Tuesday, 28 August 2007

AN IRAQ STRATEGY THAT SHOULD BE ATTACKED

Ken Berwitz

Harry reid and nancy pelosi - along with a good many other politicians, the vast majority of them Democrats - have relentlessly attacked the strategy in Iraq.  I've agreed with them on occasion, but mostly do not.

Here is a strategy I am 100% against.  But I have not heard from Mr. reid or Ms. pelosi about it, so I wonder if they agree.  Read this and see how you come down on it:.

Militants lure child fighters with $240 a bomb

Alexandra Zavis in Baghdad
August 28, 2007
Child fighters, once a rare presence on Iraq's battlefields, are playing a growing role in kidnappings, killings and roadside bombings in the country, US military officials say.

Boys, some as young as 11, now outnumber foreign fighters at US detention camps in Iraq. Since March, their numbers have risen from 100 to 800, Major-General Douglas Stone, the commander of detainee operations, said. Last month, only 130 non-Iraqi fighters were in US custody in Iraq.

General Stone attributes the rise in child fighters in the country, in part, to the pressure that the US build-up of troops has placed on the influx of the foreign fighters. Fewer of them are making it into the country and the militant group al-Qaeda in Iraq is having difficulty recruiting Iraqi adults.

"As our operations have increased, al-Qaeda [in Iraq] and others have used more minors in the fight against us, and in the process we have detained more and more juveniles," General Stone said.

General Stone said the children made effective fighters because they were easily influenced, don't experience fear in the same way as adults and don't draw as much scrutiny from US forces.

Other causes for the increase in detentions may be that US forces are simply coming into contact with more children because of the troop build-up, and that financial pressures may have pushed some Iraqi families towards the militants.

General Stone said some children have told interrogators that their parents encouraged them to do the militants' dirty work because the extremists have deep pockets. Insurgents typically offer $US200 ($240) to $US300 to plant a bomb, enough to support a family for up to three months.

About 85 per cent of the child detainees are Sunni and the majority live in Sunni Arab-dominated regions in the country's west and north. In these deeply impoverished, violence-torn communities, the men with money and influence carry the most powerful arsenals.

The rise of child fighters would make the Iraq conflict more gruesome, Peter Singer, a Brookings Institution expert on child fighters, said. He said peace would be less attainable because "conflict entrepreneurs" had an established and pliable fighting force in their communities.

Los Angeles Times.

With all the attacks on everything our administration, military brain trust and troops do in Iraq, wouldn't you think there would at least sometimes, in some way, be a judgment on what the enemy does?

Illustratively, when have you ever heard either reid or pelosi attack al qaeda insurgents for blowing up innocent civilians?  When have you heard them express even one minute's worry that, if we leave, these attacks will occur far more frequently?  Ever? 

If the USA should cut and run, is there any doubt that the one or two bombings a day you hear about on the news will grow exponentially, with that many more civilians dead or injured?

And do you think, if we cut and run, those car bombs will get lead story status on the Today show or the network news the way they do now?  Do you think Matt Lauer and Meredith Viera will demonstrate as much concern about dead and mangled Iraqi civilians when it is no longer politically damaging to President Bush and Republicans?

Sadly, this is what happens when a war degenerates into political gamesmanship.  The dead and injured are secondary to the politics. 

War has many levels of tragedy, and treating humans as so many chess pawns is certainly one of them.


Another family values Republican as been a gay man for many years

Barry Sinrod
 
Larry Craig has been getting away with his "gay affairs" for many years but has finally been caught
in Minneapolis.  This is still another Republican who has denied being gay but has been quick to
gay bash and be against all legislation that would give gay people the same rights as every other
human being.    
 
434 till his re election day unless he suddenly resigns to go into rehab....




Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.


ALBERTO GONZALEZ RESIGNS

Ken Berwitz

I've written about Alberto Gonzalez several times before today.  Here is the first paragraph of my last blog on Attorney General Gonzalez, from June 11:

"I'm not a big fan of Alberto Gonzalez.  He comes across to me as someone overmatched for his job, who got it because of his friendship with, and loyalty to, President Bush.  I wish he were not the Attorney General and would not be troubled if he resigned."

