Iowa Debate: No Guts, No Glory

 I missed the debate Saturday night. Monday night I found it on the web, and share the link with you. The program, which began with some introductory speeches and ceremony, runs 178 minutes of which the "debate" takes two hours. 

    This debate differs from the others because the questioners expressed and exercised respect for the candidates and avoided "gotcha" questions.  Civility prevailed. 

    There was plenty of emotion in this debate, and a great deal of deliberateness.  While issues of morality, marriage, abortion, education and health care took up most of the time, I am most interested in the final subject of the night, which begins at 158:36.

    What follows is strictly an amateurish attempt at transcription.  I type very slowly, and my memory is not the best. I take in a few words, pause the video and type what I have heard before restarting the video. Due to system lag, I lose some audio in the process.   My transcription  is not perfect, but it should be good enough to give you a good idea of what transpired in the last round of answers. 

    The final question: "Every one of you talked about the importance of preserving life.  Nothing takes life more than the declaration of war. I would like to hear from you, because nothing frightens a mother more, than watching her son or daughter go off ...Their pride in their country and their fear for their child...what is--can you define the moral justification for war? ...Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria --what is the moral justification? "

• Rep. Paul:  The early church struggled with this, I mean, Christ came  and Christ taught about peace and Christ was to be the prince of peace and we were to defend that.  But early on in the church, struggled with this and St. Augustine came up with the principles of the just war.  I believe in and I think we should follow, from the religious viewpoint, that we have a Constitution that is very clear to guide us to try to prevent these wars and that is that we don't go to war without a declaration .  The wars that we have fought since World War2 were all . illegal, unconstitutional and all were un-winnable and it was tragic-- it was tragic, we did it by failing the rule of law and the tragedy let out of these wars the last ten years, that we have been so ... added ten billion dollars to our national debt, ...Americans have been killed in these wars, 44 thousand have come home wounded and crippled, hundreds of thousands are looking for help and we went to blind ourselves to this.  It is not in our national defense, it is mischief, it is getting involved where we don't need to be involved.  I think it is an utter tragedy in  what is happening.  You wanna talk about a family life --there has to have been somebody in this audience who has been the bearer of news, either a loved one lost or a loved one crippled.  It is on and on  I had one soldier come to me the other day and he was so against the wars, he spent three or four tours over there, that he says "I lost too many buddies and I don'd know why we were there. " And theres no signs of progress over there.  He says "now I'm losing my buddies to suicide."  The wars destroy the family, I'm the ...as does the economic climate-- the bad economics  -- war is the most destructive things to the family and we oughtta concentrate on it and you can't concentrate on the economics unless we look at the business cycle, why we have inflation busts and booms  otherwise we will continue on a downhill path. 
• Rep. Bachmann I am a mother and I have made  the most difficult calls of my live which has been when servicemen and women have lost their lives in my  congressional district and I have picked up that phone and I've called mothers and I've called fathers and I have wept with them over the phone because nothing is more difficult to lose than a child.  [Luntz: "So what is the definition--the moral justification for war?"]  The moral justification for war is if the United States is attacked or we are  threatened with attack, then we have a decision that we have to make because the number one duty of the commander in chief is to secure the safety of the American people, that is the duty, and in order to do that, I have to be convinced as commander in chief that we have a clearly defined American vital interest in that area and I need to know that we have a clear mission to go forward. ... have a plan and an exit strategy and we go in, I will commit overwhelming force and then we get out. Now some situations are ones where you can have special operations forces and then you have to have the tools to be able to deal with interrogation, which we don't have now under Obama.  You have to have the capacity for detention, which we don't have now under President Obama.   But we have to have a clearly defined interest and I think we also have to take advice from George Washington, who told us, rightly so, I'm not an isolationist,  but he said very carefully be very fearful of unnecessary foreign entanglements and if there is anything we have learned from the last twelve years, once you get in, its very difficult to get out.  So you go in wisely.
• Cain: In the declaration where it says "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights",  and then it delineates three of them: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It says that among these are those three, I happen to think that there is another that is implied: the right to protect yourself, your family and to protect your property. So the defense of freedom and the defense of liberty I believe, is the moral justification for going to war. Secondly, as commander in chief, I will not send our young men and women into war unless it is clear why --the mission and the definition of victory... And thirdly, I would not send them into war unless I would send my own and daughter. 
