,” Mr. Popps said during an interview in his E-Ring Pentagon office. A nearby multicolored map designates hundreds of projects started and completed, from Mosul to Basra.

Regardless of the clear and evident pre-election MSM bias here, it is good to see that they are finally admitting that not everything in Iraq has been a complete and total failure.

Surprisingly enough, if the reporters take a break from (re)watching CNN and BBC reports in their hotels in Bagdhad, they might actually find out that some of the rebuilding has been handled quite well.

The article provides a short list of the improvements seen in Iraq since the U.S. started reconstruction.

• Six new primary care facilities, with 66 more under construction; 11 hospitals renovated; more than 800 schools fixed up; more than 300 police stations and facilities and 248 border control forts.
• Added 407,000 cubic meters per day of water treatment; a new sewage-treatment system for Basra; work on Baghdad’s three plants continues; oil production exceeds the 2002 level of 2 million barrels a day by 500,000.
• The Ministry of Electricity now sends power to Baghdad for four to eight hours a day, and 10 to 12 for the rest of the country. Iraqis are now free to buy consumer items such as generators, which provide some homes with power around-the-clock.
Mr. Popps said all this was accomplished despite a concerted effort by terrorists to bomb construction sites and kill workers. Thursday’s kidnapping of private contractors south of Baghdad illustrates the problem. The State Department was forced to increase spending on security, up to $5 billion of the $20 billion, or risk losing more projects to saboteurs. …

In late September, Iraq rebuilders received some praise from Mr. Bowen. He made one of his periodic appearances before the House Government Reform Committee, where Chairman Thomas M. Davis III, Virginia Republican, said there was some good news out of the war-wrecked country.
“You said accurately in your opening statement that not everything is wrong in Iraq, and that’s true,” Mr. Bowen responded. “A fair reading of our full report demonstrably underscores that fact. Indeed, 70 percent of the projects we’ve visited and 80 percent of the money allocated to them indicate that those projects, from a construction perspective, have met what the contract anticipated.”

In Pelosi’s mind, we’re not at war

I have searched high and low, but can’t find a link to this quote yet. However, I have heard a shocking Nancy Pelosi sound bite several times today on the radio in which she states that our situation in Iraq is,

Not a war to be won, it is a problem to be solved.

It would be difficult to root out a more clear cut case of a 9/10 mindset out there. We’re not at war with islamist fascists, we’re just dealing with a little “problem” in the middle east. That thing in New York, where “freedom fighters” and “insurgents” flew airplanes into the WTC … that was just another facet of our “problem.” Certainly not indicative of a war or anything nasty like that.

And this is the person who is now in charge of setting funding levels for the war on terrorism.

Something for Republicans to consider

David Boaz (of the Cato Insitute) makes a good argument that the Republican Party is in danger of losing its share of the Libertarian vote. As the Republicans continue to move away from the Reagan conservative model by increasing spending, pushing hard on social issues, ignoring the immigration issue, and generally supporting “compassionate” (read big government) solutions to pretty much any and every challenge that we face, they will also lose a huge chunk of the so-called independent and libertarian vote.

Republican candidates are pulling out all the stops to bring disgruntled conservative voters home on Election Day. Dozens of conservative talk show hosts were invited to the White House to interview Vice President Cheney, political adviser Karl Rove and other top officials.

President Bush and his colleagues are telling voters that no matter how unhappy they are with Republicans, they’ll like Democrats even less.

But evidence from around the country suggests that even if the conservatives come home to the Republican Party, the GOP could still lose Congress by losing libertarian voters.

Take a look at independent voters. There are more of them than before, especially in the West. More than 25 percent of Arizona voters now register as independent or third-party voters. And according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, they’ve shifted sharply toward the Democrats in this fall’s elections.

But independents haven’t fallen in love with the Democrats. They seem to be motivated more by dissatisfaction with Republicans than enthusiasm for Democrats. A New York Times-CBS News poll found that 58 percent of independents would prefer that candidates run without party labels at all. In that regard they reflect the views of the entire electorate. A recent Gallup Poll found that by 48 to 45 percent, Americans would like to see a new major party, up from 56 to 40 against a new party in 2003.

I personally cannot understand how anyone who claims to hold libertarian views could ever seriously consider casting a vote for the Democrat’s “plans” to,

  • turf the Bush tax cuts (and increase your personal income taxes by several thousand per year),
  • ‘stay the course’ on the hemorrhaging Social Security program,
  • cut & run in the War on Terror – so the radical islamist fascists can redirect their efforts to the United States,
  • reducing spending on the miltary – so we won’t be able to deal with the islamists when they start attacking here at home,
  • replace the barriers to interagency communication in the intelligence agencies – so the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI can only guess at what the other guys are doing
  • pushing for big-government fixes to health care coverage issues
  • piling on environmental regulations to stop any form of development or energy exploration,
  • increasing the already outrageous spending levels we see with the Bush administration,
  • welcoming tens of millions more illegal aliens (with driver’s licenses, subsidized housing, welfare, social programs, “free” health care, “free” education, and the “right” to vote)
  • hack away at the Second Amendment
  • move the government toward a San Fransisco-style socialism

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. If you hold up the Republican willingness to dally in the social issues as a reason to not vote for Republicans, that’s fair enough (if you’re willing to chuck your vote in the trash over a single issue) I suppose. However, the litany of anti-libertarian/pro-big government sentiment that is accepted as “mainstream” in the contemporary Democratic Party should have any serious libertarian tearing their hair out in frustration. I would think that this reality would encourage people to push toward the Libertarians, rather than the Democrats though.

For example, in the Arizona 6th District, I was personally tired of Jeff Flake (who had promised that after his last win, he would not seek re-election and who has openly supported the “comprehensive” amnesty for illegals that Bush has pushed so hard) and went with the Libertarian challenger, Jason Blair. I wanted to vote for Ernest Hancock as Secretary of State, but a quick look at his web site gave me a sick feeling in my stomach (the guy is actually pushing the “Diebold is stealing elections” and “9-11 was an inside job” theories on his election web site and I can’t support that type of conspiracy theory fringe lunacy), so I was forced to support Jan Brewer. I had seriously considered voting for Hess, but the slight (slight, slight) chance that Munsil could unseat Janet – lets give driver’s licenses to illegals– Napolitano forced me to support him.

I understand the frustration with the Republicans because they are certainly not living up to the Reagan legacy. However, the possibility that my vote could institute diehard socialists like Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Alcee Hastings, and Charlie Rangel into positions of power in the House makes my skin crawl. Cutting off your nose, to spite your face can hardly be considered an intelligent policy strategy.