Myth vs Fact-Part 21

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	3:158 And whether you die, or are killed, verily, unto Allâh you shall be gathered. Tafsir: 1 2

Sphere: Related Content

Initial Benchmark Assessment Report : Iraq

Cross Posted from Wake up America

The report itself can be found here and there is a little something for everyone, on both sides of this issue.

The handy dandy graph below shows 8 areas of satisfactory progress, 8 areas of unsatisfactory progress, mixed on 2 areas and 2 areas which it says it is too early to determine.


(CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

Considering the full amount of troops in the so called "surge" arrived just 3 weeks ago, I am surprised any areas were able to be determined yet, so here we go.

The areas that are listed as satisfactory are the military ones and the areas that are listed as unsatisfactory are the political ones.

Not to gloat here, but we at Wake up America has consistently maintained that the political benchmarks could not be met until the military benchmarks (reducing levels of sectarian killings) have given the politicians some breathing room to be able to make some headway politically.

This appears to be what is happening.

In advance of the release of the initial benchmark report, ABC ran an article in which, in their words, not mine, they said that although Anbar Province, last year, was considered the most dangerous Province in Iraq, that since General Petraeus has been using counterinsurgency tactics, there has been a "near miraculous turnaround in Anbar Province", which is representative of many of the Provinces since Petraeus took over.

Their exact quote:

This report notes a decline in attacks on civilians and a near miraculous turnaround in Anbar Province, which, just last year, was considered the most dangerous in Iraq.

As Captain's Quarters puts it:

The successes are obvious. Chief among them is the reversal of fortunes in Anbar, which many had considered so intractable that it should have just been abandoned. Now the province has been rid of terrorists and life has begun to return to normal. The move to Diyala and Baqubah appear to be having the same effect there. The report stresses that the full complement of surge forces has only been in Iraq for three weeks, and that these early results show the potential of wider success against terrorists -- and that they have even garnered support from native insurgents eager to drive out foreigners.

Now while I fully agree with House Minority John Boehner's assessment that the some members of the Senate's GOP are "wimps", it might not be exactly helpful to the serious discussions and debates.

I do have to thank him for the chuckles though.

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) called for comity yesterday during a meeting of the Republican Conference after House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) referred to Senate GOP colleagues favoring a change of course in Iraq as “wimps.”

Even as a few GOP Senators can be considered "wobbly" it evens out when you consider the few centrist Democrats, or Blue Dog Democrats that do not agree with tying the commanders hands on the ground in Iraq.

But another Blue Dog, Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.), remains opposed to the leadership’s approach on Iraq.

“The idea of timelines to incentivize the Iraqi government is a good idea, but it shouldn’t be written into law,” Barrow said. “Commanders on the ground need to have flexibility.”

Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) also said he is “likely” to vote against the leadership’s Iraq bill.

Those Blue Dog Democrats understand that although people are tired of hearing about Iraq, the consequences of a premature withdrawal would be disastrous.

From Wapo: (linked above)

The last time I remember Ambassador Ryan Crocker warning about a possible bloodbath, it was in September 1982 as the Sabra-Shatila massacre was taking place in Beirut. So when Crocker tells the New York Times that a rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq could produce a human tragedy on a far larger scale, people should take notice. He has seen it happen before.

Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, described the dangers starkly on Monday in explaining what might happen if the United States withdraws its troops too quickly from Iraq: "The dangers could be a civil war, dividing the country, regional wars and the collapse of the state."

Those are the stakes as the Senate debates the military authorization bill this week. The daily death toll measures the cost America and the Iraqis already are paying, but Crocker and Zebari are right in warning that a sudden U.S. withdrawal could be even more costly: The violence that is destroying Iraq could spread throughout the region -- an inferno stretching across Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Syria, and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- with devastating consequences for global security.

MY PREDICTION:

Either way, as we explained yesterday, the Democratically controlled Congress and Senate will do exactly as they did with the emergency supplemental bill, and pass legislation with some sort of timelines, which the President will veto, again, and which the Dems do not have a two thirds majority to override the Presidents veto.