• Gov. Perry: As a former individual who has worn the uniform of his country, as the commander in chief of over twenty thousand troops that are my command today,in the state of Texas with our Guard, I've been dealing with this issue for ten years.  And clearly, when America's interests are in jeopardy, there is a time and a place for us to intervene and intervene militarily.  But when we intervene militarily, we best make the decision of how we are going to win and how we are going to win convincingly and quickly.  Send those young men and women with the equipment to win.  Don't let some congressman sitting in an air conditioned office  in Washington DC decide what the rules of engagement are.  Let those war fighters win the war.  Let them come home victorious.  That is what the American military man and woman is all about.  And for us to micromanage them in a civilian way without their commanders truly being in charge, is absolutely irresponsible and as commander in chief of this country I will not let it happen.  
• Santorum: Let me maybe try to drill it down to a more practical application.  We are engaged in what many people call the long war.  Americans are known to have a rather short attention span.  As we are a young country, an antique for us is a hundred years old. In the Middle East its two thousand years old. They have a very  different view of time and history.  As a result, when we are engaged in this long war, long to us is not the same as long to them.  What we are facing right now is a, again, read our history-- is a thousand year conflict between radical Islam and the West that ended only because of the West's great technical superiority that was able to defeat them and drive them back and eventually colonize the Middle East. But that changed with one three letter word: oil.  .  Oil allowed the radical elements within the Islamic world to be able to get access to technology, and now we have in the case of Iran, to drill it down even more, a radical theocracy that has been at war with us since 1979.  It has done more to kill our troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan because they are the makers of the IEDs that are killing our troops.  They've attacked this country on repeated occasions from the Khobar Towers to ...their proxies in Beirut.  They've attempted the assassination of an Ambassador.  They have threatened  openly and repeatedly our closest allies.  They hold conventions in Tehran denyiug the Holocaust-- in fact most of the aea of the Middle East  now believes that the Holocaust didn't really occur so there is no justification for the state of Israel.  They are now developing a nuclear weapon. It is now apparent that they are doing so; international agencies, not necessarily the boldest group of folks have suggested that that is the case.  We have a moral obligation to partner with the state of Israel to make ... to assure their survival and to make sure that this radical regime that wants to spread its virulent form of radical Islam not just throughout the Middle East but throughout the world is stopped from having the ability to do so with impunity because that's the thing a nuclear weapon does, it gives you a nuclear shield.  It must be stopped.  I laid out a plan the other day and I know we are short of time that lists four major things that we should be doing: covert activities, sanctions, overturning the regime but also working with Israel right now to plan a military option to strike and destroy these facilities.  And let the Iranians know, that unless they open up their facilities [to inspection] and shut them down, that that is an option that will be used period. 
• Gingrich: First of all In Christian theology, there is a clear development of a concept of just war. which people like Augustine developed because they were seeing the rise of pagans that wee actually threatening the very survival of the country. In fact, Augustine is buried in Italy because hes body was taken out of North Africa when the Christians lost North Africa.  So these things become very real.  My Dad spent twenty seven years in the Army, I watched my mother through that whole period in WW2, Korea and Vietnam.  . I think what makes us different and what makes us in some ways... much more ruthless and much tougher ... is we don't send soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen to war, we send our children, we send our fathers, we send our brothers and sisters; we send our mothers and therefore there is a preciousness to this decision unlike any other country that I know.  I think our position historically ...the Declaration of Independence was signed by people who were going to fight an eight year war. It was  a declaration of war in effect.  Washington was in the field eight years with one week at Mount Vernon.  These people who wrote those documents understood the grim reality.  I believe we should not go to war if we can avoid it.  And when we have to go to war we should do so decisively,  with overwhelming power to seek the quickest possible victory and we should in fact be prepared to do whatever it takes to win  when we begin an engagement.  But I think that there is no question ...this is the only place where I disagree with some of my friends-- you come into our country and you kill 3100 people and we will do whatever it takes to eliminate your capacity to threaten us ever again and I would be tougher and more decisive and I agree entirely with Senator Santorum--I would say to the government of Iran today: we have a very short time to solve ... and you should solve it on your own or we will solve it for you and frankly, we couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks ; we're gonna get it done. 

