Something is happening on the ground in Iraq. Something that even certain representatives of the MSM can't deny. Earlier this week, as NewsBusters noted here and here, NBC's Brian Williams, reporting from Iraq, offered some unusually positive observations. Now comes this eye-opening exchange from earlier this afternoon on CNN International between host Jim Clancy and correspondent Michael Ware, also reporting from Iraq:JIM CLANCY: "The Democrats are pressing for a deadline, be it at the end of 2007, 2008 to bring all U.S. troops home. How is that going to affect General Petraeus, the Iraqi government and the Iraqis themselves?"
MICHAEL WARE: "Well, Jim, certainly in terms of the Iraqis and the war that's being fought in the streets and the deserts of this country, I mean, what's happening over there, what the Democrats are saying about timetables may as well be happening on the planet Pluto for all that it counts, to the bloodshed and endless combat that we're seeing day in, day out. All that it does, anyone setting time frames like that without real pre-conditions, anyone trying to put artificial deadlines upon this conflict is only aiding the enemies, so-called, of America, al Qaeda and Iran. It allows them some leverage to know when to put the pressure on, to know that the clock is ticking and to know where the pressure points are.
WARE: "So, in terms of the battle, day-to-day here, General Petraeus isn't looking more forward than five or six months. He's trying to make this surge work. But in terms of the broader strategic framework, it serves only America's enemies."
Nancy & Harry, are you listening?
Aside: Speaking of positive reports on Iraq come from unexpected sources, as I reported here for NB's sister operation Cybercast News Service, on Wednesday an al Jazeera reporter based in Baghdad told MFN spokesman MAJ GEN William Caldwell that residents of the city are experiencing positive changes.
UPDATE: mention by Rush -- Rush Limbaugh cited NewsBusters and me and read excerpts from this item during the 12:30 ET half-hour of his show of 03-08. Thanks, Rush!
Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'll be da#ned...are you RINO
March 8, 2007 - 16:25 ET by bigtimerI'll be da#ned...are you RINO's and defeatist leftists listening?
That's two reports from the liberal stations...are you listening out there?
Anyone home?
I usually turn it when Ware or Williams are reporting anything....hmmm...are they getting a message, I can't grasp what these guys are doing speaking truth to power!
This is almost surreal...and refreshing, wonder how long it is going to last?
This is almost surreal...and
March 8, 2007 - 16:35 ET by ghotifunThis is almost surreal...and refreshing, wonder how long it is going to last?
A million dollar statement followed by the $64,000 question!
Great post, Bigtimer!
I'm glad someone was at home to give you smelling salts...
ghot...LOL!Me too...well actu
March 8, 2007 - 16:44 ET by bigtimerghot...
LOL!
Me too...well actually I just stepped outside to get some of that fresh freezing global warming air to wake me up and see if what I was reading was real!
I just stepped outside to get
March 8, 2007 - 16:50 ET by ghotifunI just stepped outside to get some of that fresh freezing global warming air...
I thought it was the "Sunshine State".
Don't spoil my trip later this month...
ghot... I'm in Big Sky Count
March 8, 2007 - 16:58 ET by bigtimerghot...
I'm in Big Sky Country!
Bigtimer-Man! Not even clos
March 8, 2007 - 17:08 ET by ghotifunBigtimer-
Man! Not even close! I can't even think of a quick, snappy retort to cover up my...er...faulty memory!
Anywhere near Thompson Falls?
ghot...Very close.btw...I hav
March 8, 2007 - 17:11 ET by bigtimerghot...
Very close.
btw...I have lived in Ca. too, in fact born there, and other NW states but been here a long time!
bigtimer..When I lived in Mon
March 9, 2007 - 01:13 ET by ww thumperbigtimer..When I lived in Montana; in the winter time they called it 'the deep snow country". In the winter of 1985 it snowed almost 3 feet one weekend.... :-)
bigtimer..When I lived in Mon
March 9, 2007 - 01:13 ET by ww thumpernow I went and dooed it ; double post. Don't "thump" on the "post button' and it wont do that... :-) ww
I don't know who Michael Ware
March 8, 2007 - 16:41 ET by rimskyI don't know who Michael Ware is, but being a CNN reporter, you wouln't expect to hear this kind of rhetoric. At one point, however, he seems a little unclear about al Qaeda and Iran being our enemies.. referring to them as our so-called enemies. I think it's a safe bet that they are.
