Iraq

Around the Web

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, books, Fred Thompson, Giuliani, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iraq, religion, romney
In his latest column, Jonah Goldberg gives the bottom-line reason why no decent or responsible person can support abortion: “I don’t see how you can be that sure, which is why I’m pro-life — not because I’m certain, but because I’m not.”
–
More good news from Iraq, but the bulk of the article is about how decreasing violence is bad for the cemetery business. Cry me a river.
–
As mayor, Rudy Giuliani formed a coalition to combat “anti-immigrant” legislation—which included George Soros, who “Hizzonor” (dopey nickname) recently lashed out at. Seems to me like a two-in-one flip-flop at least as bad, if not worse, as the charges the Rudy hacks regularly level at Mitt Romney. Ye hypocrites!
–
Speaking of the hacks, you know something’s rotten in Denmark when “Republicans” favorably cite the Associated Press.
–
The other frontrunners were unsurprisingly peeved last week when Romney claimed to be the candidate representative of the “Republican wing of the Republican Party,” and responded in kind. That’s politics. But, none of the others came close to telling the kind of lie Fred Thompson’s campaign did, by claiming Romney “ran for Senate to the left of Ted Kennedy.” The discrepancies in Romney’s record are a fair issue. This, however, is a lie – not a matter of casting facts & circumstances in a certain light. I guess ol’ Fred is OK with lying to people to win the presidency. That should give his supporters pause.
–
New, promising books: there are too many of ‘em!
–
Dinesh D’Souza (author of one of the aforementioned books) has an interesting take on miracles, science, and the lack of conflict between the two.

Responding to Iraq Lies

Calvin Freiburger http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iraq, lying, reporter, War on Terror
The Reporter has published my latest letter, a brief rundown of lie vs. truth in Iraq.
–
The truth about Iraq:
–
Lie: “Bush lied about WMDs.”
–
Truth: 2002’s National Intelligence Estimate concluded “Iraq is continuing … its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs.” British, German, French, Russian, Chinese and Israeli intelligence all agreed. The Robb-Silberman Commission found “no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community’s pre-war assessments.” We found 1.77 metric tons of uranium. Polish forces found chemical warheads. Charles Duelfer testified that Hussein intended to restart his programs, and there’s reason to believe WMDs were smuggled to Syria.
–
Lie: “Iraq’s unrelated to terrorism.”
–
Truth: A few examples to the contrary: We’ve found rolls of jihadists trained in Iraq at places like Salman Pak. We know of repeated meetings between Iraqi and al-Qaeda operatives, including the planning meeting for the USS Cole bombing. Jihadists have found safe haven in Iraq.
–
Lie: “U.S. forces terrorize innocent Iraqis.”
–
Truth: Almost all troops have fought heroically and humanely. Incidentally, antiwar hero Jesse MacBeth, a supposed Iraq vet who “confessed” to partaking in American atrocities against Iraqi civilians, was recently exposed as a fraud who never once set foot in Iraq.
–
Lie: “Iraq’s a civil war.”
–
Truth: Writing for Middle East Quarterly, Sgt. David Patten explains: “While the government is weak, there is no political force presenting it with a serious challenge. Iraq is, indeed, an unstable nation, but there is little danger of regime change, the ultimate purpose of a civil war. The armed groups most likely to participate in an eventual civil war lack both the capacity and the will to enter into such a conflict in earnest at the present time…[but] Premature withdrawal could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, creating the conditions for a civil war that do not currently exist.”
–
“Without victory, there is no survival.” – Winston Churchill

