I know that some of you would rather EAT DIRT, than agree with me. But whether you agree with MY 3 paragraphs below, it is fact, at least up to 10:39AM today, May 30th. Obama has not agreed to go to Iraq. So read the reasons why, then, more important, read what happened in Basra, last week. It matters to ALL of us.
*********************************************************
I see that NOW, after listening to McCain's latest important speech, which is chock full of proven facts, it seems there is a New Paradigm, in Presidential Politics. Now, instead of having both candidates Well-Versed and Experienced in What's Going On in the World, now WE, THE VOTERS, and Other Pres. Candidates have to EDUCATE and TEACH FOREIGN POLICY to our Wet-eared, Clueless and Inexperienced Candidates!
Like McCain says, Obama has been to Iraq ONCE, in 2006, for a quick, "in,out, and home" trip.
How many Dozens of troops did he speak to? How many Colonels? How many Majors? How many Captains? How many Lieutennants, or Master Sargeants? The answer, for a man who would "Buddy Up" to someone like Weather Underground Pentagon Bomber William Ayers, is, probably none.
Obama has said repeatedly, he will meet, with NO PRE-CONDITIONS, people like Iraq's Ahmedinijad("Death to America!"), Syria's Terrorist-Sponsoring Bashar Al-Assad, Hezbolla and Hamas("Death to America!"), but Obama will NOT MEET WITH GENERAL PETRAEUS, a recognized American Hero and Terrorism and Insurgency EXPERT on Iraq!
Now WHY do you think that is? There can BE only TWO answers, why Obama will meet with America's Enemies, but will NOT meet with an American Hero,the Leader of our Fight against Terrorism in Iraq. Either 1.) He has a BURNING HATRED for America, and what it stands for, or 2.) He is AFRAID, to meet with Gen. Petraeus, or Large numbers of Troops in Iraq, because THEN, he will SEE, with his OWN eyes and ears, the SUCCESSES of our Mission there, as evidenced by the story below, and Many MORE, the the "Fair Media" HIDES FROM, BURIES, AND IGNORES, because they don't want the TRUTH to get OUT of Iraq. THAT way, "Blame-America-Firsters" like Obama, can continue spouting the LIES and STALIN-LIKE CONTROL of THEIR message, the Leftist/Socialist/Collectivist message of the Obama, and the Media.
Obama says "It's not relevant" that he hasn't been to Iraq, since his brief layover, waiting for his Private Jet to be refueled, in 2006.
OF COURSE, he says "It's not relevant"! Because the on-the-ground situation has become SO MUCH MORE POSITIVE, since 2006! Obama CAN'T GO BACK THERE NOW, BEFORE THE ELECTION, BECAUSE THE MEDIA WILL GET FILM OF THE SOLDIERS TELLING HIM OF THEIR SUCCESSES! And if he goes there NOW, when he returns HERE, he will have to call Gen. Petraeus, and All the Troops, LIARS!
******************************************************
Iraq Rising
FrontPageMagazine.com
May 27, 2008 * Jacob Laksin
Iraq Rising By Jacob Laksin
A fascinating scene played out in Basra, Iraq, last week. Troops from the Iraqi Army stood sentinel over the once restive city as followers of rogue cleric Muqtada al-Sadr muttered dispiritedly that they had been driven from power. In this Sadrist fiefdom, the erstwhile epicenter of a Shiite insurgency that many doubted could be contained, the Iraqi army was now law.
Credit this remarkable transformation to Operation Sawlat al-Fursan, also known as operation Charge of the Knights, which began with little fanfare and much skepticism in late March. A make-or-break test for the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Iraqi armed forces, the operation was largely led by the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Security Forces. Their success in routing militia elements in cities like Basra would reveal much about what could realistically be expected from Iraq.