    In my view, Frank Luntz  probed the candidates for their views  on the morality of our invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq and our intervention in  Libya.  The answers seem to center on just war theory in general and how to bring war to a good end. 

    Congressman Paul mixed just enough truth into his spiel to make it attractive to the middle range of Morons.  Its a good thing that I was not in the audience, because I would have violated the decorum of the debate by booing.  The fact that wars should be declared, for good cause and with clearly stated objectives should go without saying, it is simply too obvious.  The jerk elevates my blood pressure too much.

    As I was listening, Congresswoman Bachmann sounded good. As I review the transcript, I get a sense of disappointment.  When America is threatened or attack, the vital national interest is clear on the face of the matter, no divination is required.  Victory is the exit strategy.  Commitment o overwhelming force is the part I liked, lacking in Afghanistan & Iraq, along with a  sane definition of strategic objectives.

    Cain made the right points about cause, clarity and mission definition.  I though his answer was brief and sensible, with just the right amount of emotion, somewhat overstated. I would have omitted the part about sending my own offspring, which would have fitted better if we still had an army of conscripts.

     Gov. Perry spoke with passion and conviction, with slightly clumsy rhetoric initially.  If he brought up the issue of defining victory, I overlooked it.  Since Vietnam, the micromanagement seems to me to be Presidential, not Congressional.  President Obama instituted the suicidal rules of engagement from which our troops are currently suffering.

    I wish that Santorum would drop the R word; it does not belong in discussions of national security issues.  As the wise man said "Its Islam, stupid!".  I think that he knows it, and is pandering to the politically correct crowd.  Of course he is correct about the need to support Israel and prevent Iran's nuclear ascension.

    Like Santorum, Gingrich brought in the theological and emotional elements, adding his own historian's perspective. The good part comes at the end when he said "whatever it takes".

    We got into this bind because, when I was too young to realize what was transpiring, we were terrified of the prospect of nuclear war with Russia & China. We therefore fought a half-assed war in Korea,  unwilling either to suffer an outright loss or exert sufficient force to win. 

    In Vietnam, we got in, sank in the quagmire, and escalated, once again unwilling to risk all out conflict with Ho Chi Minh's powerful patrons.  In the end, we allowed the media to defeat us with propaganda.

    President Carter began digging our grave when he gave Iran to Khomeini. His dithering while our Embassy staff sat in durance vile and his quarter-assed rescue attempt, which cost more lives,  let the enemy smell blood.

    I voted for President Reagan once at least, probably twice, but memory has faded and there is a strong chance that I wrote in Jesus Christ in '84. The Beirut fiasco caused me to demand that my Congressman introduce articles of impeachment.  In my opinion, nothing contributed more to our present situation than
Reagan's suicidal blunder.

    Sending the Marines to save Arafat's bacon was a blunder of momentous proportions.  Arafat was an enemy and his defeat was in our short and long term national interest.  Allowing the Beirut Massacre to go unpunished signaled weakness to the enemy, a fatal error.

    President Clinton dug the grave deeper and wider by affording impunity to Iran in the Khobar Towers bombing & other incidents, Mogadishu not being the least of them. Sending the Marines without the equipment they needed was a bad idea.

    Shrub installed the vault and set up the straps to lower the coffin by failing to recognize and declare that which, with the benefit of hindsight, the debate participants hinted at but failed to openly express. 

    In view of the antagonistic media, which defeated us in Vietnam, world public opinion and the UN allied with the media and our own diminished patience for long wars, common sense dictated the use of such overwhelming force that the war would be over in a few days.  Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq & Pakistan should have disappeared from the globe in a flash of fire.  Disproportionate, overwhelming, terrifying force, signifying exhausted patience and the will to win, immediately and finally was required. 

    Victory is defined, in this conflict, as the extinction of Islam in the nations where the plot was conceived, assisted, expedited & celebrated.  So long as the populations of Afghanistan Iran & Pakistan are alive and Islamic, they will provoke, incite, promote and perpetuate terrorism. No other outcome is possible because of Allah's promise and threat. Go to war; go to Paradise or go to Hell.  For extra credit, injure or enrage the enemy and get more "virgins" & wine. If you doubt this, obtain a clue from Allah's perfected, immutable word: 8:12, 39,  57, 60 , 65, 9:5,29, 38, 39, 111, 120, 123, 33:26, 27, 59:2, 13, 61:10-12 & Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 from whence issue war & terror.  If they believe, they will terrorize to avoid Hell and gain admission to Allah's celestial bordello. 

