US Partisan Politics and Foreign Affairs

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com

While Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Dems or Democratic party faithful admit the surge is working but claim the good news comes too late, those supporting US troops never view advances toward victory as 'too late.' Nor do they place political motives above matters of national defense, security or support of the US military.

There is no need to revisit the civilian and political interference that has presented the greatest obstacle to victory in Iraq as it has been thoroughly addressed by everyone to date. However, positive news has been sorely neglected and a few notes are worth repeating.

Just this week Iraqi government leaders reached an agreement to resolve sectarian differences. While agreement by the entire Iraqi parliament is required and not guaranteed, this event is a breakthrough in what has been the Iraqi obstacle in this war.

Not long ago tribal leaders in previous hot spots in the country have joined with US military forces to oust Al-Qaeda from Iraq. The senseless murder of civilians by the terrorist group has finally been recognized as unacceptable by influential regional leaders in various provinces.

Countering the influence of Iran in the Iraq war are efforts like General Odierno who says the US is attacking supply lines of those offering money, material and trainers for Iraqi sectarian extremists. In addition the case is being made to Iraqis that Iranian involvement is not in the long term interests of Iraq. However, the General adds the Iranian factor is still significant.

In a report from VOA, President Bush again expressed displeasure with Iran's actions in the Iraq war in a speech to members of the American Legion.

Stearns report (mp3) - download 630K audio clip Listen to Stearns report (mp3) audio clip President Bush says Iran must stop arming militants who are attacking U.S. troops in Iraq.

Other events concerning Iran include their own saber-rattling and defiance to international opposition on their various nuclear programs as described below.

Pace report (mp3) - Download 567k audio clip Listen to Pace report (mp3) audio clip

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that, contrary to recent news reports, Tehran has not slowed its nuclear activity. In a lengthy news conference in the Iranian capital, the president also warned Iran would respond if the United States goes ahead with plans to label the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.

Urging by political opponents of President Bush for the US to enter talks with regimes in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere may not be having the effect suggested by those same opponents. But overall, Us efforts in Iraq are showing much improved results since the beginning of the surge. Including this week's surprise event which should probably not be taken at face value.

Iraqi cleric Sadr suspends militia activities By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent 518pm BST 29/08/2007

The powerful Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr moved to rein in his increasingly murderous followers today, announcing his popular Shia militia would stand down for six months following the deaths of more than 50 pilgrims in the holy city of Karbala.

The Democratic party leadership, like Majority Whip James Clyburn, recently expressed concern that a positive report from General Patraeus in September may split the party. Shortly after that reports surfaced that no matter what the General reported, the left would view it as a lie. Further evidence that the political left is obstructing the war effort as alleged earlier.

In other words, ever since those in Congress who oppose victory in Iraq were defeated on continued funding for the war, limited obstruction from civilian authorities have allowed military efforts to turn the corner that has fostered positive outcomes in Iraq.

Other foreign affairs issues that have been the focus of most criticism of the Bush Administration's performance include relations with Russia, Israel, Palestine and North Korea to mention a few. Events like Pelosi traveling to Syria or Dems urging talks with Iran or North Korea have been used to attack the Administration's positions. So how are things working out so far.

Again from VOA news a report outlining Congressional efforts to advance nuclear arms control with an old nemesis from the Cold War.

Fedynsky report (mp3) - Download 639k audio clip Listen to Fedynsky report (mp3) audio clip Senator Richard Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn, authors of U.S. legislation to reduce the post-Soviet nuclear arsenal, are in Russia in an effort to further tighten global controls on weapons of mass destruction.

If you are old enough to have been on the planet when US President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin worked on the Camp David Accords, you may have experienced an optimistic expectation tempered with an objective pessimism over the chances for Mid-East peace.

The first discussion over critical issues between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in seven years may have given rise to similar optimism but by now few would have truly expected progress. The excerpts below document the endless travel over all too familiar posturing.

The Israeli mood is summed up by analyst Dan Schueftan: "Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not even a remote option. We will have to learn to live with the idea that for generations the Palestinian people has decided that fighting us is more important than giving a better future for their children," Schueftan said.

Those fears were reinforced after the Islamic militant group Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip from Mr. Abbas's more moderate Fatah faction in a civil war two months ago. Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar said negotiations with Israel are a waste of time.

He says the only way to liberate Palestine is through jihad or holy war.

Palestinian moderates, like former Cabinet minister Ziad abu Zayyad, said Israel's failure to advance the peace process brought Hamas to power. "There is no chance of a peace agreement," Abu Zayyad told Israel Radio. He said Israel does not have the resolve to dismantle dozens of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

So with that much skepticism, why are Israeli and Palestinian leaders reporting progress on a framework for a peace agreement? Schueftan, the Israeli analyst, says the answer lies in Washington.

Another topic related to the illusive pursuit of world peace on the world leaders 'to do' list is nuclear power wannabe North Korea.

According to the February 13 Agreement, North Korea must declare all nuclear programs but their effort in manipulating the term “nuclear programs”, excluding the nuclear weapons from the list, is causing much hubbub.

The report above suggests there is no reason to be especially optimistic about talks between the US and North Korea. While it is better than a daily reminder of increasing tension or some concern of an imminent showdown, current talks may be nothing more than a delay of the inevitable. From what has been characterized as the most unpredictable regime on the planet, a most predictable course of bad faith negotiating emerges. And many criticized the US for not talking to North Korea earlier.

Any accommodations made by President Bush to resolve issues with the Democratic party and a few GOP members in Congress may less effective than if he had maintained his rigid position with regard to certain countries. Softening the approach may be what led Iran to make the ridiculous offer to fill the power vacuum in Iraqi politics. In addition, talks with North Korea are showing symptoms of DPRK intentions to circumvent an effective agreement.

The upside is conditions in Iraq have improved enough to potentially torpedo the left antiwar strategy. Talks with Iran and North Korea have not yet disintegrated. Maybe the US and Russia will move away from a return to Cold War positions and at least Israel and Palestine have talked about things that were ignored for the last seven years. Other than Iraq, no improvements really, just more of a time out.

There is no proof that politics are necessary for international diplomacy. Although diplomats and politicians will argue that point ad infinitum. It may be the wrong approach to expect people to resolve differences equipped only with the idea we should all be adequately intelligent to do so. If we learn how to remove politics from negotiation the solution may find us.

Baird's Courage: "It could well cost me the next election, That's alright."

Cross posted from Wake up America Representative Brian Baird, Democrat, a man that has been staunchly against our actions in Iraq since the beginning, has maintained that position, was against the surge returned from Iraq with news of progress, then followed up with a written piece called "Our Troops Have Earned More Time". He is catching hell for standing up for what he believes is right. First his thoughts on Iraq:

The invasion of Iraq may be one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. As tragic and costly as that mistake has been, a precipitous or premature withdrawal of our forces now has the potential to turn the initial errors into an even greater problem just as success looks possible. As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed. I understand the desire of many of our citizens and my colleagues in Congress to bring the troops home as soon as possible. The costs have been horrific for our soldiers, their families, the Iraqi people and the economy. If we keep our troops on the ground we will lose more lives, continue to spend billions each week, and, given the history and complex interests of the region, there is no certainty that our efforts will succeed in the long run. We must be absolutely honest about these costs and risks and I am both profoundly saddened and angry that we are where we are. Knowing all this, how can someone who opposed the war now call for continuing the new directions that have been taken in Iraq? The answer is that the people, strategies and facts on the ground have changed for the better and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done. To understand the magnitude of the challenge and why it is taking time for things to improve, consider what happened as the result of the invasion and post-invasion decisions. Tens of thousands of Iraqi lives have been lost and hundreds of thousands have fled the country. We dismantled the civil government, police, armed forces and the nation's infrastructure. We closed critical industries and businesses, putting as many as a half million people, including those who best knew how to run the infrastructure and factories, out of work and filled with resentment. We left arms caches unguarded and the borders open to infiltration. We allowed schools, hospitals and public buildings to be looted and created conditions that fanned sectarian conflicts. It is just not realistic to expect Iraq or any other nation to be able to rebuild its government, infrastructure, security forces and economy in just four years. Despite the enormous challenges, the fact is, the situation on the ground in Iraq is improving in multiple and important ways. Regardless of one's politics or position on the invasion, this must be recognized and welcomed as good news. Our soldiers are reclaiming ground and capturing or killing high-priority targets on a daily basis. Sheiks and tribal groups are uniting to fight against the extremists and have virtually eliminated al-Qaida from certain areas. The Iraqi military and police are making progress in their training, taking more responsibility for bringing the fight to the insurgents and realizing important victories. Businesses and factories that were once closed are being reopened and people are working again. The infrastructure is gradually being repaired and markets are returning to life. Without question, these gains are still precarious and there are very real and troubling problems with the current Iraqi political regime and parliament at the national level. The Iraqis are addressing these problems along with our own State Department but these issues will not easily be resolved and could, if not solved, throw the success of the entire endeavor into jeopardy. Those problems notwithstanding, to walk away now from the recent gains would be to lose all the progress that has been purchased at such a dear price in lives and dollars. As one soldier said to me, "We have lost so many good people and invested so much, It just doesn't make sense to quit now when we're finally making progress. I want to go home as much as anyone else, but I want this mission to succeed and I'm willing to do what it takes. I just want to know the people back home know we're making progress and support us." From a strategic perspective, if we leave now, Iraq is likely to break into even worse sectarian conflict. The extremist regime in Iran will expand its influence in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. Terrorist organizations, the people who cut off the heads of civilians, stone women to death, and preach hatred and intolerance, will be emboldened by our departure. In the ensuing chaos, the courageous Iraqi civilians, soldiers and political leaders who have counted on us will be left to the slaughter. No American who cares about human rights, security and our moral standing in the world can be comfortable letting these things happen. Our citizens should know that this belief is shared by virtually every national leader in the Middle East. There is also near-unanimity among Iraq's neighbors and regional leaders that partition of Iraq is not an option. "You may think you can walk away from Iraq," I was told by one leader. "We cannot. We live here and have to deal with the consequences of what your nation has done. So will you eventually, if the Iraq conflict spreads and extremists bring us down as well." I do not know the details of what the September report will contain, but I trust and respect Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker. I have seen firsthand the progress they have made, and I firmly believe we must give them the time and resources they need to succeed. Though we would all wish this conflict would end tomorrow, it will not. We are going to have to begin to withdraw troops next spring because our equipment and our soldiers are wearing out. However, even with the progress that has been made of late, we will have a significant military and civilian role in Iraq and the region for some time to come. That is the price we must all pay for the decision to invade. We cannot shirk that responsibility. Progress is being made and there is real reason for hope. It would be a tragic waste and lasting strategic blunder to let the hard-fought and important gains slip away, leaving chaos behind to haunt us and our allies for many years to come.

For more than three hours Monday night, Rep. Brian Baird was verbally flogged by hundreds of his constituents for no longer supporting the quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

More than 500 people packed a high school auditorium in Vancouver while another 175 or so were unable to get inside. And virtually everyone who got a chance to address the Vancouver Democrat were harshly critical - including several who said they had been long-time supporters and friends. "You have just broken my heart," said Phil Massey, a Vancouver ship's pilot who wasn't swayed by Baird's explanation that the U.S. was finally starting to make some progress in bringing peace to Iraq. "You have screwed up, my friend. You have screwed up and you have to change course." That was two hours into the meeting and the crowd was still loaded for bear as the room broke into loud applause. At several points in the evening, Baird simply leaned against the stage with his arms folded, his head down as he let the crowd vent. But he also vigorously disputed several points made by the speakers and defended his independence from the Bush administration. He insisted that he is taking the courageous path. "The easiest thing in the world would have been to go over there...and just say, using partisan rhetoric, 'Get out now,'" he said. As the evening wore on, Baird repeatedly insisted that Iraq would descend into worse chaos if the U.S. withdrew precipitously, with Iran gaining greater influence. "I think the probability is 95 percent if we withdraw prematurely, in our hearts we will live to regret it," he said. Baird said industries are starting to reopen and things are starting to get better. "We're putting people back to work and that is good news," he said. "I am truly impressed by Brian's willingness to stand here and take it gracefully," said Joy Overstreet, a Vancouver writer, as the meeting passed the two-hour mark. But she said she would consider voting out the congressmen next year if there is a "viable alternative." "It could well cost me the next election," Baird said at the end of the meeting. "That's alright." There were, however, some hints that Baird's new stance also had attracted some people. Bill Turlay, a Vancouver Republican and Navy veteran, said he hadn't voted for Baird before. But he said he was impressed by Baird's new stance on Iraq and said, "I'm going to seriously consider him next year."

In here lies the problem with this debate going on across the country. Those against Iraq do not care to hear about progress, do not have any interest in succeeding or attaining victory. They want Baird to follow along no matter what the conditions on the ground are, no matter what progress is being seen militarily and politically in Iraq. Politics trump victory. But not for Baird. I will be the first to admit I disagree with Brian Bird on a regular basis, but the man does have courage and he has shown that despite his opposition regarding Iraq, he was willing to go there, see what was happening and come back and take a very unpopular stand because he believed it was the right thing to do. He is right, he could have very well gone, seen and come back and ignored the progress and just lied to his supporters and simply said, we still need to leave. But victory, success and the fine work our troops have done means more to him than his next election. Instead of being proud that they elected a man of principle, the verbally flog him for telling the truth as he witnessed it? What does that say about them? (NOTE: Instead of leaving you with the advertisements I usually have at the bottom of each post, I will leave you with one of the videos from Freedoms Watch) [30 second video.] Gold Star Mother: .

Is Your Church a Secret Sanctuary?

