Thursday, January 25, 2007
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday passed 12-9 a resolution that dismissed Bush's plans to increase troops in Iraq as "not in the national interest." The vote on the nonbinding measure was largely along party lines, with Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska being the sole Republican on the committee offering his support."The president has made his decision," Vice President Dick Cheney fired back in a CNN interview, a response that made it clear the administration would go ahead anyway. "We need to get the job done." (link)
While the Democrats have made it clear that they want to put an end to United States involvement in this conflict, none seem to have articulated a plan to resolve it short of running to the nearest exit. "Getting the job done" for this "new direction" party is producing another failure for Bush----so their political ambitions can be realized. The short-sightedness of this party can see no further than the next election cycle and fail to even contemplate the ramifications of a failure in Iraq.
History may very well show that the political ambitions of this democrat party were put ahead of the priorities of the long term safety of this nation. And the breeding grounds for a fanatical ideology were allowed to fester. Our children and grandchildren may ask why did we not see this viable threat against us, and why we did nothing to stop it? Of course, our liberal historians will claim that this was all the fault of a president who tried to liberate a nation that had no vision or the ability to be united for a greater cause than themselves-----just like our party of "new direction"------and our policy of nation building had failed because Bush did not put enough men in the field.
The very word of "escalation" sends shivers down the backs of the baby boomers and the 60's generation who saw us turn our backs in Viet Nam where millions died in the aftermath. The retreat and defeat there still haunts this nation and our enemies are banking on a similar ending this time.
Only------this time------it will be just the beginning.............
UPDATE: Curt a Flopping Aces has a complete rundown of our "Resolution for Quitting" and also links a pledge from Truth Laid Bear:
If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.
Sign Pledge here.
(Jack, scroll up and read the "Resolution for Quitting" link) KC
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
........... has your mind drifted that far from reality? Because running from this war will only put the fight on your children and grandchildren and they will remember.
"In the six years since we have been attacked on September 11, and I wish I could report to you that the dangers have ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use the every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty to find these enemies and to protect the American people."
If there is something about this statement that isn't understood, then get yourself right with God, 'cause our time here may be shortened.
And that's just the movies..........then we get the Emmys (58th Annual Creative Arts Emmy Awards--Saturday, August 19), (58th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards--Sunday, August 27) whoop-de-doo!
It's no wonder that serious campaigners of elections to our representative government are feeling the schedule for attention getting tighter. Our "10% eliter's" command the airwaves with all the relevance of a poop party with no serious consequence to our daily lives, and yet they are on this pedestal of parity for much of a quarter of a year. But ask me if I could give a rats ass.......
Half of the world is in the worst turmoil since the rise of Hitler, and we focus our attention on these 1,900 ego maniacs?............ (10% of 19,000 total members) ---- Pathetic
Sunday, January 21, 2007
(note to the computer geeks------downloading drivers and updates for all functioning hardware is crucial when configuring a new OS. Anti-virus software should follow asap.)
Just to add insult to the week, the day I got the system back up------ some one severed our main fiber-optic cable, (yes, cable is the fastest----right up to the point where it's cut), and I was without Internet capabilities for a day and a half. I'm sure there are many other steps that I skipped through or have missed. Any and all reformation idea's will be appreciated.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Boys Across World Die Mimicking Saddam Hanging
Sunday, January 14, 2007
CAIRO, Egypt — The boys' deaths — scattered in the United States, in Yemen, in Turkey and elsewhere in seemingly isolated horror — had one thing in common: They hanged themselves after watching televised images of Saddam Hussein's execution.
Officials and relatives say the children appeared to be mimicking the former dictator's Dec. 30 hanging, shown both on a sanitized Iraqi government tape and explicit clandestine videos that popped up on Web sites and some TV channels. (read the short and complete story)
Rovin: While I am saddened to hear of these tragedies, there are some questions to be asked of this AP story.
"The experts say such graphic images can severely affect youngsters who do not yet understand the consequences of death and violence — especially because Saddam's death received intense international attention."
This one paragraph was chock full of innuendos and contortions:
#1) "graphic images"? First, I would like to ask these experts how much these children are effected by the remaining coverage of death and violence that is described in the papers and news footage every day? If the child had access to a suicide vest (complete with trigger) would these children strap one on for testing their curiosities? Are the "graphic images" in today's video games of violence and mayhem that much different? And does the "reset button" on the child's video game send out a false sense of reality, that there is some how a "button" to push in real life that allows them to start over?