I didn't name that post Deja Vu Anyone for nothing!

HEY, at least Pelosi and Baghdad Reid can tell their supporters "we tried, its those damn Republicans and a few of our own Blue Dogs"...heh

Wizbang points out one specific section of the benchmark report:

Update:

One more quote from the report:

The increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders that the United States may not have a long-term commitment to Iraq has also served in recent months to reinforce hedging behaviors and made the hardest political bargains even more difficult to close.

The more the Democrats talk about quick withdrawal, the more the Iraqi political hardliners will hold out for a better deal, and the less likely compromise can be achieved, and benchmarks met. It's the Democratic strategy, and I have to say it seems to be working just fine for them. Heaven help the Iraqi people when Iran becomes the power broker in Iraq between Hezbolla and Al Qeada. Wouldn't be too good for the U.S. either.

I wonder where those Iraqi's got the idea that America isn't committed to helping them? (SNORT)

That one can be place squarely on the Democrats shoulders, without a doubt.

This initial report is just that, a preliminary until the actual report is due in September.

Our military, headed by General Petraeus has done an astoundingly wonderful job as they will continue to do to give the Iraqi politicians a chance to get those political benchmarks achieved.

Between now and September, that is what they must do.

They do have, at least, until September because President Bush will not consider a troop pullout without giving General Petraeus the time he was promised to get the mission done, and he will veto any attempt from Congress and the Senate to legislate a war, as he should.

I am not blaming the Iraqi politicians, lets be clear on this, it took America far longer during and after the American Civil War, to come to any political settlements, but with the atmosphere in Washington being what it is, we are going to have to see the Iraqi politicians do a better job that we here at home can or did.

It is what it is.

In the meantime, Don Surber doesn't think it is time to remove American Troops from U.S. Soil yet. (Gotta love this guy)

Wapo brings us some remarks from the President:

Bush, in a White House news conference, said that enough progress has been made to justify release of U.S. funds, which Congress made contingent on a positive assessment. He asked lawmakers to delay an effort to try to force an early troop reduction until a second report, due in September, is delivered.

"The bottom line is that this is a preliminary report and it comes less than a month after the final forces have arrived in Iraq," Bush said. By September, "we hope to see further improvement in the positive areas and further improvement in the negative areas," and will "be in a better position to adjust where we need to make any adjustments" in the current strategy.

"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now," Bush said, but withdrawal "would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It means risking mass killings on a horrific scale" and would "allow terrorists to establish a safe haven." He repeated his frequent argument, increasingly rejected by the public and Congress, that the Iraq war is part of a "broader struggle" against al-Qaeda and Iran.

Michael P.F. van der Galiën, being from Europe, not America, gives us a birdseye view of exactly what would happen to America's "image" should the obvious outcome of a premature withdrawal comes to bear, in his post called "Reality Check":

So - I thought, let me talk with some Dutch people about this. I asked 8 people: only one of them supported the war in Iraq, the other opposed it from the get-go. I asked them what they thought would happen in Iraq when the US withdraws. The unanimous answer: genocide. Who, I asked, would you blame? America or Iraq? The answer: America. So, I also asked them what they thought Arabs, Muslims and everyone else would think of it. The, again, unanimous answer: everybody will blame America, and it will greatly hurt America’s image.

Now - eight people is not exactly a representative poll, but I want to make something clear to all of you: I strongly believe that this is how most people will look at it. Mass genocide will be blamed on the US. Why? If the US would not have attacked, Iraq would still be stable. Yes, Saddam would still be in power, but most people do not look at that (besides, they will also argue that life under Saddam was probably not worse that it is today) - most people simply look at the result.