That applied then and applies now.  I do not think Mr. Gonzalez is a bad man.  I think he is a crony who should not have been given this kind of job.

Interestingly however, Democrats, as a party, disagree with my assessment.  Not the part about Gonzalez being a crony and not that they'll be troubled if he resigns, they'll certainly agree there.  In addition, however, they characterize Alberto Gonzalez as a bad man too.

Is he?  That's entirely subjective.  But let's remember the story of the boy who cried wolf.  He was ignored by the townspeople when there really WAS a wolf.  Similarly, is there anyone in this administration that Democrats have not condemned as dishonest, deficient, incompetent and a boatload of other negative adjectives?  I can't think of one major player the Democratic party, in aggregate, has a good word to say about.

So, ironically, from a political perspective it does not matter if Alberto Gonzalez is or isn't a good man.  Since every Bush appointee and just about every Republican at all is bad in the world of Democrats, of course Gonzalez must be.  He's a Republican and a Bush appointee, isn't he?

What was that old joke about the henpecked husband?  "She yells at him every day, even if she doesn't know why.  She figures HE knows why". 

Odd that it would be elevated to a national political strategy.


GUEST COMMENTARY: THOMAS LIFSON ON RACIAL PROFILING IN SAN FRANCISCO

Ken Berwitz

Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of  American Thinker.  He is also one hell of a writer, as you will see below.

This is his essay on the attempt by San Francisco's wholly Democrat/liberal government, to do what they would relentlessly attack any KKK klavern for trying:  Racial profiling. 

Does that sound improbable, maybe impossible?  If so, I don't blame you for doubting me - liberality is supposed to be the antithesis of such behavior.  So I've copied it below and you can see for yourself:.

August 28, 2007

The Racial Engineering of San Francisco

By Thomas Lifson

One of the ugliest aspects of contemporary "progressive" thought is a thoroughly patronizing attitude toward African-Americans, regarding them as eternal victims unable to fend for themselves. The latest insult comes from America's most stridently left wing big city government, San Francisco, where municipal officials are fretting over recent declines in the number of blacks living within the city limits.

The nation's largest newspaper, USA Today, yesterday joined the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle in bemoaning the trend of San Franciscans of African heritage moving out of the central city. Not just to "working-class cities like Vallejo, Richmond or Fairfield" (The New York Times), but to genuine American Dream suburbs like fast-growing Tracy California, which welcomes all races and hosts a proud and growing African-American community that includes a number of people of my acquaintance.

Even more pernicious than liberal journalists lamenting blacks behaving like every other group attracted to the amenities of suburban living are the official attitude and actions of local government.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported last April that:

San Francisco officials are now calling the thousands of black people who have moved away "the African American diaspora," and the mayor's office is putting together a task force to figure out what can be done to preserve the remaining black population and cultivate new residents.

USA Today helpfully updates:
San Francisco officials... vow to stop the exodus and develop a strategy to win blacks back to the city. In June, Mayor Gavin Newsom appointed a task force to study how to reverse decades of policies - and neglect - that black leaders say have fueled the flight. [emphasis added]
So taxpayer funds are already being expended for the purpose of encouraging one race to live in the city of San Francisco, and by extension discouraging other races who might instead occupy the same housing. Am I the only person who sees this as racist madness?

A thought experiment

Imagine that instead of blacks, the white population of San Francisco (which has declined significantly over the last several decades,
from 89.5% white in 1950 to 53% in 2000) were the object of concern. City officials tying "stop the exodus" or "win whites" (as if they were a prize) or "to figure out what can be done to preserve the remaining white population and cultivate new white residents" would be properly accused of racism.

But the problem with the city's concern to "preserve" (not in formaldehyde, one hopes) its black population go deeper than just an unthinking and reflexive desire to see blacks as a special group deserving special rights and needing special protections from a wise and benevolent city government that knows better than they where said blacks should live. The very concept of racially engineering a city's population ought to be anathema to anyone who gives a moment's thought to the matter.

