This article references an external link -- click here to visit 
http://www.boston.com/new.../moveons_mccarthy_moment/
http://www.boston.com/new.../moveons_mccarthy_moment/
The MoveOn.org ad is vicious, and would garner comment even if it were merely one more primal scream in the coarse blogosphere debate over Iraq. But it is not an angry e-mail or blog entry. It is a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his credibility as possible so that his military advice could be more easily rejected by antiwar members of Congress.
The attack was part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the Iraq war, and was foreshadowed by an unnamed Democratic senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful special interests, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.
lost74
39 Comments
On a lighter note, I was gleefully over joyed at seeing Cindy Sheehan arrested. That pretty much made my day. *L*
"This is a defining moment for the antiwar faction. They can continue on the path on to which they have veered, repeating some of the worst mistakes in American history. Or they can make a clean break with the past, police their own ranks, and promote a healthy, critical, public debate about the best way forward in Iraq."
Welcome To Petraeus Theater
General David Petraeus has finally started his long-awaited testimony, but some people just can't abide hearing his report. Several protestors had to be ejected from the chamber, and one familiar face was among them:
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Monday in or near the hearing room where Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are testifying on the situation in Iraq, according to the U.S. Capitol Police.
Four anti-war protesters were arrested for disorderly conduct. One of them, who was not named, is being taken to George Washington Hospital “due to complaint of injury” and is also charged with assault on a police officer.
According to the information from the Capitol Police, Sheehan and the other three were shouting in a hallway.
The constant protests clearly irritated committee chair Ike Skelton, who called them "a**holes", according to Allahpundit's video at Hot Air. St. Cindy didn't make it into the chamber, but a number of her Code Pink allies managed to make themselves a problem for the hearing. One has to wonder why people fear what Petraeus has to say so much that they feel it necessary to shout him down -- or at least to attempt it.
Actually, in watching the hearing, the answer becomes rather clear. Petraeus has excellent presentation skills, and he has testified in measured, unemotional tones. He is giving Congress a dispassionate reading of the facts as he sees them. Petraeus has been responsive, respectful, engaging, and utterly devastating to those who have adopted panicky Chicken Little tones regarding the status of Iraq.
That's not to say that Petraeus has painted a particularly rosy picture. His written testimony -- which he emphasized had not been reviewed by the Pentagon or the White House before he gave it to Congress -- shows a nuanced and practical mind behind the analysis:
At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress.
As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met. In recent months, in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have achieved progress in the security arena. Though the improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in 8 of the past 12 weeks, with the numbers of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen since June 2006. ....
Beyond that, while noting that the situation in Iraq remains complex, difficult, and sometimes downright frustrating, I also believe that it is possible to achieve our objectives in Iraq over time, though doing so will be neither quick nor easy.
The entire Petraeus opening statement is posted at Heading Right. His recommendations follow a strategy of transitioning away from American control of Iraq, eventually with a full-scale withdrawal -- but on our terms, not that of the terrorists or insurgents.
Petraeus has a plan for moving from leading all security operations to eventually just providing oversight and analysis, which would require a small footprint in the country. On his schedule, that starts in earnest around March 2008, and expects combat brigades to fall from 15 to 11 by that time, and then to 7 in the next incremental shift of responsibilities. This is what the Pentagon has hoped to do for the past couple of years, but the aggressive new tactics in western Iraq have allowed more room for Iraqi security forces to get training and experience in handling these missions in the future.
but then again as another right wing extremist so eloquently pointed out - this isnt really a democracy
Love this cartoon. Sums it up pretty well.
;)
you crack me up everytime lost, which by the way is a great name for you!
lol
lol
lol
lol
I have this picture in my mind....they're sitting in the dark at their computer, no doubt littered with empty 7/11cups and bags of chips strewn everywhere, dressed in their nacho cheese stained rat chewed up clothes, frothing at the mouth as they type.
"We'll show them!" they scream as they wipe the spit (and no telling what else) off the key board.
They crack me up. *L*
:)
John Stuart Mill
"The Contest In America"
So true about these silly creatures.
We just don't get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in, in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess. The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran , in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.
