« Previous Page | Main | Next Page »
Filed Under: Election 2008, Iraq, DNC, Op-Ed, Author: SactoDan
The sectarian violence in Iraq is increasing prompting some to call it a civil war. Call it what you want, but there are two root causes contributing to the increase.
1. Since the mid-term election, the insurgents know they can influence American politics, and have set their sights on the 2008 election.
2. Now that the Democratics have won power and Bush is listening to them, American policy is ambiguous at best. The question of the US military’s exit from Iraq has become a question of when, rather than if.
With this anticipated vacuum of power, the various factions in Iraq are jockeying for position in the wake of what they see as an imminent American withdrawal.
The Democratics have an opportunity to quell the violence by backing President Bush with a commitment to America’s success in Iraq.
Filed Under: Media, Iraq, Author: Amy Proctor
The highly anticipated trilateral meeting between President Bush, the Jordanian King and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in Amman, Jordan, took an odd turn today. The Iraqi PM was a no-show, meeting earlier with the Jordanian King and apparently snubbing the President. The President and Prime Minister will meet tomorrow. The official White House explanation is this:
“Since the King of Jordan and the prime minister had a bilateral themselves earlier today, everyone believed that it negated the purpose of the three of them to meet tonight together in a trilateral setting,” White House adviser Dan Bartlett told reporters traveling with Bush.
However, such a meeting would still have been beneficial, so what really happened?
Earlier today the infamous leakers at the New York Times posted a classified memo by Bush National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley which was critical of al-Maliki’s ability to control the sectarian violence in Iraq. (the memo in its entirety can be read HERE) In part, the leaked memo said:
-Do we (U.S.) and Prime Minister Maliki share the same vision for Iraq?
-In my one-on-one meeting with him, he impressed me as a leader who wanted to be strong but was having difficulty figuring out how to do so.
-Despite Maliki’s reassuring words, repeated reports from our commanders on the ground contributed to our concerns about Maliki’s government.
-His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change. But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action.
Ouch, that’s gotta hurt. While this memo is a totally legitimate critique of the Prime Minister, it must embarrass and perhaps anger the good PM. This appears to be another attempt in a string of many by the communistic New York Times to purposely thwart the Bush administration. Why leak a private classified memo? Why now? Why at all? The answer is obvious: to continue to chip away at the war effort in Iraq. This time, however, the angle was to divide and conquer by placing the U.S. and Iraq at an awkward and difficult juncture. (continue reading post »)
Filed Under: Military, Iraq, Author: Amy Proctor
GEN Abizaid, Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in the Middle East, was interviewed on 60 Minutes Sunday by Laura Logan. While Logan is a very intelligent and professional reporter, far less biased than others at CBS, her inability to grasp some realities in Iraq were evident in her reporting. Her matter-of-fact question about “managing defeat” is a case in point. This is well worth watching.
Final exchange:
LOGAN: We hear very little about victory in Iraq these days, we hear a lot about how to manage the defeat..
ABIZAID: (cocking head and looking puzzled) What defeat?
LOGAN: (correcting herself) How to minimize the defeat….
Filed Under: Middle East, Author: Amy Proctor

One Al-Jazeera reader comment was:
IRAN…DON’T BECOME ANOTHER IRAQ. N KOREA….KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK,OH AND CAN I ORDER A NUKE BY CHRISTMAS ..JUST SEND IT TO WASHINGTON DC, USA.PUT A NOTE ON IT FROM BADIA WITH LOVE…..CAN I PAY USING MY AMERICAN EXPRESS?-badia from uk ‘
Galloway’s article was positioned next to another titled, “Was Saddam Scapegoated?” , Interesting considering Galloway’s support of Saddam Hussein.

Now do the Democrats understand we have a real enemy? Acquiescence, retreat and diplomacy are considered weakness and defeat by our foes. Israel learned this the hard way; will the U.S.?
ARCHIVES: British Terror Suspect
Met With and Respected Galloway
Cross-posted @ Amy’s Blog: Bottom Line Up Front
Filed Under: Activism, Religion, Special Interests, Author: Gary Gross, Subversives
Dennis Prager has weighed in with his opinion on Keith Ellison placing his hand on the Qu’ran instead of the Bible when he gets sworn in. At first, I didn’t think I’d be that interested in this column, even though I enjoy Mr. Prager’s work. I’m thankful now that I took the time.
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism, my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
The truth is that America has never been nor should it ever be multicultural. The goal of the Founding Fathers was to create American society, where we pulled towards the same goals. The plague we call multiculturalism strives to divide people by letting each pursue a culture that is distinctly not American. (continue reading post »)
Filed Under: Terrorism, Foreign Policy, Quotable, Middle East, Iraq, Homeland Security, Domestic Policies, Author: Gary Aminoff
COMMENTARY By BRUCE HERSCHENSOHN:
This war will either be won by those who shout “Death to America” or won by those who fight for our survival and the survival of civilization as we know it. Too bad, but there is no room for the politically-correct. To win in Afghanistan, in Iraq, or wherever the jihadists may take us, we must fight a politically incorrect war as we did in World War II in which world opinion and winning hearts and minds were not issues until after victory was achieved. Today, the politically-correct ask, “Ahhh, but what is victory?” Weird question. Victory means winning no matter what it takes. Otherwise, in this case, all is lost. All.