"I don't know who Mich
March 8, 2007 - 19:00 ET by dabal"I don't know who Michael Ware is"
Neither do I, but I know he's about to become an unemployed journalist by week's end.
Either that, or last weekend, at the limousine liberal parties, their strategy is switching to centrist/realist until Hillary can be elected.
It would not be the first time they've changed tactics on us to win an election.
The Democrats are invested in
March 8, 2007 - 16:57 ET by BDThe Democrats are invested in the defeat of the US forces.
THe press reminds me of the scene from the movie Hamburger Hill in which a member of the press confronts a group of the 101st Airborne as the move up towards the fighting on Ap Biac. He reminds the soldiers that the press is saying that they cannot make it up the hill and they will fail.
The Platoon Sergeant then informs the journo that they WILL make it to the top and that the journo better not be seen at the crest when they do for his own safety.
Something similar is what is happening in the Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) right now in Iraq. Journo's are being surprised to see US troops committed to victory when they have a preconcieved notion of post Vietnam malaise in the forces bred by years of 60's retrospectives telling them about the good old days of US failure.
I'm about half way throug The
March 8, 2007 - 16:57 ET by dvdaughtryI'm about half way throug The Art of War, by Sun Tzu. We used to be good at it, but now our enemies are better than we are.
I dispute your characterizati
March 8, 2007 - 17:02 ET by BDI dispute your characterization of the enemy being better at war than we are. This is incorrect.
The US soldier has not been beaten in war since the declaration of independance in 1776.
However the leftists in the Department of State have not been successful in war since 1945. Therefore I would change your statement to
"50% of America is unbeatable, 50% gets beat regardless of advantage..."
I won't disagree that our mil
March 8, 2007 - 18:47 ET by dvdaughtryI won't disagree that our military has not been beat, but that is not the point I was trying to get across.
Make no mistake, our military might can make up for many shortcomings, and thank God it does. However, as for the tactics, philosophy, strategy, and theories of war itself, those that make decisions (our politicians) are clearly not as good as our enemies.
According to the book, war is about displaying one front to set up the enemy for the easiest victory possible (and that might not be by war fare, per se).
So agreed, our military is unbeatable. Our war practices, are not.
To that I would suggest that
March 9, 2007 - 00:13 ET by DesperadoTo that I would suggest that you evaluate that possibly our own politicians are colluding with our enemies in order to acquire more power. That in itself is a well proven strategy for short term gain. Unfortunately, the idea of "the friend of my enemy is my friend" will have terrible long term consequences.
Currently, the media has convinced the public that we are not at war and we can simply "decide" to stop fighting. Our enemies ar emboldened and are looking forward to marking their calendars for a celebration day. Remember when Hezbolla had the parades and huge party to celebrate their victory over Israel? Can you imagine seeing Al Quaeda doing that about the U.S.? It makes my stomach wrench just thinking about it.
I am not trying to suggest co
March 9, 2007 - 08:29 ET by dvdaughtryI am not trying to suggest collusion. However, the book does talk about the "a friend of my enemy in my friend" as a plausible strategy.
It also talks about handing the population in times of war. If the public does not support it, it only makes thing more difficult. The book is terribly interesting, simple, yet profound.
Using your example, "our enemies...are looking for a celebration day", I could not agree more. Once we celebrate, our guard is down, thus providing a weak spot in the front. It seems that our decision makers in Washington are more willing to provide these types of fronts.
The enemy is using our media against us, and we are having a hard time combating that.
I would disagree with that an
March 9, 2007 - 09:54 ET by BDI would disagree with that analysis.
We are the MASTERS of this philosophy. Most tacticians (not the american school) believe in order to defeat an insurgency, the major part of the population rebelling or supporting rebellion must be anihilated. Examples of this can be found to this day in places like Chechnya, China of the 1950's, and Cambodia of the 1970's.
Instead, a defter approach using our strengths against our enemies weaknesses has been employed against our enemies such as the Huk's inthe Philippines, Abu Sayyaf in the Sulu Archipelago, Taliban in Afghanistan, and even in Iraq we are establishing a functioning society that will do the job for the cost of 3000 lives so far.
DAMN, that is PRETTY DEFT! Sun Tsu would be so proud.