    Truth is not hate speech. Advocacy of effective national defense is not warmongering neither is it inciting violence.  Terrorism is not the enemy, it is a tactic. Al-Qaeda is not the enemy, it is a branch of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen.  Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen is not the enemy, it is a branch of Islam.  Islam is the enemy. This is a fatal fact which the candidates for the Republican nomination seem to lack the courage to clearly state.

    The strategic objective is permanently terminating Islamic terrorism against the U.S.A.  Only exterminating Islam can achieve that objective. While there is Islam, there is war.  If we eliminate Islam in those nations most directly involved, we can temporarily intimidate the remainder so that they will delay the resumption of attacks.  That would buy us some time for the vital task of inducing mass apostasy among the remainder.

    So long as Afghanistan & Pakistan are populated by Muslims, they will host terrorist training camps and export terrorism.  Installing democracy does nothing to change that. Partially defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda does nothing to change that.  Victory requires their apostasy from Islam or death. No other option exists.  They are not liberated if they are still Muslims; they remain enslaved to the demon who demands "great slaughter".

Sphere: Related Content

Two States: the Insolvent Solution

Rejectionism

The heads of the Arab League states met at Khartoum August 29 and on September 1, 1967, issued the Khartoum Declaration which included the three no's:

1. no peace with Israel
2. no recognition of Israel
3. no negotiation with Israel.

When Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel, she was expelled from the Arab League.

Reagan Plan

The Reagan Plan of 1982 would have Israel withdraw to the '67 border, freeze settlement and allow an autonomous government in the territories. Prime Minister Begin's response is informative.

• [...]millennia ago there was a Jewish kingdom of Judea and Samaria, where our kings knelt to God, where our prophets brought forth the vision of eternal peace, where we developed our rich civilization which we took with us in our hearts and minds on our long global trek for over 18 centuries and, with it, we came back home[...]
• [...]“Geography and history have determined that Judea and Samaria are mountainous country; two-thirds of our population lives in the Coastal Plain below. From those mountains you can hit every city, every town, each township and village, not to speak of our principal airport in the plain below. We used to live penned up into eight miles from the seashore and now, Mr. President, you suggest that we return to almost that same situation. Under no circumstances shall we accept such a possibility ever arising; it would endanger our very existence.[...]
• [...]a friend does not weaken his friend, and an ally does not put his ally in jeopardy.[...]

Yehuda Avner offers significant details about how the proposal was communicated to Begin, who was the last to learn of it.

Fez Accord

Mid East Web lists the points of the Fez Accord which was based on Prince Fahd's plan, which I will try to distill down to its essentials.

1. Withdrawal to '67 border.
2. Dismantling of settlements.
3. Guaranteed freedom of worship & ritual practice at holy places.
4. Fallestinian self-determination & right of return.
5. Short term UN supervision.
6. Independent Falestinian state with Jerusalem as it s capital.
7. Security Council guarantee of peace.
8. Security Council guarantee of implementation of these principles.

When you launch a military adventure in hopes of gaining territory, you risk losing more than you gain. That risk is a significant disincentive to aggression. Why should Muslims be exempt from it? They declared a war of genocidal intent. They lost. They demand that territory, which they had illegally seized in '48 and lost in '67 when they attacked Israel again, be returned to them. That is avarice & arrogance, with no foundation on justice or equity.

Israel was willing to return captured land in return for peace. Instead, the Arab League declared the three no's outlined above. Jews have every right in justice and equity to live in the stolen land they recovered. Israel allows Muslims to live in her territory but Muslims demand that the land be judenrein. How do you justify the double standard?

When Jordan illegally seized and annexed Jerusalem, Hussein guaranteed free access to holy sites, yet he barred Jews from their holy sites and desecrated cemeteries and synagogues. Why in Hell should Jews expect any better performance from his son and the UN?