Liberal Theory of Relativity

Calvin Freiburger abortion, blogosphere, feminism, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, humor, Iraq, Islam, Islamofascism, liberalism, moonbats
Here’s a rather striking example from the lefty blogosphere of Bush Derangement Syndrome and general resentment of America. The post itself is actually an important message about Islamic honor killings, and I agree 100%. But just when I think the Left might be getting a dose of reality, the Comments section brings the nuts out of the woodwork. The highlights:
–
[A]lthough honor killings are rare in the good old U.S. of A., there are nevertheless plenty of Americans who still place the “family honor” above the welfare of their kin. I point to my parents-in-law, who have now placed their phony-baloney reputations above three generations of sexually abused family members by intimidating anybody who dared suggest that the perpetrators should be exposed.
–
You’ve got my total sympathy for the suffering those creeps put your loved ones through, but two nuts do not a national trend make. And if the perps were to be exposed, they’d go down for the count (that is, unless they got a left-wing judge to hear their case. Ironic, no?). A pretty defining difference between America & the Middle East, I think.
–
It’s important to note that the increase in the number of so-called “honor” killings in Kirkuk goes along with the occupation. The dissolution of the established social structure under the occupation is leading to devastating things.
–
Boy, I’d like to see some solid numbers on that one! But just for fun, let’s temporarily assume it’s true: 1.) “My life is crappy right now, therefore I’m entitled to kill my daughter”? Uh-uh. 2.) It’s entirely proper to condemn Bush’s handling of the war, but that’s a separate issue from whether or not it should be waged at all. Liberals could also use some perspective: y’think those devastating things are likely to get better with the fundamentalists as the country’s dominant force? Dream on.
–
That [viciously anti-woman] attitude exists, sadly, in this country too – it’s just that usually the consequences aren’t death.
–
Out of 300 million people, some consider women inferior?! Unheard of! If somebody wants to argue that it’s a national trend extending far beyond the scope of Bill Clinton, then show me what constitutes that attitude here.
–
Right on about the attitude towards women, an attitude that is deteriorating fast here in this country with all this crazy legislaton being sanctioned by the Supreme Court, with a man being given the legal right to tell a woman what she can do or can’t do with her body.
–
I get it. Bemoan the killing of girls and your (partial) inability to kill children in the same breath. If not for abortion’s human consequences, this would be hilarious.
–
Amidst all this we had the usual assurances that Islam is not to blame for honor killings (a courtesy that the far Left seems to forget when discussing, say, Fred Phelps or abortion-clinic bombers), but the interesting thing was how few could resist the knee-jerk reaction to opine, “Yeah, but America does [insert-crime-here]!” Is it really that hard to make a simple condemnation of evil?
–
The Liberal Theory of Relativity: “Every woe and/or wrongdoing in this world can be related back to the evils of the United States in some way.” Just don’t question their patriotism, whatever you do.

Is Iraq a Civil War?

Calvin Freiburger civil war, Iraq, Islamofascism, War on Terror
Somebody at the Corner (sorry, I don’t recall who) directed my attention to a thoughtful piece by Sergeant David A. Patten of the Third Infantry Division in Baghdad, who explores whether or not the violence in Iraq constitutes a “civil war.” You should take the time to read the rest, but here’s his conclusion:
–
There is no dispute about the dire situation in Iraq. Insurgents, militias, terrorists, and death squads are killing civilians at an alarming rate. Security forces are unreliable, and the Iraqi government is not meeting the needs of the people. Iraq is in a worse state than U.S. policymakers expected it would be three years ago.
–
However, it does not follow that Iraq is in a civil war. While the government is weak, there is no political force presenting it with a serious challenge. Iraq is, indeed, an unstable nation, but there is little danger of regime change, the ultimate purpose of a civil war. The armed groups most likely to participate in an eventual civil war lack both the capacity and the will to enter into such a conflict in earnest at the present time.
–
This does not mean that violence will decline; quite the contrary, as the referendum on the future status of the disputed city of Kirkuk nears, violence may increase. Nor does the central government appear able to consolidate power in the short term. Its inability to provide security and basic services will lead local officials, including unelected leaders of religious factions, to assume more power. But, in the long term, the central government will survive and take on a more significant role in keeping Iraq unified. For U.S. and coalition policymakers, assisting Iraq’s transition to democracy will require patience, diplomacy, and ingenuity.
–
However, unfounded concerns over a civil war erupting could prompt an overreaction from U.S. policymakers. Should they conclude that Iraq is in a civil war—even if they base their determination on political expediency and no clear criteria—the most likely response would be a demand for withdrawal. A premature withdrawal of coalition forces could motivate the Sunni Arab insurgency to unify behind a political program; Sunni Arab civilians would likely lose any remaining confidence in the security forces, and many more would flee their homes. The Jaysh al-Mahdi undeterred would expand its influence and become the government’s rival for the people’s loyalty. Premature withdrawal could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, creating the conditions for a civil war that do not currently exist.

A Democrat for Survival

Calvin Freiburger Democrats, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iraq, Kerrey, War on Terror
As if signs of reemerging sanity in France weren’t unsettling enough, today ex-Senator Bob Kerrey, a committed Democrat, has an editorial in the Wall Street Journal standing for victory in Iraq. Read the whole thing, but here are some highlights:
–
– “Democracy cannot be imposed with military force.” What troubled me about this statement–a commonly heard criticism of U.S. involvement in Iraq–is that those who say such things seem to forget the good U.S. arms have done in imposing democracy on countries like Japan and Germany, or Bosnia more recently.”
–
– “As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.”
–
– “The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.
–
“Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn’t you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.
–
“American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq’s middle class has fled the country in fear.
–
“With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.
–
“The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically ‘yes.’
–
“This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified–though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.”
–
– “We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them.”
Hat tip: The Corner

Just a Bit of Perspective

Calvin Freiburger Bush, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iraq, victories, War on Terror, women
I’m among the last guys on Earth to give the Iraq War’s mismanagement a pass, but for what it’s worth, I think this needs to be said: Right now I’m watching Bill O’Reilly interview an ex-Iraqi ambassador – who happens to be a woman. That’s right; a woman in a position of real power in an Arab government, and it wouldn’t have happened if not for George W. Bush. With so much we’ve promised the Iraqi people, and so much hanging in the balance, we cannot abandon this cause.

