News we can use

Iraqis are more than the sum of what we see in the media, and Richard Lowry gives a short report on one way the MSM has missed big time. You won't see it on the networks, or in the newspapers, but it's seriously worthy. Pass the news on.



Oops! Where are my manners? Hat tip to Drew M. at AoSHQ.

Dems finally show common sense

Well, I'll be dipped in something! The Trib says Dick Durbin and Rahm Emmanuel, along with a few other Dems in Congress, have come up with a real, gen-yoo-wine compromise for the supplemental emergency funding bill... they won't put a timetable on military actions in Iraq. They've finally recognized that they don't have the votes to override a presidential veto, & so they're planning to offer something that, just maybe, a few rational, non-foaming-MoveOn-ers might agree to:

Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, while still debating details, say they are likely to pass a bill that would tie war spending to a set of benchmarks for Iraq's progress but no deadlines for troop withdrawal, which caused Bush to veto a funding bill this week.

"Benchmarks"? Funny how this new proposal sounds an awful lot like the plan described long ago by Rumsfeld, then put forward again Petraeus, and all along by Bush....


HT: CQ

Why both ALL parties should listen to Joe

If you haven't heard or read Joe Lieberman's speech the other day, as the rest of the Democrats were so earnestly passing the latest surrender bill, please take the time to read the entire transcript.

Some of the best of it comes about halfway through:

For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids—in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.

That strategy failed—and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.

For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and—for that matter—a new secretary of defense.

And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around—just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq—now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn't so bad after all.

What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?

Why is it that Senator Lieberman has recognized the flexibility, the openness to input on Iraq President Bush has continued to demonstrate, and yet otherwise sensible conservatives seem blind to it? It is important that we not lose patience with ourselves, but I find the temptation rising to shout at people I respect, over this very issue.


(If you don't want to be caught visiting Front Page Magazine's pages, out of fear of catching some terrible rightwing contagion, you can find it also at, uh, oh well, rightwing lunatic wink wink nudge nudge Power Line, where Paul Mirengoff was the first I know of to post it in its entirety. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to appear at a leftwing site, though. Sorry. If you're nervous, get your shots, then go among the rabid conservatives, if you dare.)

A Funny idea of "accountability"

I've been somewhat preoccupied this past few days, so I just got around to reading Michelle Malkin's roundup of useful info on the emergency budgets. What particularly caught my eye (after Mike Pence's "salad bar at Denny's" comparison) was this gem:

"Today, we are demanding accountability," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

This from a guy who voted for a whopping

$500 million for emergency wildfires suppression; the Forest Service currently has $831 million for this purpose;

$400 million for rural schools;

$283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract program;

$120 million to compensate for the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries;

$100 million for citrus assistance;

$74 million for peanut storage costs;

$60.4 million for salmon fisheries in the Klamath River region in California and Oregon;

$50 million for asbestos mitigation at the U.S. Capitol Plant;

$48 million in salaries and expenses for the Farm Service Agency;

$35 million for NASA risk mitigation projects in Gulf Coast;

$25 million for spinach growers;

$25 million for livestock;

$20 million for Emergency Conservation Program for farmland damaged by freezing temperatures;

$16 million for security upgrades to House of Representatives office buildings;

$10 million for the International Boundary and Water Commission for the Rio Grande Flood Control System Rehabilitation project;

$6.4 million for House of Representative’s Salaries and Expenses Account for business continuity and disaster recovery expenses;

$5 million for losses suffered by aquaculture businesses including breeding, rearing, or transporting live fish as a result of viral hemorrhagic septicemia;

$4 million for the Office of Women’s Health at the Food and Drug Administration; and

A minimum wage increase, which is the subject of separate legislation.

Wasn't this emergency bill supposed to be for the funding of our troops' needs in Iraq?


Yeah, I can see how there might be an emergency requirement that we rush through $16 million for security upgrades to House of Representatives office buildings. After this stunt, they will probably need more protection. They'll have to hire mercenaries for the job, too, since they're obviously not going to get much support from honest working soldiers or their friends and families. So I'll give 'em that.

But how do the bulk of these other items relate to Iraq, again? Account for that, please, Mister Van Hollen.

The use of children in ugly ways

Many people are now almost immune to the news of pedophiles, baby-rapists, and such abusing children. The news and entertainment industries have made a big noise (justfiably) about the problem, and it makes headlines on a regular basis.