#2) "understand the consequences of death and violence". The AP writer here wrongly (or purposely attempts to deceive) the reader by leaving out the very fact that the "death and violence" perpetrated by Saddam Hussein was the purpose of this execution. To call this execution a "consequence of death and violence" is misleading. It would be more prudent to call it a "result".
"After watching Saddam's execution he was constantly asking 'How was Saddam killed?' and 'Did he suffer?'" Akti was quoted as saying. "These television images are responsible for my son's death."
While I am indeed sorry for the untimely death of Esat Akti's son, why would Akti want to know if Hussein suffered? Did he want to know if his son suffered? Could he ask if the family's and relatives of those murdered (in much more graphic and painful ways) by Hussein-----really cared if Hussein suffered?
I read this story as an opposition to the death penalty. And using these misguided children's tragedies to further this AP's writers dissension is a travesty in itself. I could be wrong.
note to parents: If you have the slightest doubt that your child does not know the ramifications of putting a rope around one's neck to dramatize or emulate a hanging------PLEASE-----take the precious time to explain to them that this can be a fatal and tragic ending to some one's life-------And there is no "button" to push to start over.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Credit where it's due: the New York Times today did a superb job of holding Harry Reid accountable for his obstruction of earmarking transparency reform. The Porkbusters and even liberal blogs like TPMMuckraker also did great work on this story, but Reid knows that a Democratic Senate Majority Leader can't lose the New York Times this early into his tenure. An excerpt:
After campaigning for months on a promise to tighten ethics rules, Senate Democratic leaders tried unsuccessfully Thursday to block a measure that would shine a light on the shadowy practice of earmarking federal money for lawmakers’ pet projects.
Last week the House Democrats passed an unexpectedly broad change to their chamber’s rules that would disclose the size, purpose and sponsor of any earmark.
But on Thursday, when Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, introduced the same thing in the Senate, Democratic leaders moved quickly to squash it, calling the House bill ill thought out.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said he was happy to see the House “moving things along very quickly.” But, Mr. Reid said, “frankly, I don’t think they spent the time on this that we have.” http://media.nationalreview.com/
Reid Waves White Flag With this CQ article ($), it seems like this is official. What's thoroughly surprising is that the new DeMint Amendment is even stronger than the original one. Excerpt:
After losing a critical floor vote Thursday and scrambling in vain to reverse the decision, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., found the spirit of bipartisan compromise more to his liking Friday morning.
Reid offered an olive branch to Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., agreeing to embrace his amendment to a pending ethics and lobbying overhaul (S 1) with some modifications. DeMint’s amendment, which Democratic leaders tried but failed to kill on Thursday, would expand the definition of member earmarks that would be subject to new disclosure rules.
[...] Reid admitted Friday that he was caught off guard when nine Democrats and independent Joseph I. Lieberman voted against his motion to table, or kill, the DeMint amendment. His effort failed, 46-51.
[...] Friday morning, a chastened Reid said, “Yesterday was a rather difficult day, as some days are. We tend to get in a hurry around here sometimes when we shouldn’t be. Personally, for the majority, we probably could have done a little better job.”
DeMint, who was flabbergasted Thursday by Reid’s maneuvering to change the outcome of the vote, was happy to accept the compromise Friday.
“DeMint has been happy to work to come to a bipartisan compromise that solidifies the reforms done by [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] and House Democrats,” said DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton.http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/reid_waves_white_flag.php
Other Storys on Reids EarmarkBenifit/Reform:
AND THEN WE HAVE THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE..........
Reid interview with Jim Lehrer:
IM LEHRER: What I'm getting at, I think, Senator, is it's a little bit of an "oh, I'm so shocked" element to this that a lot of people are having trouble understanding because this kind of practice of lobbyists trying to influence legislation is part and parcel of the system.
SEN. HARRY REID: Jim, your question is very valid, and I'm sorry I didn't get to the answer sooner. Here's the situation we have though. We are in the minority. There's an arrogance of power here in Washington that is untoward. Republican White House, Republican House, Republican Senate. Seven of the nine members of the Supreme Court have been appointed by Republican presidents.