Democrats were anything but optimistic. Presumptive nominee Barack Obama allowed that the operation had “resulted in some reduction in violence” but insisted, counterintuitively, that this only strengthened the case for rushed troop withdrawals. Hillary Clinton, never one to be pinned down on policy substance when grandstanding is an option, offered her standard refrain that the “surge has failed to accomplish its goals.” More candid was Joe Biden, who back in April was prepared to call a victory … for Sadr. Of Basra, he pronounced, it “looks to me like, at least on the surface, Sadr may have come out a winner here.” In the Democrats’ dismal exegesis, the surge had failed, Iraq was doomed, and withdrawal was the only viable option.
But despair, like hope, is not a policy. Two months on, the Democrats’ fatalism on Iraq looks woefully off base. By all significant indicators, Iraqi security forces have turned the tide against Shiite insurgents. Their improbable control of Basra is only the latest sign of the shifting balance of power. On the strength of the success in Basra, the military reports that violence in Iraq has plunged to its lowest level in over four years. Even the New York Times – no instinctive friend to the Bush administration – reports of Basra that with “Islamist militias evicted from their strongholds by the Iraqi Army, few doubt that this once-lawless port is in better shape than it was just two months ago.” Basra has indeed produced a winner. But contra Joe Biden, it’s not Muqtada al-Sadr.
Just as Shiite die-hards have suffered a devastating reversal, their Sunni counterparts in al-Qaeda are also in retreat. Witness the results in Mosul. Considered by the U.S. and Iraqi forces to be the terrorists’ last urban stronghold in Iraq, Mosul less than a month ago was a soulless Shari’a state. In keeping with Islamist mores, public expressions of joy were forbidden and local cultural traditions ruthlessly suppressed. Locals couldn’t even sell tomatoes and cucumbers side by side at the market, as the juxtaposition was deemed intolerably provocative by prudish jihadists. Since the beginning of a joint U.S. Iraqi operation earlier this month, however, attacks are down by 85 percent, at least 200 al-Qaeda terrorists have been netted in sweeps, and normalcy has been reestablished. Tomatoes and cucumbers, no longer sins against Islam, are just vegetables again.
It speaks to the misdirection of the party that what is good for Iraq and coalition forces is bad for Democrats. Thus, Democrats cannot applaud the recent rollback of al-Qaeda, since doing so would discredit their assurance that Iraq is wholly disconnected from the fight against bin Laden’s network. Neither can they celebrate the Iraqi forces’ success in Basra. That would contradict the narrative that Iraq is a lost cause best surrendered to its internal chaos. To acknowledge gains in security, meanwhile, would be to concede that the American troop presence – that is, the surge that Senator Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi were confidently declaring a “failure” last fall – is helping to pacify the country. Acknowledging that would, of course, nullify the logic of precipitous withdrawal. The only remaining option is to mouth the mantra that Iraq is a failure and hope that reality dovetails with defeatism.
Wiser and more principled is the position of John McCain. As an early proponent of the troop surge, McCain can lay claim to a prescience that not only eluded many of in his party but that continues to evade his expected Democratic opponent. Last week, for instance, Barack Obama cast a vote against the $165 billion funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That didn’t derail the funding bill, which passed the Senate anyway, but it did place Obama squarely on the side that has given up on the surge and, by extension, on the Iraq war. Buoyed by some polls, Obama is clearly betting that military defeat in Iraq will translate into political victory at home.
McCain may yet have the better of that argument. Against the increasingly tone-deaf attacks from Democrats, he can point out that Iraqi troops have defied expectations to perform competently and sometimes impressively, even without U.S. support; that the Shiite and Sunni terrorists have been substantially repelled; and that political reconciliation is for the first time visible on the horizon. He can add, too, that all this is dependent on the surge strategy that he championed and that Obama threatens to undo.
Seen in this light, the Democrats’ tactic of calling the surge the “Cheney-Bush-McCain” strategy may well boomerang to their disadvantage. Naturally, there will be those who scoff at the notion that Iraq could be an asset for McCain in the general election. But it’s worth bearing in mind that these same prognosticators just a month ago were instructing that Iraq’s future belonged to Sadr’s brigands and al-Qaeda’s killers. Of the presidential candidates, only John McCain can credibly pledge that he won’t let that happen.