What's the "optimum" number?

How would one go about deciding how many blacks are "enough" for San Francisco? Any theory or method one might choose is deeply flawed.

The latest estimate of San Francisco's black population puts it at 6.5%, a level which is below the national average of 12.3%, but which is almost equal to the California average of  6.7%. Yet the current black percentage of the city's population already is regarded as a problem because it is too low. So apparently the thinking is that San Francisco for some reason should have a greater-than-California-average concentration of black residents. It is not merely a matter of San Francisco reflecting the average, San Francisco should exceed the average. Why? Are blacks to be stereotyped as "urban" - the kind of people who should be concentrated in certain neighborhoods? I thought we called this "ghettoization" and considered it racist.

All three newspaper articles linked above mention the history of African-Americans in San Francisco, so perhaps the thinking is that some sort of "historic preservation" principle applies to ethnic communities as well as to structures of architectural or historic significance. But anyone with the slightest familiarity with San Francisco history, or the history of practically any large American city for that matter, should see that neighborhoods change over time, as established groups prosper and move on, and are replaced by newer residents.

Historical amnesia

All three newspapers specifically mention the Fillmore District in San Francisco as a neighborhood sadly being lost by its apparently somehow rightful black inhabitants. Yet none of the papers bothers to note that African-Americans came to the Fillmore in large numbers only because the previous Japanese-American residents were forcibly evacuated to internment camps during World War II. Incidentally, it was liberal President Franklin D. Roosevelt and liberal Governor (and subsequently Chief Justice) Earl Warren who were responsible for this non-lethal ethnic cleansing. The forced evacuation handed the neighborhood by default to black immigrants from the South who flocked to San Francisco to contribute to the war effort on the shipyards, docks, and other defense facilities.

In fact, prior to World War II, San Francisco had very few black residents (well
under one percent). The relatively few blacks in the Bay Area were concentrated in West Oakland, a community that had its origin as the home of sleeping car porters who worked the transcontinental railways with their terminals in Oakland. In those days of overt racism, sleeping car porters were among the best-paid blacks in the country.

Nobody tried to "protect" the Irish or Italians

There are plenty of other neighborhoods in San Francisco which have seen their ethnic character change over the past several decades. For example the Castro District, now famous as a gay neighborhood, was formerly inhabited predominantly by Irish Catholic families. I would be astonished if someone could point out to me articles in the New York Times or San Francisco Chronicle which sympathetically portrayed the plight of these families who watched the ethnic and cultural tone of their neighborhood radically transformed by affluent immigrants from elsewhere. I know of no initiatives on the part of the city of San Francisco to make itself congenial to Irish Americans, or which sought to "preserve" the Irish population. The same could be said of the city's Italian-American community.

What about Asians and Hispanics?

Another note entirely missing form the press coverage was any mention of those groups which are replacing the blacks who are moving out. It is no secret to anyone that Asians and Hispanics have been moving to the city (and to California and the United States) in large numbers. Just walk the streets or visit any of the city's famous restaurants. On what basis do city officials and the newspapers believe that these and other groups are less desirable residents than African-Americans? And why are municipal resources being spent to (by implication) discourage them from residing in the city so that blacks may instead live in the city's relatively finite housing stock?
 
Every group fondly remembers "the old neighborhood"

It is entirely a different matter to remember ethnic neighborhoods of the past nostalgically and recall the good times enjoyed at the churches, restaurants, barbershops, pubs, and other community gathering places. Every group does that when they have moved on. A major theme of The Sopranos, after all, was nostalgia for the old Italian-American enclave in Newark, a city now heavily African-American.
 
San Francisco, for all its political foibles, is city whose housing stock is in high demand thanks to views, climate, and a dynamic economy that has seen wave after wave of new firms formed to exploit cutting edge business opportunities, attracting wave after wave of newcomers to staff them. In the past, the market mechanism has sufficed to allocate the housing to those who wish to live there. One of my children is making a considerable financial sacrifice in order to live in a small apartment in the city, rather than in more spacious and less expensive accommodations elsewhere. Life is full of such tradeoffs, and I see no reason why African-Americans should be presumed less capable of making these tradeoffs for themselves than anyone else. Evidently city officials see it otherwise.