Now, many Americans argue “we have to bring our troops home: they should not die in a far away country, if we cannot win / bring stability any time soon.” To Americans, this sounds logical. To 5.5 billion other people, this sounds extremely egoistical. The other citizens of the world say “3500?? are you kidding me? Tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, and if you withdraw prematurely, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions more will die, and you complain about 3500??? You started this war in the first place.”

I realize that the way I choose to word this might anger quite some Americans and I thought about bringing it less bluntly, but I am not a politician: I am a blogger. And I am simply trying to explain something important to you all (the majority of whom are Americans). To those living in the other countries I ask this: don’t you agree with this post? If you look around and ask other people, isn’t what I wrote the answer the far majority gives? Yes it is harsh, but 300,000 Iraqis killed (quite a random ‘in between’ number) is quite harsh as well.

Well said, from one that is outside of America, looking in.

He also has a second reality check and a third.

I am sure I will have more to say on the initial benchmark report after I have done more than skimmed through it for this post.

In the meantime, others are weighing in:

Amy Proctor from Bottom Line Up Front shows General Petraeus praising the Iraqi's.

Debbie Hamilton from Right Truth tells us why the Democrats fear any and all success in Iraq.
Take Our Country Back shows us the report on Iraq's Northern villages.

Michelle Malkin and Hot Air both have analysis and rolling updates.

Gateway Pundit has visuals that make his points nicely.

Sweetness and Light shows us how the media lied, once again.

Wapo has an editorial that has to be read, in which they show that both sides of the aisle have their own "wishful thinking".

IT SEEMS like just weeks ago, because it was, that Congress approved funding for the war in Iraq and instructed Gen. David H. Petraeus to report back on the war's progress in September. Now, for reasons having more to do with American politics than with Iraqi reality, September isn't soon enough.

Thats how it started, go read the rest.

Political Punch shows us Baghdad Reid's refusal to answer a very simple question, even after it was asked THREE TIMES.

Austin Bay shows us 7 likely scenarios if the U.S should make a quick exit from Iraq.

All of them have excellent analysis, so make sure you stop in and read them.

Bottom Line, we are halfway to the September date for the actual full report and half of the benchmarks have been satisfactory and half have not.

Sounds about right.

(One additional thought here: I do believe the Iraqi's are suffering far more from American Politics than they are their own. Thats sad.) It seems the Iraqi's agree with me.

[UPDATE] President Bush's press conference about the Report can be found here.

First Money Quote from the press conference:

When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq it will be because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because pollsters say it will be good politics. The strategy I announced in January is designed to seize the initiative and create those conditions. It's aimed at helping the Iraqis strengthen their government so that it can function even amid violence. It seeks to open space for Iraq's political leaders to advance the difficult process of national reconciliation, which is essential to lasting security and stability. It is focused on applying sustained military pressure to rout out terrorist networks in Baghdad and surrounding areas. It is committed to using diplomacy to strengthen regional and international support for Iraq's democratic government.

Another point I have made from the start of this blog, polls do not and should not run wars, our military does that.

[Update #2] McCain takes the New York Times to the woodshed and spanks them. MUST see the short video.

Sphere: Related Content

Lieberman, Iran, Roll call and the Liberals are losing it

Cross Posted from Wake up America

Just caught this on the news while I was cooking, sooooooo, of course I had to run upstairs and do a quickie.

Joe Lieberman along with McCain, Kyl, Graham, and Coleman, offered up an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, confronting the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran over its proxy attacks on American soldiers in Iraq, and it passed with a vote of 97-0.

Roll call can be found here.

Statement of purpose: To require a report on support provided by the Government of Iran for attacks against coalition forces in Iraq.

Liebermans statement from his site (linked above)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senators Lieberman, McCain, Kyl, Graham, and Coleman today introduced a bipartisan amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, confronting the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran over its proxy attacks on American soldiers in Iraq.

The amendment details the publicly available evidence put forward over the past year by General David Petraeus, commanding general of Multi-National Force Iraq, and others about Iran’s violent and destabilizing activities in Iraq.