The problem is, that's not new. Neither is the use of children as decoys in committing crimes. The news Charles Johnson posts at lgf is horrific, and deserves headlines, as well, but kids have been decoys for a very long time. The practice even touched our own family, in my pop's childhood.

Pop had an uncle who lived in Missouri, just across the border from "dry" Kansas, in the 1930s. After all the other states had repealed prohibition, Kansas continued to bar the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. All liquor transport was stopped at the state lines. But Pop's uncle used to make the rum run on a regular basis, tossing my pre-school-aged pop on the seat above the crates of hooch.

The first time Pop was asked if he wanted to go for a drive in the country, it seemed like a swell time. But it gets to be a chore, and my father has, to this day, resented the role he played in breaking the law -- especially considering the risks being taken -- and, I believe, would not forgive his uncle even at graveside. After all, this was the sort of thing that would get the old man arrested, and where would the cops keep a little kid when the old man was in the clink? And, Pop was the sort of kid who had his moral bearings quite early -- he was a guaranteed Eagle Scout, he and his mom and sister and aunts all had strong senses of right and wrong.

Pop learned to dread the rides.

Pop was one of the lucky ones. He lived to tell the tales. He was otherwise unharmed, for all of his rides. He still has a family who loves him, regardless of how ill-used he was as a child.

The tots used by terrorists (why do the MSM persist in calling them "insurgents"?) have not been identified. The men who brought in the car bomb ran from the scene like cowards, letting the babies perish in a blast and a blaze. There was no love at all in this. Do the little ones' parents know and truly understand what happened to them? If so, how could they live with themselves, throwing away precious little ones in such a vile act. If not, then the act was doubly cruel for stealing the lives of little ones from caring families, and the terrorists will have a special place in hell.

From this agnostic's lips and keyboard to whatever deity's ear...

10 myths about the Iraq war

(Via Dr. Sanity) Strategy Page has listed and analyzed the top 10 myths regarding the war in Iraq. For those who still foam at the mouth over the "war for oil", or the "no WMD" thing, I heartily recommend you check out the article. And, if you already knew all of what's been posted in the article, pass it on. Somebody needs to put a few folks straight on these facts.

Gratuitous postcard: Cutting through the mountain...

After I watched the President's speech last night, I'm beginning to think the White House has actually started paying attention to polls, and the POTUS is getting ready to level a few neighborhoods in and around Baghdad.

Gateway Pundit has some nice stuff, too. And, he points out that, with Saddam gone, Iraq's economy is improving. That's one successful "surge" in Iraq... and one more to go.

As a follow-up, it seems, Condi Rice kicks butt.


Update: I've often wondered what it is that the Dems think they're accomplishing by kvetching nonstop, never offering any reasonable alternatives to the plans put forth by the Prez. I mean, Harry Reid, for example, spends hour upon hour of media time shrilly proclaiming that the President's plan is wrong, and, when asked how he would solve the problem of terrorism and Iraq, he says, in essence, "that's not my job, man!" In that, he's right. Foreign policy is the job of the Executive branch. But, if he's so sure he has all the answers, why doesn't he offer a few to the POTUS, just as a basic courtesy as an American citizen? He criticizes everything, and offers no useful advice. Can it possibly be that Reid has no plan except the nasty mother-in-law approach?

The plan, as I read it, is fairly simple: We're the hired help, there to clean house. We've been washing the floors constantly, and the animals keep tracking muck all over the house after we finish. Now, we send in a few extra troops to block the doors so the animals can't come back in, and they help scrub the dark corners. Plus, we get the homeowner trained to (a) keep the animals out on days when we're not coming in, and (b) clean up for themselves, so our services will soon be no longer required.

In theory, it could work. As long as the homeowners don't let in the neighbors to start peeing on the rugs.

Saddam dead: cars, press and leftists explode

It's a natural result. Put a murderous thug to death, and some folks feel the need to go ballistic.

Saddam Hussein was hanged by the neck until dead, yesterday, and The MSM showed their undying devotion. This is what al-Reuters had to say about the event, too: Saddam hanged at dawn as bombs kill more than 60

Sure, there's a causal relationship there. If he hadn't been executed, there would never have been a car bomb, right? They never occurred anywhere in the world, or even in Iraq, until this morning. Uh huh. But it gets even more entertaining, as the article states:

A triple car bombing killed 25 in a Shi'ite district of the capital -- the sort of attacks that have pitched Iraq toward sectarian war since U.S. troops broke Saddam's iron rule.

