Seems that’s the message from Democratic leaders in Congress. Appropriations from the house, a $50 billion dollar funding, was sent to the Senate where it was defeated because the funding demanded a withdrawal of US troops by December 2008.
Perhaps it has to do with all the good news coming out of Iraq? And seriously, who wants to retreat from an action we’re finally winning?
There is an answer to that question. The word starts with a D and ends with “emocrats”.
Work has been keeping me busy with two looming proposal deadlines & stacks of lab reports demanding grading. But I’ve been paying attention to the latest news, and to tell you the truth, I’ve been rather uninspired to write about anything (until tonight, when I came across two interesting science stories (I’ll talk about later)).
Politics news has been rather boring. Hillary made a misstep at the debate on Sunday, but it turns out, nobody cares! In fact, 1/3 of the people in the country think politicians have their best interests in mind! Fools!
I think what I find the most amusing is all the waterboarding that’s going on. Now, according to some official records, the US has officially waterboarded 3 people. Well, Code Pink has done more than that! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WILL SOMEONE PLEASE STOP THE TORTURE!
On a tangent, I’ve been relatively quiet on the whole issue of torture. It’s good we have the public debate on torture (something you won’t get in Cuba), but I didn’t want to weigh in because there’s no solid definition for torture. One person’s torture is not another person’s torture. And some torture works, and other torture doesn’t. Is sleep deprivation torture? Cold rooms (if that’s the case, the university I work at needs to be contacted by Amnesty International)? Electroshock? Waterboarding? Loud music? Loud Striesand?
What needs to be done, and will never be done, is a definition of acceptable interrogation techniques and a list of unacceptable interrogation techniques, and then define those as torture. If most think waterboarding is torture, then it’s torture. If they think electroshock is OK, then it’s not torture.
I think Code Pink has done an invaluable public service by having their “waterboarding-in” on the steps of the Capitol. If Code Pink can actually get members to get waterboarded, in public, repeatedly, without worry of public reprisal, then waterboarding isn’t as serious as we thought.
Think about it. If Code Pink was out in front of the Capitol pulling out fingernails with pliers, somebody would get arrested. Smashing toes with hammers? Arrested. But if they wheeled up some speakers and started blasting Korn? No cops. (They did that to me at the Student Union. That was fun.) Hooking Cindy Sheehan up to a car battery? Torture. Having a press conference with Cindy Sheehan? Torture, too!
But let’s face it. Once our country defines and starts condoning some things that may or may not be torture, then we’re opening our people up to get tortured as well. Some claim that to be a problem. but if Al Queda gets ahold of some of our troops, are they going to treat them well? What about Jill Carroll from the Christian Science Monitor who was coerced into saying her kidnappers were some really nice guys? And she was a civilian. Think what they’d do an American serviceman.
But in reality, we don’t want to talk about torture because we’re America. We’re supposed to be land of the free. But much of the rest of the world is focused on Guantanomo Bay. They think the US is just one big torture factory. So why should we talk about this and give the rest of the world an official reason to hate us? And what does that do to the national conscience once we say some torture techniques are ok?
What’s best is a gray area. We know the CIA has to do some unconscionable things for reasons of national security. We don’t like it, and if we find out about it, we’ll take them to task. But to remove any interrogation techniques from the table because some people can’t stomach it is silly. This debate has good arguments on both sides of the coin, but once the government defines what torture is and what it can or can’t do, then it condones some torture, and we can’t have a government that tacitly condones torture.
That’s what Time is saying:
The violence was of course nothing new, especially for the Baquba area, which remains the most troubled region in Iraq outside Baghdad. But the bloodshed showed how the success of the surge of U.S. forces in Baghdad and Anbar Province nine months on has perhaps gone as far as it can toward controlling Iraq’s violence.
What’s nauseating is the lengths our media will go to throw water on good news. Sure, Baquba is still experiencing violence, but place around Iraq are experiencing less to no violence.
Why do they have to bring out a story like this? Why not focus on the good news on the ground? Why do they have to carry water for the “leave Iraq now!” Democrats?
If the plan is working province-by-province, it’ll get to Baquba soon enough. Why do you think the violence has spiked there? Because the fearmongers are afraid. They see AQI being bludgenoned. Their mighty leader, OBL, has chastised them for not fighting hard enough. It’s positive news– the surge is working.
This is exactly what the US population wanted in 2006 when the swept out the Republicans and inserted the Democrats. They wanted a change in Iraq, and Bush gave them a change– a change which is working. As a result, the electorate is beginning to feel much better about Iraq, despite the MSM’s attempts to paint it as anything other than working system.
That’s Osama, not Obama, Mitt.
