Saturday, January 27, 2007
Iran In Iraq
I’ll just hand this over to GatewayPundit for the great news:
The U.S. ambassador said Wednesday that one of the Iranians detained by U.S. forces in Iraq during two raids over the past month was the director of operations for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Quds faction, the organization responsible for funding and arming Iraqi militants.
I would like to see much more of the same in the coming weeks.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
John F'n Kerry Discovers The Meaning Of "No"
Dean Barnett, writing at Hugh Hewitt's blog:
Yesterday saw the sorry spectacle of John Kerry tearing up on the floor of the Senate as he announced he would not seek the presidency in 2008. As Roger Simon pointed out, it’s worth asking who the tears were for. Certainly Kerry wasn’t crying about the death of a Kerry agenda. Beyond his personal ambitions, there has never been a Kerry agenda.
John Kerry was crying for himself and the dashing of those ambitions. What a pathetic display. As this sad man ended his national political career, he wallowed in self-pity because he wasn’t going to get what he wanted. Boston Globe columnist Scott Lehigh summarized Kerry’s personal tragedy this way:
AND SO the dream ends for John Kerry. He will never be president. For a man who has craved the job virtually his entire adult life, that's no doubt a crushing realization, the more so because of the way his ambitions died.
John Kerry’s farewell to his presidential ambitions was a perfectly splendid coda to his political career. The fact that he chose to cry tears of self-pity from the Senate floor because he would not achieve his dreams speaks eloquently to what drove him, what consumed him and where his priorities have always been.
Good riddance to one of the biggest phonies ever to land in D.C., and thank God he never got command of the ship.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
My Brother's Keepers
Via Blogs For Bush, "Apparently, for the Kossacks and other liberal bloggers, soldiers coming home missing limbs is funny."
A leftard once whined to me about Anne Coulter and other adults, "nice friends you've got there!" He was sputtering with feigned indignance that Coulter, whom he hates, had referred to Helen Thomas as "that old Arab" (I didn't see the problem, since he had once described his own son to me as having "that Arab temper"). And yet he was totally okay with the classic high-water mark of idiot viciousness.
Yikes. Thanks, but I'll stick with my own crowd.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Nancy Pelosi Supports Present Troops, Not Future Troops
No Political Downside
Ace wants the Democrats to do what he knows they can’t and mustn’t, namely, take a clear, committed position on the surge. They don’t want to support it or else they’ll antagonize the nuts, but they don’t want to oppose it either just in case Bush pulls a rabbit out of the hat in the next six months. So they’ll end up taking the Reid/Biden approach — there’s nothing we can do, our hands are tied, and here’s a non-binding resolution expressing our deepest misgivings about the surge plus a check granting you almost everything you’ve asked for just in case you end up winning.
And today Pelosi accuses President Bush thusly:
Via Power Line:
The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way."She can't possibly mean that"? How about the fact that she just stated it. I can't think of any other interpretation either. And as we expect of her ilk, Pelosi denied saying that which she had declared mere minutes earlier.
Pelosi's charge was not only patently false, it bordered on incomprehensible. Is she really suggesting that any time the President intends to send troops anywhere, he should wait until the next Congressional budget cycle to find out whether funds have been appropriated for that particular mission? She can't possibly mean that, but I can't think of any other interpretation.
What a piece of work.
U.S. Army 2nd Lt. Mark Daily
Army 2nd Lt. Mark J. Daily, 23
Via Michelle Malkin: While Democrats are busy gleefully undermining America's servicemen and women by playing politics with President Bush's plans in Iraq, there is the example for them of Army 2nd Lt. Mark J. Daily.
2LT Daily's thoughts will well inform the record of this war long after it is done.
A reader e-mails that 2LT Mark Daily was killed in an IED attack in Mosul along with three other soldiers. He was named the ROTC's outstanding cadet for 2005 and also a Distinguished Military Graduate, the highest ROTC award. The OC Register profiles him here.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
WHY I JOINED
Current mood: optimistic
Why I Joined:
This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.
Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.
Is this why I joined?
Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).
I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.
And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.
So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.
I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.
In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Michelle and Bryan, Back From Iraq
Here is Michelle's first report at Hot Air.