Jacob Laksin is a senior editor for FrontPage Magazine. He is a 2007 Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow. His e-mail is jlaksin@gmail.com
*********************************************************
I see that NOW, after listening to McCain's latest important speech, which is chock full of proven facts, it seems there is a New Paradigm, in Presidential Politics. Now, instead of having both candidates Well-Versed and Experienced in What's Going On in the World, now WE, THE VOTERS, and Other Pres. Candidates have to EDUCATE and TEACH FOREIGN POLICY to our Wet-eared, Clueless and Inexperienced Candidates!
Like McCain says, Obama has been to Iraq ONCE, in 2006, for a quick, "in,out, and home" trip.
How many Dozens of troops did he speak to? How many Colonels? How many Majors? How many Captains? How many Lieutennants, or Master Sargeants? The answer, for a man who would "Buddy Up" to someone like Weather Underground Pentagon Bomber William Ayers, is, probably none.
Obama has said repeatedly, he will meet, with NO PRE-CONDITIONS, people like Iraq's Ahmedinijad("Death to America!"), Syria's Terrorist-Sponsoring Bashar Al-Assad, Hezbolla and Hamas("Death to America!"), but Obama will NOT MEET WITH GENERAL PETRAEUS, a recognized American Hero and Terrorism and Insurgency EXPERT on Iraq!
Now WHY do you think that is? There can BE only TWO answers, why Obama will meet with America's Enemies, but will NOT meet with an American Hero,the Leader of our Fight against Terrorism in Iraq. Either 1.) He has a BURNING HATRED for America, and what it stands for, or 2.) He is AFRAID, to meet with Gen. Petraeus, or Large numbers of Troops in Iraq, because THEN, he will SEE, with his OWN eyes and ears, the SUCCESSES of our Mission there, as evidenced by the story below, and Many MORE, the the "Fair Media" HIDES FROM, BURIES, AND IGNORES, because they don't want the TRUTH to get OUT of Iraq. THAT way, "Blame-America-Firsters" like Obama, can continue spouting the LIES and STALIN-LIKE CONTROL of THEIR message, the Leftist/Socialist/Collectivist message of the Obama, and the Media.
Obama says "It's not relevant" that he hasn't been to Iraq, since his brief layover, waiting for his Private Jet to be refueled, in 2006.
OF COURSE, he says "It's not relevant"! Because the on-the-ground situation has become SO MUCH MORE POSITIVE, since 2006! Obama CAN'T GO BACK THERE NOW, BEFORE THE ELECTION, BECAUSE THE MEDIA WILL GET FILM OF THE SOLDIERS TELLING HIM OF THEIR SUCCESSES! And if he goes there NOW, when he returns HERE, he will have to call Gen. Petraeus, and All the Troops, LIARS!
******************************************************
Iraq Rising
FrontPageMagazine.com
May 27, 2008 * Jacob Laksin
Iraq Rising By Jacob Laksin
A fascinating scene played out in Basra, Iraq, last week. Troops from the Iraqi Army stood sentinel over the once restive city as followers of rogue cleric Muqtada al-Sadr muttered dispiritedly that they had been driven from power. In this Sadrist fiefdom, the erstwhile epicenter of a Shiite insurgency that many doubted could be contained, the Iraqi army was now law.
Credit this remarkable transformation to Operation Sawlat al-Fursan, also known as operation Charge of the Knights, which began with little fanfare and much skepticism in late March. A make-or-break test for the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Iraqi armed forces, the operation was largely led by the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Security Forces. Their success in routing militia elements in cities like Basra would reveal much about what could realistically be expected from Iraq.
Democrats were anything but optimistic. Presumptive nominee Barack Obama allowed that the operation had “resulted in some reduction in violence” but insisted, counterintuitively, that this only strengthened the case for rushed troop withdrawals. Hillary Clinton, never one to be pinned down on policy substance when grandstanding is an option, offered her standard refrain that the “surge has failed to accomplish its goals.” More candid was Joe Biden, who back in April was prepared to call a victory … for Sadr. Of Basra, he pronounced, it “looks to me like, at least on the surface, Sadr may have come out a winner here.” In the Democrats’ dismal exegesis, the surge had failed, Iraq was doomed, and withdrawal was the only viable option.