Terror Warrior?

Calvin Freiburger 2008, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iraq, War on Terror
Rudy Giuliani should be forgiven for his social liberalism and elected president because he’ll fight an aggressive War on Terror—or so we’re told. Now, even that is questionable:
–
[I]n discussing the deployment of more troops, Mr. Giuliani has been alone in saying that such a strategy may not succeed, potentially providing him cover should the situation in Iraq deteriorate further. And he has put the strategy in a broader context that plays down the importance of Iraq.
–
Terrorists “are going to continue to be at war with us, no matter what the outcome in Iraq,” Mr. Giuliani said recently in New Hampshire. The night before, he said that “there are no sure things,” and that if the United States fails in Iraq, “we have to be ready for that, too.” In California a few days later, speaking of “the danger of focusing on Iraq too much,” he said that complete success there would not win the fight against terrorism, and that failure there would not lose it.
–
I’ve been trying to figure out the why Rudy’s terror rhetoric is so underwhelming yet so appealing to people, and the other night it hit me: it’s nothing the average talk-radio listener off the street couldn’t repeat back to you. “Terrorists will come here…war whether we want it or not…the president has acknowledged mistakes…” which is true enough as far as it goes, but that’s about as specific as America’s Mayor gets (listen for his answer as to what mistakes we made in Iraq…hint: it ain’t there).
–
Man, this house of cards is seriously overdue for a nice, strong gust of wind…

Dad Takes on Petri

Calvin Freiburger Dad, Iraq, Petri, reporter
Like father, like son:
–
Nothing to do with ‘free thinking’
–
Bill Zeleske labels Jim Kiser (outgoing Fond du Lac County Republican Party vice chair) and Holly Schwefel (outgoing Fond du Lac County Republican Party chair) blind partisans for condemning Rep. Tom Petri’s Iraq resolution vote.
–
Mr. Zeleske’s ridiculous, overblown rhetoric is itself a pretty good example of blind partisanship. But a much bigger problem is when Democrats (assisted by enablers like Petri) put their desire to damage the administration ahead of the good of the country.
–
Is there any excuse to be where we are after four years in Iraq? None.
–
Is it fair to condemn the administration for its handling of the war? Absolutely.
–
However, there is a big difference between identifying the administration’s failings and signing on to a resolution that will serve only to give hope to those fighting our troops: The terrorists believe that they can wait us out if they keep killing, every death bringing them closer to the day the American people give up.
–
I believe that Petri stuck his finger in the air and acted accordingly. There is no honor in decision by public opinion poll, made when no other course of action appears to be politically safe. Mr. Petri has not offered leadership regarding the war over the last four years. He now believes that jumping to the anti side is politically expedient.
–
Petri offers the partition of Iraq as a solution, but this is just a shabby device to cover our exit. Anyone who thinks that the Iraqis will neatly divide themselves into three, absent the force of American arms, is delusional.
–
Would Zeleske and (David) Beaster be praising Petri for showing “personal integrity” had he openly criticized the president for not fighting hard enough in Iraq? Of course not.
–
Their attack on Kiser and Schwefel has nothing to do with “free thinking” politicians or “personal integrity”, but rather is about their own lack of it.
–
Paul Freiburger

Al-Sadr’s Boys: Surrendering?

Calvin Freiburger good news, Iraq, War on Terror
More good news from Iraq? Let’s pray this report is true:

—

The Mahdi Army, a predominantly Shia Muslim force led by Moqter al-Sadr, has terrorized Sunnis into fleeing certain Baghdad neighborhoods and has been linked to Iran. Al-Sadr has disappeared from the Iraqi capital and is widely believed to have holed up in Iran. Al-Sadr’s family and senior officers are believed, by elements of American intelligence in Iraq, to have left with him.With al-Sadr’s paymasters gone many mid-level commanders are unpaid. And so are the fighters under them. (In the Mahdi Army, commanders are responsible for the financial well-being of the men under their command.) Some have resorted to extortion, robbery and violent crimes. They are desperate for money. And they are also being hunted by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers throughout Iraq.

[…]

If these negotiations bear fruit, the Mahdi Army could be well on its way to being dismantled , commander by commander, fighter by fighter.

————