Disclaimer: This article does not discount the faith of those true pacifists who have plumbed the depths of their Christian conscience and ardently believe that there is no such thing as a just war, or that no person should ever be turned away regardless of individual circumstances. The growth of leftist Christianity within Catholicism, Mainline Protestantism, and even among Evangelical Christians, is a frightening phenomena that has received scant attention. Last week’s news of the arrest and deportation of the Sanctuary movement’s spokesperson, Elvira Arellano, highlights not only the strength of the left within urban churches, but Marxist Christianity (or Liberation Theology) is a fast-growing evolution of heretical Christianity effecting every little congregation is the U.S. Elvira Arellano became the face behind the nation's immigration debate when she sought refuge from immigration authorities in a Chicago church a year ago. U.S. immigration officials had ordered her deportation for working at O'Hare International Airport using a false Social Security number. But Arellano holed up for a year in the Chicago sanctuary so she wouldn't be separated from her 8-year-old U.S. citizen son. Many traditional American’s have failed to realize the actual links between today’s political movements and our churches. Many of these links come through denominational sponsored charitable networks and coalitions such as the National Council of Churches. The National Council of Churches Supports the U.N. . . .It's not as simple as the NCC agreeing with your philosophy...it's the matter of a percentage of the funds you give to your church being sent to the headquarters of your denomination and from there, likely, a donation made to the NCC. These figures are difficult to confirm, but the National Council of Churches must be funded in some manner. On the positive side, family.org reports that donations from mainstream churches have significantly declined, but have been replaced with funds from political-action groups - and numerous qualify as "far-left" activism. Some political movements have made genuine progress for humanity in this country. One example comes from the Black church in America. There is no doubt that the civil rights movement would have gone nowhere if it were not for the political activism within the Black churches in America. The strength of the Black churches in America is evidenced by the fact that until recently almost every Black politician who managed to gain national recognition had a Rev. next to his/her name. It would be a grave mistake to discount the growing political activism and influence the leftist church is exerting on the questions of warfare and of immigration. The New Sanctuary movement is already becoming entrenched within many Christian denominations. This is an excerpt from their web page: The New Sanctuary Movement is a coalition of interfaith religious leaders and participating congregations, called by our faith to respond actively and publicly to the suffering of our immigrant brothers and sisters residing in the United States. . . . Called by faith to respond . . . Unfortunately, there are many wolves in sheep’s clothing who masquerade as Christians within denominational leadership, and these Marxists have found the key to manipulating the church faithful into funding those groups that foster attacks on the sovereignty of these United States. The left is gaining converts daily by an appeal to a false Christian guilt that would equate law-breakers who leave their country to improve their economic condition with slavery or with political refugees who are facing torture, death, or genocide within their home nations. Here’s an example of the sweetly twisted rhetoric: "The Gospel message calls us to welcome the stranger and to stand in solidarity with the least of these," said Chett Pritchett, Wesley Theological Seminary student. "It's not a political issue, it is a Christian issue." . . . Make no mistake. This IS a political issue!!! Nowhere do any of these open border Marxist activists mention our Christian duty to protect, to defend, or to preserve our nation against an invasion of people that come here illegally flaunting our laws with no intention of assimilation and who would destroy the very fabric of our nation. No where do these open border activists mention that it is every Christian’s duty to protect the future of their country for their children. Nowhere do these leftists mention the long-standing traditional Christian understanding of just warfare as they sabotage the war in Iraq. How do the leftist Christians manage to out trump years of Christian tradition? The first step (begun many years ago) is to promote the “social gospel” which emphasizes social justice and at the same time denigrates individualism. Christians are urged to think with a group mind in terms of “community” rather than individual moral choice or even individual salvation. Jesus is portrayed as a revolutionary freedom-fighter. Aggression against the enemy is only fostered if it is the undefined “oppressed people” seeking justice against any form of established government anywhere. It is a revolutionary gospel that hides its true objectives from the church faithful and couches its opposition to Christian tradition in the gentlest religious imagery. Popular in Latin America, Liberation Theology foments world-wide revolutions with the final objective – world-wide Marxist Christianity. Independent congregations are not as at risk of succumbing to the New Sanctuary Movement as are the denominations. If you are a member of an old venerable Christian denomination the odds are about 99.9% that the movement for sanctuary is well under the control of the growing number of leftist leaders within your denomination’s headquarters and, of course, within the hallowed halls of university seminaries. Here is a partial list of participating denominations from the New Sanctuary Movement’s web page: Denominational/Interdenominational National Leadership Present: Unitarian Universalist, United Church of Christ, Episcopal, United Methodist, Union of Reform Judaism, Interfaith Worker Justice. Additional religious traditions: Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, American Friends Service Committee, Evangelical Christian, Muslim, Sikh For those who would like to explore the traditional perspective on just warfare obtain this book. The Virtue of War: Reclaiming the Classic Christian Traditions East & West Here’s an excerpt from a review: The preeminence of pacifism within the Church as the proper reaction to military conflict is so established within contemporary Christianity that it is sometimes forgotten that this has not been the historic Christian position. Orthodox theologians Alexander F. C. Webster and Darrell Cole remind us of this fact in The Virtue of War, an important apologia for the Christian tradition of the just war. . . The most renowned figures in both Catholicism (St. Ambrose, St. Augustine of Hippo, St Thomas Aquinas) and Protestantism (Martin Luther, John Calvin) all supported the idea of the just war although their presentations and arguments may have varied in approach. . . Here’s an excerpt from another review of the above book by James V. Schall, S.J. , a professor in the government department at Georgetown University. His latest book is "Roman Catholic Political Philosophy" (Lexington). The occasion of this book is, no doubt, the aftermath of September 11 and the need to see the proportions of a new kind of war in our time, a new kind that is a very old kind. With the paradox that "war is a virtue" or a "positive good," the authors force us to look again at actions designed to face evils that few are willing to meet because they cannot understand how doing anything effective can be just. This book is another way of looking at the problem, an ancient way, as it turns out. It should be noted that defending our country against those who would destroy it (from within or without) falls within the theology of Just Warfare! Some short excerpts from related articles worth reading: The Battle for American Unity: . . In the last century, many Christian churches began to focus on inclusiveness and Christian unity became the primary core value. Divisive moral issues were ignored or downplayed. Individual behaviors were never judged. Emphasis was always placed on God’s forgiving love rather than on individual accountability to God. Your Mainline Christmas Sermon: . . . Just as few Americans are very much aware of the growing influence of Islamofascism on American politics, even fewer Americans are aware of the Marxist trends (born of Liberation Theology) that are fast overcoming mainline denominations and informing new ministers in mainline Protestantism! Catholics and Evangelicals are not immune to this growing trend either. United Nations Entrenched Within Most Christian Denominations: . . There are over 100,000 local congregations and 45 million Christians supporting the above goals – and most of these Christians don’t even know what they are supporting or that much of their money is going to tax-exempt leftist foundations!!! Obama’s Liberation Theology Church “. . .The black Christ is he who threatens the structure of evil as seen in white society, rebelling against it, thereby becoming the embodiment of what the black community knows that it must become. . .” What other’s are saying: The New Sanctuary Movement is a religious and political network of radical left congregations who claim America’s immigration laws are immoral and — like slavery and Jim Crow laws — should be repealed. . . Read Whom would Jesus bomb? By Roger W. Gardner Although I love this very accurate quote from the Vanishing American, I completely disagree with the conclusion . Certainly the liberalized caricature of Christianity, which is only a shadow of the real Christianity in actual fact, is a religion which would command the West to sacrifice itself for the sake of the 'wretched of the earth.' This version of Christianity preaches guilt for our success and material prosperity, and guilt-trips us into giving away what we have to the victims, and sharing all our possessions with them, including our country. Unfortunately this version of Christianity is growing in numbers of adherents; many formerly conservative denominations and churches are being pulled into the vortex of leftist Christianity by liberal clerics and preachers masquerading as traditional Christians, and many formerly conservative Christians are being led by these pied pipers where they would not formerly have gone, into the globalist, universalist system. **This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email stiknstein-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.

Freedom Watch Videos

Four, 30 second videos below. Thanks for the email from Vets For Freedom, we have the Freedom Watch videos that we referred to in an earlier post:

And now the Democrats, along with wavering Republicans, will face an advertising blitz from Bush supporters determined to remain on offense. A new pressure group, Freedom's Watch, will unveil a month-long, $15 million television, radio and grass-roots campaign today designed to shore up support for Bush's policies before the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, lays out a White House assessment of the war's progress. The first installment of Petraeus's testimony is scheduled to be delivered before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a fact both the administration and congressional Democrats say is simply a scheduling coincidence.

The email:

For the past few months, Vets for Freedom has been on the front lines of the Iraq war debate in America, with only a few allies. But this morning, in a very real sense, the cavalry appeared on the horizon in the form of a new organization called Freedom's Watch. Freedom's Watch has launched a multi-state advertising campaign featuring powerful stories from veterans and families that every household in America should hear. It's time that the rest of America heard the words of soldiers who have served (and been wounded) in Iraq and the stories of families who have lost loved ones there. The new commercials can be watched here. If these videos speak to you - and we believe they will - call your Member of Congress at 1-877-222-8001 to tell them that defeat is not an option. Thank you for joining us at this ever critical time. Regards, Pete Hegseth Iraq War Veteran 2005-2006 Executive Director, Vets for Freedom Click here for more information on Vets for Freedom.

VIDEOS: (They are short, 30 seconds, and touching) Wounded Veteran: Wife who has lost her husband: Another Wounded Veteran speaks about anger at Congress and Victory: Gold Star Mother: Each as touching as the one before. Freedoms Watch is also being talked about by Politico, NYT, Hot Air. (Via memeorandum) .

Hillary Rodham Clinton's Changing War Strategy

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com On March 8, 2007 Hillary Rodham Clinton published a press release on her website called ' Hillary Clinton: Supporting Our Troops.' The PR contain an opening statement 'calling for immediate steps to better train and equip our troops and get them the care they need when they return home.' It is followed by four of her concerns about the troops. She was concerned about improving mental health care, the disability system, orphans and a GI Bill of Rights. That's all fine but no where does she mention opposition to the war which is all she has talked about since it became popular for Democrats as their central theme for the 2008 campaigns. She claims she voted for the authorization for military force in Iraq based on intelligence that has since been designated as faulty. Few in Congress even bothered to read the intel much less try to determine its accuracy. It is convenient to use the excuses Hillary Rodham Clinton wants you to believe are valid. She also claims she voted for a measure that would limit the President's authority for war in Iraq to one year. Setting time limits while authorizing troops into battle? That is not very Presidential and neither is omitting due diligence on the very intelligence reports on which her choice was made in the first place. That was March 2007 and before. Here is May 2007

Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War By CARL HULSE and PATRICK HEALY Published: May 4, 2007 WASHINGTON, May 3 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war. Mrs. Clinton’s proposal brings her full circle on Iraq — she supported the war measure five years ago — and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House.