Falestine

As pointed out earlier in Peace: in a Pig's ..., 'Palestine' & 'Palestinians' really refer to Israel & Jews. Falestinian claims to being a particular people, distinct from the mill run of Arabs with special national aspirations are entirely fraudulent. They had a right to stay put, they chose to leave in order to facilitate genocidal aggression against the Jews. Why should they be allowed to return to destroy Israel militarily or demographically?

United Nothing!

When and where has the UN been of any real benefit? Have they stopped any wars or prevented any genocides? Have they prevented Hezbollah from re-arming and firing rockets? Have they stopped Hamas rocket fire?

Jerusalem was divided from '48 to '67. During that period, Jews were barred from the Temple Mount and their cemeteries & synagogues were desecrated, in contravention of King Hussein's promise. Why should she revert to that condition?

The Security Council can't guarantee anything. It is a useless appendage, with Russia & China exercising veto power in support of their Arab dependencies.

Oslo, Road Map & Wye River

When did the Falestinians cease propagation of propaganda for war & incitement of terrorism? When did they take active & effective steps to stop terror attacks? When did they close the revolving prison door? When did they recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state? When did they quit chanting "from the river to the sea"? When did they quit honoring terrorists as martyrs? What makes anyone but a deluded fool think they ever will do any of those things?

Peace through victory

Victory: the Path to Peace exposes the foundation of Islamic aggression: Qir'an, hadith & Shari'ah. In the end, it all boils down to this.

Only a total, absolute military and ideological victory; one which destroys Islam completely, can put an end to Jihad. This is the fatal fact of Islam which none dares contemplate. Nixon & Kissinger could not force peace. Reagan & Baker could not force peace. Clinton & Albright could not force peace. Bush , Powell & Rice could not force peace. Peace must come from total and absolute victory over Islam, it has no other source. While there is Islam, there is Jihad.

You who believe that reforming Islamic governments, introducing democracy, educating the populace and abolishing poverty will end Jihad are blind, ignorant fools. Jihad is a mandatory sacrament, an eternal commandment of Allah’s perfected, immutable word. Jihad; holy fighting in Allah’s cause, is an intrinsic part of Islam; it is the Muslim’s "original religion", and they are cursed if they abandon it.

The victory must be so complete, total, intense and extensive that the remaining Muslims will recognize Islam for the fraud it is and abandon it completely. Until that happens, any peace will be partial, insecure and temporary.

Sphere: Related Content

Only The Foolish Claim The Troop Surge Hasn't Worked

~Snooper~

In recent weeks, we have seen the political front in Iraq make great progress directly related to the success of the Troop Surge. Much to the chagrin of our rezident Doom and Gloom and America Bashers and bottom feeders, the political success of the Benchmarks set by a defunct CONgress, are now sailing full speed ahead.

This post will serve as a massive collection of links and for all you link craving bloggers, have at it. Unlike the Leftinistra libtard bloggers out there, we don't cherry pick. They seem to like to pick and choose vague elements and pretend they know what they are talking about.

The ENTIRE Iraq strategy Review, in pdf format, can be seen, read, saved as a file and printed here. The background briefing can be found here and is an interesting read. The Focus on Iraq can be seen here.

What the anti-Americanists "forget" to notice is that the document they like to quote so much from has much more than they care to admit to. They also count on their readers to be too stupid to check for themselves.

Fact Sheet: The New Way Forward in Iraq (printable version here)

The President's New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements:

1. Let the Iraqis lead;
2. Help Iraqis protect the population;
3. Isolate extremists;
4. Create space for political progress;
5. Diversify political and economic efforts; and
6. Situate the strategy in a regional approach.

* Iraq Could Not Be Graver - The War On Terror Cannot Be Won If We Fail In Iraq. Our enemies throughout the Middle East are trying to defeat us in Iraq. If we step back now, the problems in Iraq will become more lethal, and make our troops fight an uglier battle than we are seeing today.

The above is that which they harp upon and the rest of the document is like it doesn't exist. Naturally, the poor things have problems keeping their thoughts in order because the Benchmark Assessment Report is 28 pages in length and judging from the quality of their posts, their attention span doesn't allow for lengthy reads which require study. Apparently, even the "quick review" of the document is too much reading material as well.