Osama bin Hidin’ has released a new audio tape blasting his IED terrorists for being “negligent” in proper application of the terrorist technique. He’s also railing against the Iraqis for not killing enough Iraqis in the name of Jihad against the West. Seems his rants are falling on deaf ears in Iraq, where Sunni and Shia sects are finally working together to end the violence in Iraq.
You know, when people are cowed by a dictator’s brutal rule, they’re easily intimidated by another’s brutal techniques. But after having the American Military there, fighting to protect the Iraqis and restore peace to Iraq, while AQI slaughtered men, women, children, families, and police in an effort to intimidate, people finally saw who was fighting for Iraq. And they’ve had enough of AQI, and soon they’ll have enough of the Mahdi Army, and they’ll have enough of Iran attempting to destabilize their country.
The Iraqis are now casting off the chains of dictatorship they were so used to wearing and they’re starting to walk free.
But I guess hope isn’t something that’s common nowadays, especially in the media. But Yon’s words from Iraq is that things are getting much better. That was Petraeus’s point before Congress, too.
It’s like having a competent military with a faithful C-in-C works. Wow. Who’d a thunk it?
I’d tip Michael as much as I could, but I’m just not getting enough money from Big Oil to spare to his worthy cause. If you’ve got some excess cash, though, donate to Michael’s tipjar.
Sounds funny, right? Sounds like a farce?
A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and that’s cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds.
Few people have a better sense of the death rate in Iraq .
“I always think of the increasing and decreasing of the dead,” said Sameer Shaaban, 23, one of more than 100 workers who specialize in ceremonially washing the corpses. “People want more and more money, and I am one of them, but most of the workers in this field don’t talk frankly, because they wish for more coffins, to earn more and more.”
I’m actually speechless at the blatant transparency of this article. “McClatchy Newspapers: All Bad News, All The Time”?
From Hot Air. Here’s the video:
I find it absolutely amazing, starting with the answer from Robin Wright. For the past 5 years, we’ve been inundated with soldier death counts and civilian death counts in Iraq. Some of those stories have been true– others, less so. But I think that the number itself has been reasonably reported. For 5 years.
And now that there’s a decline, Robin thinks it shouldn’t be reported because the numbers might not be totally accurate. Get that? They’re good enough to print when they’re bad news, but if they’re good news, they have to be vetted.
On the other hand, you’ve got the CNN Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr who’s unwilling to publish the information because she doesn’t know if it’s a trend or not. Got that? It’s a trend only if it fits the perceived trend of those reporting the news. Notice that’s happening here– the news is being edited for content by those reporting it. In other words, the Fourth Estate is out there reporting what they want us to see, not what is actually going on. Doesn’t this violate every ethical standard of journalism?
If I go to Wikipedia (trusted information source!), and look up “ethics journalism”, I get a page on the Journalism ethics and standards. And featured prominently is Objectivity:
Interference with reporting by any entity, including censorship, must be disclosed
So how about if the reporter interferes with their own reporting? What’s that?
Read the whole thing and you’ll understand more about the current conflict than watching 7 weeks of CNN.
Nancy Pelosi isn’t happy with the current Iraq strategy. I am shocked and amazed that she isn’t.
“President Bush’s policy announced by General Petraeus is a path to 10 more years of war in Iraq. General Petraeus’ testimony to Congress drew a bright line: redeployment is not an option; endless war in Iraq is the Administration’s only option.
Even though Petraeus clearly stated the comments “These are my comments, it won’t stop Pelosi from making political hay by claiming it’s Bush’s comments through a mouthpiece.
Considering that the 2006 election wasn’t a referendum on withdrawal, but a referendum on shift of strategy (”do it right or get out”, essentially), Petraeus has certainly been “doing it right” with the improvement of conditions in Iraq. For Pelosi to demand greater troop reductions which fly in the face of the theater commander is an investment in defeat. If she wanted success, she’d be applauding Petraeus’ efforts instead of sabotaging them. Make no mistake– the Democrats are now firmly invested in defeat, not victory. Even Osama Bin Laden knows it.
It’s interesting as it’s exactly the opposite of what the “moderates” want.
Schumer’s out there saying that Patreus is a Bush shill and shouldn’t be believed as he’s a mouthpiece for the White House. A mouthpiece, as it turns out, who has an excellent counterinsurgency strategy that seems to be working.
Considering the “moderates” who were watching the Republican debate last night scored through the roof whenever a candidate mentioned “winning in Iraq”, I think it’s clear what the majority of Americans want– a victory in Iraq.
So with Harry Reid declaring defeat and Pelosi urging a pullout of troops to leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves, it’s no wonder the approval ratings for Congress are in the crapper.
It’s clear– America wants to win in Iraq. They were upset in 2006 because the White House was bungling in Iraq. If the GOP wants to win in ‘08, they need to hammer the idea home that the Democrats aren’t interested in victory in Iraq. And you’ll see the GOP retake the House.
Recent Comments