A city government entering the business of racially engineering of its population is repellant.The liberal journalists who fan this sort of racism ought to be ashamed of themselves. And the city officials who proclaim their preference for residents of one racial group over others ought to be challenged to justify their racism.
.
 
Wouldn't you love to hear a word or two about this from nancy pelosi, who represents much of the area Lifson is talking about?  Or is she too busy screwing Samoan American workers on behalf of StarKist, and making sure that her husband's real estate empire is enriched by nearby waterfront projects?
 
Racism is a funny thing;  some of its most avid practitioners have convinced themselves they're against it - even as they do things that would give any racist an ear to ear grin.


FIDEL SPEAKS

Ken Berwitz

Fidel castro, the sick, very sick, near death or dead head of state of Cuba (I don't want to call him Prime Minister, because that implies he won an election) has spoken.

Here, courtesy of Reuters, are his views on the 2008 presidential race and our history with Cuba under his dictatorship.  The bold print is mine:.

Castro's tip: Clinton-Obama the winning ticket

By Anthony Boadle 1 hour, 30 minutes ago

HAVANA (Reuters) - Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro is tipping Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up and win the U.S. presidential election.

Clinton leads Obama in the race to be the Democratic nominee for the November 2008 election, and Castro said they would make a winning combination.

"The word today is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary for president and Obama as her running mate," he wrote in an editorial column on U.S. presidents published on Tuesday by Cuba's Communist Party newspaper, Granma.

At 81, Castro has outlasted nine U.S. presidents since his 1959 revolution turned Cuba into a thorn in Washington's side by building a communist society about 90 miles offshore from the United States.

He said all U.S. presidential candidates seeking the "coveted" electoral college votes of Florida have had to demand a democratic government in Cuba to win the backing of the powerful Cuban exile community.

Clinton and Obama, both senators, called for democratic change in Cuba last week.

Castro has not appeared in public since intestinal illness forced him to hand over power to his brother Raul Castro in July last year.

He has turned to writing dozens of columns and essays, but rumors that his health is worsening or that he may even be dead have swirled through the Cuban exile community in Miami in the last two weeks.

Castro's only reference to U.S. President George W. Bush in his latest essay was to say that he "needed fraud" to win Florida's electoral college votes and the presidency at the fiercely contested election in 2000.

Castro said former President Bill Clinton was "really kind" when he bumped into him and the two men shook hands at a U.N. summit meeting in 2000. He also praised Clinton for sending elite police to "rescue" shipwrecked Cuban boy Elian Gonzalez from the home of his Miami relatives in 2000 to end an international custody battle.

But even Clinton was forced to bow to Miami politics and tighten the U.S. embargo against Cuba in 1996, using as a "pretext" the shooting down of two small planes used by exile groups to overfly Havana, Castro wrote.

He said his favorite U.S. president since 1959 was Jimmy Carter, another Democrat, because he was not an "accomplice" to efforts to violently overthrow the Cuban government.

Sixteen years after Dwight Eisenhower broke off diplomatic ties with Cuba, Carter restored low-level relations in 1977 when interest sections where opened in each county's capitals. .

Ok, now we know.

Fidel castro is touting a Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama ticket as the Democrats' best ticket to win the White House, and he has a soft place in his heart for Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

How you react to this, I suppose, depends on how you feel about brutal, repressive, mass murdering dictators who deny their people even the most basic human rights.

On the other hand, castro has created a few for-show hospitals to impress people like michael moore, danny glover and sean penn.  And from what I've read, Cuba has a huge supply of inexpensive sex for sale.  Plus, the cigars, while not what they used to be, are still pretty good. 

Hey, maybe THAT'S why castro likes Clinton so much.  There's little doubt that the former president can come up with some pretty creative uses for a cigar.  


