Powered by TypePad

« Second-Guessing Frank | Main | Mr. Sulzberger, Tear Down This Wall »

August 06, 2007



Americans, if given the option, would prefer to win.


Look for a Democratic run on the microphones to tell us again how we've already lost and that there's no need to hear from Patreus in September.

Les Nessman

Look for Dems to say "Oh no! This report is only MOSTLY good, not ALL good. We were led to believe it was going to be 100% good. Pull the troops out now!" when the report comes out in September.

Carol Herman

I'm not surprised.

The MSM were the ones who miss-labeled their product. But the Internet turns this stuff on their heads, all of the time, now.

It's easy, for instance, to find reports from Michael Yon (up at InstaPundit). And, other places. People know a whole lot more of what's going on.

And, just like TNR suffered egg on its face for attempting to paint our soldiers in IRAK as animals, we now know even the woman with the deformed face, because she suffered from an IED attack; is nothing more than a fictional character, in a book by Brad Thor.

Scott Thomas BeauCHUMP took the fictional character, and then with The New Republic's "halp," have been trying to pass this off as tripe verfied by "annonymous sources."

The military acted quickly, too. So that everyone in this author's platoon, got put under oath and questioned. Meaning REAL FACT CHECKING. Taken as testimony. UNDER OATH. No fooling around. The military says TNR published a pack of lies.

What did TNR do? They closed their doors for a 3-week vacation.

So, ahead, in the Fall, a lot of things will come home to roost. Even as the Iraqi's parliament also return from their vacations. At least in Irak they have an excuse. It's beastially hot in the desert. Who wants to work when it's 140-degrees in the shade?

Oh, and Patraeus knows how to defeat insurgents. We're buildinga better core with the people. Even though this part of the military machine is hard, human, work.


I propose a rule that the only polls to be acknowledged are those we agree with. Ignore any inconvenient data as flawed.






Dr. Gal Luft, Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global
Security says Osama Bin Laden’s main goal is the destruction of the
U.S. economy - and that, so far, he appears to be succeeding.

class="wntu">Watch the INN Television Interview

Dr. Luft told David Miller of
class="wntu">INN Television at the recent Jerusalem Conference
that the main goal of the radical Islamic Jihad movement is to “bring
the U.S. economy to its knees.” That movement, spearheaded by Bin
Laden and Al Qaeda, started to plan its moves against the United
States after it attributed Moscow’s exit from Afghanistan to Soviet
economic difficulties resulting from the war.

Now Bin Laden thinks he can do the same thing to the United States,
but more so. Dr. Luft explains that Bin Laden is deliberately focusing
on U.S. economic targets. Al Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center
on September 11, 2001, was planned to strike at the epicenter of the
American economy. That attack, which cost the American taxpayer one
trillion dollars in damages, and the subsequent war in Afghanistan and
Iraq, are “bleeding” the American economy of its wealth.

Dr. Luft says that Bin Laden is also attempting to disrupt the
American economy by causing the price of oil to rise. He claims that
the sabotage of oil pipelines in Iraq and attacks on foreign oil
workers in Saudi Arabia succeeded in raising the price of oil by
$10-$15 per barrel.

That price rise alone cost the U.S. economy tens of billions of
dollars in lost wealth. To add salt to the wound, this money,
ironically, is being transferred to America’s enemies in the Middle
East, such as Iran. Iran and radical Saudi groups then use their oil
riches to finance the Jihad, which is dedicated to destroying the
United States.

But this vicious cycle, where America finances its own enemies as well
as the wars to fight them, can be broken, said Dr. Luft. He told
Miller that the U.S. has actually made some significant strides in
reducing American dependence on foreign oil. He explains that in the
1970’s, 30% of electric power was produced from oil - while today that
percentage stands at zero.

What America has to do, asserts Dr. Luft, is to drastically revamp the
inefficient transportation sector. He proposes that the United States
lead a massive international project to improve transport fuel
efficiency. He points out that the technology already exists. “There’s
no need for new research and development” to have cars running on
60-70 miles per gallon, he explains.