The amendment states that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility against the United States,” and demands the government of Iran “take immediate action” to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias and insurgents. The amendment also mandates a regular report on Iran’s anti-coalition activity in Iraq.

“For many months, our military commanders and diplomats have warned us that the Iranian government has been training, equipping, arming, and funding proxies in Iraq who are murdering our troops,” said Senator Lieberman. “This amendment is a common sense, common ground statement of the Senate to Tehran: we know what you are doing, and you must stop.”

“American officials attest that the government in Teheran seeks to bleed the United States and render unsuccessful our efforts to bring about a stable and self-governing in Iraq,” said Senator McCain. “This amendment will send a clear signal: Iran’s activities in Iraq are wrong, and they must end immediately.”

“The Iranians are attempting to thwart our policies in the Middle East by actively supporting terrorists who are killing our troops in Iraq,” said Senator Kyl. “It is time we acknowledge this hostility against us, and this amendment tells the Iranians we will not tolerate any actions which threaten our troops or allies.”

“The evidence is increasingly clear the Iranian government is working to destabilize the Iraqi government,” said Senator Graham. “It is long past time for Congress to speak out about this destructive behavior by Iran. We need one voice, and I expect it will be a unified bipartisan voice, speaking out and condemning these actions by the Iranian government.”

“The United States will not tolerate Iran’s hostile attempts to sabotage our efforts in the Middle East region,” said Senator Coleman. “On my last trip to Iraq, our Minnesota troops in Southern Iraq showed me Iranian-made explosives that were used against them on convoy missions. This crucial amendment makes it clear to the Iranian government, and any other government in the region that seeks to harm our soldiers, that providing any form of support to Iraqi insurgents will not be tolerated and must cease immediately.”

The text of the actual amendment should be here, when they actually get it up on the site. (That link will be changed if it ends up being put up at a different URL)

Needless to say, the far left liberals do not even need to see the actual text, they are already throwing a hissy fit, here is an example of some of the comments coming from Firedoglake:

P J Evans says:
July 11th, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Cr*p.

We’re going to have to lose the Democrats in Congress, all of them, because they’re too f*cking stupid something to figure out what’s going on without someone reading the bills to them very slowly, and explaining all the words to them as they go along.

We’ll need a new party name, too, because they’ve done to ‘Democratic’ what the GOoPers have done to ‘Republican’: turned it into a joke of an brand for a product that should be named ‘Acme’.

How can they claim to be representing us, when they can’t even read the bill and figure out where it’s going, before they vote on it, and they don’t listen to us, when we tell them what we’re seeing and hearing out here in the real world?

This next one is good too:

selise says:
June 26th, 2007 at 5:19 pm

h.con.r.21 background here, here, and here.

lots of good stuff in the links.

bottom line - virtually the entire house of representatives (only 2 “no” votes - kucinich and paul) voted to ask the UN security council to charge ahmadinejad with “violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and United Nations Charter” based on basically his calling for the genocide of israelis and because “Iran has aggressively pursued a clandestine effort to arm itself with nuclear weapons”.

only problem is that the first is a lie (mistranslations) and there is not evidence for the second (see IAEA).

when kucinich tried to enter into the congressional record the correct translation, he was prevented from doing so.

so, now we have a document that bush can point to (after bombing iran) and say - “see, even the dems know that the iranian leader is a genocidal maniac pursuing nuclear weapons.”

how could my D congress critters be so dumb?

That is representative of what I am seeing on the liberal blogs right now and I am sure more will come.

There has been ample evidence that Iran is directly responsible for killing U.S. Soldiers, which is why this bill passed with not a single vote against the amendment, but the liberals cannot see passed their hatred to understand this.

More to come as reactions come in, which I assure you, they will.

[Update] 7/12/07- Iran will have crossed the "nuclear threshold" by 2009.

Sphere: Related Content

Does this really need a title?

GAY FOCUS IN DEMS' DEBATE
By CHARLES HURT, Post Wire Services

GREEK FORUM: Hillary Clinton, at a Gay Pride Parade, will appear at a debate devoted to gay issues next month in California.