While on ABC's Democratic debate on August 19, 2007, Mrs. Clinton of course was on board with ideas initially brought forward by others including one of her rivals, Senator Joe Biden. That is surrendering carefully. Now she says it could take a year to withdraw safely while in the NYT report above in May of this year she proposed voting to end Presidential authority as early as last October 11th with no careful withdrawal as part of the surrender. According to the NYT, 'Her stance emerged just as Congressional leaders and the White House opened delicate negotiations over a new war-financing measure to replace the one that Mr. Bush vetoed Tuesday.' The Times goes on to say, 'Now, her advisers say, a vote to withdraw authorization would make plain to antiwar and liberal Democrats that she was repudiating her 2002 vote. The hope among her aides was that demands by antiwar voters for her to apologize for her vote would be rendered moot.' What gives this report ample weight is the fact that you don't see the NYT criticizing a liberal every day. It would not be a surprise if they did because the evidence is so compelling they could not ignore it. Tough to defend a liberal position in the first place, doing it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is just plain silly even for the NYT. Another example that try as she will, Hillary Rodham Clinton is not Presidential. As Karl Rove indicated, no candidate in the history of the Gallup Polls has ever won with unfavorables as high as those of Hillary Rodham Clinton. On the war in Iraq the Democrats have another candidate in the Kerry mold who was in favor of the war before being against it. So how did that strategy work out for John Kerry? So much for the quote by Speaker Nancy Pelosi that surrender in Iraq is 'the will of the American people.'

Our Troops: Americans just don't understand that we're just not ready to leave

Cross posted from Wake up America The other day I posted about my 25 minute interview with Pete Hegseth, Executive Director of Vets For Freedom, a non partisan organization that represents a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans that are fighting to have their voices heard in the debate about supporting the troops and their mission in Iraq. The interview was fascinating and if you have not read it, you should. One of his quotes in that interview in answer to my question about whether he is still in contact with the troops over in Iraq was this:

Q: Are you still in contact with the soldiers that are in Iraq right now? A: Oh, absolutely, I am in touch with soldiers in Iraq and in touch with Iraqi interpreters ... that we had, and I get fairly regular updates and, actually, because of the position I am in now, I get a lot of unsolicited e-mails from troops over there, saying, "Thanks for what you guys are doing" and "Here is my experience that backs up what you are saying 100 percent." So I have heard more and more from the troops than I would have otherwise, and it has all been encouraging, and it all reinforces the principle that we have been talking about and shows that, in fact, things are improving. So we see our work as nothing but an extension of our service and nothing but our opportunity to have the backs of the guys that are still there. ... What we want to do is set the conditions for a fair reception for what [Gen. Petraeus] reports, and that is what we are trying to do. And then beyond that, we are going to continue to make sure that our voice is heard in the debate.

That portion of the interview was published by the Washington Times. Today I see another article, this one from Popular Mechanics that has more words from our troops in Iraq. They understand, by virtue of being there, risking life and limb, how important their work in Iraq is.

During last month’s heated, all-night debate on Capitol Hill about when and if the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, I asked several military officers of different ages and ranks about their thoughts on a potential pullout. Nearly every one stressed how important his or her work here has been—and will be. “If we leave within months, Iraq will be a province of Iran,” one colonel said. “Everyone with any education or skills who hasn’t already left will end up leaving.”

They wonder why America isn't hearing more that just "body counts".

A mortarman with the 25th Infantry stationed in Tal Afar stressed that he thought the American media has not been reporting what really goes on during daily ops across the war zone. “It’s all about body counts,” he said. Marines out in the former Wild West of Anbar province said the same. They are proud of the job they’ve done in cleaning up what was once considered a lost, Al Qaeda-infested area. They wondered why America hasn’t heard MORE of that news.

One sergeant 1st class with the 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry, says that Americans don't understand that "we’re just not ready to leave.”

A sergeant 1st class with the 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry, whose unit is attached to the Marines near Habbaniyah, patrols daily around Al Anbar province. This is his third tour, and he’s confident that progress is being made, despite what he calls early missteps in policy. “I think [Americans] understand our sacrifice, but they don’t understand that we’re just not ready to leave.” The sergeant expressed an opinion I’ve heard from dozens of line and support troops and commanding officers about the continuing effort to rebuild, piece by piece: “We need a little more time—some places are more violent than others. But that’s how things happen. This country can’t be built in five years. And don’t we have a responsibility to help them build it?”

The war has become so politicized that the voices that understand the stakes, have first hand knowledge and experience, the men and women that everyone is trying to "speak for" are talking to us but it seems that half the American population is either not listening or not being told. You cannot claim that you "support the troops" and yet ignore everything they say. By ignoring them, your claim is nothing more than empty words. Keep up with who is talking about this article at memeorandum. .

****EXCLUSIVE***Interview with Executive Director of Vets For Freedom, Pete Hegseth

By Susan Duclos aka Spree

Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics—namely "the surge" in Iraq. We support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield, and who have put long-term national security before short-term partisan political gain.

Pete Hegseth, Executive Director



First Lieutenant Pete Hegseth served in Iraq with the 3rd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division for their deployment to Iraq from 2005-2006. Lt. Hegseth served as an infantry Platoon Leader in Baghdad during the nationwide elections in October and December 2005, and as a Civil-Military Operations officer in Samarra. Lt. Hegseth also served in Guantanamo Bay for a year on a security mission with his National Guard unit and currently serves in the 1-69 Infantry, New York Army National Guard. He holds the Bronze Star for his time in Iraq. Pete is a graduate of Princeton University and plans to pursue a Masters in Public Policy at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton in the fall. Lt. Hegseth originally hails from Minnesota, but now lives in New York City with his wife.

The Washington Times has published some key excerpts to this 25 minute interview with Mr. Hegseth, so please head over and read those excerpts dealing with, what the Vets For Freedom does and why, as well as giving a “face” to the Iraqi people and their hopes and desires for their country, what he is hearing from the soldiers and interpreters still on the ground in Iraq and he speaks to why Victory in Iraq is so important to America.

The transcript of the rest of this fascinating interview, via the phone, with Mr. Hegseth is posted below.

SD: I appreciate all the emails you send me with the weeks to testimony and I try to get them out. I see that you will be there September 18th , there is also anti-war protesters that will be there. You are going to be there to basically counter them?


Hegseth: That’s part of it, our message has mostly been pro-active and less reactive, so we schedule, I guess we knew, but without regard to who else will be there, but at the same time, I think we have also given ourselves an opportunity to counter what a lot of the anti-war groups will be doing. There is also a large pro mission rally on the 15th with a couple other organizations and while we are not specifically going to have lots of guys there, we will be partnered with them. So we hope to really be involved for a couple weeks in September, it is just that 18th dates that we will bring all our guys, and if the other side wants to try, try to muster as many vets, Iraq and Afghanistan vets, as we do, I’d be surprised if they could.

SD: What is the difference that you see in General Petraeus’s strategy now, the counterinsurgency, than what you saw when you were there in 2005-2006?

Hegseth: That’s the million dollar question and what makes what we’re doing, so important, is that people don’t realize what a drastic change in strategy this really is. It’s not just throwing 30,000 more troops at a problem, it’s throwing 30,000 more troops with a new strategy and then reallocating the existing troops, more efficiently. So you are actually getting much more bang for your buck than just 30,000 troops. Your getting double that if not more in actual combat power and the troops are doing a different kind of mission, what we were doing in 2005-2206, while with the best intentions, was trying to hand over swathes of land and cities to the Iraqi people as fast as we could, irregardless of whether or not the security conditions merited it. We also handed over swathes of land to the Iraqi security forces and to tribal leaders and others without having a real understanding of what was going to happen.

Then we had elections and other things that were good on paper, but didn’t really bring about any changes on the ground for the Iraqi people, so we were actually fighting an unconventional asymmetrical war with large conventional tactics, but what General Petraeus has done, what we’ve done now, is totally reverse the course, and focus on the population centrals and we said, “we need to secure the areas for the Iraqi people first” and when we do that it will bring about the kind of security conditions where we can have economic and political stability and progress.

The biggest example of that is Anbar province, where the people hear about the “awakening” and these Tribal Sheiks, standing up and taking on al-Qaeda, and they have, but the reason they did that is because Americans cleared Anbar province and Ramadi, specifically, and then they held it, with 65 patrol bases throughout the city, troops bringing violence way down, to the point where the Sheiks kind of looked and said, wow, we have a strategic opportunity here to take on al-Qaeda, and they did and that’s what is allowing for the lasting peace there. As far as tactically, for the Americans, what we’ve done is we taken troops out of the big bases, with McDonald and burger King on them and we have pushed them out into the neighborhoods, into smaller, what is called joint security stations, and at these joint security stations you have a small number of Americans and a small number of Iraqi’s, working side by side, day by day, to provide local security in a local neighborhoods, persistently, day by day and that’s what is different, we used to be on big bases and we would drive out on patrols every once in a while to different areas and try to take care of problems, but it was all patchwork and what we are doing now is we are really committing to the population, committing to neighborhoods, we are clearing and we are holding and when you do that you start to gain the confidence of the locals.