JIM LEHRER: Do you think that is in the wind, based on what Speaker Hastert and other Republicans have said - Sen. McCain, Sen. Santorum and others?
SEN. HARRY REID: Having Sen. Santorum talk about reform is like having John Gotti talk about doing something about organized crime.
SEN. HARRY REID: Jim, the Republican spinmeisters in this town are really quite good. This is a Republican scandal. Jack Abramoff I've never met, I've never have seen him. As far as I know, I've never been in the same building that he has been in. He gave about a quarter of a million dollars to Republicans, not a single penny to Democrats.
I WOULD GUESS YOU'VE HEARD THE WEATHER MAN.....THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE.
As might be expected, the New York Times is trying its unlevel MSM best to portray Iraqi reaction to President Bush's recently-announced proposal in the most negative possible light. But the Gray Lady has already been forced to acknowledge that it blatantly misrepresented a key fact in its recent article on the matter. Now, new doubts have arisen about its characterization of Iraqi reaction.
In its article of January 11th, unsubtly entitled In Baghdad, Bush Policy Is Met With Resentment, the Times claimed that the Iraqi government had "offered only a grudging endorsement" of President Bush's proposal and that its response was "tepid."
As supposed evidence of the alleged "resentment," the Times claimed that "the Iraqi leader, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, failed to appear at a news conference," suggesting that he had spurned a scheduled appearance. This notion was reinforced by the legend appearing beneath the Times' photo [displayed here]: "Iraq’s prime minister sent a spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, to address President Bush’s latest policy."
There was only one problem with the Times depiction of PM Maliki having failed to appear at a scheduled appearance: it wasn't true. The press briefing was a regularly-scheduled weekly event with Government of Iraq spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh and the Prime Minister was never scheduled to appear. http://newsbusters.org/node/10146
The Times was forced to acknowledge its misrepresentation in a correction published today:
Corrections Published: January 13, 2007An article yesterday about the Iraqi government’s response to plans by President Bush to deploy additional troops referred incorrectly to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s absence from the government’s news conference. Mr. Maliki was never scheduled to speak; it was not that he “failed to appear.
Now comes a further challenge to the Times story, regarding the way the paper depicted the tone and mood of Dr. al-Dabbagh's comments. According to the Times, al-Dabbagh spoke "tartly" and in a "dyspeptic tone" in discussing the new security plans.
The press conference was conducted exclusively in Arabic. Were the Times reporters Arabic speakers, or were they offering their reading of the tone of remarks?
In any case, a senior U.S. government official located in Baghdad informs me that a US colonel who works with the government of Iraq and who attended the press conference had a very different take on Dr. al-Dabbagh's comments. According to him, rather than tart and dyspeptic, al-Dabbagh's voice and gestures were "forceful and complimentary" about the proposal.
One press conference; two diametrically opposed takes on the spokesman's tone. Given the Times' blatant misrepresentation of a key fact concerning the conference, I'd say the paper's crediblity on the event has been seriously undermined. If anyone is suffering from dyspepsia, it could be the folks at the Times.
ALSO FROM THE TIMES:
Op-Ed ContributorBush’s Iraq Plan, Between the Lines By ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN
Published: January 12, 2007
PRESIDENT BUSH has presented a new strategy for the war in Iraq that he feels can reverse the country’s drift toward large-scale civil war. The new plan focuses on stabilizing Baghdad by adding thousands of American troops with newly expanded powers to take on Shiite as well as Sunni rebels. It also includes a limited increase in United States forces in Anbar Province, and calls for Iraqi forces to take formal control of the security mission in November. The president was refreshingly candid, saying that “where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.”
But taken as a whole, the speech raised more questions than it answered. I’ve selected a number of important phrases from the address that beg for more detailed discussion, and included my own analysis of the validity and practicality of what the president seems to have in mind.
Nice to know how much our "paper of record" supports American interest. (Rovinsworld will add further comment here soon)
AT LEAST AP LEFT MOST OF THEIR BIAS OUT OF THEIR REPORTING:
Iraqi PM, Bush Share 'Common Vision'
By SAMEER N. YACOUB Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The Iraqi prime minister's office on Saturday expressed support for President Bush's new war strategy but stressed the government would maintain control over military action in Baghdad.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has remained quiet about the strategy, which was unveiled on Thursday, amid questions about his commitment to confronting Shiite militias that have been blamed in much of the sectarian violence.
