Ever since MoveOn.org completely embarrassed the Democrats with their slanderous ad about General Patreus, the Dems have been very mum and quiet about the War on Terror, in particular, the pacifying of Iraq.
It is no secret that the surge strategy is working now and has been for several months. Where there used to be headline after headline about more U.S. troop deaths in Iraq, the headlines barely mention it anymore. In other words, "if it isn't bleeding, it isn't leading." Old Media will never make front page news out of a situation that appears to be going good, especially if such news makes a Conservative look good. Old Media will instead sniff out stories to make the Conservative look bad.
But they can no longer do that with Iraq. That's why the Dems are quiet. They don't want to admit that they were wrong and Presdient Bush, under advisement of his military commanders, was right.
According to the Review & Outlook section of the Wall Street Journal:
| Across the political spectrum, observers have announced the surge a success. This achievement must be a source of enormous pride to the U.S. soldiers and Marines who have pulled it off. So what we take away from the four Democratic Presidential candidates' stunning display of misinformation and false statements about the surge Saturday evening is that they have simply stopped thinking about Iraq. They seem to have concluded that opposition to the war permits them to literally not know what the U.S. or the Iraqis are doing there. As the nation commences the selection of an American President, this is a phenomenon worth noting. |
What Barack Obama said is most noteworthy here:
| His first assertion echoed what has become a standard line by the war's opponents, that "we have not made ourselves safer as a consequence." What can this possibly mean? In more than six years there hasn't been one successful terrorist attack on the U.S., even as places elsewhere were hit or actively targeted. Then Senator Obama placidly said that the Sunnis in Anbar Province began to help the U.S. "after the Democrats were elected in 2006." What's more, the Democrats' victory showed them they were "going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias." This obviously means the Democrats would abandon them. But the Sunni Awakening, as it is called, with its fall in bloodshed, occurred only after the Anbar Sunnis were convinced that the U.S. troops would not abandon them to al Qaeda in Iraq. Sunni sheiks have said explicitly it was the new U.S. policy of sustaining the offensive against AQI that made it possible for them to resist the jihadists. The U.S. military has supported the spread of these "awakening councils" in other areas of Iraq. It is navel-gazing in the extreme for Mr. Obama to suggest U.S. Congressional elections caused this turn. |
Perhaps someone out there will remind B. Hussein Obama that his own leader in the Senate, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, was all over the national news screaming, "The war is lost!"
If Obama honestly believes that such an attitude caused the changes in Anbar, then surely the Senator will purchase a bridge is Brooklyn that I have for sale.
More:
| Governor Bill Richardson, who touts his foreign policy credentials, in the space of a minute made five false statements about Iraq. He asserted "zero" internal reconciliation, "zero" progress on sharing oil revenue, "zero" regional elections, "no" increased effort by the government to train their own security forces and "no" effort to push back against Iran. One can certainly question what the Iraqis have done in all these areas, but to reduce the last year to a nullity isn't worthy of a serious candidate. "If you look at what happened in Iraq," said John Edwards, you'll see that violence fell after the British withdrew from "where those troops were located." This is precisely the opposite of what happened. The Brits were located in southern Basra province, and their drawdown began last month after what U.K. Foreign Secretary David Miliband at the handover ceremony called a "massive" decline in insurgent activity. Mr. Edwards's view that a troop pullout will reduce Iraq's violence is unique among public figures anywhere. In different ways one can explain the views of these three. Senator Obama seems to be talking his way toward believing that eloquence and credibility are the same thing; Mr. Edwards's campaign is aggressively parochial in its interests; and Bill Richardson used the debate Saturday to blow up the remnants of his campaign. |
The Dems need a serious reality check.
You can access the complete article on-line here:
Democrats In Denial
Wall Street Journal
January 8, 2008
And in a previous blog entry, we saw how Mara Salvatrucha, aka MS-13, defaced a Vietnam Veterans War memorial in Connecticut. It seems as though they have struck again.
From the World Net Daily:
| Authorities in New Haven, Conn., have launched an investigation into the establishment of the radically violent MS-13 street gang in their city after a second case of apparently gang-related vandalism within a week. ... "This irks me. This hurts me deep to my heart," Vietnam Army veteran Emery Linton Sr. told the station then. Linton, who served in Vietnam from 1969 to 1972, noted he lost friends there and called the mess on the memorial a slap in the face to veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. "People here respect these names. They gave their lives for everything, for the freedoms they have," Linton said. As WND reported, the El Salvador-based MS-13 operates in 44 U.S. states, according to the FBI. WND reported as early as 1995 the gang reportedly was meeting with representatives of al-Qaida and smuggling operatives into the United States from Mexico. |
It should be especially noted here that New Haven, Connecticut is a sanctuary city that provides illegal aliens with driver's licenses so they can access public services at the taxpayer's expense.
And exactly how long will we continue turning our heads in the opposite direction?
You can access the complete article on-line here:
MS-13 Hits Vietnam Vets' Memorial Again
World Net Daily
January 8, 2008
Finally, we have the Supreme Court looking into the issue of whether or not execution by lethal injection causes pain for the condemned. Check this out:
| Several justices indicated a willingness to preserve the three-drug cocktail that is authorized by three dozen states that allow executions. Such a decision would allow lethal injections, on hold since late September, to resume quickly. Justice Antonin Scalia said states have been careful to adopt procedures that do not seek to inflict pain and should not be barred from carrying out executions even if prison officials sometimes make mistakes in administering drugs. "There is no painless requirement" in the Constitution, Scalia said. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito also indicated their support for the states' procedures. Other members of the court, who have raised questions about lethal injection in the past, said they are bothered by the procedures used in Kentucky and elsewhere in which three drugs are administered in succession to knock out, paralyze and kill prisoners. The argument against the three-drug protocol is that if the initial anesthetic does not take hold, a third drug that stops the heart can cause excruciating pain. The second drug, meanwhile, paralyzes the prisoner, rendering him unable to express his discomfort. "I'm terribly troubled by the fact that the second drug is what seems to cause all the risk of excruciating pain, and seems to be almost totally unnecessary," said Justice John Paul Stevens. |
I'm terribly troubled by the fact that these murderers caused excrutiating pain to their victims and the victims' families but libs only have feelings for the murderers, not the murdered.
I thought libs were supposed to be sensitive people.
You can access the complete article on-line here:
Justices Divided Over Lethal Injections
Mark Sherman
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
January 8, 2008