But despair, like hope, is not a policy. Two months on, the Democrats’ fatalism on Iraq looks woefully off base. By all significant indicators, Iraqi security forces have turned the tide against Shiite insurgents. Their improbable control of Basra is only the latest sign of the shifting balance of power. On the strength of the success in Basra, the military reports that violence in Iraq has plunged to its lowest level in over four years. Even the New York Times – no instinctive friend to the Bush administration – reports of Basra that with “Islamist militias evicted from their strongholds by the Iraqi Army, few doubt that this once-lawless port is in better shape than it was just two months ago.” Basra has indeed produced a winner. But contra Joe Biden, it’s not Muqtada al-Sadr.
Just as Shiite die-hards have suffered a devastating reversal, their Sunni counterparts in al-Qaeda are also in retreat. Witness the results in Mosul. Considered by the U.S. and Iraqi forces to be the terrorists’ last urban stronghold in Iraq, Mosul less than a month ago was a soulless Shari’a state. In keeping with Islamist mores, public expressions of joy were forbidden and local cultural traditions ruthlessly suppressed. Locals couldn’t even sell tomatoes and cucumbers side by side at the market, as the juxtaposition was deemed intolerably provocative by prudish jihadists. Since the beginning of a joint U.S. Iraqi operation earlier this month, however, attacks are down by 85 percent, at least 200 al-Qaeda terrorists have been netted in sweeps, and normalcy has been reestablished. Tomatoes and cucumbers, no longer sins against Islam, are just vegetables again.
It speaks to the misdirection of the party that what is good for Iraq and coalition forces is bad for Democrats. Thus, Democrats cannot applaud the recent rollback of al-Qaeda, since doing so would discredit their assurance that Iraq is wholly disconnected from the fight against bin Laden’s network. Neither can they celebrate the Iraqi forces’ success in Basra. That would contradict the narrative that Iraq is a lost cause best surrendered to its internal chaos. To acknowledge gains in security, meanwhile, would be to concede that the American troop presence – that is, the surge that Senator Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi were confidently declaring a “failure” last fall – is helping to pacify the country. Acknowledging that would, of course, nullify the logic of precipitous withdrawal. The only remaining option is to mouth the mantra that Iraq is a failure and hope that reality dovetails with defeatism.
Wiser and more principled is the position of John McCain. As an early proponent of the troop surge, McCain can lay claim to a prescience that not only eluded many of in his party but that continues to evade his expected Democratic opponent. Last week, for instance, Barack Obama cast a vote against the $165 billion funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That didn’t derail the funding bill, which passed the Senate anyway, but it did place Obama squarely on the side that has given up on the surge and, by extension, on the Iraq war. Buoyed by some polls, Obama is clearly betting that military defeat in Iraq will translate into political victory at home.
McCain may yet have the better of that argument. Against the increasingly tone-deaf attacks from Democrats, he can point out that Iraqi troops have defied expectations to perform competently and sometimes impressively, even without U.S. support; that the Shiite and Sunni terrorists have been substantially repelled; and that political reconciliation is for the first time visible on the horizon. He can add, too, that all this is dependent on the surge strategy that he championed and that Obama threatens to undo.
Seen in this light, the Democrats’ tactic of calling the surge the “Cheney-Bush-McCain” strategy may well boomerang to their disadvantage. Naturally, there will be those who scoff at the notion that Iraq could be an asset for McCain in the general election. But it’s worth bearing in mind that these same prognosticators just a month ago were instructing that Iraq’s future belonged to Sadr’s brigands and al-Qaeda’s killers. Of the presidential candidates, only John McCain can credibly pledge that he won’t let that happen.
Jacob Laksin is a senior editor for FrontPage Magazine. He is a 2007 Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow. His e-mail is jlaksin@gmail.com