July 11, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Democratic White House front-runners have agreed to a debate next month devoted to the issues affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, according to two leading activist groups.

"In the 2008 presidential election, issues of concern to the LGBT community have already been at the forefront of the national conversation," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign.

Solmonese and lesbian rocker Melissa Etheridge will be panelists for the debate in Los Angeles.

"From the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' to the recent signing of a civil-unions bill in New Hampshire, there is no doubt that voters will demand answers to important questions affecting our community," Solmonese said.

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards confirmed they will participate, according to organizers.

Other Democrats may also sign on, although not all the candidates were invited.

The forum will give Clinton an opportunity to further distance herself from her husband's policy on gays in the military - the "don't ask, don't tell" approach, which has become deeply scorned in the gay community.

And it will allow the top candidates to give fuller explanations of their nuanced positions on gay marriage.

Clinton and Obama have both said that they personally believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, but both have voted against a constitutional amendment requiring that.

Yet, at the same time, they also say they support "civil unions," which would give gay couples virtually all the rights afforded married heterosexual couples.

Edwards also will likely be pressed about his similar stances on gay marriage.

He is also likely to be asked about comments he reportedly made to a top political adviser while running for Senate in 1998.

According to legendary Democratic campaign guru Bob Shrum's recent book, "No Excuses: Confessions of a Serial Campaigner," he asked Edwards his position on gay rights.

"I'm not comfortable around those people," Edwards is quoted as replying. His current campaign now vigorously denies that the exchange occurred.

Long-shot candidates Sens. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware declined the invitation to appear at the forum, citing scheduling conflicts. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich have not yet said whether they will show up.

Former Alaska Gov. Mike Gravel was not invited to participate because he had not raised enough money, according to debate organizers.

Touted as the first of its kind, the debate will be in front of a live audience, and will be broadcast nationally over Logo, the gay cable television network and co-sponsor of the forum, and Webcast live.

Republicans in Washington cheered the news, with one calling it "Christmas in August."

Perhaps the Dems should read the article below. You want to tolerate Islam? That's how Islam in Iran deals with homosexuals Hillary and the rest of you left wing idiots.

BTW, readers, I'm taking donations for my "Get Out of California Fund". No checks accepted.

Dean

Sphere: Related Content

Brought to You by The "Religion of Peace."

Iran begins executions for adultery and other violations
By Nazila Fathi
Tuesday, July 10, 2007

TEHRAN: The Iranian government confirmed Tuesday that a man was executed by stoning last week for committing adultery, and said that 20 more men would be executed in the coming days on morality violations.

A judiciary spokesman, Alireza Jamshidi, told reporters on Tuesday that a death sentence by stoning had been carried out last week near the city of Takestan, west of Tehran, despite an order by the chief of the judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi, not to permit such executions.

"The verdict was final, and so it was carried out for the man but not for the woman," the ISNA news agency quoted Jamshidi as saying.

He said the 20 additional executions were for such things as "rape, insulting religious sanctities and laws, and homosexuality." Most executions in Iran are hangings, often in public and at the scenes of the alleged crimes.

The police arrested about 1,000 people in May during a so-called morality crackdown. Jamshidi said 15 more men were being tried on similar charges and could receive death sentences.

The daily newspaper Etemad Melli reported Monday that Jaffar Kiani, 47, who had been convicted of adultery, was executed by stoning on Thursday in the cemetery of a small village near Takestan. "Villagers said the sentence was carried out by the local judge and authorities," the newspaper reported.

Kiani and his partner, Mokarameh Ebrahimi, 43, who has two children, were scheduled to die on June 21, but the execution was put off by Ayatollah Shahroudi.

The liberal left in this country should take note. Gay Pride Parades and the decadent lifestyles of homosexuals are not tolerated by Islam.

Dean

Sphere: Related Content