TROOP SURGE "FAILURE" UPDATE

Ken Berwitz

That title doesn't really say it all.  That's because the real title, "TROOP SURGE "FAILURE" AND IRAQI MILITARY "FAILURE" UPDATE" is too long.  Sarcasm works best in brief.

Here's a military dispatch relased today that should make you feel good -- unless, of course, you are rooting for the US and the elected Iraq government to fail:.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RELEASE No. 20070828-02
August 28, 2007

33 insurgents killed, Khalis waterway open
Multi-National Division North PAO

DIYALA, Iraq 5th Iraqi Army Division partnered with Coalition Forces conducted an air assault into the town of Gobia to restore essential services to Khalis, Aug. 27.
 
The pre-dawn assault, involving several hundred Iraqi and Coalition Forces, defeated numerous small-arms attacks throughout the day resulting in a combined 13 insurgents killed.
 
CF attack helicopters and close air support supported the ground forces, killing 20 more.
 
The objective of the mission was to open the spillway, which regulates water flow to the town of Khalis, restoring the essential service of water.
 
The action by the IA and CF termed Operation Church also netted three caches containing 150 lbs of home-made explosives, two 130mm rounds, a ZU-23 with 2,000 rounds, a rocket-propelled grenade with eight rounds, a PKC, and seven AK-47s.

Three detainees were captured at one of the cache sites and water is currently flowing unimpeded to Khalis.  .

So?  Is this good news?  Well, that depends.  For example, if you are the senate malaise leader, harry reid, or the disparager of the house, nancy pelosi, this news awful. 

See, if our troops have a success, and the success is in conjunction with Iraqi troops - which means they are, at least in this instance, performing capably, some people (read that some - gasp! - voters) might conclude that there is something good to say about the Bush Iraq strategy.

And since, under the "leadership" of reid and pelosi, the Democratic party is committed to our failure being their political success, this must be terrible. 

Maybe that's why I didn't see or hear a thing about it on TV this morning - certainly not from those nice folks who are perfectly happy to report car bombings every day as if that is the one and only lead story of the war. 

For them, good news in Iraq is apparently bad news.  Just like the Democratic party.

Media bias?  Naaaaaaahhhhhh


LARRY CRAIG STICKS HIS CHIN OUT

Ken Berwitz

Well, at least his chin is the only thing he stuck out.

Yeah, it's hard to resist a little sarcastic humor here.  But the truth is, this is anything but funny.

Larry Craig did not resign today.  Nor did he admit to being gay. 

On the one hand, the police officer's description of what happened in the Minneapolis airport bathroom makes it seem clear Craig was looking for sexual activity.  On the other hand, however, he did nothing physically sexual (unless you're turned on by a hand brushing your shoe) and did not say one word to ask for sexual activity of any kind.  

This leaves me in a judgmental twilight zone.

Logic tells me that the police officer was used for this assignment because of his knowledge regarding how sex is solicited under those circumstances.  If a drug deal was going down, you'd send a narc, not a traffic cop.

But doesn't the person in question have to actually DO something to be arrested?  If you can't be arrested for stealing so much as a can of tuna fish at the local supermarket until you actually leave the store, wouldn't it stand to reason that you can't be arrested for sexual solicitation until you solicit in some way - other than brushing against someone's shoe? 

Ok, bottom line:  I'm inclined to believe Senator Craig was looking for casual sex in that bathroom, because the police officer is telling us that what Craig was doing is how bathroom sex is typically procured. 

But it seems to me that you need more than that to find someone guilty and/or demand that he leave the senate over it.

What do you think?

P.S.:  Barry's blog, earlier today, made reference to Craig "getting away with" homosexual sex in the past (without benefit of proof, of course).  

It is a sad, sad commentary that people who are homosexual have to find ways to "get away with" sex at all.  Why is this anyone's business but theirs?

In the case of Senator Craig, it is true that there are other issues - two of which are that he is a married man and his senate votes are reliably anti-gay.  But if Craig himself is not gay, that would mean his political positions are consistent, not that they are  right.