Dr. Luft claims that improving fuel economy in the transportation
sector is the most important thing the U.S. can do to strengthen its
economy “and win the war on terror.”

So far, however, without U.S. leadership on this issue, it appears
that Bin Laden is gaining the upper hand. “Bin Laden says he wants oil
to go up to $140 per barrel. Based on what he’s done so far this year,
he’s on his way to getting it,” Dr. Luft lamented.

But Dr. Luft is confident that with the right leadership, the U.S. has
the potential to turn the situation around. “We believe that in 20
years… we can reduce oil demand significantly in the transport sector
and almost eliminate all U.S. oil imports," he said.

Great editorial in the Boston Globe

November 11, 2004

Patrick R. Sullivan

Springtime for bin Laden

R C Dean

This is probably a tribute to the power of the blogosphere. The MSM is continuing with the same old bad news template; if that was the only info in circulation, there would be no basis for these new polls.

But it isn't. Truly independent and reliable reporters now have an outlet, and their reports give support for this change.


This just reported: Sgt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp has recanted the substance of his three articles published in TNR.

According to a military source (via the Weekly Standard), he

[S]igned a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only 'a smidgen of truth,' in the words of our source. . . . According to the military source, Beauchamp's recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military's investigation."



Surprise... another sorry tail (as in ass, not tell - since it was again false), by a Democrat want-a-be's imagination comes to naught. Please somebody tell me just what he hoped to accomplish by this nonsense? Your friend and patriotic non-partison, Scott Thomas Beauchamp...or as others would say as@h#$@!


I guess I see what Foer got, Rick. At virtually the same time Beauchamp was still vouching for his story with the New Republic, he was admitting it was fiction to the Army. Foer has forced himself into the air with this improvised explosive device.


Join the Air Foerce
Plus petard.
Rien des pieds sont
En retard.


If the Army is clever, and Beauchamp an honest man, this can be turned positive. It already is, but it could be a touchdown, not just a first down. Somewhere, when Young Tommie's ship hit the sand, I commented that his best defense was to claim it was fiction.

Maybe we'll get to see what this man is made of. We know he is made of bad prose, viz. 'dogs that smile at the sun after truncal severing'; perhap he can redeem himself with the content of his character. It is his choice, and he made a good one 'fessing up to his military superiors.


Yea, that will fool everyone... Actually, we already know what he is made of and it doesn't smell good.


I know nobody watches MSNBC. I mean really. But I've been watching tucker lately. He's totally against the war, against Bush, but he senses this surge is working and is terrified that if we leave the whole region will go kaboom and we'll be in even worse shape.

He also tells all the lefties who appear like little dolls regularly on MSNBC, that it doesn't matter if al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq in 2003, it doesn't matter if it's Bush's fault they're there now, they're there. And we have to deal with them.

And he admits there needs to be a political solution and that Maliki is doing nothing.

But he's adamant we shouldn't give up.

I'm surprised tucker still has a job there. He even hints he expects to be fired.

(though he didn't really hint as to why.)

This has all been happening only in the last two-three weeks. It's like a warning to the Dems. Ease up or the sh*t that hits will be on YOUR fan.

(In contrast, Scarborough has the new morning show that looks to replace the old one with IMUS. Morning Joe is a man who has totally sold out. I wonder how much he gets paid--though I think it's more the water he's swimming in over there. Bush this. bush that. When are we GETTING OUT of Iraq!!)

I'm blathering on, but watching tucker lately has been very refreshing. Nobody else on cable, anywhere, is talking like he does.

Anti-war, anti-bush, but we can't quit.



I am not so sure that Maliki is doing nothing. Dafydd at Big Lizards makes the point that the position of PM was weakened in Iraq so that we could avoid another strongman like Saddam and now people are complaining that Maliki does not just ram reform through parliament.

It maybe that people are expecting things of Maliki that he is in no position to deliver right now.

Terry Gain

Maliki is doing a better job than...Reid, Pelosi etc.