It sounds like I wasn't clear
March 9, 2007 - 10:41 ET by dvdaughtryIt sounds like I wasn't clear. Steer me in the the right direction if I am off course.
When I said public, I was referring to the public of the home country (example, it is harder to fight this war on terror because the American public doesn't support it).
I am in agreement, that we are efficient fighters and it is deft (My new word of the day!) to limit the deaths, even on both sides. Sun Tzu would be proud of our low casulty rate and our conservation of life (civilian and military, both sides).
Let me say this on my position of this war: I believe we are winning/progressing/making a difference on the ground in the Middle East. We are losing the war, domestically, because our enemy has turned some of us (read America as a whole) against the war.
is dvd well-informed?
March 9, 2007 - 11:05 ET by tumbler_2007I suggest to dvdaughttry; don't act as if you know all about war. War as you see it is absolutely profane and America knows nothing. Only you do.
Also let's say that your impression of American citizens having given up on Iraq is false. You're into an anti-war dithyramb, we know; with Murtha Democrats and/or university pillheads. None of whom speak authoritatively for America. We're with President Bush. He has many millions of followers too.
I apologize for coming off th
March 9, 2007 - 14:20 ET by dvdaughtryI apologize for coming off that I "know all about war". All I have for credentials is half a book read, and my own observations.
If I had my way, we would have a punchlist: Iran, Korea, Venuzuala, etc. and be done with it ASAP. I do not see war as profane, but as the last resort. War should not be done half-way. If your in a war then fight like your in a war--kill the enemy, destroy their capabilities, and do it in the fastest way possible.
So we agree on that, I think. However, we don't agree that this country's population as a whole supports this war. The media has a foothold on much of the public's opion. There is also the rest of us that do support it.
Frankly, I am glad to find NB, it's been a great learning experience.
reply to dvdaughtry
March 9, 2007 - 14:49 ET by tumbler_2007There's the entire liberal Democrat false premise. All you seem to think is ASAP-- a get in but get out --war? This is defeatism.
No great nation enters a war already scrambling to come home ASAP. War is about striking the enemy consistently and bravely; otherwise don't start one. The fact is, we were attacked; and don't give us the flap about Iraq didn't harm us. Iraq under Saddam was a time-bomb at best; at worst al Qaeda's enabler and pardner. To defeat al Qaeda, we have had to shut off Iraq's oil revenues which were supporting terrorism.
Unless Saddam was expelled, America would be facing an armed force with unbeatable weaponry, fanatical jihadists and war on our own homeland. STEALTH WARFARE. He was a metaphorical rattlesnake quietly coiled under the doorstep of the western world; capable of killing us with his wealth, oil wealth. Now that Iraqi oil is at least temporarily out of the military equation, thanks to George W. Bush. In order for our deaths and casualties to have MEANING, the middle east must change, it must give up fanaticism. Leaving now would allow the area to regroup under new fanatical leaders. Our soldiers will have been killed for nothing! And in only a few more years, our country would be back to 9-11 once more. Maybe under attack by nuclear or bioweapons. Not talking about a riot here and there in our cities. We'd have ctastrophic destruction and deaths. America can't stop fighting yet. And, to fight efficiently we must UNITE behind our President, instead of destroying him here in his own country. He deserves our loyalty.
Finish ASAP is not the same a
March 9, 2007 - 15:12 ET by dvdaughtryFinish ASAP is not the same as leave ASAP. I did not say get home ASAP.
I didn't give flack about Iraq didn't harm us. I support the President removing Saddam's regime.
If keeping a U.S. presence in the Mid-East keeps the fighting over there, instead of over here, I believe that is reason enough for us to stay.
I have read your profile. We are closer to agreement than we are not. I want the same thing you do, kick our enemies butt and pull out any stops.
Get the notion out of your head that I am liberal, because that is not the case. My point I am trying to convey is that the enemy has a foothold on the American psyche (not all mind you before you go on that rant again), but our military is making strides in the War on Terror, in Iraq.
If we had both sides working for us, it would be an easier battle. That is what I am trying to say.
Only need to be beaten once
March 9, 2007 - 10:50 ET by pearlThe problem with war is that it's not like football or baseball. You can win many times, but you only need to get beaten once.
"Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away" New York Times Nov 2006
You can spin this anyway they
March 8, 2007 - 16:58 ET by mostlymoderateYou can spin this anyway they want. However, what Pelosi really is saying is "if benchmarks of progress aren't met" then we have to get out of Iraq. The plan will "refocus our military efforts on Afghanistan and fighting the war on terrorism where it began."