LARRY CRAIG

Ken Berwitz

As I write this, we are waiting for some kind of announcement from Senator Larry Craig of Idaho.  Craig pled guilty to a disorderly conduct charge about 3 weeks ago relating to what appeared to the arresting officer to be a solicitation for lewd conduct in a men's bathroom at Minneapolis' airport.

Forgetting for a moment how on earth media could not have found out about this for three weeks, here is my take on it:

-This is not the first time Senator Craig has been accused of such activity.  The accusations go back 25 years.

-Craig is a conservative Republican who has a long term anti-gay record and voted, among other things, against gay marriage.  If he himself is bisexual or homosexual (I'm assuming bi, since he and his wife have five children) that is stunningly hypocritical.

These factors being the case, I have to say that things look pretty bad for Craig.  But I will reserve judgment, at least until I hear what he has to say at the press conference. 

It better be a helluva lot more, and a helluva lot more convincing, than what he's said so far.

 


JOE BIDEN SAYS......WHAT???

Ken Berwitz

When your support is teetering between infinitesmal and nonexistent, I guess it liberates you to say just about anything, however ridiculous.

This, sorry to say, leads us to Joe Biden's news conference in Iowa today.  Read the Associated Press account and see for yourself:.

Biden Says Bush Wants to Delay Chaos

Wednesday August 29, 2007 12:01 AM

By MIKE GLOVER

Associated Press Writer

DAVENPORT, Iowa (AP) - Democrat Joe Biden charged Tuesday that President Bush's policies in Iraq are designed to confuse voters and ensure that a chaotic end to the war is delayed until after he leaves office.

Biden pointed to the turmoil that accompanied the end of the Vietnam War, with Americans plucked from the roof of the U.S. Embassy as enemy troops poured into Saigon. He said Bush wants to avoid such a stain on the end of his presidency.

``They would not be the ones who would have to deal with the reality of picking people up off the roofs of the embassy,'' said Biden, a Delaware senator and presidential candidate.

Biden, who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Congress will launch hearings on the Iraq war the first week it's back in session. He rejected Bush's assertion that an increase in the number of troops has improved the situation in Iraq.

Speaking at a news conference, Biden called for a diplomatic offensive that would reach out to major industrial nations as well as Iraq's neighbors.

``It's long past the time we make Iraq the world's problem, not our own,'' he said.

Earlier in the day, Bush defended his war strategy in a speech to veterans and warned that a withdrawal of troops would threaten the United States. But Biden said Democrats and Republicans have concluded that the president's Iraq policy is doomed - he compared it to the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina.

``The president continues to suffer from what I refer to as the Katrina complex,'' he said. ``The Katrina complex is, ignore all the warnings, bad things happen, continue to follow the same bad, failed policy and things get worse and worse. That's exactly what this policy is doing to us.''

Biden said a series of reports have refuted the claim that Iraq was somehow related to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

``That should put to rest once and for all the false refrain that President Bush keeps repeating and repeated today,'' he said. .

Here is a partial list of what is nutty about those comments:

-President Bush has proposed no specific formula for leaving Iraq, other than when we have prevailed.  How that translates into a chaotic withdrawal is incomprehensible.  If we cut and run - the DEMOCRATIC strategy, not President Bush's - we risk chaos;

-Talking about the troop surge, I have posted something like a dozen blogs over the six weeks with specific positive results directly related to it.  Even some Democrats - Hillary Clinton among them - have had to concede as much.  If Joe Biden can't find successes related to the troop surge, couldn't find an ice formation on the Arctic Circle;

-Ignore WHAT warnings about hurricane Katrina?  President Bush warned New Orleans about it three days before it hit.  What does Biden think he should have done?  Gone out to the levees with a hammer, some nails and a little wax, and fix what was neglected by the (entirely Democratic) government of the city for all those years? 

-Implicitly claiming that President Bush blamed Iraq for 9/11 is not just nutty, it's an out and out lie.  President Bush specifically, in so many words, said there was no evidence that saddam had any part in 9/11.  Biden is making this up out of thin air.