But his spokesman said the Shiite leader sees Bush's plan to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq as representing "a common vision and a mutual understanding between the Iraqi government and the American administration."
The American forces would be working in support of the Iraqis as they implement al-Maliki's security plan to restore peace in Baghdad, spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.
"This plan is being backed by the multinational forces," he said.
The Latest & Greatest On Jamil Hussein Posted by Curt on January 13, 2007 at 1:25 AM
I decided to step away a bit, but not completely, on the Jamil Hussein story and get back to the crux of the story. The whole thing has become convoluted and twisted to the point where people are not sure which way is up so I figured a little history on the story would be worth my time to convey with some additional commentary.
AND FOR THE MOST ASININE COMMENT OF THE DAY:
Video: Olbermann’s special comment — the condensed version
Friday, January 12, 2007
Some one pointed out that there has not been an election held for the position of president of the Northern California Procrastinators Association for more than a decade. While I have retained this position during this tenure, and have not been challenged, I find it necessary to officially declare that I am forming a Presidential exploratory committee. The committee members will be announced at the annual meeting of the association, which I have never got around to attending. This document will be filed as soon as I get around to hiring a secretary, (which I've been meaning to do for a couple of years now).
It has been pointed out to me that I should write to the vice-president and executive members of the association to inform them of my intentions, and I feel this is something to consider in the near future.
It has been pointed out to me that I should write to the vice-president and executive members of the association to inform them of my intentions, and I feel this is something to consider in the near future. (now where have I heard this before?)
I also feel that it would not hurt my reputation to attend (at least) one of the annual meetings, so I will set a date for a meeting sometime in the near future. And I will pass this responsibility on to my new secretary.
(note: Any challenges to my position as President will have to be filed in the next three (3 or 4) days. Of course, if you respond, it will be documented that you have responsively acted on this notice, and therefore will not be considered "Presidential Material".)
Congressmen, even congresswomen, propose. Presidents dispose. ----Wesley Pruden, Washington Times
Thursday, January 11, 2007
What our friends on the left fail (or care not) to understand is that this declared war on terror is not about George W. Bush. It's about this nation and other free democracies long term survival and the real threat that is upon us.
It's quite simple-------if you came to a fork in a road and one sign read "this way to heaven" and the other sign read "this way to hell", if President Bush suggested you go down the heavenly path, our BDS friends would choose the path to hell out of blindness and spite. And their refusal to see the real threat that this 21st century jihadism has declared against free people of the west, will be written in the history books (memory chips) destined for incineration.
Why Skip valiantly waste his time attempting to pursued or convince the blind monkies of the world who refuse to see this threat, is beyond me. The glass houses (bubbles) they live in will be crushed soon enough if we are not successful in this battle. And they will ask, "why do they want us exterminated" and "why didn't we see this as a real threat to our civilization"?
And why didn't these "Islam's of peace" understand our appeasement efforts to live as one?" For over thirty years this ideology has had one goal and one goal only------to end our way of life as we know it. They have learned to use the propaganda tools of a puppet media. And they smell the divisions this nation is in between the peace-monkeys and the realist. Of course, to the looney left, this is all George Bush's fault for this quagmire. To them our "imperialist aggression" has stirred the hornets nest, and this conflict would never have had to happen if we had simply remained in our isolated, (bubble mentality).
My father, as a United States Marine, survived the perils of Guadalcanal, (one of the bloodiest battles of WWII), and so many died to preserve the freedoms we take for granted in these days of blissful isolationism. (and yes, the Germans never attacked us), yet tens of thousands sacrificed their lives so that the west could remain free. And when 3000+ of our brave souls have given their lives to preserve our freedom we so cherish, the anti-war-peace-monkies cowardly turn their backs on the fallen------and blame this on Bush. How simple is that?
I fear that this nation has lost it's stomach to fight for our liberties, and too many do not see this as a threat to our survivability. When, (not if), one of our citys is attacked and millions are dead, will the hater's of Bush still be so blind to this battle? Probably.