What are we supposed to do, stay in Iraq forever? Even if it is making no difference? And I forgot, what did Iraq do to America again?
Sometimes I think a lot of you would like to be at war with the world indefinitely and forever.
Thank God were getting out. Sooner would be better.
Iraq never did anything to Am
March 8, 2007 - 17:09 ET by AtheistRepublicanIraq never did anything to America, which is why we can't abandon them.
We don't want to be at war forever, we just don't want to lose, big difference.
AR... There's a big differe
March 8, 2007 - 17:15 ET by Tim the EnchanterAR... There's a big difference in wanting to win and wanting to not lose. We don't want to not lose- we want to win!
Yah, I guess, personally I do
March 8, 2007 - 17:18 ET by AtheistRepublicanYah, I guess, personally I don't draw a distinction between not losing and winning, a tie is when everybody loses... I guess its just how you look at the world, but my choice of words could have been better.
What did Germany do to Americ
March 8, 2007 - 17:18 ET by ThisnThatWhat did Germany do to America? Why did we go to war with Germany, when it was clearly Japan that attacked us? Germany was a little, innocent country that only invaded its immediate neighbors. We should have only taken the war to Japan, where the true enemies were. And by the way, we certainly don't want to stay in Germany forever. After we started to fight Germany, we should have told the nation "They have already killed 3,100 of us. It's time to stop. Europe is simply going through a civil war, and we need to get out now. We can re-position to New England in case we later have to do something".
Besides, they're all Nazis, and there's no hope for anyone there. Let them fight it out themselves.
And the Berlin wall? Jeeze -- just walk away. Why did we contribute to Global Warming by bringing all those planes in during the airlift? And why, oh why, would we ever want the Berlin wall to come down?
Dumbasses.
Being German myself it's funn
March 8, 2007 - 17:42 ET by BAUHAUSBeing German myself it's funny to read your post. :)
The win/lose question is a loser
March 9, 2007 - 10:54 ET by pearlThe win/lose question is a loser.
We have already won the War. If you think we are in a war, then tell me who is our enemy? Iraq? Iran?
We are now merely helping a democratic ally to fight terrorists in their country. When was the first or last time you heard anyone (rightly) refer to Iraq as our ally?
"And I forgot, what did
March 8, 2007 - 17:11 ET by ThisnThat"And I forgot, what did Iraq do to America again"?
1. Spent 10 years shooting at our airplanes enforcing the no-fly rules. With AAA and SAMs, by the way.
2. Tried to assassinate our president.
3. Exported terror, by paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.
4. Provided medical attention and safe haven for proven terrorists.
Please tape this list to your computer screen so that we don't have to constantly re-train you.
Looks like my previous statem
March 8, 2007 - 17:13 ET by AtheistRepublicanLooks like my previous statement about Iraq having done nothing to us might be wrong, still those are things that Saddam did to us, I don't blame Iraq for those.
Yeah, and it was Hitler that
March 8, 2007 - 17:20 ET by ThisnThatYeah, and it was Hitler that was the bad guy, not those fun-loving Nazis.
I see your point. Boy, what was I thinking?
Hitler was popularly elected
March 8, 2007 - 17:32 ET by AtheistRepublicanHitler was popularly elected because of his kill the jews thing, Saddam rose to power in a much more discreet way. Soldiers have to do as ordered, if they didn't that can end very poorly. I'm not saying your completly wrong, I agree with you to a point, the Iraqis were in part responsible (though we failed them by not supporting rebel elements enough) but its important to support Iraq, we can't be doing this for revenge, we gotta do it for Iraq and freedom.
Hitler was popularly elected
March 8, 2007 - 17:47 ET by BAUHAUSHitler was popularly elected because of his kill the jews thing.
That's not 100% correct, they also shutted down the other political parties so it was hard to vote for someone else. Hitler never got more than 33% of the seats. If you have somemore question just ask me.
Ok I'm going to honestly admi
March 8, 2007 - 17:55 ET by AtheistRepublicanOk I'm going to honestly admit I was wrong, not being sarcastic here, I was wrong.
Still I stand by my original point, don't blame Iraq.
Opps
March 8, 2007 - 17:57 ET by mandrakedefinately wrong thread to post that in...sorry.