You have relationships and relationships lead to the intelligence that you need to sift through friend and foe. I think one of the great metrics right now is “tips” and tips for , sort of information lines for Iraqi and American security forces are four times higher than they were, at this point last year, which is an incredible indicator of how much the Iraqi people have said the security environment is changing and it is time to call in my buddy next door, who is putting in IED’S. I think those are, in addition to the lower violence, are great signs.

Read the rest......

.

Poll Leaders Languish, Others Move Up

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com Rasmussen Reports for August 14th has the Dems with Clinton 40%, Obama 24%, Edwards 16% and Richardson at 4%. The GOP side is Giuliani 25%, Thompson 21%, Romney 15%, McCain 10% and Huckabee 4%. With the GOP it was not that long ago that Fred Thompson's numbers were several points higher, McCain was in third and Giuliani was about the same as now. While Huckabee has received a boost at the Iowa Straw Poll, Romney has been in double digits nationally for some time and has settled in the mid-teens even before Iowa. It looks like Giuliani is holding, Thompson and McCain have lost some strength and Romney plus Huckabee have enjoyed the most improvement from their work. You can still look at polls and scratch your head due to the occasional crazy variations between pollsters or inexplicable changes over short periods of time. The Dems have the Queen of Cringe not ready to give up much of her lead. Over the past month with the three events attended by Democratic party candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton received more criticism than one would expect from a liberal leader. Her fondness of lobbyist money and characterizing the practice as acceptable when challenged at the last YearlyKos drew a negative vocal response from the crowd. Locking up her White House docs this week until after the 2008 contest was met with suspicion as well. The upside to a long campaign season is voters may have enough time to view all the baggage she would bring to America's top job. Her numbers may in fact be slightly lower than in the past. Obama has fallen in recent weeks while peacenik, poverty tour, let my wife do the work, multimillionaire Edwards seems to be enjoying a bit of an upward bump. He may in fact be taking numbers from Clinton and Obama. The only noticeable change is less John and more Elizabeth. But these are only poll numbers with limited value in analyzing the 2008 race. The left side of the spectrum appears to have been quiet or at least not as vocal on items related to Iraq. With the exception of the heat Obama took over his foreign policy statements, the surrender strategy has subsided somewhat. Another indication of improved conditions related to the war effort. No conclusions are being drawn here, it is just an observation. Giuliani's lead with Republicans has not been negatively affected by his stand on social issues. That may be explained by his ability thus far to avoid any significant discussion on the subjects. Leaning pro-choice, gay marriage and anti-gun has been softened by his campaign but may be seriously challenged later this fall. Thompson's current plan to announce is for Nashville on or after Labor Day. Which direction his numbers will go when he actually does something is anyone's guess. You might think Romney was leading the pack as one of his staffers suggested earlier with all the interrogations to which he has been subjected. It may be better to wear out the media on their assaults before the campaigns get serious. If Thompson actually enters the race in September the media focus will at least for a time be on him. That may be a benefit for the others since he will be under the microscope if and when he announces. The bet here is their will be one more delay and more reports that Gingrich is still thinking about it. With Congress on vacation, candidates currently holding office are free to do more campaigning. Not like voting in the Senate has interfered with their plans before with all the 'not voting' tallies they generated. After the Iowa Straw Poll, those attending have stepped up work on the trail also. Interested voters can take a dog days of summer break until things heat up this fall or some candidates make headlines before then. Most likely any headlines would only reflect reports not flattering to any campaign.

"Entry forbidden. Hizbollah area"

Cross Posted from Wake up America

I wrote two pieces in the first two months that I was blogging, one on November 23, 2006 and the second part of that was on November 25th, 2006. The two part series was called Ramifications of the job half done, part one and part two.

In the first one I pointed out what was clear to anybody with eyes, regarding Lebanon, Israel and Hizbullah.

The lessons keep coming, but some refuse to learn them or even pay attention. Everyone was warned that if Israel was not given the time and support needed to deal with Hizbullah, that it would not be long before there was more trouble in Lebanon.... the same as they are warning about leaving Iraq as a job half done and telling us if we do, we will end up back there in an even worse situation. I touched on this in the Lebanon and Iraq Comparison.

(Hat Tip to YID with LID for the link) We now see that Hizbullah is rearming right under the French Army's nose, with the French turning a blind eye.

Lebanese civilians close to the border with Syria told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday that weapons for Hizbullah were being brought in by the truckload at night. Lebanese Army troops on duty at the border refused to confirm the claims.

This correspondent watched as a line of trucks and lorries several kilometers long built up at one crossing on the road from Lebanon into Syria. The trucks, en route from Beirut to Damascus, were laden with a mixture of goods: everything from construction materials to fruits and vegetables. But in the late afternoon wintry chill they were stationary; their drivers had disappeared and only the occasional soldier kept guard every few hundred meters.

"They don't move in the day," said Yusuf Saad, a taxi driver waiting at the border crossing.

Saad, who had watched this correspondent from the other side of the road for some time before signaling for me to come over, added that "It's much easier for them to drive at night." He nodded toward the distant Syrian mountain range.

"There's not so much traffic on the road. And I can tell you" - his voice dropped to a conspiratorial whisper - "they might be going in with produce, but they're coming out with weapons. They hide the rockets under the goods and that's how they're able to bring them into the country."

From Part two:

Iran and Syria are rearming Hizbullah to prepare for the inevitable battle to come. Something everyone ignores is that THEY WERE WARNED. Rice, Bush, just about everybody warned the UN and the world that if Hizbullah was not disarmed as part of resolution 1701 that the worlds attention would be back there sooner rather than later..... they were right.

As Lebanon's government tries to maintain its shaky grip on power, sources tell TIME that Tehran and Damascus are shipping weapons to the militant Shi'ite group.

Iran is smuggling weapons through Syria to re-arm Lebanese allies Hizballah, despite renewed efforts by United Nations peacekeepers and the Lebanese army to seal off the mountain borders with Syria in the wake of last summer's war between the Shi'ite militia and Israel, according to reports by Saudi and Israeli intelligence sources that have been confirmed by western diplomats in Beirut.

Israeli military officials in Tel Aviv say that Hizballah replenished nearly half of its pre-war stockpiles of short-range missiles and small arms. But western diplomats in Beirut say these calculations under-estimate the weapons flow and that Hizballah has now filled its war chest with over 20,000 short-range missiles—a similar amount to what they had at the start of the conflict, during which the group is believed to have fired over 3,000 rockets at Israel. "The Iranian pipeline through Syria was already working during the war," despite constant Israeli bombing raids on the roads into Lebanon from Syria, this Beirut source said.

That was back in November. I and others didn't need a crystal ball or any special abilities to see what was happening and what was going to happen, it didn't take a rocket scientist to follow the stories and come to the logical conclusions and yet, nobody, especially the complete, incompetent, incapable and corrupt UN, has lifted a finger to stop it, instead they choose to turn thier eyes away and pretend everything is alright.


Fast forward to todays news from The Telegraph:

Hizbollah buys frontier land to attack Israel

Hizbollah is buying up large tracts of land owned by Christians and other non-Shias in southern Lebanon as the militant group rebuilds its defences in preparation for a new war with Israel, The Sunday Telegraph has been told.

The land grab is thought to be driven by the Iranian-backed guerrillas' efforts to rearm themselves and fortify the strategically important ravines north of the Litani River, just north of the front line in last year's 34-day conflict with its Jewish neighbour.

Here, Hizbollah has been free to press forward without harassment from the 13,000 United Nations peacekeepers and 20,000 Lebanese army troops who were deployed south of the Litani as part of the ceasefire agreement that ended the conflict.

So much for the UN, all they are doing is turning a blind eye to what is happening and when the war starts all over again and they are caught in the cross fire, it will be Israel that is blamed for innocent, blind, incompetent UN workers deaths and Hizbullah will simply get a slap on the wrist while the media demonizes Israel, yet again.

In these rugged gorges, the group appears to be readying for round two with Israel, and many fear it is not far off after the inconclusive end to last year's war and reports of -Hizbollah rearming.