Maliki isn't prepared to concede Iraq to al Qaeda.


It is obvious that al Qaeda is trying to repeat in Iraq the defeat the mujahideen inflicted on the Russians in Afghanistsn. It doesn't matter that the mujahideen did not bring down the Soviet Union,simply that AQ believes this was so.
AQ is predicated on myths and symbolism,odd that the Democrats share these beliefs and are trying to give them life.


The General will definitely report progress. In fact, I bet any idiot here $100 this is substantially what Petraeus will say in his September 2007 report:

"I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up...Although there have been reverses -- not to mention horrific terrorist attacks -- there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do...We must expect setbacks and recognize that not every soldier or policeman we help train will be equal to the challenges ahead...Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism...Considerable progress is also being made in the reconstruction and refurbishing of infrastructure for Iraq's security forces...

There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way...Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are."

And how do I know this? because that's what Petraeus wrote in his September 2004 op-ed in the Wash. Post three fucking years ago!


Creepydude, Petraeus wasn't in command in 2004. That's the difference.

Bush has found his Grant. You should wish him well.


Why Liberals and Conservatives don't understand each other.

Liberal logic:
Narrative = 80%
Facts = 20%

Conservative logic:
Facts = 100%


So was General Betrayus wrong to report "tangible progress" three years ago or have we really seen three years of continuing progress in Iraq? I thought Bush himself acknowledged a new direction was needed-hence the surge. So many lies, it's hard to keep up.


"Momentum has gathered in recent months."


Here, let me repeat it:

"Momentum has gathered in recent months."

Let's say it all together, now:

"Momentum has gathered in recent months."

It was true in September 2004 and it's true today.

"Momentum has gathered in recent months."

Terry Gain

Dear aptlynamed,

There was in fact steady progress until the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra in February 2006.

Lost ground has now been recovered with the huge added bonus that more and more Iraqis now understand who their real enemy is. In fact, unlike the creepymedia and the creepyparty, most Iraqis probably understand that their real enemy is the same entity that attacked the United States on September 9, 2001.


You remind me of a small child on a car trip who keeps repeating, "Are we there yet?"

Insurgencies historically last about ten years. Unless someone convinces you otherwise, that should be your expectation for how long the insurgency in Iraq lasts.

Terry Gain

oops... September 11th



It was true in September 2004. Yes. What happened in the spring of 2006 in Iraq that changed everything?


oops. terrydude got there first.


the position of PM was weakened in Iraq so that we could avoid another strongman like Saddam

That's an excellent point. Which brings to me something I've been thinking a lot about lately.

Democrats: Government controls the people. The people vote for the government that can control them best.

Republicans: People control their lives. The people vote for the government that interferes with them least.

In Iraq, the Democrats expect the Iraqi government to step in and control everything. But the Republicans are watching the ground up political movement in Iraq--by the people.

Sunni and shia are joining forces to fight al Qaeda---from the ground up, not the goverment down. The Republicans are heartened by this, the Democrats ignore it as irrelevant.

bio mom

Joe Scarborough is pathetic. He doesn't seem to know that he has become a clown and a tool for the liberal Dems at MSNBC. Or maybe he does know but doesn't care. Either way, once Jan. 2009 comes along there will be little need for him there and I predict he will no longer be employed.

Tucker was an early supporter of the war in Iraq. Like so many turncoats he turned tail as soon as things got dificult. I just cannot respect that. The true ideological anti-war types deserve respect despite my disagreement with them.

bio mom

Joe Scarborough is pathetic. He doesn't seem to know that he has become a clown and a tool for the liberal Dems at MSNBC. Or maybe he does know but doesn't care. Either way, once Jan. 2009 comes along there will be little need for him there and I predict he will no longer be employed.

Tucker was an early supporter of the war in Iraq. Like so many turncoats he turned tail as soon as things got dificult. I just cannot respect that. The true ideological anti-war types deserve respect despite my disagreement with them.