Thank you for bringing in the
March 9, 2007 - 00:24 ET by DesperadoThank you for bringing in the historical perspective.
Believe it or not, but my wife's grandfather was in the German army during WWII while my own grandfather was in the US army during WWII. Better yet, both of them were German!
I'm amazed at how much history has been forgotten regarding that extremely dark time in this world. People today want to think global warming is our biggest threat, but back in WWII, we lost 100,000 people in a single day at Normandy!
Good thing the media didn't have their instant access to discourage Americans or else we never would have toppled Hitler. The US today just doesn't have the stomach for the sacrifices like we made back then.
Which part of Germany are you from? I still have a Grandmother near Frankfurt.
Desperado
March 9, 2007 - 00:31 ET by Carl KolchakDesparado, we are very proud of men like you grandfather who served in WW2 in the US army. However, where are you coming up with 100,000 losses at Normandy? I think Allied casualties were around 10,000+.
Was your German grandfather on the Eastern Front, or in the West?
"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane" Waylon Jennings
Sorry, I had an extra zero th
March 9, 2007 - 00:50 ET by DesperadoSorry, I had an extra zero there. Should have been 10,000 like you said.
I'm not sure where my German grandfather was located during the war, however his son (and my father-in-law) was in the German Navy in the 70's. It's amazing to see the pictures and to imagine how much has changed that it would be possible that my wife and I are even together today.
My own Grandfather was in France most of his time until he was shot (he survived quite fortunately).
I wish the world was able to generate the kind of character and honor that people had back then. The stories my grandfather would tell me were so amazing and full of true courage.
There are a myriad of reasons
March 8, 2007 - 17:58 ET by ThisnThatThere are a myriad of reasons why we do things. Security is the most important. We all know how WWII began, and hindsight has told us to try to nip things quickly. We had more than 1/4 million killed in WWII; more than 50,000 in Korea and Vietnam. Bush 1 should have secured Iraq when he had a chance; Clinton should never have allowed the situation to fester for 8 years; and now Bush II (and the rest of the world, by the way) had to make a decision after we were attacked.
Look at our troops and our commanders in the field. They are exporting the best of America's values to Iraq, and showing how a free people can work to solve problems. As we secure our security (can I say that?!), Iraq will benefit -- and we've said all along that a free Iraq is an asset. Just like a free Israel is an asset.
I don't buy into this "revenge" thing. There is no evidence of it, and our military would not support such a concept anyway. Congress authorized this war, and they, too, didn't see "revenge" as a motive. They also were concerned with our security. Now that we are more secure, the Dims are taking advantage of that and are trying to say "it never mattered anyway".
I say we have a massive misco
March 8, 2007 - 18:04 ET by AtheistRepublicanI say we have a massive miscommunication here, we actually are arguing about agreeing when it comes down to it, I don't think revenge had anything to do with it either, in fact my whole point was I just didn't like the language you were using not the core meaning.
Can I get away with a "Ignore my Previous Comments"? If not, I will in fact explain my exact meaning, but really, it just doesn't matter that much, and I don't feel like lingering on this subject anymore..
Agreed.
March 8, 2007 - 18:15 ET by ThisnThatAgreed.
"Hitler was popularly el
March 8, 2007 - 18:13 ET by ThisnThat"Hitler was popularly elected because of his kill the jews thing."
The jewish issue in pre-war Germany wasn't really intense. The big thing was the lack of work, and most important the humiliation that Germany suffered following WWI. Hitler took advantage of that and developed an organization that energized the population, and took out the opposition. And, his first footsteps (before Poland) were not taken strictly because of Jews. He also did not expect the amount of early success that he achieved.
A lot of Hitler's actions were conducted because of his perception that Germany was cheated out of its rightful land many centuries ago. This was also wrapped up in his perception that a pure German blood line existed and was vastly superior to everyone else, not simply Jews. However, Jews personified all that was wrong, in Hitler's mind, and were a convenient way to place blame.
"And I forgot, what did
March 8, 2007 - 17:17 ET by Smartypants"And I forgot, what did Iraq do to America again?"
I guess you did forget, let me refresh your memory:
I'm sure I left out plenty, but you get the point. Based on your logic, I could ask what exactly Aghanistan did to us. Sure, Bin Laden was there for a while, but we have no knowledge that he is anywhere near there anymore. Why the hell would we keep fighting there? Of course, your logic does not make sense, and neither does that question.