There will be no solace for the "Skips" of our world to say "I told you" or "now the monkie is on your own back"----- and he's reading the Koran in your ear.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Transcript of President Bush's speech to the nation on a change of course in Iraq:
President Bush: Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global War on Terror — and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together — and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra — in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.
Let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort — along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations — conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.
This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence - and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents — but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."
This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws — and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.
America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units — and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army — and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.
As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue Al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured Al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing Al Qaeda leaders — and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on Al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away Al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan — and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity — and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists — and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors — and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region — to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy — by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom - and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.
From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists — or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?
The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue — and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.
Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States — and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down Al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad — or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.
In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.
Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas — where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.
In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary - and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American - and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.
Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a Nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.
We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.
..........but will they listen?........stay tuned
Friday, January 05, 2007
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media. Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press.
The captain, whose full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, was one of the sources for an AP story in late November about the burning and shooting of six people during a sectarian attack at a Sunni mosque.
While this is good news (for AP) that the now infamous Capt. Hussein has surfaced, there still remains several questions that need to be addressed. Whether there were four mosques (now only one which this blogger has yet to see a retraction), and six Sunnis burned alive from this original story, remains to be substantiated:
Hussein was not the original source of the disputed report of the attack; the account was first told on Al-Arabiya satellite television by a Sunni elder, Imad al-Hashimi, who retracted it after members of the Defense Ministry paid him a visit. Several neighborhood residents subsequently gave the AP independent accounts of the Shiite militia attack on a mosque in which six people were set on fire and killed.
The original story released by AP and picked up by news outlets around the world, was that four mosque were burned. It was also reported via a rebuttal from Kathleen Carroll that the victims were reported to have been witnessed at a hospital and a morgue. (Yet no one has heard from one credible witness that any burned body's showed up at either location.) AP and Associated Press writer Steven R. Hurst are now also reporting that the good Capt. Hussein may be arrested at any time:
Khalaf told the AP that an arrest warrant had been issued for the captain for having contacts with the media in violation of the ministry's regulations. Hussein told the AP on Wednesday that he learned the arrest warrant would be issued when he returned to work on Thursday after the Eid al-Adha holiday. His phone was turned off Thursday and he could not be reached for further comment.
So, to recap ------- A single source for more that 60 stories that have been released by AP to the worlds news agencies, has been located and is soon to be arrested for releasing "information" to the media that he was not authorized to do. And his phone has been turned off. Who turned his phone off? The ministry or Jamil himself? Did AP have his home phone? If not, why not. Certainly it would be convenient to have the home phone of a source that supplied AP with over sixty stories (dating back to last April) that displayed the carnage in and around Baghdad.
If AP wants to continue to play these games of ------ "OK, we produced (found) Jamil, so everything we have written is totally factual" -------- I'm afraid this is not going to cut the mustard. Why has not one family member of one of the poor souls that were "burned alive" ever come forward to substantiate this "tragic event"? Where is one witness from the hospital or the morgue? Why did not any other news agency on the ground in Iraq report or follow up on what would have been a most tragic event? And, if six Sunnis were dragged out of "one of the burning mosque", doused in kerosene, and set afire to be be BURNED ALIVE, where is one Sunni witness, and where was the certain retaliation to this tragedy? These are still the question's that need to be answered by Kathleen Carroll and the Associated Press to maintain any validity.
(six weeks to produce Jamil. How long will it take to get the ball back into this side of the court on the next response. While the mainstream press hasn't a corner to hide in either if they want to maintain their credibilty, or what they have left of it.)
Michelle Malkin has a "full court" update here.
Curt at Flopping Aces has other details and questions here.
Updates: Karl at Protien Wisdom has an excellent summary with links: and Confederate Yankee is gettin' it from the moonbats in comments:
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
"As reported here on Newsbusters the Associated Press is refusing to back down from, nor give satisfactory evidence for, its November report that 6 Iraqi Sunnis were burned alive in sectarian violence, a claim heavily disputed seemingly by everyone but the AP.