President Jimmy Carter was elected as the 39th President of the United States during the time when the American people were confused and felt betrayed by President Nixon's Watergate scandal and the political failure of the Vietnam War. Carter did sound like a reasonable man at a time when America was in her darkest hour and people thought this man of moral conviction could lead them through their national nightmares. He narrowly defeated President Gerald Ford. But it all turned out to be a disaster for both the United States and the world as a whole.
Jimmy Carter was unsuccessful in doing what he promised to deliver and his lack of experience in foreign policy and national politics resulted in a disastrous political defeat for his party and himself in 1980. And for almost 12 years, the Democratic Party was forced to stay away from the White House since many didnot trust the Democrats to run the foreign policy of the US any more. Not until 1993 when Bill Clinton took over and ran the country for another eight years with more or less the same results. Democrats have shown that they are basically inexperienced in matters of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter entered the political fray in 1976, America was still riding the liberal wave of anti-Vietnam War emotions and numerous mistakes made during the Nixon presidency.
It all became official when Jimmy Carter delivered his Inaugural Speech on 20th of Jan, 1977 and said: "Our moral sense dictates a clear-cut preference for these societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights. We do not seek to intimidate, but it is clear that a world which others can dominate with impunity would be inhospitable to decency and a threat to the well being of all people."
Nonetheless his pro Human Rights campaign shocked the foundations of many American allies including the late Shah of Iran who was running an ancient country with cultural and historical complications that needed time to be corrected. Carter was unable to understand these issues. What happened in Iran in the late 70's and the resulting revolution/takeover of islamic extremists is a complex issue. It is a culmination of many variables including social, political, cultural, religious, economic and strategic, both domestically ( Iran ) and internationally ( USA and European).
The late Shah of Iran was authoritarian, but not a tyrant. He was not an Idi Amin, Saddam, Pinochet or Khomeini and his thugs, absolutely not. He was a patriot and seen as one among many Iranians and a true one at that, for things he did to upgrade the lives of ordinary Iranians and modernizing the country he inherited. His secret police SAVAK was no worse than any other intelligence agency (including some current western ones) and corruption has never been unique to the Iranians and the cronies of the Shah's court. These social and mostly political problems were not genuin e excuses for a revolution like that of Iran in 1978-79 period.
Indeed the late Shah of Iran made some notable mistakes and a few grave ones. In my opinion, he should have been more aware and in tune with the needs of his people rather than being so single minded in implementing his vision for a secular and modern Iran . I think, partly, it was a vision being implemented too quickly and not aligned with the cultural and social maturity of the Iranian population. His Majesty the late Shah of Iran once said that the single unifying point for Iran was "the King, the Monarch". That holds true but, equally, the other unifying point, certainly at that time for Iran , was "RELIGION" i.e. Shiite Islam. Perhaps, not among a few educated, westernized Iranians, but certainly for the majority of average people there. Progress is a great thing provided your average population mindset can keep up with it.
The Shah was weakened by President Carte r's human rights campaign. The Carter administration totally ignored the facts of the country they were dealing with. President Jimmy Carter was a weak man led by his liberal views and emotions. His mistakes were much graver than the Shah's .The main difference is that Carter's mistakes affected the world (as we witness now) more intensely than the Shah's. Carter's actions gave birth to what we call Islamic Fundamentalism. The alliance of the Reds (Communists) and Blacks (Islamists) contributed to the Shah's downfall. All emboldened by one single factor which was President Carter's absolute ignorance of the problems on the ground. His mishandling of the Iranian revolution and back-stabbing of the Persian monarch emoboldened the Soviets to invade Afghanistan.and also sent confusing signals to other US allies in the world. He should have known at the time that the soviets were intimately and actively involved, in getting rid of the Shah. It's hard to believe that he didn't know and n ot only allowed it to happen, but enabled it so that he could get rid of the Shah and replace him with this religious man, Khomeini.
The invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in 1979 caused the US to rush to contain the threat of Communism in South and Central Asia again, therefore aided and directed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan 's intelligence services, the US had to fund the Mujahedeen for ten bloody years. These foreign fighters later, empowered by the defeat of the Soviet Union , the evil empire- decided to bite the hand that fed them for the most part of the 1980s. The lack of resolve in handling of the Iranian revolution and the US Embassy Hostage Crisis gave the green lights to other Jihadist groups around the world that if US is attacked, it won't fight back. We saw the similar incidents happening through out the 1980s until 2001 - A few of them are the US Marines. Barracks bombing by the Iranian backed Lebanese Hezballah in 1983 , 1993 attack on WTC in New York City to attacks on the USS Cole in 2000 and finally the September 11th tragedy. The mistakes made during the 1979 still haunt us until today.