The area's forested wadis, or valleys, make ideal terrain for Hizbollah's brand of guerrilla warfare and, just 10 miles from the border, are within rocket range of Israeli cities.

The Shia encroachment into a mixed area of Christians, Shias and Druze Muslims threatens to disrupt Lebanon's delicate sectarian balance, which is already teetering after three years of political tumult.

"Christians and Druze are selling land and moving out, while the Shia are moving in. There is an extraordinary demo-graphic shift taking place," said Edmund Rizk, a Christian MP for the area until 1992.

On a scenic, sparsely populated ridge, the farming village of Chbail was once Christian. Today, the land belongs to a wealthy Shia businessman with alleged ties to Hizbollah. Its new residents are recent Shia transplants from the Hizbollah-controlled south.

Entry to the village is forbidden to outsiders - not by the Lebanese army that technically holds sway here, but by the chabab, the plain-clothed, bearded youths who act as look-outs in Hizbollah territory.

"The village is closed for security reasons," said a youth who had recently moved from a Hizbollah-controlled area near the regional capital, Tyre.

[...]

"Entry forbidden. Hizbollah area," the sign read in Arabic. The closure was manned by a pair of teenage gunmen in olive green fatigues, armed with walkie-talkies and AK47s.

Take Our Country Back says it perfectly with one sentence:

Isn't the UN supposed to be stopping this kind of thing from happening? AH! But wait! The UN sides with everyone that hates the Nation of Israel. I forgot. My bad.

Snooper? Thank you my friend for saying what everyone knows, everyone sees and yet nobody does a damn thing about.

John Bolton spoke out about the undeniable anti-semitic make up of the UN and I provide quite a few examples when I posted about it at the time.

Bolton's words:

The U.S. Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, launched a scathing attack on the United Nations Friday.

Bolton was furious over the adoption by the General Assembly of a resolution which said the assembly regretted the deaths of 19 civilians in an attack by the Israeli military in the town of Beit Hanoun last week.

Despite the resolution being significantly watered down at the behest of the United States, and being passing by 156 votes to seven, Bolton launched a blistering attack on the UN, and many of its members.

"Many of the sponsors of that resolution are notorious abusers of human rights themselves, and were seeking to deflect criticism of their own policies," he said.

"This type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel's inalienable and recognized right to exist."

"This deepens suspicions about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organization is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region," Bolton continued.

"In a larger sense, the United Nations must confront a more significant question, that of its relevance and utility in confronting the challenges of the 21st century. We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is a little more than a self-serving and a polemical attack against Israel or the United States," he said.

"The Human Rights Council has quickly fallen into the same trap and de-legitimized itself by focusing attention exclusively on Israel. Meanwhile, it has failed to address real human rights abuses in Burma, Darfur, the DPRK, and other countries," Bolton charged.

"The problem of anti-Israel bias is not unique to the Human Rights Council. It is endemic to the culture of the United Nations. It is a decades-old, systematic problem that transcends the whole panoply of the UN organizations and agencies," he continued.

The United States, and Australia joined Israel in voting against the motion, together with four small Pacific island nations. All countries in Europe, including Britain, voted to support the resolution.

The original text condemned Israel over the Beit Hanoun attack and its operations in Gaza, however the adopted resolution had the General Assembly expressing, "regret."

Rather than an outright investigation of the incident the assembly resolved to form a committee, "to look into the facts." The resolution also carried a demand that the Palestinian Authority take action to stop rocket attacks on Israel.

Bolton launched his attack despite gaining these concessions.

Equally critical was Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman who stormed out of the session after telling members, "I caution everyone who will support this resolution. By doing so, you will be an accomplice to terror. The blood of more innocents will be on your hands."

The resolution was taken to the General Assembly after the United States used its veto to squash a similar motion in the Security Council. It was the 31st time the U.S. had used its veto at the UN to stop resolutions concerning Israel and the Palestinians.

DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES:

In 1974, for example, the General Assembly invited Yasser Arafat to address it. Arafat did so, a holster attached to his hip. In his speech, Arafat spoke of carrying a gun and an olive branch (he left his gun outside before entering the hall). A year later, at the instigation of the Arab states and the Soviet Bloc, the Assembly approved Resolution 3379, which slandered Zionism by branding it a form of racism.

U.S. Ambassador Daniel Moynihan called the resolution an “obscene act.” Israeli Ambassador Chaim Herzog told his fellow delegates the resolution was “based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance.” Hitler, he declared, would have felt at home listening to the UN debate on the measure.


In 1976, the committee recommended “full implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their return to the Israeli part of Palestine.” It also recommended that November 29 — the day the UN voted to partition Palestine in 1947 — be declared an “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.” Since then, it has been observed at the UN with anti-Israel speeches, films and exhibits. Over the objections of the United States, a special unit on Palestine was established as part of the UN Secretariat.

Israel is the object of more investigative committees, special representatives and rapporteurs than any other state in the UN system. The special representative of the Director-General of UNESCO visited Israel 51 times during 27 years of activity. A "Special Mission" has been sent by the Director-General of the ILO to Israel and the territories every year for the past 17 years.

The Commission on Human Rights routinely adopts disproportionate resolutions concerning Israel. Of all condemnations of this agency, 26 percent refer to Israel alone, while rogue states such as Syria and Libya are never criticized.


The U.S. has reacted forcefully to efforts to politicize the UN. In 1977, the U.S. withdrew from the International Labor Organization for two years because of its anti-Israel stance. In 1984, the U.S. left UNESCO, in part because of its bias against Israel, but announced in September 2002 it would return to the organization. From 1982-89, the Arab states sought to deny Israel a seat in the General Assembly or put special conditions on Israel's participation. Only a determined U.S. lobbying campaign prevented them from succeeding. In 2001, the U.S. joined Israel in boycotting the UN World Conference Against Racism when it became clear that it had become little more than an Israel-bashing festival.


The UN has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets — including xenophobia — but had consistently refused to do the same against anti-Semitism. It was only on November 24, 1998, more than 50 years after the UN's founding, that the word "anti-Semitism" was first mentioned in a UN resolution, appearing near the end of GA Res. A/53/623, "Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination."

Since the early 1970s, the UN itself has become permeated with anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist sentiment. The following examples illustrate how ugly the atmosphere has become:

In a Speech before the UN, December 8, 1983:

“Is it not the Jews who are exploiting the American people and trying to debase them?”— Libyan UN Representative Ali Treiki.

In a Speech to UN seminar on religious tolerance and freedom, delivered December 5, 1984:

“The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity.” —Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi before the 1984 UN Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance. A similar remark was made by the Syrian Ambassador at a 1991 meeting, who insisted Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzos.

On March 11, 1997, the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission claimed the Israeli government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. Despite the efforts of Israel, the United States and others, this blood libel remains on the UN record.

These are simply a few examples of the UN's unfair and unbalanced treatment of Israel in relations to other countries.

The UN commissioner is also a known Jew hater AS well as the UN itself having proven time and time again that it is a
corrupt organization, it is the JEWS that continuously get screwed...... and Iran? They continue to instigate trouble and death in Iraq, help create instability in Lebanon, and fund and arm Hizbullah to prepare for the next attack against Israel, and no one...NO ONE does a damn thing but sit back and watch and pass UN resolutions and sanctions that do nothing to stop them.


So, when the attacks against Israel start again, and mark my words, they will. It is as clear as the fact the sun will rise again, Israel must ignore the media, ignore the UN, ignore the international community and finish the job they left half done last time.

America must stand beside her while she does this.

Check out the buzz regarding this issue.

.

Is John Murtha Going to Apologize to the Haditha Marines Now?

Cross posted from Wake up America Somehow I doubt it. The problem with lawmakers and the press convicting people, including our military, in the press, is the original story gets so much more attention than when those people are vindicated. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law or in this case a military court? Background:

WASHINGTON - A Pentagon probe into the death of Iraqi civilians last November in the Iraqi city of Haditha will show that U.S. Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood," a U.S. lawmaker said Wednesday. From the beginning, Iraqis in the town of Haditha said U.S. Marines deliberately killed 15 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including seven women and three children. One young Iraqi girl said the Marines killed six members of her family, including her parents. “The Americans came into the room where my father was praying,” she said, “and shot him.” [...] A videotape taken by an Iraqi showed the aftermath of the alleged attack: a blood-smeared bedroom floor and bits of what appear to be human flesh and bullet holes on the walls. The video, obtained by Time magazine, was broadcast a day after town residents told The Associated Press that American troops entered homes on Nov. 19 and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a 3-year-old girl, after a roadside bomb killed a U.S. Marine.