The AP based their reports of this grisly violence on the word of a single "witness" they named as Iraqi police captain, Jamail Hussein. Unfortunately for the AP, and despite quite a lot of effort by quite a few people, this captain of Iraqi police cannot be located so that the story can be substantiated. The AP, however, continues to claim that he exists despite the paucity of
And with Mr. Jordan's report that Jamil Hussein is still missing or otherwise indisposed, it appears AP still has some serious problems:
The AP's Jamil Hussein Scandal Controversy Will Haunt the AP Until It Does What is Right
By EASON JORDAN 01/01/2007 7:19 PM ET
"If an Iraqi police captain by the name of Jamil Hussein exists, there is no convincing evidence of it - and that means the Associated Press has a journalistic scandal on its hands that will fester until the AP deals with it properly.
This controversy and the AP's handling of it call into question the credibility, integrity, and smarts of one of the world's biggest, most influential, most respected news organizations, the New York-based Associated Press."
It appears that Jordan is making a case for the (probable) fabrication reported by AP, but is cautiously remaining non-committed:
"IraqSlogger's probe into the case is inconclusive, with conflicting and unconfirmed information regarding whether there's a Captain Hussein and whether the reported immolation happened."
"inconclusive, with conflicting and unconfirmed information"----- Wow, this sure sounds familiar Mr. Jordan-----now where have we heard these words before?? But Jordan does pose a few "credible" questions in his summary:
"It is striking that no one has been able to find a family member, friend, or colleague of Captain Hussein. Nor has the AP told us who in the AP's ranks has actually spoken with Captain Hussein. Nor has the AP quoted Captain Hussein once since the story of the disputed episode."
Over 60 stories released by AP to the world quoting Jamil Hussein and now their "source" is suddenly unavailable? Some bloggers and commenter's have suggested that Jamil will meet a fate that will not allow him to ever come forward, and it would certainly be easier to bury a non-existent body. Jordan offers this mea-culpa to AP:
"I, therefore, urge the AP to appoint an independent panel to determine the facts about the disputed report, to determine whether Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein exists, and to share the panel's full findings and recommendations with the public."
Curt at Flopping Aces (who was the first to question AP's story) has Jordan's latest report and responds:
"Has he really learned? Remains to be seen, but his call for the AP to accept responsibility is heartening. The AP needs to accept that their use of domestic stringers is NOT working. It may make them more money since they get all the blood and guts stories, but no one knows if these stories are true anymore. We get stories from them that detail 50+ bodies being dumped daily but when I confirm this via the Iraqi police I get a number that is 1/3rd that.
We get stories that detail men being burned alive, families being killed from airstrikes, and large amounts of bodies being dumped. None of it can be verified. They use these stringers and write these stories for one reason, and one reason only, to make it appear that Iraq is much worse then it really is."
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. " -- George Orwell
Go and read Curts complete post-----he's got some good bloggers on this story with more credibility than AP will have if they don't come clean on this.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Boise State was to have upset the Sooners on New Years Eve day and then..........."two flags" showed up to bite the Broncos in the ass. Both plays were questionable and flagrant in the last two minutes of a game played without the STRIPES involved.
(didn't ya luv the "third flag" (against the Sooners) that attempted to defer their attention?)
But just when Bronco's fans thought the dream was only that---a dream, and our buddies in the stripes had taken the dream away, these kids proved they wanted it more by bringing out the magic bag:
In one of the most dramatic finishes in BCS history, the Sooners and the Broncos combined for 22 points in the final 86 seconds of regulation.Boise State blew an 18-point lead midway through the third quarter, then twice rallied from seven-point deficits."Yeah, another day at the office, huh?" said Boise State coach Chris Petersen, who remains undefeated as a head coach.The Broncos appeared to be finished when Oklahoma cornerback Marcus Walker intercepted Zabransky's pass and returned it 33 yards for a touchdown to put the Sooners ahead 35-28 with 1:02 remaining."It would have been easy to give up on us with a minute left, but we had a lot of magic left," Zabransky said. (Full Story)
And then the score was tied at 35 apiece!
It's overtime and it still feels tainted.
THE END?..........................NO........the Sooners score first in overtime and it takes Boise State a 4th and 4 on the goal and then scores two of the finest plays seen in college football......EVER!
(the first touchdown was called by the backup quarterback)
And now they think they deserve a shot at Ohio St.
This one has to go in the books as one of the greatest college football game in history.
Take a Bow Broncos..............u deserve it............. 13 and 0
Update: Fox Sports has vidio highlights of all four quarters and overtime HERE
Sorry Cuz :(>