Anything But Moderate-You can
March 8, 2007 - 17:44 ET by ghotifunAnything But Moderate-
You can spin this anyway they want.
The defeatist press has a lock on spin. I am dumbfounded that CNN actually made the comment that to "prematurely exit would benefit our...enemies". That is so anti-spin.
However, what Pelosi really is saying is...
She needs you to interpret for her?
...if benchmarks of progress aren't met" then we have to get out of Iraq.
Your clear implication is that the current war effort is a never ending endeavor no matter how many or what kind of "benchmarks" are met. This never was or is the case.
The plan will "refocus our military efforts on Afghanistan and fighting the war on terrorism where it began."
The current spate of terrorism didn't start in Afghanistan. It did start in the twisted minds of Islamofascists and their desire, goal and zeal to destroy OUR way of life. But your statement does link terrorism to Iraq, where it belongs.
What are we supposed to do, stay in Iraq forever?
Nobody wants us to. Not the army. Not the President. Not our allies. Not the Iraqis.
Even if it is making no difference?
Gosh, purple-stained thumbs count for nothing? Hospitals built and schools opened make no difference? Universities open to women?
And I forgot, what did Iraq do to America again?
Ummm...support state-sponsored terrorism.
Sometimes I think a lot of you would like to be at war with the world indefinitely and forever.
No, my needs and the needs of my family are very simple. We just want to be left in a state of tranquility and contentment and to not relive the horror of 9/11 again. The pain of having to explain that day to five-year old twins was just too much to revisit.
Thank God ...
Careful, someone could mistake your for being ....mostlyconservative.
were (sic) getting out. Sooner would be better.
We all want to be at of there sooner than later. But, the jobs got to be done!
People like you are an anat
March 9, 2007 - 00:47 ET by liberal_bug_zapperPeople like you, mostlymoderate, are an anathema to my sensibilities. I cannot understand how someone as obtuse and short sighted as yourself has made it as far as you clearly have... past 5 years old... although clearly you have not mentally grown past 5.
Getting out sooner would be better? In which parallel universe? When would giving our enemy a victory ever be good? How do you claim that one battlefront against Islamic extremism isn't Iraq? How do you people function in the world?
I realize that people like you exist, and I've had to fire quite a few, as they are really unreliable. They fool you for a while as their lack of knowledge does not become immediately apparent, it takes giving them some slight responsibility for finishing a job and doing it right where they show their colors.
Now, I ask probative questions to potential employees and if I even think they are liberal... I don't hire them. Liberals are dumb and make really dumb mistakes, they manage by feeling rather than by fact. They clearly cannot be trusted with money or responsibility.
____________________________________________________
"That government is best which governs least." ~ Thomas Paine
Give me time, liberal_bug_zap
March 9, 2007 - 22:59 ET by mostlymoderateGive me time, liberal_bug_zapper. I am beginning to understand more and more everyday.
Oh dagnabbit.... why would
March 9, 2007 - 23:30 ET by liberal_bug_zapperOh dagnabbit.... why would you have to answer like that???? Now I have to say that you may be coming around.....
Ok, I will give you time. It's important to give people a second chance.... and unlike a liberal, a second chance is really only that.... you will not have 100 second chances like Saddam was given.
To understand some of my ire towards liberals and liberal-think... you might want to give Thomas Paine a read... perhaps start by reading Common Sense.
"Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil." ~ Thomas Paine, Common Sense, (1776)
____________________________________________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." ~ Thomas Paine
These Democrats disgust me.
March 8, 2007 - 17:08 ET by bobthemanThese Democrats disgust me. To paraphrase a famous speech from "A Few Good Men" --
We live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? The Europeans? China? Russia? North Korea? Iran? The Democratic Party?! Al Gore?!
America has a greater responsibility than democrats can possibly fathom. They weep for reporters and curse the marines. They have that luxury. The Iraq war, while tragic, probably saved lives. America's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to some, saves lives. Liberals don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places they don't talk about at parties, they want America on that wall. They need us on that wall.
Americans use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. Liberals use them as a punchline.
America has neither the time nor the inclination to explain itself to a throng of leftist who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom Americans helps provide, then questions the manner in which we provide it. We would prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, Most fair minded American's don't give a damn what John Murtha or Nancy Pelosi think.