And here is an excerpt from Bryan's first column:
Calling Iraq a "civil war" misunderstands the nature of Iraq and the term "civil war." Most of Iraq's warring parties don't have any chance at taking over the entire country and don't seem interested in doing so. Most of them are reacting to the vaccuum of power since the iron grip of Saddam slipped off the country. Most of them are reacting to threats they perceive are either coming from the presence of foreign troops, or from the presence of Wahhabi-influence terrorists (al Qaeda) or from fellow Iraqis who belong to the other major sect of Islam, or from Iran. Most militia fighters would probably lay down their weapons if the overall environment improved, and by that I mean improvements in the basics: the economy and education as well as the security environment.
Thank you, Michelle and Bryan, for the stories the MSM does not tell.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Free At Last
And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."
This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.
With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:
My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.
But not only that:
Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.
From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
Martin Luther King, Jr., August 28th, 1963.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
"fuck ‘em, they’re terrorists"
Friday, January 12, 2007
Angry Old Hag
Whereas Boxer behaved like an angry old hag.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Idiots On Parade: Tears For Tehran
The dumbest reaction I’ve seen to this on the left is from Glenn Greenwald, whom without apparently understanding the irony of his question, asks, “Isn’t it a definitive act of war for one country to storm the consulate of another, threaten to kill them if they do not surrender, and then detain six consulate officers?”
Why yes, Glenn, it is. All that and more.Now, the only proper response to all those Niggling Little Acts of War by the Iranians, the Syrians and their proxies against American troops in Iraq is to attack these players. Make them understand that they are at war with us. Big War. What the idiots like to refer to as "blowback", only this time, the blowback is aimed at outside agents operating in Iraq, all of which must be destroyed. Note that I did not say "must be rendered ineffective", or "must be engaged", or "must be taken out for ice cream"; I said, "must be destroyed". That means killed. That's war.
Meanwhile, back in Rancho Mullah, three massive explosions in Khorramshahr in the border province of Khuzestan, "the heartland of Iran's oil industry", which has been simmering with unrest among the province's mostly Arab population. Oh yeah, and what Iranian authorities are calling a "UFO crash". Not verified, of course, but our stringers are from the Palestinian territory (what's left of it, anyway) and so are unimpeachably reliable.
Iowa Voice reminds us that Nancy Pelosi was for a troop surge before she was against it. So were Biden, Kerry, et al. What a pack of liars.
The Anchoress reminds us that whatever Bush is for, his enemies are agin. Just don't call them reactionaries.
NRO's John Podhoretz asks, is Wesley Clark just not all that smart? I must ask John Podhoretz, what took you so long?
Durbin is speaking now, and he's making an impassioned address to give Iraq back to the Iraqis. He's doing a good job in delivering the speech, but he is avoiding the question of what happens when we leave. He argues on one hand that the Iraqis are in the middle of a "civil war", but then says that the Iraqis will suddenly unite to govern themselves when we leave. That implies that the only dispute in Iraq is the presence of American troops, a ludicrous suggestion.In other words, Dick Durbin's stock in trade.
Mary Katherine Ham on the for and against.
Via LGF: CAIR Islamist weasel vs. Americans Against Hate's Joe Kaufman. No contest. The Islamist weasel is an Islamist weasel.
And Egypt too.
Variation on a theme: "There was no U.N. Security Council authorisation for Islamofascist forces to hit Somali areas." Oops...
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
The Tyrant Or Freedom
I had to turn off the TV-news.I respectfully disagree. It is crucially important to hammer home Saddam's execution to Iran and Syria as the fate their leaders will meet as well, if only the people there will coalesce to offer them up. I appreciate McCarthy's caution, but I like what Saddam's hanging tells the rest of that part of the world: justice is coming.
This is a solemn, important moment. It's not a joyous one. An evil man deserved to die. His elimination was necessary — not close to sufficient, but necessary — for achieving, over time, a semblance [of] civilized stability in Iraq...
...This wasn't victory. It didn't end suffering. It was, in the heat of a war that has actually gotten more vicious and more uncertain since Saddam's capture three years ago, the carrying out of an essential but unpleasant duty. It marginally enhances Iraq's propects, and ours. But Saddam's death (as opposed to his deposing) has no impact whatsoever on the deep dysfunction and hatred that is rending what passes for Iraqi society...
...Saddam's death is a marker worth observing. It is not something to go up in a balloon over.
Stiff upper lip there, Andrew.