Unbelievable.  Idiotic.  Dishonest.  And guaranteed not to be covered by most media, because it's ok to be all those things if you happen to be a Democratic candidate. 

But Rudy Giuliani?  Fred Thompson?  Mitt Romney?  Don't try saying anything like that at an Iowa press conference.  Because if you do, the "what Biden said" will hit the fan.


TROOP SURGE "FAILURE" UPDATE

Ken Berwitz

That title doesn't really say it all.  That's because the real title, "TROOP SURGE "FAILURE" AND IRAQI MILITARY "FAILURE" UPDATE" is too long.  Sarcasm works best in brief.

Here's a military dispatch relased today that should make you feel good -- unless, of course, you are rooting for the US and the elected Iraq government to fail:.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RELEASE No. 20070828-02
August 28, 2007

33 insurgents killed, Khalis waterway open
Multi-National Division North PAO

DIYALA, Iraq 5th Iraqi Army Division partnered with Coalition Forces conducted an air assault into the town of Gobia to restore essential services to Khalis, Aug. 27.
 
The pre-dawn assault, involving several hundred Iraqi and Coalition Forces, defeated numerous small-arms attacks throughout the day resulting in a combined 13 insurgents killed.
 
CF attack helicopters and close air support supported the ground forces, killing 20 more.
 
The objective of the mission was to open the spillway, which regulates water flow to the town of Khalis, restoring the essential service of water.
 
The action by the IA and CF termed Operation Church also netted three caches containing 150 lbs of home-made explosives, two 130mm rounds, a ZU-23 with 2,000 rounds, a rocket-propelled grenade with eight rounds, a PKC, and seven AK-47s.

Three detainees were captured at one of the cache sites and water is currently flowing unimpeded to Khalis.  .

So?  Is this good news?  Well, that depends.  For example, if you are the senate malaise leader, harry reid, or the disparager of the house, nancy pelosi, this news awful. 

See, if our troops have a success, and the success is in conjunction with Iraqi troops - which means they are, at least in this instance, performing capably, some people (read that some - gasp! - voters) might conclude that there is something good to say about the Bush Iraq strategy.

And since, under the "leadership" of reid and pelosi, the Democratic party is committed to our failure being their political success, this must be terrible. 

Maybe that's why I didn't see or hear a thing about it on TV this morning - certainly not from those nice folks who are perfectly happy to report car bombings every day as if that is the one and only lead story of the war. 

For them, good news in Iraq is apparently bad news.  Just like the Democratic party.

Media bias?  Naaaaaaahhhhhh


ALBERTO GONZALEZ RESIGNS

Ken Berwitz

I've written about Alberto Gonzalez several times before today.  Here is the first paragraph of my last blog on Attorney General Gonzalez, from June 11:

"I'm not a big fan of Alberto Gonzalez.  He comes across to me as someone overmatched for his job, who got it because of his friendship with, and loyalty to, President Bush.  I wish he were not the Attorney General and would not be troubled if he resigned."

That applied then and applies now.  I do not think Mr. Gonzalez is a bad man.  I think he is a crony who should not have been given this kind of job.

Interestingly however, Democrats, as a party, disagree with my assessment.  Not the part about Gonzalez being a crony and not that they'll be troubled if he resigns, they'll certainly agree there.  In addition, however, they characterize Alberto Gonzalez as a bad man too.

Is he?  That's entirely subjective.  But let's remember the story of the boy who cried wolf.  He was ignored by the townspeople when there really WAS a wolf.  Similarly, is there anyone in this administration that Democrats have not condemned as dishonest, deficient, incompetent and a boatload of other negative adjectives?  I can't think of one major player the Democratic party, in aggregate, has a good word to say about.

So, ironically, from a political perspective it does not matter if Alberto Gonzalez is or isn't a good man.  Since every Bush appointee and just about every Republican at all is bad in the world of Democrats, of course Gonzalez must be.  He's a Republican and a Bush appointee, isn't he?

What was that old joke about the henpecked husband?  "She yells at him every day, even if she doesn't know why.  She figures HE knows why". 

Odd that it would be elevated to a national political strategy.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!