Thank You
March 8, 2007 - 22:00 ET by joshuapchaseYou have conveyed exactly what i feel... and the depth of frustration of traitors within our country that are allowed to do unchecked damage to the core of America makes me sick to my stomach. The fricken idiots who defend the wrong and accuse the right when will we be able to stand up to them and fight the war without our hands in our pockets. I can't imagine what would have happened if the dimocrats had set aside their ambitions for the good of the country... their hatred for Bush replaced for the hatred of the enemy.
What will it take for America to realize that the enemy is within our borders... actively cheering the enemy and longing for us to lose... spewing lies and defeat at the detriment of our country and our standing in the world... that if we had joined together, overlooked politics for the sake of victory and freedom how much better we would be.
It makes me furious... sick... sad...
What the hell?! Pathetic liberal losers...
Geez! You think this type
March 8, 2007 - 17:08 ET by Tim the EnchanterGeez! You think this type of reporting might get to be a habit? Well, I can dream, can't I?
Hopefully, I am feeling much
March 8, 2007 - 17:11 ET by AtheistRepublicanHopefully, I am feeling much better at our chances nowadays then I was, after all the only way we can lose is if we give up, and the media has the strength to stop that if it is fair.
I just can't help but wonder
March 8, 2007 - 17:14 ET by bigtimerI just can't help but wonder if it is ratings...and people in the industry are really waking up to facts.
I know, I may be dreaming too...but they know they have been batting there heads against the wall with FOX being number one...hmmmm...it is confusing.
Time will tell.
Michael Ware was in deep chim
March 8, 2007 - 17:21 ET by jdhawkMichael Ware was in deep chimshee on these very pages not long ago for his CNN reports (see below for details). Whether he is trying to redeem himself or has had a sudden glaring case of the obvious doesn't matter. The fact is, for better or worse, millions of people view CNN across the planet and him having said this is important. If anybody is listening on the lib side is another question.
"Michael Ware is an Australian journalist reporting for CNN as an international correspondent based in Baghdad. He joined CNN in May 2006, after five years with sister-publication Time Magazine. He gained early acclaim as one of the few reporters to establish contacts with the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Iraqi insurgency, thereby gaining insight to the opposition as the Western coalition forces entered the country. Those contacts have sometimes been controversial, as he was one of the first mainstream reporters to give voice to the opposition and his contacts provided him with videotapes of attacks on coalition forces, including the murder of four Blackwater contractors; however, his numerous 'embeds' with American and British military forces have also been the focus of many of his reports as he continues to describe conditions on the ground for both military and civilians in Iraq." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ware .
"Michael Ware is an Aust
March 8, 2007 - 17:48 ET by ghotifun"Michael Ware is an Australian journalist reporting for CNN as an international correspondent based in Baghdad.
And soon to be unemployed...
ghot... LOL! I don't know tho
March 8, 2007 - 17:54 ET by bigtimerghot...
LOL!
I don't know though he has been there a long time...like I said in an earlier post, usually when I see him I turn it out of habit, so this is refreshing...for now.
btw...I rarely watch much on CNN anyway, but now and then I check a few things to keep track of the enemy.
Bigtimer-To quote Alec Baldwi
March 8, 2007 - 18:12 ET by ghotifunBigtimer-
To quote Alec Baldwin from the movie The Hunt for Red October...
Jack Ryan: [in Russian] It is wise to study the ways of ones adversary. Don't you think?
Captain Ramius: [in English] It is.
BTW...I'm not in the habit of quoting Alec Baldwin....
"BTW...I'm not in the ha
March 9, 2007 - 13:22 ET by Roger the Shrubber"BTW...I'm not in the habit of quoting Alec Baldwin....' as Ghoti lights another candle in Ghoti's personal Alec Baldwin shrine.... :p
This timeline strikes me as n
March 8, 2007 - 17:25 ET by Al CzervikThis timeline strikes me as nothing more than political positioning. The dems have politicized this war and will stop at nothing to ensure that defeat is laid at the feet if Bush. The dems are confident that they will take the whitehouse and want to make sure that they don't have to deal with any hard issues; no matter what the cost.
Our potential allies are watching and realize that cooperating with the US in the WOT is a serious risk as long as the dems will pull their support to gain a political advantage at home.