One of the many things Carter's administration was unable to comprehend was the fact that the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-1980 had almost nothing to do with the so-called 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mossadeq. The argument the Iranians made at the time was historically misguiding. Mossadeq was not elected by popular vote. Indeed he was appointed to run the cabinet by the Shah and when he was asked to step down, he refused. Therefore Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, had to have the military to remove the very man he had appointed to premiership a few years ago. Most importantly, due to oil embargo imposed on Mossadeq's government after his noble campaign to nationalize Iranian oil and ousting the British, he started getting close r to the Soviet Union and it made the US and especially UK - wounded by the nationlizing of oil in Iran - to scramble a coup against the rogue PM Mossadeq and restore the order in the most vital part of the middle-east.
This was the basic argument for the ayatollahs during the hostage crisis of 1979 and was the Iranians grievance, but the truth was that it only misguided the naive western audience including president Carter who didn't like the previous US foreign interventions around the world including those which were made by the Republican presidents. Iranian coup of 1953 had the backing of Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower and UK 's Winston Churchill.
However, Khomeini by taking the US embassy staff as hostages and keeping them for 444 long days was up to an ugly game: Eradicating those who were secular and/or liberals that his regime didn't like, including Prime Minister Bazargan, Qotbzadeh and other nationalist and secular forces who once were his allies.and truly helped him in his quest to rise to power.
Mr. Carter couldn't understand that by playing the "Diplomacy Game" with the mullahs, he was paying a higher price for the US national and international interests. His diplomatic gesture were seen as signs of American weakeness and demise. And Islamic terrorists spiritually, and I'd say politically and financially, emboldened by the late ayatollah Khomeini's revolution learned the fact that they can hit the Great Satan and other western powers without the fear of backlash. No one is going to punish them for their wrong doings. The weakness of the United States through out Carter's presidency resulted in great tragedies.
Jimmy Carter's belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy - and nothing but diplomacy - has had many catastrophic results. What we encounter today as I slamic Terrorism mostly backed by the current Iranian regime is one of the few gifts of the failed Carter's foreign policy. Had he shown resolve in dealing with the 1979 revolution and the US embassy hostage crisis, we would not be in this mess we are today. Diplomacy is a great tool to enforce your policies, if it is correctly backed by other tools of foreign policy including military might and economic incentive and disincentives. Jimmy Carter didn't apply these tools properly in order to handle many crises he faced during his 4 year presidency.
President Carter failed and his failure still haunts us.
It didn't start with Bush. It started with a Democratic president with no balls.
let me guess, could you be a Bush supporter?
lol
now lets take a good look at REAL history since you want to bring up the USA's history with Iran (how about we start with Ronald Reagan:
The Iran-Contra Affair was a political scandal occurring in 1987 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran, an avowed enemy, and illegally used the profits to continue funding anti-Communist rebels, the Contras, in Nicaragua.
Large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials. The affair is still shrouded in secrecy. After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred. A week later, however, on November 13, Reagan returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages.
The affair links quite disparate matters: on one hand were the arms sales to Iran, and on the other, funding of Contra militants in Nicaragua. Direct funding of the Nicaraguan rebels had been made illegal through the Boland Amendment. The affair emerged when a Lebanese newspaper reported that the U.S. sold arms to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages by Hezbollah. E-mails sent by Oliver North to John Poindexter support this. However, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. claims that the reason was to establish links with elements of the military in Iran. It is also noteworthy that the Contras did not receive all of their finances from arms sales, but also through drug trafficking of which the US was found to be aware.
The Iran-Contra report found that the sales of arms to Iran violated United States Government policy; it also violated the Arms Export Control Act. Overall, if the releasing of hostages was the purpose of arms sales to Iran, the plan was a failure as only three of the 30 hostages were released.