So this violence is whose fault, again? Apparently, it's all because of one man:

President Bush, who called Saddam a threat though alleged nuclear and other weapons were never found, said:

"Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself."

Of course, the requisite reference to the "grim milestone" made its way into the article supposedly on the death of a dictator:

The deaths of five troops pushed the American death toll to just a few short of the emotive 3,000 mark. Bush already faces mounting public dismay at the war as Iraq slides toward all-out civil war between Saddam's fellow Sunnis and majority Shi'ites.

You'd think their teeth would be worn down by their constant gnawing on that stone.

So how, then, does the left react to the reports? Not well.

Pitiful.

Good news from Iraq: Baghdad Sniper "Juba" captured

Via lgf, the news is brought to the forefront by Dr. Rusty Shackleford at the Jawa Report:

Interestingly enough, I found this information from Michelle Malkin, who I believe doesn't yet know the value of the press release she was sent from CENTCOM (UPDATE: Now she does). The purpose of the press release was to counter stories by the AP which seem to be false. But buried down in it is this from Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf Al-Kenani, Ministry of Interior spokesman:

The third subject is, this week the strikes we made against the al-Qaeda terrorist organization in Baghdad were many and very strong in Baghdad. Before my arrival to this press conference, I was informed that one of the three who were just captured or detained is Mazer Al-Jubouri, aka the Baghdad Sniper, and his group. He admitted many things that are very important and very dangerous and our forces used this information about his network and conducted raids in the past 24 hours and detained 30 terrorists.

(emphasis Dr. Shackleford's.)

So, in a press release the Pentagon sends out to slap the MSM with the facts surrounding the AP's fictional "police chief", the good guys "let slip" that they caught a very bad guy, indeed. No doubt, the AP and al Reuters will be all over this. Oh, yaah, suuuuuure, ya betcha.

The Left lied, people died

All these years, I've seen those goofballs on the Left with their bumper-sticker mentality, chanting "Bush lied, people died". It seems they heard, somewhere, somehow, President Bush say that Saddam Hussein had been in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam was unlawfully pursuing his goal of becoming a nuclear power. This was picked up and run with, as though the evidence always had run counter to Bush's words. And the so-called Mainstream Media (MSM) had a field day with the anti-Bush, anti-war meme. The New York Times itself spent pages and pages printing out secrets which they had no need to expose, which, ultimately, cost us a vital tool or two in our efforts to protect this country and her allies from terrorists. The Times has become the Word of God for the Godless.

Well, I guess that even the NYT is seeing its chickens come home to roost. Else, why would they be running an article with these words?:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Maybe they're so convinced that the Democrats have this upcoming election in the bag, they don't have to bury the truth any more. They're perfectly happy to leak more secrets, even if those secrets support the claims of the warmonging Rethuglicans. Because they really can't have it both ways. Either Bush was telling the truth about Saddam's nuclear ambitions, or he wasn't. Either Saddam was planning to get his nukes, or he wasn't. If Saddam was working toward nuclear bombs, Bush was telling the truth, and this country should breathe a collective sigh of relief that Chimpy McBusHitler was willing to act on principle and stop that sonofabitch before he sank us under a mushroom cloud. In which case, the Democrats, and their foaming-at-the-mouth supporters at Kos and DU, have some 'splainin' to do, for trying to stop the POTUS from protecting us.

Anyway, the Left has fought tooth and nail to deny basic facts -- that Saddam was a bad, bad evil man who intended ill against us all -- and now, their newspaper of rectu - um, er, record has decided to undermine both the Pentagon and the far left loonies, in one swell foop.

So, pardon me if I find myself torn between doing the happy dance and shaking my fist demanding prosecutions for the leakers -- and, as the evidence indicates much of the trouble lies within the United Nations' IAEA, the withdrawal of the US from that "august" body, withdrawal from the UN might be a bonus action. I'd like to see them all strung up for endangering innocent lives. But I'm glad to see somebody at the NYT publishing some truth, for once.

I suppose the proper actions would be to shake their hands, then shoot them.


Update: Wow, wow, and triple wow!