At any rate, the mad-left hate the fact that they lost their own pathetic surgette and General Petraeus has pretty much won the war but, he does say that with caution because that place called Iraq could self-ignite at a moments' notice.

Alex Knapp of OTB has a sarcastic piece up that more than likely drove the libtard Matthew GlassyAss a little more weird than the poor troll already is. What I find "Rather" curious is that the Iraq War is no longer an issue with our politicians except to quit now that we are winning. Kind of strange that is. However, it is said that the idiot which is Murtha will be introducing legislation to bring the troops home even though that is already in the works.

The only times the Iraq War is an issue is when the Leftinistra are actually asked questions in debates and then they are totally retarded in their answers because they haven't a clue as to what they are yammering about. The worse one is Obama. He even fails at spinning.

Another curiosity is this; if the Leftinistra wish to be taken seriously about anything ever again, one would think that they would come clean and openly admit that they were on the wrong side of the issue strictly for political gain in 2006. In essence, they lied to the American People. However, if they were to admit to that, ethically, they would have to resign their posts in shame. I don't think that is likely to happen.

Disregard last transmission.

In a more recent "development" to give the appearance of being "main stream", the NY Times granted a small tid-bit of Good News ooze from their pores of journalistic malpractice and, it just had to hurt. The pathetic headline is all that is required: Making (Some) Progress in Iraq. Some? The political arena so very important to the American politicians that feel it necessary to "investigate" baseball, dare to infer that there is only "some" progress? Please. Our current sitting Congress is an international embarrassment.

If only our own politicos were able to take some pointers from the Iraqi politicos, perhaps their blind hatred of GWB could be abated but, not likely. I wonder how our elitist politicians would react if they had to worry about bombs under their seats as they conducted the nation's business every day. I wonder how they would respond as their fellow prattlers of empty rhetoric were kidnapped and beheaded because they would not return to the "way it used to be". I wonder how they would cry out to the world if they were literally under the gun.

Our DC "occupiers" are nothing but shallow egos and empty shells of Patriotism...they disgust me. We have serious business at hand and they concern themselves about baseball? If that isn't an over-step of their constitutional authority, I don't know what is.

As Nancy Pelosi, the would-be SecState opines about how "bad" things are in Baghdad, I cannot help but remember her clear violation of the Logan Act nearly a year ago. Our dear SoH, Madame Pelosi, contrary to popular belief is still a member of the Axis of Defeat and I do indeed question her Patriotism. Who is she to criticize anything?

From Bull Dog Pundit: (in reference to the Hizbollah Security Chief's departure from Earth)

I do hope you get the sarcasm in the title, because I'm talking about her trip to Syria, which we wrote about last year. As you may recall, "Damascus Nancy" made that trip to prove a point to President Bush about the need to "talk" to our enemies, in this case Bashir Assad. Not only did she falsely say that Israel was willing to "negotiate peace", she also made this statement.

We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace.

Yeah, because we all knew how much Syria was interested in peace. Well, yesterday gave us a stark reminder as to just how interested the Syrians are in "peace". [...]

If Iraq and Afghanistan has revealed anything at all, it is this...there is no negotiating with terrorists. They will not hear of it.

Iraq is moving towards and accomplishing an end goal of Provincial Elections and our Congress is investigating baseball.

Iraq's parliament on Wednesday passed three key pieces of legislation that set a date for provincial elections, allot $48 billion for 2008 spending, and provide limited amnesty to detainees in Iraqi custody... [...]

What has our Congress accomplished since the end of 2006? Anything at all? Perhaps we should withdraw from DC? It is an apparent quagmire what with the lack of political progress and all. What has the Iraqi "congress" accomplished since the end of 2006? The Iraqi "congress" is light years ahead of our own self-vaunted and self-proclaimed examples of legislative jurisprudence...

Last Sunday, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Nancy Pelosi about the success of the "surge" in Iraq.

"Are you not worried, though, that all the gains that have been achieved over the past year might be lost?" Blitzer asked.

"There haven't been gains, Wolf," Pelosi replied. "The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure."

Yet today, out of Iraq, comes news that three significant laws were passed by the Iraqi parliament.

Pelosi is an ignorant and pompous ass. Clueless is her new name.