Why bother,Crappydude was a slobbering fuckwit when he posted here before,has he made progress? You bet! His stupidity has reached epic proportions.
Interesting to note the Clintonesque "politics of personal destruction" targeted on General Petraeus,ready for the Ides of September,Pity the Democrats cannot stab the real enemy in the back as efficiently and much gusto as they can their own countrymen.What a shower!


This is pretty interesting at Gateway Pundit:

Today in the Opinion Journal, former KGB intelligence officer Ion Mihai Pacepa explained the propaganda tactics of the communists during the Cold War.
Here is a bit of what Pacepa had to say about the communist's propaganda campaign in the West:

During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren't facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.

Does that remind you of anyone?
Here are the words of future democratic Senator John F. Kerry in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971:

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam...

John F. Kerry- Useful Idiot.

hit and run

30 years from now, we will hear a former al qaeda intelligence guy saying how they were actively spreading vitriolic stories of how the US treated detainees in Gitmo in the same way prisoners were treated..."by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.”


"John F. Kerry- Useful Idiot".

Are you sure that's the right description? After all it isn't every day a lowly Lieutenant gets to negotiate a cease fire.



It's pretty clear that a large number of Americans oppose the war in Iraq because of a lack of effectiveness, not due to any sort of lefty anti-war sentiment.

Now if the Bush administration could just take it to the finish line.


And Lo,ask and ye shall be given Military is succeeding in Iraq. News from a surprising quarter.

JM Hanes


I had to laugh reading your abcnews analysis link! It's like the idea of reporting actual progress scares the bejeesus out of the author. He's front loaded so many disclaimers - lest readers inadvertently come away with the impression that victory is at hand, I suppose -- that it's still almost as hard as usual to identify the actual news. There does seem to be some real progress on the headline writing front though, which may be more important.

hit and run

If you experience an Obama newd irection lasting longer than four hours, seek immediate medical attention.

KABUL, Afghanistan - Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf pulled out Wednesday from a council of hundreds of Pakistani and Afghan tribal leaders aimed at reining in militant violence.

Pakistan's Foreign Office said Musharraf was canceling his trip to Kabul because of "engagements" in Islamabad. Pakistani political analyst Talat Masood said, however, that Musharraf probably was responding to recent U.S. criticism of Pakistan's counterterrorism efforts, which has included suggestions that the U.S. could carry out unilateral military strikes against al-Qaida in Pakistan.

But really, is he reacting to a jr senator and 2nd place presidential candidate from the political party not currently in office, more than a year before the election?

Or has Bush or someone else in the administration made the similar statements recently?

"He is trying to convey a strong message to the United States. There have been a lot of statements coming out of Washington about violating Pakistan's sovereignty and so on," Masood said.

A U.S. State Department official said the Bush administration was surprised and dismayed by Musharraf's snub, particularly after Karzai repeatedly expressed satisfaction about the meeting during a joint appearance with President Bush on Monday.

State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said it was unclear if Musharraf could be persuaded to reconsider.

"We'll see if President Musharraf is able to attend any portion of the meeting," McCormack said

hit and run

General Petraeus was interviewed on Alan Colmes' radio show.

The transcript is available at Hugh's.

The dude is a stud.

And I think Colmes did an adequate job, and didn't descend into total lefty looniness.

He tried several gotchas, but not in a completely adversarial role, which Petraeus easily handled. The one exception of what seems like an unfair gotcha...was trying to take a quote from Adm Mullen out of context by selectively truncating it ... which Petraeus saw immediately and first put the quote in context and in full before answering:

COLMES: You know, Admiral Mike Mullen who is testifying before Congress as he is up for chairman of the Joint Chiefs said no amount of troops, no amount of time will make much of a difference in Iraq. Do you concur with that?

PETRAEUS: I think he said something beyond that. Could repeat that.

COLMES: No amount of troops in no amount of time will make difference in Iraq, and I think he's talking about unless you have reconciliation.

PETRAEUS: I think he said no amount of troops in no amount of time will make a difference if there is not commensurate progress on the political level ...

COLMES: Right. It was reconciliation.