Real big surprise here that the AP had their grubby mitts in this one, huh? Murtha's words:

On Wednesday, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said the accounts are true. [...] Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that "there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." [...] The Marine Corps issued a statement in response to Murtha's remarks: "There is an ongoing investigation; therefore, any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process. As soon as the facts are known and decisions on future actions are made, we will make that information available to the public to the fullest extent allowable." Murtha held the news conference to mark six months since his initial call for "redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq. He said U.S. forces were under undue pressure in Iraq because of poor planning and allocation of resources by the Bush administration.

Today (Hat Tip to memeorandum again)we find out that all charges against against a Marine who had been accused of killing three Iraqi brothers in response to a roadside bomb attack in Haditha in 2005, have been dropped.

"The evidence does not support a referral to a court-martial," Lt. Gen. James Mattis wrote in his written decision. Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt, 22, had been charged with the murder in the deaths of three of those killed after the bomb attack Nov. 19, 2005. The decision to drop the charges followed an earlier recommendation from a hearing officer who listened to evidence in the case. Under military law, a commanding general has total jurisdiction over a case. In his recommendation, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said murder charges brought against Sharratt were based on unreliable witness accounts, poor forensic evidence and questionable legal theories. "The government version is unsupported by independent evidence," Ware wrote in an 18-page report. "To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."

Now back on July 24, 2007, we brought you a letter from Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt's father, Darryl Sharratt,, that stated his intention to ask the Congress of the United States to censure Representative John Murtha and hold hearings to explain his conduct in respect to the Haditha incident. Here is the letter in full:

Throughout this Haditha investigation our family has believed in the innocence of our son L/Cpl Justin Sharratt- we knew he was innocent. There are things I do not understand and I would like to find the answers. We do not seek revenge, but we would like to see justice. In a conversation with Congressman John Murtha, my questions still remain unanswered. With the help of the American people, I hope to find justice. On Wednesday morning, July 17th I spoke with Congressman John Murtha via telephone from his Washington, DC office. We had a courteous conversation. I knew what to expect from a career politician and Congressman Murtha did not disappoint. Mr. Murtha avoided answering the hard questions and I was unable to press him for the answers. I wanted the conversation to remain amicable and decided to let him speak and avoid a heated confrontation. At no time during the dialogue would Mr. Murtha acknowledge the impending exoneration of my son. I pressed him to use the word exoneration but the best I could get was “things seem to have gone well in your son’s Article 32. The General is a fair man and I believe he will do the right thing.” I replied, ” Lt. Col Paul Ware presented a strong recommendation for exoneration and we are anticipating Lt. Gen James Mattis following this recommendation.” Mr. Murtha asked me if I had served in the military. He recalled his visits with injured Marines, soldiers and sailors. He said he supports our troops and it is the war he does not condone. Mr Murtha believes combat operations in Iraq have put an enormous strain on our Armed Forces. The stress of combat situations has led our troops to kill innocent civilians. I pointed out to Mr. Murtha, ” Our Haditha Marines are innocent until proven guilty.” It seems he is again denying our Marines their Constitutional rights of due process and the presumption of innocence. Mr. Murtha replied that we have a Marine (Mendoza) testifying that innocent women and children were killed in Haditha. I retorted that he is again believing the reports of the media and Mendoza was granted immunity for his lies. Mendoza has changed his testimony at least two times. NCIS may have threatened him with deportation and denial of US citizenship. This time I scolded him, ” I witnessed their (NCIS) conduct first hand in my son’s Article 32.” I questioned Congressman Murtha as to his statements of 17 May 2006. On national television, in front of millions of Americans, he stated ” Marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” I asked him why he denied these Marines their Constitutional rights of due process and the presumption of innocence. Again the Congressman used his experience to side step the answer. Mr. Murtha stated his intentions were to point out the stress our military was under in Iraq. He replied we would not win the hearts of the Iraqi people by killing women and children. I again snapped, ” Our Haditha Marines have not been convicted of killing innocents and are innocent until proven guilty.” I believe this conversation was the first step in obtaining justice for Our Haditha Marines. I did not expect Mr. Murtha to admit to or apologize for any wrongdoing in his role to railroad my son and his Marine comrades. The American people now know that his unfounded and untruthful allegations were used to further his political agenda. It is my intention to ask the Congress of the United States to censure Representative John Murtha and hold hearings to explain his conduct in respect to the Haditha incident. I will ask the American people to question his blatant disregard for the Constitutional rights of Our Haditha Marines. I will campaign to the voters of Pa Congressional District 12 to oust Representative Murtha from his elected office. The American people deserve better, we must demand better representation from our elected officials. Darryl Sharratt Proud American, Proud father of L/Cpl Justin L. Sharratt

I suggest that everyone join Mr. Sharratt in his campaign for justice for his son. The only thing I disagree with Mr. Sharratt about, is he may not "expect" John Murtha to apologize, but I believe we should all expect him to apologize immediately!!!!! For those that agree that John Murtha owes this Marine and the others a huge apology for making statements about their guilt without a benefit of a trial and having now found out that all charges have been dropped, below I am listing the ways for you to contact him. Via the Web: His Web Contact Form. Call him: 800-289-2642 from Western PA (or) 814-535-2642 (or) 202-225-2065 Fax him: 814-539-6229 -- District 202-225-5709 -- Washington Write him or Visit him: 647 Main St, Suite 401 Johnstown, PA 15901 For those that want to visit him, here are some directions, right from his website.

Directions to Congressman Murtha's Main District Office

People sometimes need or want to find our main office in Johnstown for various reasons. We can't offer directions from every community in this sprawling new 12th District, but these should be sufficient for most people to find their way.

From Uniontown, the fastest route is:

• Take US-119 North.
• Turn Right onto PA-31 East.
• Turn Left onto PA-711 at Donegal and proceed through Ligonier.
• Turn Right onto PA-271 about five miles north of Ligonier.
• Remain on PA-271 into the City of Johnstown -- the Route becomes Menoher Boulevard, makes a right turn onto Haynes Street at a traffic signal, passes through 3 traffic signals and turns left at the 5th traffic signal onto Bedford Street.
• Proceed one block on Bedford Street and turn Right onto Main Street
• 647 Main Street is called the Feeder Canal Building and on the left immediately past the railroad tracks. Parking is available on Feeder Street across from the building.
• Estimated Time: 1 hour and 40 minutes; Total Distance: 67 miles.

From Washington , PA , the fastest route is:

• Take I-70 E toward New Stanton .
• Take Exit-9 at Donegal.
• Turn Left onto PA-31 east for a very short distance.
• Turn Left onto PA-711 North, and follow 711 through Ligonier.
• Turn Right onto PA-271 about five miles north of Ligonier.
• Remain on PA-271 into the City of Johnstown -- the Route becomes Menoher Boulevard, makes a right turn onto Haynes Street at a traffic signal, passes through 3 traffic signals and turns left at the 5th traffic signal onto Bedford Street.
• Proceed one block on Bedford Street and turn Right onto Main Street
• 647 Main Street is called the Feeder Canal Building and on the left immediately past the railroad tracks. Parking is available on Feeder Street across from the building.
• Estimated Time: 1 hour and 50 minutes; Total Distance: 90 miles.

From the New Kensington area, the fastest route is:

• Take PA-366 East.
• Turn Right onto PA-66.
• Merge onto US-22 East toward Blairsville.
• Turn Right on PA-56 East.
• After entering the City of Johnstown , remain on Route 56 through several turns and a series of traffic signals on Broad Street , which is both PA-56 and PA-403.
• The road turns right and follows the Conemaugh River under a railroad overpass.
• Turn Left at the next traffic signal onto Washington Street .
• Turn Right at the fourth traffic signal onto PA-271/Clinton Street .
• Turn Left at the second traffic signal onto Main Street .
• 647 Main Street is called the Feeder Canal Building and on the left immediately past the railroad tracks. Parking is available on Feeder Street across from the building.
• Estimated Time: 1 hour and 40 minutes; Total Distance: 60 miles.