Nancy Pelosi Claims the Surge is a Failure, al Qaeda Disagrees, is a must read here as is Updated...US Seized Al-Qaeda Documents Tells of Crisis. There are many more on this issue of the successes of the Troop Surge, America's Troop Surge and the victories achieved...American victories that are ignored by those with the political agenda of Ignore And Defeatism and they can all be accessed here. Do check in from time to time as the collection grows.

Sphere: Related Content

Unsung Heroes: Doing What Most Won't

~Snooper~

There are three key operations in the ITO, three of many, but these most recent, which have brought about the beginning of the end of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Don't get me wrong here...the war is far from "over" but Victory is at hand.

Operation Phantom Phoenix, Operation Marne Thunderbolt, Operation Iron Harvest

These operations have exacted justice on the remaining hard-core pockets of AQI and mopping up exercises, albeit dangerous, is under way. The video of the latest Shock and Awe air strikes can be seen here or here. You can check out the excellent work of our troops at The Long War Journal.

As our own jackals in DC whine, piss and moan about how the Iraqi Political "benchmarks" go undone; as their own benchmarks and earmarks drain the citizenry dry; we find that unbeknownst to them and, rightfully so...God forbid the NYT finds out about it...the Iraqis have been working feverishly behind the scenes, more than likely under the tutelage of those "nasty and mean military people", to undermine the terrorist groups inside Iraq and they have succeeded. (Don't forget to send cards of condolences to the anti-Americanist groups within CONUS up to and including half of our CONgress.)

HEADLINE:

Iraq: We've Penetrated AQI -- But Apparently Not The American Media

Reid: STOP THE WORLD! I WANNA GET OFF! I CAN'T TAKE THIS ANYMORE!! Well, no. He hasn't said that openly but I bet he sure does think it and maybe even whines to his wife...if she can still stand him...and most assuredly to his partner in defeat Nanny Pelosi.

At the same time that the Iraqi National Assembly passed its long-awaited de-Ba'athification reform, the security services have apparently cracked al-Qaeda's organization in the country. Muslim World News, a Muslim news agency in India, reports that the Iraqi Interior Ministry formed a unit recently dedicated to attacking AQI and will shortly take out the entire structure (via AJ Strata):

OH MY!! It was a good thing that the NY Slimes and the Washington Compost didn't know about this ahead of time, eh? They would have tipped off their buddies in AQ!! Instead, Iraqis did the work themselves showing the dumb American idiots in CONgress that can't even do their own damn jobs how to succeed. Well done!

This story can be found here and here.

Iraqi official says Al-Qaeda in Iraq is penetrated, has become an open book Iraq Announces The Defeat Of al-Qaeda Is At Hand, Time To Celebrate

Now we know The Why and the How Did They Know in regards to the recent air strikes. I wonder if that idiot over at StupidMuttDrip feels like the idiot we all know it to be now?

I have often wondered when an AQ Tet Offensive was to come seeing that was their only chance since the Surge has routed them out from just about everywhere. Apparently, their regrouping into these areas may have been the beginnings of that and the Iraqi penetration stemmed that tide and nipped it in the bud. We shall see.

If ops like this keep happening day after day, I think Wizbang may be correct: Iraq may be moot point in campaign after Bush deal... read the story here as well...

Sorry, Barack, You've lost Iraq.

For the complete idiot and dumbest President we have ever had...so say the various anti-Americanist groups around the globe...GWB sure does outfox them at EVERY turn, doesn't he? I wonder if the idiots that get trounced by GWB on a regular basis still feel superior...

The Bush Administration expects to sign a new deal with the Iraqi government this summer which will replace the UN Security Council Resolutions in governing our relationship, and could also take Iraq off the table for the fall elections - as well as for the next Administration. Michael Hirsh reports for Newsweek: [...]

[...] Even on his way out the door, Bush wins again.

OUCH!! That will leave a mark...

As Ed at CQ states:

[...] If the Iraqi government has penetrated AQI, doesn't that mean something for their ability to fight terror and to stand on their own two feet? Isn't a free and stable Iraq the victory we have awaited, and doesn't this suggest that we're coming close to achieving it? Doesn't the joint military operations conducted in Iraq this week tend to confirm this Interior Ministry statement?

The silence is becoming deafening.

There's those damn crickets again...

Catch the buzz here...LOL!!

Sphere: Related Content