PETRAEUS: To eventually lead to national reconciliation. And I have said the same thing. I have said repeatedly that military action is necessary, very necessary but it is not sufficient and I think he is absolutely right.

Long term national reconciliation, the achievement of what we term sustainable security, is only possibly if the Iraqi national leaders can resolve some of these really tough issues with which they've been grappling, issues like the reform of the de-Baathification law, the oil revenue sharing law, provincial powers and provincial elections and so forth.

but reading a transcript is not a substitution for actually hearing the interview, so it may not be an accurate description on my part.

JM Hanes


Musharraf is probably grateful for any excuse to avoid the hot seat as long as he possibly can! I've found myself wondering why he wouldn't actually welcome military intervention in Waziristan, assuming he could figure out how to get around publicly endorsing it. In a piece of almost entirely uninformed speculation, I suspect he fears that if cross border incursions going the opposite direction are successfully interdicted, jihadis will shift their full attention to his own government.

It's telling, I think, that the U.S. didn't officially become the Great Satan in Iran until after the Shah was overthrown. History suggests that a well armed populace full of revolutionary fervor remains a dangerous beast long after its original objective is achieved, and redirecting hostility toward external entities is a classic middle eastern solution for maintaining an otherwise precarious internal status quo.

Of course, lefties who seem positively devoted to specious analogies regularly claim that BushCo has been doing precisely the same thing here at home. In a superficial way, I suppose they're not entirely wrong -- the war in Afghanistan & Iraq has certainly been a major factor in my recent voting. I just happen to believe that the nexus between terrorists and nations formerly known as rogue pose a demonstrable threat. When it comes to dread incursions on civil liberties, I worry a whole lot more about all those career professionals we're supposed to trust at the DoJ than the White House and its military tribunals.

It takes a serious case of BDS to ignore Patrick Fitzgerald's Congressional Hymn to the Patriot Act in favor of casting Bush as our domestic Satan. DoJ careerists chafe at restraints and directions imposed by transient political appointees at the top of the heap, but the organizational chart was designed that way for a reason which has gone almost entirely ignored in the current contretemps over Atty firings & Gonzales. The power to make such appointments is not simply a presidential perk, it's how we make the most potentially dangerous arm of government accountable to the people via presidential elections. But I digress....

hit and run

Musharraf for AG?

hit and run

More fallout from Obama's newd irection:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Political turmoil in Pakistan deepened Thursday when the government raised the possibility that embattled President Gen. Pervez Musharraf might impose a state of emergency, drawing condemnation that doing so would be a desperate bid to hold onto power.

Tariq Azim, the minister for state information, said a state of emergency could not be ruled out because of "external and internal threats" and deteriorating security in Pakistan's volatile northwest near the Afghan border.

Azim also said talk from the United States about the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan "has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public." He mentioned Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama by name as an example of someone who made such comments, saying his recent remarks were one reason the government was debating a state of emergency.

But hey, what's the fall of an ally in a nuclear country where the alternative could well be an Islamist govt run by jihad loving terrorists -- to someone who's trying to bump up his polling numbers a few points by being hawkish 15 months from an election?

Priorities people. A little perspective here.

Back to Obama

"President Musharraf has a very difficult job, and it is important that we are a constructive ally with them in dealing with al-Qaida," the Illinois senator said.

Musharraf continued, "Senator Obama. You keep using this word constructive. I do not sink it means what you sink it means."

Reached for comment, Obama responded, "Listen, Musharraf is threatening to impose a state of emergency to which his political opponents are calling foul. Me? If he moves forward with this option, in my opinion, he takes a step forward to becoming a real dictator -- one that I would respect, and one that I would then be willing to promise to meet with in the first year of my administration. I might ask to see evidence that he is brutally repressing his people and actively, if covertly, plotting to harm US and western interests first, but this would definitely be step in the right direction, a constructive step."


Sounds again like the left is doing a rerun of its Viet Nam strategy---attack the existing govt as not perfect enough so that you can bring them down and have them replaced by a real enemy.

The comments to this entry are closed.