Cross-posted at Bear to the Right
Technorati Tags: Global War on Terror,War,Islam,Jihad
Filed Under: Terrorism, Foreign Policy, Patriotism, Middle East, Iraq, Homeland Security, Author: Gary Gross, Iran
This year’s prime example of bureaucratic wrong-headed thinking, aka the Baker Commission report, will be made public this December. This year, like in all other years, Democrats will fawn all over the report while pushing for acceptance of all its recommendations. The White House should reject these recommendations because they’re defeatism disguised as ‘realism’. David Sanger’s article lists a number of interesting insights into the report.
A draft report on strategies for Iraq, which will be debated here by a bipartisan commission beginning Monday, urges an aggressive regional diplomatic initiative that includes direct talks with Iran and Syria but sets no timetables for a military withdrawal, according to officials who have seen all or parts of the document.
As I’ve written before, direct talks with Syria and Iran shouldn’t be held because (a) they aren’t interested in stabilizing the region and (b) because they won’t keep their word. Diplomacy is only useful when dealing with honest people. Otherwise, it’s an exercise that’s designed to impress the ‘world community’, which is meaningless. It seems to me that holding direct talks with Iran and/or Syria only legitimates them. Instead of playing nice in public, we should be putting them on notice that their financing the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq won’t be tolerated. (continue reading post »)
Filed Under: Liberals, Military, Patriotism, Author: Amy Proctor
Bottom Line Up Front: D-Charlie Rangel believes soldiers serving in Iraq are there because they couldn’t get a “decent career.”
Who hates the military more; Bill Clinton who wrote in 1969 that he “loathed the military”? John Kerry who joked that soldiers are uneducated and stupid? Charlie Rangel who believes the military isn’t a “decent career”? It’s hard to say, but new comments from D-Congressman Charles Rangel of NY are yet another example in a long line of put downs aimed at the military from Democrats. Rangel on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace said this:
I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.
Before addressing the insult, let’s address the error. The Heritage Foundation Report: Who Bears the Burden? did an in depth analysis of U.S. military demographics to include household income, level of education, race/ethnicity, and region/rural origin. Here are some of their findings:
Filed Under: Military, Terrorism, Middle East, Iraq, Homeland Security, Author: Gary Gross, Iran, Subversives
A wave of ‘realism’ is sweeping through the United States, proof that bin Laden was right. The current wave of ‘realists’ includes James Baker and Chuck Hagel. Here’s what Sen. Hagel wrote in this morning’s Washington Post op-ed:
The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation, regardless of our noble purpose.
Ironically, the title for Hagel’s op-ed is “Leaving Iraq, Honorably”. Frankly, I’m mystified how abandoning an entire nation before they’re able to defend themselves is anything approaching honorable. I’d further take issue with calling it leaving, not that a Hagel-driven foreign policy wouldn’t have that as a key component but because that isn’t telling people the truth: Hagel’s hogdepodge of random and stray thoughts is really defeatism wrapped into a tidy little euphemism created during Vietnam.
I can’t even call Hagel’s thing a plan because that would imply rational thought on his behalf, something that isn’t evident. Believe it or not, Hagel’s delusional thinking gets worse: (continue reading post »)
Filed Under: Terrorism, Activism, Religion, Pelosi, Special Interests, Homeland Security, Author: Gary Gross, 1st Amendment
It appears that the eight imams who were removed from the US Airways Flight might have done so as part of a scheme to reduce airline security. Here’s what Investors Business Daily said in an editorial:
Turns out among those attending their conference was Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, (D-MN), who will be the first Muslim sworn into Congress (with his hand on the Quran). Two days earlier, Ellison, an African-American convert who wants to criminalize Muslim profiling, spoke at a fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim-rights group that wasted no time condemning US Airways for “prejudice and ignorance.” CAIR wants congressional hearings to investigate other incidents of “flying while Muslim.” Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.
It’s stunning to think that John Conyers, CAIR-Michigan’s 2005 Man of the Year, drafted this resolution by “borrowing from CAIR rhetoric.” Then again, Conyers has carried CAIR’s water for ages. It’s also curious that the imams chose to pray in such an ‘in-your-face’ way, considering this fact, disclosed in an email to Gateway Pundit:
Greetings Jim,
As a person raised a Muslim and practicing Islam. I was taught that if a Muslim’s time of prayer comes and needs to pray. But is in a confined space or in a situation which would attract negative attention. That a Muslim could pray sitting in chair etc…and use nodding or bowing to symbolize the Rukaahs and Sejdas needed for prayers. The prophet Mohamed has advised Muslims to not attract negative attention and not to act in a way perceived negatively by our surroundings. In airports in many Muslim countries there are special rooms for praying so as not to be praying in a waiting area.
These Imams must have known what their praying in a waiting area in an airport (if it is in fact what they did) filled with people would do. Muslims should not be inviting or seeking trouble.
I am saddened to see how far some Muslims have strayed from Islam.