Al, I agree with the politica
March 8, 2007 - 17:33 ET by bassndudeAl, I agree with the political posturing thought. However, this time line is subject to, not only a vote in the house, but the senate as well. It has yet to gain enough support in the house to pass, while this time line in included in the bill. Pelosi hasent been able to bring the dems together as yet. Doubtful that she will. She and Murtha are two of just a few of the dems that are calling for a time line. And I dont think she has the weight to push it through. I have no doubt that IF it got through the senate, Bush will veto. And they do not have a two thirds majority to over ride it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Pull-out right before the elections....but it's not political
March 8, 2007 - 18:21 ET by Eric TurnerThis has probably already been said in some thread somewhere, but let me say it again...
I love how the dems are wanting to end this thing right before the election. Tell me that's not political
Regarding press pieces that s
March 8, 2007 - 18:24 ET by BDRegarding press pieces that serve americas enemies, I invite your attention to the piece by Debra Burlingame in the Wall Street Journal today entitled Gitmos' Guerilla Lawyers that details the efforts expended by New York Public Relations firms on the behalf of Al Queda detainees lawyers.
Upon reading it you will quickly come to the realization that the PR firm was brought in to "Shape the Battlefield" for all legal proceeding by creating stories designed to give the detainees favorable press. Making hardened AQ deatinees caught during firefights look like religious pilgrims with huge dependant families.
Bottom line to the story is that the lawfirm and their PR lackeys undermined the US's war effort for a paltry sum of $749,000.
All I can say is that the detainees captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan while in contact with US forces should have been released in the boardroom of the very prestigious lawfirm of Shearman & Sterling and presented with shotguns.
Hey BD, I just read that same
March 8, 2007 - 21:08 ET by mostlymoderateHey BD, I just read that same artlicle in the Wall Street Journal. That was a real eye-opener of an article and I thank you for bringing it to our attention. As an attorney myself, I never understood why people think citizens of Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. are entitled to the SAME rights as American citizens. Our Constitution protects Americans, not terrorists during wartime. FOr anyone that doesn't have a subscription to WSJ, you can read the article here too: http://www.familysec...
It strikes me that MW felt
March 9, 2007 - 00:24 ET by bulletproofIt strikes me that MW felt it necessary to frame with the "enemies,..., of America" the term "so-called". I had this idea to spread some optimism today cuz Noel Sheppard is such a positive guy, but I guess I'm just too scarred from the Clinton years...this seems to me to represent more of a slow-pitch setup to cover bases that have been brazenly uncovered since November. After all, in my opinion, the congress went through rotation back then NOT because of the Iraq situation, but because of the smear campaign put on by the Media. I think the Libs are just beginning to realize that in order to stay in the line-up then they have to grow up about this heady situation.
Anyone ready for baseball?
I am ready, for baseball, li
March 9, 2007 - 09:14 ET by dvdaughtryI am ready, for baseball, like you can not imagine!
Right on!
March 9, 2007 - 12:28 ET by bulletproofRight on!
CNN better fire Michael Ware
March 9, 2007 - 00:39 ET by DesperadoCNN better fire Michael Ware quickly before John Edwards refuses to have any affiliation with any CNN affiliates because they are just a pawn of the vast right wing conspiracy!
I've always considered CNN to be on the same level as Al Jazeera, and yet today, both of them do stories about how it would embolden our enemies to set a timetable for defeat.
What is going on in this world? I'm confused! I've always counted on the MSM to be predictable, but this is really scaring me. I think even Rush and Ann would be shocked. Better get a defribulator.
Question # 1:Positive News fr
March 9, 2007 - 02:16 ET by NeoConfirmedQuestion # 1:
Positive News from Iraq, is that allowed?
Question # 2:
Before we pull our troops out, will we get an exit strategy?
There is only one exit stra
March 9, 2007 - 04:50 ET by liberal_bug_zapperThere is only one exit strategy that works. Win the friggin war. Leave when the terrorists are no longer attacking in Iraq. This means, kill as many of them as possible. Remember, do not capture our enemy any longer... just kill them. After about 20 to 50 thousand more terrorists are killed in Iraq... no more will flood in to become martyrs.
____________________________________________________
"These are the times that try men's souls." ~ Thomas Paine
THAT RIPS IT, RAINLIZZARD!
March 9, 2007 - 09:15 ET by Dave RWow, it worked again.