:)
Its amazing to me that people don't seem to consider that things that happened only 30years ago can still have an impact on the politics of today-
the end
:)
you are so right lost poeople like love bloc party are stooges for the punko radical international socialism movement and will end up in the gulags that w george bush has already opened in his witsdom and with the blessing of the highest authority of your proud fatherland the us surpeme court and dick cheney
i am glad that you plagiarized that great socail phlospher mikael savage and di not have to use any of your own psykic energy in forming a opinium of you own
-- Hi, smartttman!
i infact work for THE ONION!
*winks*
:)
you maybe right about something but i will read you post with a grain of salts from now on
as confuseus said, if you don't want others to be a pr*ck to you do not be a pr*ck to other
As for LBP, she has chosen her method of 'discussion', look around a bit before you start throwing broadswords.
The Iran-Contra Affair written by Julie Wolf
Ronald Reagan's efforts to eradicate Communism spanned the globe, but the insurgent Contras' cause in Nicaragua was particularly dear to him.
Battling the Cuban-backed Sandinistas, the Contras were, according to Reagan, "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers." Under the so-called Reagan Doctrine, the CIA trained and assisted this and other anti-Communist insurgencies worldwide.
Assisting involved supplying financial support, a difficult task politically after the Democratic sweep of congressional elections in November 1982.
First Democrats passed the Boland Amendment, which restricted CIA and Department of Defense operations in Nicaragua specifically; in 1984, a strengthened Boland Amendment made support almost impossible.
A determined, unyielding Reagan told National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, "I want you to do whatever you have to do to help these people keep body and soul together."What followed would alter the public's perception of the president dramatically.
How "Iran" and "Contra" came to be said in the same breath was the result of complicated covert activities, all carried out, the players said, in the name of democracy.
In 1985, while Iran and Iraq were at war, Iran made a secret request to buy weapons from the United States. McFarlane sought Reagan's approval, in spite of the embargo against selling arms to Iran. McFarlane explained that the sale of arms would not only improve U.S. relations with Iran, but might in turn lead to improved relations with Lebanon, increasing U.S. influence in the troubled Middle East. Reagan was driven by a different obsession.
He had become frustrated at his inability to secure the release of the seven American hostages being held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon. As president, Reagan felt that "he had the duty to bring those Americans home," and he convinced himself that he was not negotiating with terrorists.
While shipping arms to Iran violated the embargo, dealing with terrorists violated Reagan's campaign promise never to do so. Reagan had always been admired for his honesty.The arms-for-hostages proposal divided the administration.
Longtime policy adversaries Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz opposed the deal, but Reagan, McFarlane and CIA director William Casey supported it. With the backing of the president, the plan progressed.
By the time the sales were discovered, more than 1,500 missiles had been shipped to Iran. Three hostages had been released, only to be replaced with three more, in what Secretary of State George Shultz called "a hostage bazaar.
"When the Lebanese newspaper "Al-Shiraa" printed an exposé on the clandestine activities in November 1986, Reagan went on television and vehemently denied that any such operation had occurred.
He retracted the statement a week later, insisting that the sale of weapons had not been an arms-for-hostages deal. Despite the fact that Reagan defended the actions by virtue of their good intentions, his honesty was doubted.
Polls showed that only 14 percent of Americans believed the president when he said he had not traded arms for hostages.While probing the question of the arms-for-hostages deal, Attorney General Edwin Meese discovered that only $12 million of the $30 million the Iranians reportedly paid had reached government coffers.
Then-unknown Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council explained the discrepancy: he had been diverting funds from the arms sales to the Contras, with the full knowledge of National Security Adviser Admiral John Poindexter and with the unspoken blessing, he assumed, of President Reagan.Poindexter resigned, and North was fired, but Iran-Contra was far from over.
The press hounded the president: Did he know about these illegal activities, and if not, how could something of this magnitude occur without his knowledge?
In an investigation by the Reagan-appointed Tower Commission, it was determined that, as president, Reagan's disengagement from the management of his White House had created conditions which made possible the diversion of funds to the Contras.
But there was no evidence linking Reagan to the diversion.Speculation about the involvement of Reagan, Vice President George Bush and the administration at large ran rampant.
Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh investigated the affair for the next eight years. Fourteen people were charged with either operational or "cover-up" crimes. In the end, North's conviction was overturned on a technicality, and President Bush issued six pardons, including one to McFarlane, who had already been convicted, and one to Weinberger before he stood trial.
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)