From most places in Cambria or Somerset Counties , the fastest route is:

• Take Route 219 North or South toward Johnstown .
• Merge onto Route 56 West/Johnstown Expressway.
• Take the first Downtown Johnstown exit -- Bedford Street .
• Turn Right at the end of the exit ramp onto Adams Street .
• Proceed one block and turn Left at the stop sign onto Main Street
• 647 Main Street is called the Feeder Canal Building and on the right immediately past Feeder Street (just before the railroad tracks). Parking is available on Feeder Street across from the building.

What is everyone waiting for, lets tell John Murtha exactly how we feel, shall we? Others discussing this: Take Our Country Back, protein wisdom, Pundit Review, BLACKFIVE, Sister Toldjah, QandO, michellemalkin.com and UrbanGrounds .

The Left Antiwar Motive

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com . Matthew Continetti offers a spectacular view of the debate on the Iraq war. While you will have no trouble finding reports that are critical of General Petraeus and US military success in recent months, the Continetti opinion piece from the Weekly Standard is a refreshing look at more than one side of the discussion. Imagine that. And there is mention of some positive reports even from the left. Of course those 'defections' are rarely allowed to see daylight and often come with some sort of qualifier. As if it is only an attempt to not look biased by at least mentioning something positive like a backhanded compliment. Why those opposed to the war find it necessary to publicly campaign immediately and continuously from the beginning of any conflict is at least disappointing. One might expect all citizens could restrain their personal opinions if expressing them would be damaging to the very troops they claim to be concerned about. It is difficult to define such protest as anything but unAmerican as it poses direct obstruction to a military mission. Exercising one's claim of a right to free speech by opposing one's own country in time of war again ignores responsibility in favor of personal preference. The argument from protesters is often expressed as a patriotic and necessary exercise of free speech when at odds with governmental authority. Since there are a variety of effective methods for accomplishing the same goal without harming those actively engaged in performing their duties, aka, military troops, protest arguments to justify action are not very convincing. Public protest only serves to disrupt the chosen target of those organizing such activity. Attaching any noble characteristics to antiwar public protest is nonsense. While claiming to be patriotic and necessary in exercising free speech, the reality is the goal of antiwar protest is to deny other's rights in favor of their own. What would compound the questionable motives of those opposing this particular war in Iraq is actions described in the accompanying reference to the Coninetti piece at the Weekly Standard. To discount the current military success in Iraq by the means described below is pathetic.

..... Antiwar Democrats immediately started dancing the Iraq shuffle, in which you ignore your opponent's arguments, shift the terms of the debate, and attack his motivation and character. Witness the left's reaction to a recent interview Petraeus gave to conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt. Rather than rebutting Petraeus's findings, lefty bloggers accused the general of being a partisan political actor. Or consider the liberal, antiwar Center for American Progress's "Progress Report" of July 31, entitled "Bush's Enablers." The email newsletter is sent to left-wing political operatives, activists, and journalists throughout the country and is a reliable barometer of progressive opinion.

Maintaining an opposing viewpoint on an issue is a position anyone should be allowed to take. When circumstances change and the effect weakens the opposing viewpoint, a reasonable person would acknowledge the event. To ignore the event and continue to defend the position with purely political tactics exposes the real motive behind the position. It would not be the first time that left wing opposition to the war in Iraq has been suggested as the one issue Democrats have selected to use for political objectives. That would mean the one problem for the left would be victory in Iraq. So what is really driving opposition to the war?

Congress vs Pelosi's Personal Agenda

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com By now everyone should know that the approval ratings of the President and Congress tanked months ago. The bad blood between Democrats and Republicans in Congress was again on display in Washington this week. The President urged Congress to pass a bill to amend the FISA Act to accommodate anti-terror efforts of the executive branch. The request delayed the start of the 'district work period' or summer vacation for Congress. The House passed the bill with 227 YEAS and 181 NAYS. Not surprisingly 186 Republicans voted in favor with 2 voting no. While 181 Democrats voted against it, 41 Democrats voted in favor of the FISA changes. Unfortunately, at the time this post was written the details of the 60-28 passage in the Senate were not available from Congressional websites. With 50 Democrats, 48 Republicans and two independents, a guess at the voting of 60-28 would indicate at least a dozen YEA votes belonged to Democrats or independents. Why then is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi planning on fighting the bill's outcome in November especially when the FISA changes only last to February? What about the Democrats in the Senate who voted in favor of the bill? What about the 41 Democrats in the House that voted in favor of the bill? Are they not part of the Democratic party leadership's often promoted new direction for America? At the very least the voting indicates the two parties agendas are not unanimously agreed to by each party's membership. If the vote on S.1927 was to show a party line vote, only two Republicans defected while 41 Democrats disagreed with their party on this issue. Again, the details on the Senate vote were not available beyond the total vote count.

CQ TODAY Pelosi Seeks to Change FISA Bill By Tim Starks, CQ Staff Aug. 5, 2007 Despite the win President Bush scored on legislation expanding the administration’s eavesdropping authority, Democrats appear determined to make it a temporary victory. Barely an hour after the House voted, 227-183, to clear the legislation (S 1927) late Aug. 4, Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a letter calling on the Judiciary and Intelligence committees to “send to the House, as soon as possible after Congress reconvenes, legislation which responds comprehensively to the administration’s proposal while addressing the many deficiencies in S 1927.” The legislation expires in February.

Since the report above indicates a divided Democratic House caucus it would not be hard to believe Pelosi will spend time twisting arms of Democrats who voted for the bill in the House. Likewise it would be expected that Harry Reid will apply pressure to Democratic Senate defectors. It is difficult to believe that Pelosi is fighting this on principle. The ratings that reflect public disapproval of Congressional performance with a Democratic majority in both Houses is a more probable cause of Pelosi's intentions to defeat a bill that just passed. In Washington, politics trumps principle nearly every time. If one can control the politics, the principles don't matter as you then have the votes to push your agenda. The article below from the Indy Star discusses Pelosi's meeting with 'liberal journalists' and exposes its own likely liberal bias by attributing the reversal of majority in last year's midterms to matters that are provided without any supporting evidence. One giveaway is a reference to 'Pelosi's agenda' when describing Washington as the status quo and even long tenured Democrats as obstacles. One politician in a position of authority within Congress pushing an agenda that may be more personal than a matter of consensus may explain part of the reason for low Congressional ratings. A problem that is also present in the White House. The President's desire for amnesty for illegal aliens being the most obvious example. Some have lauded the passage of an ethics reform package while others have pointed to the lack of properly addressing the problems of pork and earmarks. Another troubling aspect of Pelosi's agenda is her claim after the midterms that the Dems would 'drain the swamp' and end the 'culture of corruption' she blamed entirely on the GOP. A report from Bloomberg and another from a SF CBS affiliate point to Pelosi's affection for earmarks.

Pelosi Risks Losing Support by Funding Pet Projects (Update1) By Brian Faler and David Rosen Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last year that she would be happy to ``do away with'' the practice of funding members' pet projects, though she knew it wasn't ``realistic.'' This year proves how right she was. Thousands of so-called earmarks still adorn spending bills, including 15 from Pelosi in a defense measure. Their continued popularity shows how difficult it is to change a system that allows members to bring federal money home for their constituents. Polls show Democrats aren't getting credit for what they say is a major overhaul of the earmark system.

There is also plenty of the typical local applause for spending federal money for state projects in California.

REQUEST FOR FUNDING 08/05/07 7:35 PDT SAN FRANCISCO (BCN) Mayor Gavin Newsom on Friday thanked U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her work in requesting federal funding for San Francisco programs aimed at enhancing public safety, reducing homelessness, and improving public transportation. The programs have garnered preliminary approval by the U.S. House of Representatives and will next be considered by a House-Senate conference committee, according to the mayor's office. Final approval is anticipated in November. Some measures include upgrades to the city's crime lab and community justice center, improved services for inmates in transition to society, and housing and medical services for the homeless. The transportation measures would include $12 million for the proposed Central Subway, another million for Muni bus restorations, and improvements to traffic signals on Market Street.

The Democrats continue to lob criticism on the Republicans while the GOP returns fire and summons enough opposition to thwart the majority's legislative agenda. It is unrealistic to expect either party to suppress political maneuvering in favor of attending to the nation's business. While humorous retorts by some in the media and the public suggest Congress' month off means they can't screw anything up for a while is small comfort. If they really attend to any district work during their 'district work period', perhaps it will offer reasons to alter their current practices that translate to better governing this fall. You have better odds of hitting the lottery than witnessing any improvements in Congress this fall.